THE IMPACT OF ONGOING PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT ON MATH ACHIEVEMENT

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Faculty of the Education Department

Carson-Newman University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

By

Maura Jarnagin Bishop

May 2016

ii

iii

Copyright 2016 by Maura Jarnagin Bishop

All Rights Reserved.

iv

Abstract

This quantitative study analyzed TCAP end-of-course test score data for Algebra I and

Algebra II courses following the implementation of an ongoing professional development

program. The study was established to determine what, if any, impact an ongoing, coherent

professional development program had on TVAAS test scores. Math teachers at the selected

East Tennessee high schools participated in an ongoing professional development program

throughout the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. District TVAAS data from the 2014-

2015 school year were compared to test score data from the 2012-2013 school year using

unpaired t-tests. In addition, student projected and observed scores from 2014-2015 were

analyzed using paired t-tests. Results indicate a gross increase in test scores following the

professional development program; however, no statistically significant positive effects were

associated with the scores of students receiving special education services. Findings from this

study support the use of ongoing, coherent professional development in a high school setting.

While some gains are not immediate, state mandated achievement scores increased across a

three-year span. Schools implementing a program such as this would be encouraged to monitor

teacher participation, devote multiple school years for its implementation, and provide

opportunities for modification as needed.

Keywords: professional development, inclusion, high school math, coherence, duration

v

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my family. Through their words and actions, my parents,

Edwin and Sherry, have instilled in me a passion for learning, the significance of having fun and

helping others, the importance of hard work, and the confidence to chase my dreams. My

grandfather, Delmer King, was extremely excited when I began this journey and provided

encouragement and a positive outlook throughout the process. With his sense of humor and

ability to lighten the mood, my brother, Wil, has taught me how to find the good in others and

how to look at the bright side of all situations reducing the amount of stress associated with

projects such as these. To my husband, Daniel, your patience, guidance, and unwavering support

in all aspects of our life do not go unnoticed. Without the influence of each of these individuals,

this project and my many others aspirations would likely be unfulfilled.

vi

Acknowledgements

Recognition is due to many individuals for their support, guidance, and help throughout

this process. I would like to acknowledge the significant amount of time and helpful direction

provided by my dissertation committee members:

Dr. Julia Price, Chair

Dr. Brenda Dean, Methodologist

Dr. April Sell, Content.

I am truly grateful for the tireless help, support, and guidance of Dr. James Atkins in

obtaining the appropriate data, his consultation regarding the data analyses, and his

encouragement throughout the duration of this project. In addition, I am thankful for all of the

time dedicated to this process and the many phone calls and emails made by Mr. Edwin Jarnagin,

Director of Schools, to obtain the appropriate test score data. I would like to thank Mrs. Lisa

Setsor for her dedication to professional development and her contributions throughout this

entire process. I also greatly appreciate the math teachers’ willingness to participate in the semi-

structured interviews and to provide personal insights for this project.

vii

Contents

Page

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… iv

Dedication ………………………………………………………………………... v

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………. vi

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… x

Chapter 1: Introduction ……….………………………………………………….. 12

Background of Study……………………………………………………… 13

Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………… 13

Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………... 14

Classroom Assessment …………………………………………………… 15

Professional Development Opportunities ………………………………… 16

Significance of the Study ………………………………………………… 18

Theoretical Foundation ………………………………………………….. 18

Research Questions ……………………………………………………… 22

Limitations and Delimitations …………………………………………… 22

Definition of Terms ……………………………………………………… 23

Organization of the Document ………………………………………….. 24

Chapter 2: Literature Review …………………………………………………… 25

Educational Reform Efforts …………………………………………….. 25

Teacher Preparation …………………………………………………….. 27

The Need for Professional Development ……………………………….. 28

Characteristics of Successful Professional Development ………………. 29

viii

Professional Development and Special Education ……………………… 41

Evaluation ………………………………………………………………. 46

Current State of Professional Development……………………………. 47

Research Opportunities ………………………………………………… 48

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 50

Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………… 52

Participants and Setting ………………………………………………… 52

Assessments ……………………………………………………………. 54

Procedures ……………………………………………………………… 56

Time Period of the Study ………………………………………………. 57

Analysis of Data ………………………………………………………... 58

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 59

Chapter 4: Analysis of Data……………………………………………………. 60

Research Question 1 and Hypotheses…………………………………… 61

Research Question 2 and Hypotheses…………………………………… 63

Research Question 1 Analyses…………………………………………... 64

Research Question 2 Analyses…………………………………………… 71

Interviews ……………………………………………………………….. 72

Summary…………………………………………………………………. 73

Chapter 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations……………………… 75

Summary of the Study…………………………………………………… 75

Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………. 77

Discussion………………………………………………………………… 87

ix

Recommendations………………………………………………………. 91

Concluding Statements…………………………………………………. 92

References………………………………………………………………………. 94

Appendix 1……………………………………………………………………….. 108

Appendix 2………………………………………………………………………. 109

Appendix 3………………………………………………………………………. 115

Appendix 4………………………………………………………………………. 121

Appendix 5………………………………………………………………………. 123

Appendix 6 ……………………………………………………………………... 125

Appendix 7 ……………………………………………………………………… 131

x

List of Tables

Table 2.1 ……………………………………………………………………….. 41

Table 3.1………………………………………………………………………… 52

Table 3.2………………………………………………………………………… 53

Table 3.3………………………………………………………………………… 53

Table 3.4………………………………………………………………………… 54

Table 3.5…………………………………………………………………………. 55

Table 3.6…………………………………………………………………………. 55

Table 4.1………………………………………………………………………….. 61

Table 4.2………………………………………………………………………….. 61

Table 4.3………………………………………………………………………….. 64

Table 4.4………………………………………………………………………….. 65

Table 4.5………………………………………………………………………….. 65

Table 4.6………………………………………………………………………….. 66

Table 4.7………………………………………………………………………….. 66

Table 4.8………………………………………………………………………….. 67

Table 4.9………………………………………………………………………….. 68

Table 4.10………………………………………………………………………….. 68

Table 4.11………………………………………………………………………….. 69

Table 4.12………………………………………………………………………….. 69

Table 4.13………………………………………………………………………….. 70

Table 4.14………………………………………………………………………….. 71

xi

Table 4.15………………………………………………………………………….. 71

Table 4.16………………………………………………………………………….. 72

12

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Teachers are tasked with developing learners who independently seek to gain knowledge

and skills throughout life (Blaschke, 2012). For this to occur, educators must possess the desire

to continuously learn new and improved skills. In today’s educational world, teachers are being

encouraged to participate in a variety of activities which promote lifelong learning. The

conditions surrounding a career in education require teachers to become continual learners (Day,

1999). The practice of teachers continuing to grow in their field is termed professional

development or staff development. Recent legislation has provided funding for professional

development as a way to generate changes in teaching practices and improve student

achievement (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Professional development covers a variety of topics

and addresses a number of issues present in a particular school or district. The activities in

which teachers participate will vary depending on personal preference, personal interests, and

professional history (Day, 1999). No matter what type of professional development in which

teachers are involved, it is vital to gain an understanding about the effectiveness of the program.

With the multitude of professional development topics and programs available, it is difficult to

determine what to choose and which will be beneficial. Current educational policies and laws

outline the need for evidence based, high-quality professional development for teachers;

however, little empirical evidence is available to determine what aspects make teachers more

effective (Borko, 2004; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Therefore, the need

exists to examine specific characteristics associated with professional development to determine

which programs are likely to be successful.

13

Background of the Study

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act cited improving student learning,

increasing teacher knowledge, and expanding teacher qualifications as national goals. The desire

for educational reform has led to the recognition that schools are only as successful as their

employees (Guskey, 2002). Professional development provides an avenue to help teachers stay

informed on mandated expectations for students, develop new teaching strategies, increase

knowledge on the technology available for teaching, and learn to teach an increasingly diverse

population (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).

While recognition has been awarded to the importance of professional development, the

opportunities for teachers remain inadequate (Ansel & Park, 2003). This has been afforded to an

insufficient number of professional development hours (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). While the

amount of professional development opportunities has increased in recent years, this increase

does not meet current teacher needs. Reeves (2011) discussed that the drive for educational

reform has led to an increase in the quantity of professional development opportunities; however,

the quality of these programs has remained static. In addition, an understanding of what

constitutes high-quality professional development or how it impacts student achievement has not

been substantially researched (Fishman, Best, Marx, & Tal, 2001).

Statement of the Problem

While legislation requires teachers be involved in high-quality professional development,

a lack of empirical evidence exists to determine what constitutes high-quality (Borko, 2004;

Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Teachers’ opportunities to be involved in

professional development have increased as the interest in educational reform has evolved

(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Reeves (2011) acknowledged that good intentions are not a

14

sufficient approach to lead professional development. However, the empirical evidence, which

supports or negates the impact of professional development on improving teacher practices and

increasing student achievement continues to be sparse (Fishman et al., 2001). Therefore, a lack

of understanding of what should be included in professional development programs and which

characteristics are most important exists.

Purpose of the Study

If teachers are expected to improve teaching strategies, they must be given the required

knowledge and skills (Reeves, 2011). In years past, teachers have lived under the premise that

professional development is good by definition; however, in today’s educational world focused

on accountability, a higher standard of evidence is needed (Guskey, 2000). Professional

development opportunities sustained over time provide an opportunity of in-depth discussion of

content, teaching strategies, and student strengths and weaknesses (Birman, Desimone, Porter, &

Garet, 2000; Garet et al., 2001). This study is proposed to determine if sustained and ongoing

professional development results in an increase in student achievement on state mandated math

tests. Professional development activities were part of a coherent program. Coherence is the

idea that professional development opportunities are related and build on one another (Birman et

al., 2000).

The specific professional development program in this study focused on math teachers at

two high schools in rural East Tennessee. Teachers received training during the summer months

and throughout the school year regarding ways to increase student achievement. Specifically,

teachers were guided in the development of a pacing guide and taught how to utilize standards-

based assessments to evaluate student performance. This strategy was developed from the work

of Marzano (2006) and Pollock (2007). Scriffiny (2008) outlined that standards-based grading

15

provides needed information to guide instruction. The information from this type of grading

quickly allows teachers to determine who has mastered skills and which students need additional

support. The math teachers involved met as a group and with the leader of the professional

development to revise and continually improve these methods. In addition, professional

development was provided throughout the school year. Professional development leaders were

actively involved in the classrooms of the teachers to provide immediate and delayed feedback.

The study analyzed data from the overall student body and students receiving special education

services to determine if a statistically significant effect exists between student achievement and

sustained professional development.

Classroom Assessment

The professional development program implemented in the chosen math departments

focused on classroom assessment. This was based on the work of Marzano (2006). Assessment

used in a classroom setting is a form of feedback (Marzano, 2007). Review of past research

indicates that feedback is the most powerful modification that increases achievement; therefore,

providing feedback sets the stage to improve student learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hattie,

1992). Hattie (1992) found that informing students regarding their progress about specific

objectives increased achievement by 37 percentile points. This feedback must be specific,

positive in nature, and allow the student to feel as if progress is being made (Marzano, 2007).

Marzano (2006) suggested that the current 100 point scale grading system should be revised to

provide a better form of feedback to students. Districts should develop new assessment

procedures which utilize formative assessment (Marzano, 2007). This assessment plan should be

consistent with all teachers in a school or district. Marzano (2006) reported that a wide

variability exists between the grading procedures of teachers. To increase the consistency of

16

grading procedures, districts should design rubrics for educators to utilize throughout the entire

school year for a given subject (Marzano, 2007). In addition, formative assessments should be

utilized frequently to evaluate the specific topic being addressed (Marzano, 2006). Formative

assessments are any activity that offers information in the form of feedback for teachers and

students (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

The schools in this study designed a pacing guide for the Algebra I and Algebra II

courses for the entire semester. Math teachers met multiple times throughout June and July 2013

with the professional development leader to establish an effective pacing guide. Formative

assessments were designed to reflect the skills taught during a specific period. These formative

assessments were used weekly to determine specific student strengths and weaknesses

concerning the topic being addressed. Each math teacher utilized the same assessment during

the same time frame to increase the consistency of the grading procedures and improve the

feedback provided to students. The professional development leader visited the math classrooms

and met with the math teachers throughout the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years to review

the pacing guide, make adjustments, and guide the teachers’ use of the formative assessments.

Professional Development Opportunities

The United States Department of Education (2003) defines a discretionary grant as a

funding supplement awarded through a competitive process. Agencies complete applications

which are reviewed by a governing board and funds are awarded based on which applications

best meet the stated requirements. The school district in this study was awarded a discretionary

grant entitled One Classroom at a Time for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. The

goal of this grant was to close the identified achievement gap between students receiving special

education services and students who did not. An achievement gap occurs when one group of

17

students significantly outperforms another group of students (National Assessment of Education

Progress, 2014). Funding from the discretionary grant was used to provide professional

development for teachers throughout the district. Specific to this study, the funding awarded

through the grant provided high school math teachers with ongoing professional development to

create pacing guides, develop standards-based assessments, and meet with professional

development leaders to improve and refine the new strategies.

Improving Instruction

The school system studied implements the practices of inclusion and mainstreaming.

Idol (2006) described inclusion as the practice of educating students with disabilities in the

general education classroom 100% of the school day, and mainstreaming is utilized when

students divide the school day between a general education and special education classroom.

The grant application was written for the awarded funds to be utilized in the general education

classroom. This idea was supported by the fact that most students who receive special education

services in the county studied are provided services in the general education classroom via

inclusion or mainstreaming. Therefore, resources, training, and guidance are needed in the

general education classroom in order to close the identified learning gap between general

education and special education students. The goal associated with this grant is to improve

general education instruction. The district studied believed improvements in general education

instruction would result in increases in student achievement for all students.

Professional development agencies were contracted to begin the process of improving

general education instruction. At the high school level, it was decided to target mathematics first

since test scores in this area were below expectations. In Algebra I, the percentage of proficient

and advanced students dropped from 52.2% in 2010-2011 to 48.5% in 2011-2012. This

18

percentage fell again in 2012-2013 to 39.2. When analyzing Algebra II end-of-course test

scores, the number of proficient and advanced students decreased from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013

(Tennessee Department of Education [TDOE], 2014).

Significance of the Study

The NCLB Act (2002) requires that high-quality professional development be available

for all teachers (Borko, 2004; Yoon et al., 2007). In addition, the law outlines that the practices

taught be supported by empirical evidence (Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008). In

recent years, a large amount of funding has been dedicated to providing professional

development opportunities for teachers (Borko, 2004; Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005).

These funding sources are becoming more reliant on the need for empirical evidence to prove the

successfulness of a program (Ingvarson et al., 2005). Furthermore, if teachers are held

accountable for increasingly higher expectations, educators must be given the opportunity to

learn new strategies (Reeves, 2011). While studies do address the link between professional

development and teacher effectiveness, few studies examine the effect of professional

development on student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007). This study offers the opportunity to

gather empirical evidence concerning two of the proposed characteristics of successful

professional development, coherence and duration.

Theoretical Foundation

A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Education, 1983) was released in 1983 by the

National Commission on Education arguing that the American educational system was behind

that of other countries. The document called for reform and for schools to develop rigorous

standards to increase student achievement (National Commission on Education, 1983). Changes

of the magnitude discussed in reform efforts require educators to learn new techniques (Borko,

19

2004) and gain a better understanding of the subject areas taught (Garet et al., 2001). More

recently, NCLB (2002) mandated that teachers receive high-quality, professional development

opportunities (Borko, 2004; Yoon et al, 2007). NCLB (2002) established five criteria for high-

quality professional development (Yoon et al., 2007). Professional development opportunities

should be continual, intense, and content-focused. The activities should be aligned to state and

district goals. These opportunities should result in an increase in teacher knowledge.

Improvements in teachers’ instructional strategies are an outcome, and the program should be

evaluated on a regular basis to check for teacher effectiveness and increases in student

achievement.

To reach the expectations established, a teacher must have a deep understanding of the

subject(s) he or she teaches, have the ability to communicate this information to students, and

encourage higher level thinking in the classroom (Garet et al., 2001). Guskey (2002) reported

that most teachers participate in professional development opportunities to become better

educators. In addition, Garet et al. (2001) outlined that teachers are generally supportive of

higher expectations in regards to teaching and learning; however, educators are often unprepared

to implement the teaching practices required to reach the established expectations. The

techniques many educators learned about methods of teaching involved memorization of facts

rather than a deep understanding of the content (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). More

rigorous standards and a shift in educational expectations will require teachers to gain a deeper

understanding of the subject matter as well as the ways in which students learn the information

(Garet et al., 2001). Professional development offers opportunities for teachers to obtain a

broader and deeper skill set. In addition, educators are given the chance to develop strategies for

implementing new practices in the classroom.

20

Professional development is at the heart of educational reform; therefore, understanding

the characteristics that make professional development successful is a crucial aspect of the

process (Desimone, 2011). A lack of evidence exists to determine how individual characteristics

of professional development impact student performance and teacher effectiveness (Borko, 2004;

Garet et al., 2001). In addition, Avalos (2011) reported that not all professional development is

relevant for all teachers, even when the professional development has proven successful;

therefore, determining the needs of individual teachers is necessary.

Past research has provided some insight into specific features of professional

development, which have been shown to result in successful outcomes. An educator must have

in-depth knowledge of the subject(s) he or she teaches to foster student understanding (Borko,

2004). Guskey (2003) concluded that professional development, which aids in deepening a

teacher’s understanding of the content and how students learn the specific content, are critical

components of successful professional development. A change in classroom practices is related

to professional development activities which include opportunities for active learning (Birman et

al., 2000). Successful professional development allows teachers the opportunity to observe,

receive feedback, and analyze student work rather than sit passively and listen (Desimone, 2011).

Heibert (1999) outlined that ongoing collaboration among teachers is an important factor when

implementing strategies introduced through professional development. Research suggests that

professional development opportunities sustained over a long period of time, and those which

include a large number of contact hours, result in greater change and have a stronger impact on

teacher performance (Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Heibert,

1999). Professional development opportunities are more likely to be impactful and teachers have

been found to find more value from the experience if they are part of broader set of a coherent

21

program (Garet et al., 2001; Quick, Holtzman, & Chaney, 2009). Coherent professional

development builds upon past trainings and plans future opportunities to further the knowledge

previously fostered (Garet et al., 2001). These characteristics are linked to successful

professional development; however, more information is needed to determine their importance.

Adult Learning

While professional development is a key component used to alter teaching practices, it

must be conducted in a manner which is conducive to adult learning. Knowles (1980) discussed

the concept of andragogy, the ways in which adults learn. From this concept, Knowles (1990)

developed the adult learning theory. Knowles (1980) described the adult learner as independent

and one who directs his or her own learning. In addition, adult learners have accumulated life

experiences, which impact learning. Their learning needs are related to changes in social roles,

they are problem-focused and interested in the immediate use of the knowledge, and are

motivated internally. The adult learning theory is focused on ways to provide workers with tools

needed to increase workplace performance (Kenner & Weinerman, 2011). Within the adult

learning theory, Knowles (1990) outlines five assumptions that should be utilized when planning

professional development opportunities for the adult learner. First, adults are motivated to learn

when they need to know new skills. Adult learning is lifelong, and experience is the main

resource. Adult learners have increased practical knowledge and skills in the workplace (Kenner

& Weinerman, 2011). The learning should be self-directed, and individual differences exist

based on age (Knowles, 1990). Teachers want to learn techniques that can be immediately

utilized in the classroom, participate in problem solving activities, and discuss practices with

others (Trotter, 2006). Professional development opportunities should utilize information from

22

the adult learning theory to help the adult learner gain skills and new knowledge from the

experience.

Knowles’ (1990) adult learning theory provides the theoretical framework for this study.

The ideas presented in the theory relate to Oji’s (1980) key ingredients for adult learning. Oji

(1980) indicated adult learning should use concrete experiences, provide continuous advising,

encourage adults to take on new roles, and include support and feedback. This provides the

conceptual framework for this study. Specifically, this study examined if ongoing professional

development affected student achievement by analyzing test score data. Continuous advising,

support, and feedback are components associated with ongoing professional development.

Research Questions

This study analyzed student data following ongoing professional development in a high

school setting. Two research questions were the focus of the investigation.

Research Question 1: What is the effect on student end-of-course math test scores

following the implementation of an ongoing, coherent professional development program?

Research Question 2: What is the effect on special education student end-of-course math

test scores following the implementation of a professional development program targeted for

general education teachers?

Limitations and Delimitations

Both high schools involved were located in low socioeconomic areas. Limitations

associated with this study included the high percentage of students qualifying for free and

reduced lunch. All students enrolled in the tested courses were included in the study. Therefore,

students in advanced placement courses and students repeating the courses were not controlled.

If students received a failing grade in the Algebra I or Algebra II courses, they were required to

23

complete the course again in order to earn a high school credit applicable to graduation. In this

case, the students would take the end-of-course assessment two times. Furthermore, some

students were placed in advanced Algebra courses, but they took the same end-of-course

assessment as other students. The number of students receiving special education services and

the specific disability categories were not controlled. All disability categories and every student

with a current individualized education program were included in the analyses.

While limitations were associated with this study, delimitations were also present.

Delimitations associated with this study included the inclusion of all Algebra I and Algebra II

teachers. In addition, the schools involved in this study were two high schools in East

Tennessee. Test scores analyzed were from semester courses and year-long courses.

Definition of Terms

Coherence. Coherent professional development activities are related and build upon one another

(Birman et al., 2000).

Inclusion. Idol (2006) described inclusion as the practice of educating students with disabilities

in the general education classroom 100% of the school day.

Mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is utilized when students spend part of the school day in the

regular education classroom and part of the school day in a general education classroom

(Idol, 2006).

Ongoing Professional Development Program. Ongoing professional development involves an

initial training period with follow-up training (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).

Semester Courses. A semester covers 18 weeks of a given school year.

Special Education. Special education is the department that promotes the educational services for

students with special needs (TDOE, 2015b).

24

TCAP End-of-course Test. The TCAP end-of-course tests are the statewide assessments used in

Tennessee to measure student skills and achievement (TDOE, 2015a).

Year Long Courses. A year long course takes place across two semesters.

Organization of the Document

This investigation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provides background

information for the study and outlines the purpose and significance of the study. The theoretical

framework is discussed. In the first chapter, the research questions are explicitly stated. The

limitations and delimitations are provided. A list of definitions to help guide the reader is also

included. Chapter Two provides an overview of previous studies through a literature review. It

includes a review of previous findings and thoughts about professional development. In

addition, Chapter Two addresses how professional development became a prominent aspect in

the educational environment. Professional development and its relation to special education and

inclusion services are also included. Chapter Three provides an overview of the methodology

involved in this study. Data analysis procedures, the time period of the study, and the type of

data analyzed is outlined in chapter Three. The fourth chapter reviews the results of the study

including any relation noted between professional development and test scores. Chapter Five

outlines the conclusions drawn from the study and provides recommendations for future studies.

25

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

The continuous acquisition of knowledge is critical to the development of professionals

in various work environments (Boyle et al., 2005). The push for educational reform and the

recognition of the need for professional development has led to the understanding that schools

are only as successful as the teachers and administrators working there (Guskey, 2002). A large

number of studies which examined the role of the teacher regarding student success have found

that an effective teacher increases student achievement more than any other factor (Marzano,

2006). Therefore, encouraging teacher learning and a change in teacher practices is necessary.

In an educational atmosphere where teachers are expected to teach students high standards at all

times, it is critical for each person involved in the educational process to be a lifelong learner

(Sparks, 2000). Professional development is now recognized as a vital component necessary to

increase the quality of education provided in schools (Ingvarson et al., 2005). Professional

development initiatives seek to improve student learning through systematic efforts (Diaz-

Maggioli, 2004; Guskey, 2002). It offers an opportunity to provide teachers with additional

training to meet established expectations (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). These activities are

designed to create a change in teacher practices, modify the attitudes and beliefs of teachers, and

increase the learning outcomes of students (Guskey, 2002). Professional development can occur

in formal settings (e.g., national conferences) and informal settings (e.g., teacher discussions)

(Desimone, 2011).

Educational Reform Efforts

A push for educational reform began in response to the Soviet Union’s launch of

Sputnick in 1957 (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). When the Soviet Union was the first country to

reach outer space, American citizens began questioning the educational system. Politicians

26

became increasingly interested in the education of students and the use of tests to rate student

learning. A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Education, 1983) was released in 1983 by

the National Commission on Education arguing that the American educational system was

behind that of other countries. This document called for schools to develop rigorous standards to

increase student achievement (National Commission on Education, 1983). Research indicates

this document began the period known as the Excellence movement which occurred throughout

the 1980s (Huffman, Hipp, Pancake, & Moller, 2001). In response to A Nation at Risk (National

Commission on Education, 1983), all but one state developed curriculum standards and

assessment policies to check the effectiveness of the standards (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). As a

result of these policies, high performing schools would be rewarded, low performing schools

would be penalized, teachers would work harder, and students would be more motivated to

complete tasks. While the Excellence movement made attempts to reform the educational

system, few changes occurred (Huffman et al., 2001). Following the Excellence movement,

President George Bush established a variety of goals for schools to work toward during the

1990s. The Restructuring movement encouraged educators to work at the school level rather

than the district level to increase outcomes (Lieberman, 1995). Both the Excellence movement

and the Restructuring movement attempted to improve America’s educational system; however,

little change resulted from these efforts (Huffman et al., 2001).

More recently, NCLB (2002) resulted in educational organizations developing

accountability plans which meet the approval of the U.S. Department of Education (Braun,

2004). The many reform efforts introduced throughout the years have established increasingly

ambitious goals for student learning (Borko, 2004). In turn, this ambition has resulted in

increasingly greater demands on teachers (Garet et al, 2001). While these efforts focus on

27

student achievement, the demands established rely on teachers to meet increasingly higher

expectations. To achieve a competitive advantage, schools must create an environment focused

on the acquisition of new knowledge and skills (Boyle et al., 2005).

NCLB (2002) also mandated that teachers receive high-quality, professional development

opportunities (Yoon et al., 2007; Borko, 2004). Five criteria are established in NCLB (2002) for

high-quality professional development (Yoon et al., 2007). The opportunities should be

continual, intense, and content-focused. Professional development activities should be aligned to

state and district goals and result in an increase in teacher knowledge. The initiatives should

support improvements in teachers’ instructional strategies. Furthermore, the program should be

evaluated on a regular basis to check for teacher effectiveness and increases in student

achievement.

Teacher Preparation

Teacher preparation programs are given the responsibility of preparing the nation’s future

teachers (Miller-Levy, Taylor, & Hawke, 2014). These programs have evolved throughout the

years. In the early nineteenth century, teachers were required to hold a high moral standard and

in some instances pass a test of general knowledge (Ravitch, 2003). By 1867, most states

required educators to pass a locally administered test to earn a teaching license. In the late

1800s, normal schools spread from Europe to the United States to train future teachers (Bohann

& Null, 2007). Normal schools offered short courses about educational methods (Ravitch,

2003). These schools were documented as one of the few ways women were able to achieve

advanced education during the late 1800s and early 1900s (Bohann & Null, 2007). While

teacher education was diverse throughout the country during the nineteenth century, the

beginning of the twentieth century began the introduction of undergraduate and graduate

28

education programs (Ravitch, 2003). Requirements to become an educator have evolved

throughout the years; however, less than 10% of current teacher preparation programs earn a

three star rating and only one earns more than three stars (Greenberg, McKee, & Walsh, 2013).

Ravitch (2003) suggested that education programs must work with other fields to make certain

teachers are well-trained and well-educated. As teacher preparation continues to evolve, support

should be provided to help current teachers develop further skills and overcome weaknesses

(DeAngelis, Wall, & Che, 2013).

The Need for Professional Development

Changes of the magnitude discussed in reform efforts will require educators to learn new

techniques (Borko, 2004) and gain a better understanding of the subject areas taught (Garet et al.,

2001). Professional development provides an avenue for educators to improve their teaching

practices (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). To reach the expectations established, a teacher must

have a deep understanding of the subject(s) he or she teaches, have the ability to communicate

this information to students, and encourage higher level thinking in the classroom (Garet et al.,

2001). Teachers are generally supportive of establishing higher expectations in regards to

teaching and learning (Guskey, 2002). However, the techniques many current educators learned

about how to teach did not involve helping students gain a deep understanding of the content

(Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). Therefore, educators are often unprepared to

implement the teaching practices required to meet the established expectations (Guskey, 2002).

More rigorous standards and a shift in educational expectations will require teachers to gain a

deeper understanding of the subject matter and the ways in which students learn the information

(Garet et al., 2001). To achieve positive educational reform, a shift must take place during which

the needs of adults are taken into account rather than simply focusing on student deficits

29

(Templeton & Tremont, 2014). Professional development offers opportunities for teachers to

obtain a broader and deeper skill set of the subject areas taught (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). In

addition, these activities allow educators to develop strategies for implementing new teaching

practices in the classroom.

Traditional Professional Development

The 20th century was dominated by inservices that brought teachers together for short

lectures (Lieberman, 1995). Traditionally, professional development has been offered in a sit,

listen, and absorb approach (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). During these types of activities, an

expert in a given area presents information on a specific topic to the educators in attendance

(Desimone, 2009). It is often conducted in the form of one time workshops (Nishimura, 2014).

Participants are required to take the information obtained and independently implement the

knowledge into their classrooms (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Training conducted in this

method often fails to be sustained in schools and has not been found to be impactful throughout

an entire school (Nishimura, 2014). A shift in thinking has emphasized the idea that professional

learning is not a workshop one attends (Burkins & Ritchie, 2007). Rather, it is a critical aspect

in the daily lives of educators within a school.

Characteristics of Successful Professional Development

Professional development is at the heart of educational reform; therefore, understanding

the characteristics that make professional development successful is a crucial aspect of the

process (Desimone, 2011). Marzano (2006) identified the teacher as the most influential aspect

impacting student performance; therefore, developing successful teachers is critical. Powerful

professional development has been found to result in an increase in teacher knowledge and result

in a change in teaching practices (Stewart, 2014). A lack of evidence exists to determine how

30

individual characteristics of professional development impact student performance and teacher

effectiveness (Borko, 2004; Garet et al., 2001). However, past research has provided some

insight into specific features of professional development which have been shown to result in

successful outcomes.

Boyle et al. (2005) found that the percentage of teachers receiving no school sponsored

professional development dropped from 56% in 2002 to 2.6% in 2003, and no system sponsored

professional development dropped from 24% to 7.2% in a one year span. Results of this study

indicate established policies and a push for higher standards have impacted the number of

professional development opportunities teachers are offered. While an increase is noted in

available professional development opportunities for educators (Boyle et al., 2005),

administrators must ensure the programs chosen offer appropriate and relevant information to

increase student achievement and determine which activities provide the required high-quality

aspects (Borko, 2004).

Content Focus

Increasing student outcomes is the ultimate goal of professional development (Mundry,

2005; Quick et al., 2009). An educator must have in-depth knowledge of the subjects he or she

teaches to foster student understanding (Borko, 2004). Guskey (2003) reviewed a list of 31

characteristics associated with effective professional development and cited an increase in

teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills as the most frequently identified

characteristic. Professional development which focuses on content specific materials and how to

teach this material to students has been found effective (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008;

Mundry, 2005). Kazempour and Amirshokoohi (2014) discussed that increasing teachers’

content knowledge is a critical aspect of professional development. Furthermore, Guskey (2003)

31

concluded that professional development which aids in deepening a teacher’s understanding of

the content and how students learn the specific content are critical components of successful

professional development.

The degree to which professional development focuses on content knowledge is directly

related to a teacher’s increase in knowledge and skills (Birman et al., 2000). Avalos (2011)

reported that if the content fails to match the need of the educator even a well-designed

professional development opportunity yields little results. Borko (2004) reported that students

learn concepts when teachers have an in-depth and flexible knowledge of the subject area.

Focusing on content specific material increases a teacher’s ability to anticipate student struggles

and provides an educator with the knowledge to present the information utilizing multiple

instructional strategies (King & Newmann, 2004). Furthermore, instructionally focused

professional learning establishes a connection to teacher experiences (Porter, Garet, Desimone,

& Birman, 2003). The likelihood of a change in teacher practices is amplified when this occurs.

Increases in student achievement related to professional development results from increases in

the knowledge and skills of educators which in turn improves teaching practices (Yoon et al.,

2007).

Active Learning

Passive learning (e.g., attending a workshop) has not been found to have a significant

impact on teacher practices (Smith, 2010). Effective professional development utilizes educators

as active participants. A change in classroom practices is related to professional development

activities which include opportunities for active learning (Birman et al., 2000). Observations,

peer support, and feedback increase teacher confidence (Kennedy & Shiel, 2010). Active

learning includes the ability to observe and be observed teaching, develop lesson plans, lead

32

discussions, and present information (Birman et al., 2000). Stewart (2014) reported that teachers

gain more intense understanding of content when they are able to explore, implement, and

receive feedback on teaching strategies. Successful professional development allows teachers

the opportunity to observe, receive feedback, and analyze student work rather than sit passively

and listen (Desimone, 2011).

Professional development activities that provide opportunities for teachers to complete

hands-on activities are more likely to result in enhanced knowledge and skills (Birman et al.,

2000; Garet et al., 2001). Kazempour and Amirshokoohi (2014) outlined that teachers reported

actively participating in a professional development activity provided a better understanding of

the material, allowed the educators to determine how the students might experience the lesson,

and provided a justification for why the particular skills should be utilized in their classrooms.

Active learning which focuses on specific teacher needs has been found to result in a change in

teaching practices (Stewart, 2014). Furthermore, professional development opportunities that

occur in the context of the school have been found to increase opportunities for active learning

(Quick et al., 2009). The professional development should have a theoretical foundation based

on actual events occurring in teachers’ classrooms (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion,

2010).

Job-Embedded

In relation to active learning, job-embedded learning involves acquiring knowledge

during teachers’ daily practice and includes reflection, sharing insights, and learning with others

(Wood & McQuarrie, 1999). Teachers have been found to be supportive of professional

development when a connection is made between the experience and their daily tasks (Flores,

2005; Tate, 2009). The School Improvement Fund regulations (U.S. Department of Education,

33

2010b), the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund guidelines (U.S. Department of Education, 2009), and

the Race to the Top grant application (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a) all make reference

to job-embedded professional development (Croft et al., 2010). The National Staff Development

Council (2015) also emphasizes job-embedded coaching as a necessary component of

professional development. However, these documents and groups fail to outline the true

meaning of job-embedded professional development (Croft et al., 2015). Job-embedded

professional development allows teachers to work together to effectively integrate research based

strategies (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015).

When professional development occurs in the context of the school, a greater focus is

placed on active learning and coherence (Quick et al., 2009). Job-embedded professional

development focuses on the daily activities of teachers and works to increase teachers’ content

knowledge with the ultimate goal of increasing student achievement (Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, 1995; Hirsh, 2009). It occurs in real-time in and out of the classroom with and

without students present (Croft et al., 2010). Job-embedded professional development is aligned

with state standards and local educational standards (Hirsch, 2009). Implementing job-

embedded professional development reduces the amount of time between teacher learning and

implementation (Frank, 2009). When job-embedded professional development is utilized,

teachers must be open to critical feedback, willing to share information, and actively work with

other professionals to improve teacher effectiveness and student outcomes (Shaffer & Thomas-

Brown, 2015). Job-embedded activities (e.g., reflection) can be implemented soon after a

traditional model of professional development occurs to increase teacher learning (Tate, 2009).

34

Collaboration

Joyce and Showers (2002) outlined that structured interactions with other professionals is

prominent in many professions and is a critical aspect of professional learning. For many

educators, teaching is a solitary practice taking place in an isolated classroom (Kelly &

Cherkowski, 2015). When teachers work in a solitary manner, the evaluative process and

feedback are missed (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Hiebert (1999) outlined that ongoing

collaboration among teachers is an important factor when implementing strategies introduced

through professional development. This collaboration should occur within a group of peers

(Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014). Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, and Thomas (2006)

discussed that collaborative professional development can increase teacher confidence, enhance

teachers’ beliefs that they can increase student performance, stir interest toward collaboration,

establish a commitment to changing practice, and increase one’s willingness to try new things.

In a review of literature conducted by Avalos (2011), research suggests that informal, school-

based learning is most successful when collaborative learning is valued. Teacher networking

through professional development facilitates change. Collective participation is said to allow

teachers more opportunities to discuss the concepts taught and how the concepts apply to a

specific school, set of students, and/or grade level, as well as provide opportunities to implement

skills learned in other instructional contexts (Garet et al., 2001). Furthermore, collaboration can

increase the likelihood that a change in teaching practices is sustained over time in a given

school or system as changes in employees occur.

Following implementation of professional development programs, Boyle et al. (2005),

found increases in teacher collaboration. Seventy percent of teachers surveyed who participated

in long-term study groups reported a change in teaching practices, and forty-eight percent

35

reported changes in assessment practices as a result of collaborating. While collaboration has

been found as an effective tool for teacher learning, the school environment must be conducive

for this type of interaction (Avalos, 2011). To aid in this process, professional learning

communities (PLCs) can be established.

Professional learning communities. In 1996, Newmann et al. described five essential

aspects of PLCs. These included the development of shared values and norms, a focus on

student learning, reflective, continuous conversations about curriculum and instruction, student

achievement, making education more publicly based, and maintaining a focus on collaboration.

The development and implementation of PLCs requires a fundamental change in the

infrastructure of school as it has traditionally existed (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008).

Furthermore, a shift in teaching and thinking is required for a transformation of teaching

practices to occur (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess 2012).

While the focus of PLCs should be on student learning, there must also be a focus on

teacher learning and establishing a foundation for lifelong learning (Grossman, Wineburg, &

Woolworth, 2001). Successful PLCs are comprised of teachers from the same school who have

been given the freedom to select learning objectives and have participated in collaboration

training (Mindich & Lieberman, 2012). Vescio et al. (2008) completed a review of past

literature and found that effective PLCs result in a change in teaching practices. A fusion of

goals and instructional practices must occur. The creation of effective teacher communities

requires those involved to develop new ways of thinking and interacting with one another and

students (Grossman et al., 2001).

The increasing popularity of PLCs has resulted in ambiguous uses of the term to describe

any gathering of people in the education environment (Vescio et al., 2008). If not combated, this

36

could lead to dismantling the reform efforts. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish an actual

PLC from a gathering of individuals. While defining a PLC seems simple, one must understand

the many shapes and forms PLCs can take. PLCs are a framework for school staff to work

together in order to achieve continuous school improvement (Hord, 1997a). The foundational

idea of PLCs is to improve student learning by improving teaching practices (Vescio et al.,

2008).

Group cohesion is essential in order to establish a cycle of feedback which provides the

opportunity for improvement (Stewart, 2014). The collaboration involved in PLCs goes beyond

a simple exchange of ideas and information (Stoll et al., 2006). A connection must be made

between collaboration and the development of a shared purpose. PLCs are most successful when

members of the group are invested in the work being done (Stewart, 2014). Team members must

gain a sense of responsibility to the group and develop feelings of interdependence. This creates

a way of thinking which supports the idea that without collaboration better practices and

increased student success are not achievable. When all group members are devoted to the same

tasks and goals, the resistance to constructive criticism is reduced (Knight, 2011). Hargreaves

(2003) recognized that collaboration and PLCs do not completely extinguish disagreements

within schools; however, schools utilizing PLCs are much more equipped to deal with conflicts

when they arise. Differences of opinion should be discussed in a manner so that each person can

contribute to the organization of the group (Stewart, 2014). As previously discussed, challenging

group members’ ideas and ways of thinking is encouraged in PLCs. This creates the awareness

that improvement occurs through disagreements and debates (Hargreaves, 2003), and teachers

begin to accept and encourage this type of interaction (Wignall, 1992).

37

Hord (2004) outlined that shared practice involves peer review and feedback regarding

instructional practices for individual and organizational improvement. Louis and Kruse (1995)

discussed that a review of a teacher’s practices by colleagues is a routine and normal aspect of

PLCs. This review is not evaluative in nature but should be viewed as group members helping

each other (Hord, 1997b). This occurs when a teacher visits another classroom to observe,

discuss observations, and provide feedback. Wignall (1992) explains that mutual respect and

understanding are prerequisite requirements for shared personal practice to be successful. The

mutual respect which develops from collaboration enables this process to occur as the team is

working toward individual and organizational improvement (Hord, 1997b). When shared

practice is accepted in the school culture, teachers encourage debate, seek assistance, recognize

others’ successes, feel comfortable discussing failures, and offer support to team members

(Wignall, 1992). Formalized teacher interaction promotes mutual respect and trustworthiness

resulting in individual and organizational improvement (Morrissey, 2000). In addition, an

increase in one’s commitment to his or her work is noted when teacher collaboration occurs.

Shared personal practice creates a work environment that supports risk taking, promotes growth,

and values hard work (Midgley & Wood, 1993). Including these components in a work

environment encourages reform and improvement.

Duration

Teacher learning and changes in teacher practices involve a continual process occurring

over a period of time (King & Newmann, 2004; Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008). Quick et al.

(2009) reported that lasting change requires three to five years. Research reveals that

professional development opportunities sustained over a long period of time and those which

include a large number of contact hours result in greater change and have a stronger impact on

38

teacher performance (Boyle et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Hiebert, 1999). Effective

professional learning is intensive and sustained (Reeves, 2011). Teaching practices have been

found to improve when the amount of time spent in professional development opportunities is

increased (Porter et al., 2003; Quick et al., 2009). Activities which occur as a single workshop

often fail to be continued in a school and encourage change on an individual rather than group

basis (Nishimura, 2014). Professional development should be cyclical and occur over a length of

time which allows for development, implementation, and feedback (Stewart, 2014). Kazempour

and Amirshokoohi (2014) identified long-term, research based professional development

activities as a critical feature of professional development. Garet et al. (2001) found that both the

time span of the professional development opportunities and the number of actual contact hours

positively impact coherence and opportunities for active learning. Furthermore, activities which

require active collaboration over time have been effective (Porter et al., 2003). Professional

development opportunities sustained over time provide an opportunity for in-depth discussion of

content, teaching strategies, and student strengths and weaknesses (Birman et al., 2000; Garet et

al., 2001). In addition, a longer duration of activities offers teachers the opportunity to utilize the

strategies discussed and obtain feedback (Garet et al., 2001). When activities occur over a length

of time, participants are given the opportunity to investigate, test, and improve upon the ideas

presented (Stewart, 2014).

A lack of support has been identified as a reason why teachers do not implement skills

learned during professional development in the classroom (Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014);

therefore, continuation of the professional development is important for follow-through. Boyle

et al. (2005) outlined that 61.1% of teachers attending a workshop lasting more than two days

reported a change in planning strategies, 52.8% reported a change in teaching style, and 58.3%

39

reported a change in assessment practices. Furthermore, 41.7% of teachers surveyed reported

that professional development opportunities lasting longer in duration increased the amount of

collaboration amongst teachers. A review of literature conducted by Yoon et al. (2007) indicated

that a positive effect on student achievement is present when teachers receive more than 14 hours

of professional development. The review also revealed that teachers who receive 49 hours of

professional development can increase student achievement by approximately 21 percentile

points. Continued communication and support from professional development leaders is a

critical component of successful professional development (Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014).

Coherence

Coherence is the idea that professional development opportunities are related and build

on one another (Birman et al., 2000). Professional development opportunities are more likely to

be impactful if they are part of broader set of a coherent program (Garet et al., 2001). Coherent

professional development builds upon past trainings and plans future opportunities to further the

knowledge previously fostered. While coherence has shown positive outcomes, Birman et al.

(2000) outlined only 35 percent of teachers report participating in a coherent professional

development program.

Coherence can be achieved by aligning professional development opportunities to state

and district goals (Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2001). When programs are coherent, teachers

have been found to find more value in the experience (Quick et al., 2009). As teachers begin to

value the learning, the likelihood of implementation increases (Porter et al., 2003). Birman et al.

(2000) found a direct link between teacher learning, improved classroom practices, and the

relation of professional development opportunities to policies and professional experiences.

Furthermore, professional development which occurs in the context of the school has been found

40

to increase coherence (Quick et al., 2009). Garet et al. (2001) found that teachers who

participate in coherent professional development programs are more likely to change teaching

practices. In addition, coherence was found to have a greater impact on teaching practices than a

focus on knowledge and skills alone.

Communication and coherence. Boyle et al. (2005) reported that surveys conducted in

2002 and 2003 indicated that observation of colleagues and sharing practices are the most

frequent long-term professional development activities. These activities require communication

between professionals. A coherent professional development program encourages

communication amongst colleagues (Garet et al., 2001). Active professional development

requires teachers to work together and learn from each other in a cyclical process (Stewart,

2014). Discussion amongst educators encourages change by collectively finding solutions to

problems and developing the notion that improvement is possible (Garet et al., 2001). Coherent

activities involve teachers discussing the content with one another and administrators (Birman et

al., 2000).

Review

Specific characteristics associated with successful professional development have been

identified in previous research. Professional development should have a content focus to

increase teacher knowledge and skills (Birman et al., 2000; Borko, 2004; Guskey, 2003). Active

learning which includes the ability to observe and be observed teaching, develop lesson plans,

lead discussions, and present information has been found as an important component (Birman,

2000; Desimone, 2011; Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014). Including job-embedded training

has been effective (Quick et al., 2009). Professional development should encourage and provide

opportunities for collaboration (Garet et al., 2001; Hiebert, 1999; Stewart, 2014). These

41

activities should be sustained and include a large number of contact hours (Boyle et al., 2005;

Darling-Hammond, 1995; Heibert, 1999,). In addition, successful professional development

activities should be part of a coherent program (Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2000). This

information is summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1

Characteristics of Successful Professional Development Found in Literature

Characteristic Description

Content

Focused

Students are more likely to learn concepts when teachers have an in-depth and

flexible knowledge of the subject area (Borko, 2004).

Active

Learning

Teachers gain more intense understanding of content when they are able to

explore, implement, and receive feedback on teaching strategies (Stewart,

2014). Successful professional development allows teachers the opportunity to

observe, receive feedback, and analyze student work rather than sit passively

and listen (Desimone, 2011).

Job-

Embedded

Job-embedded learning involves learning that occurs in teachers’ daily practice

and includes reflection, sharing insights, and learning with others (Wood &

McQuarrie, 1999).

Collaboration

Collaborative professional development can increase teacher confidence,

enhance teachers’ beliefs that they can increase student performance, stir

interest toward collaboration, establish a commitment to changing practice, and

increase one’s willingness to try new things (Stoll et al., 2006).

Duration

Professional development opportunities sustained over a long period of time

and those which include a large number of contact hours result in greater

change and have a stronger impact on teacher performance (Boyle et al., 2005;

Darling-Hammond, 1995; Hiebert, 1999).

Coherence

Professional development opportunities are more likely to be impactful if they

are part of broader set of a coherent program (Garet et al., 2001). Coherent

professional development builds upon past trainings and plans future

opportunities to further the knowledge previously fostered.

Professional Development and Special Education

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 mandated that students must

receive educational services in the least restrictive environment. This idea was further outlined in

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, 2000, and 2004 (Idol, 2006).

IDEA outlined that the absolute least restrictive environment is the general education classroom

(Kilanowski-Press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010). Currently, inclusion is a widely used method to

42

meet the mandated requirements of IDEA. The United States Department of Education and the

National Center for Education Statistics (2012) reported that 80% of students with disabilities are

currently included in the general education classroom. This is a 55% increase since the 1980s.

While the practice of inclusion has become commonplace over the past 30 years, teachers may

not be prepared for its implementation and can be fearful of teaching students with disabilities

(Shade & Stewart, 2001). Changes in the student population in the general education classroom

have resulted in the need for teachers to be supported in order to meet the needs of a diverse

group of students (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). Effective professional development

provides regular education teachers with the skill set to communicate effectively with students

and allows services to be provided across educational settings (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2000).

In today’s educational environment, it is no longer acceptable for teachers to simply answer

questions concerning why they agree or disagree with inclusive practices (Kilanowski-Press et

al., 2010). Now, teachers must be taught and given the resources to implement evidence-based,

inclusive practices.

Inclusion

Royster, Reglin, and Losike-Sedimo (2014) outlined that inclusion is the practice of

effectively educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom. A number of

practices have evolved to utilize inclusion in various ways across school districts and in

classrooms (Kilanowski-Press et al., 2010). The number of inclusive services provided increased

significantly with the passing of NCLB (2002) (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). The

implementation of inclusion utilizes the general education teacher as the primary educator for

students with and without disabilities (Shade & Stewart, 2001). In this consultative approach to

inclusion, the special education teacher can work one-on-one with students in the general

43

education classroom, lead group activities, and/or co-teach academic material (Kilanowski-Press

et al., 2010).

Perceptions. Campbell, Gilmore, and Cuskelly (2003) reported that teachers often do not

support the transition to inclusion services, and teachers’ attitudes about inclusion play a role in

its effectiveness. Some general education teachers do not believe students with mild and

moderate disabilities should be included in the general education classroom (Royster et al., 2014;

Stockall & Gartin, 2002). Teachers do not feel confident adapting the classroom materials and

routine to effectively benefit students with disabilities; therefore, a number of supports must be

utilized to increase the teacher’s confidence (Campbell et al., 2003). These perceptions create

the need for general education teachers to gain a deeper understanding of how to teach in

inclusive environments. With the increase in inclusive services, teachers must participate in

professional development that specifically addresses their needs and deficit areas (Shaffer &

Thomas-Brown, 2015).

Inclusion and Professional Development

Implementing inclusion is an intense process (Nishimura, 2014). The increase in the

number of students receiving inclusion services has resulted in schools searching for ways to

increase the teacher’s ability to meet the needs of general education and special education

students within the same classroom (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). While no one strategy

exists for implementing inclusion, schools and teachers must hold the belief that it is their

responsibility to increase students’ academic and social knowledge through an inclusion program

(Dukes & Lamar-Dukes, 2006). Short and Martin (2005) found that while teachers were

supportive of inclusive practices a lack of training in this area was reported. Teachers who

received their initial teacher training prior to the implementation of inclusive practices lack the

44

needed knowledge to teach diverse learners in the same classroom (Nishimura, 2014). Teacher

education programs do not prepare teachers to educate all students in the general education

classroom (Sharma, Simi, & Forlin, 2015). These programs do not teach principles associated

with inclusion and often address teaching students with disabilities using outdated approaches

(Rieser, 2013). The lack of education explaining inclusion practices results in apprehension

when teachers enter the classroom. Royster et al. (2014) explained that teachers become

frustrated when inclusive practices are utilized and a lack of professional development is

provided. Teachers lack the knowledge of best practices concerning inclusion services. In

inclusive classrooms, teaching strategies should be aligned to the individual needs of students

(Hang & Rabren, 2009). Therefore, teachers need knowledge and skills in ways to evaluate

student performance and determine strengths and weaknesses (Royster et al., 2014).

Furthermore, behavior management is a critical skill teachers in inclusive environments must

possess (Treder, Morse, & Ferron, 2000). Professional development which addresses how to

legally, effectively, and safely maintain discipline within an inclusive environment is beneficial.

Brackenreed and Barnett (2006) reported that student teachers identified having difficulty

distributing time appropriately for all students in inclusive environments during their training

period. Attitude changes concerning inclusion are intricate as it involves teachers’ feelings about

students with disabilities and their confidence and skill level (Nishimura, 2014). Treder et al.

(2000) discussed that teachers’ attitudes about inclusion improve when they obtain additional

knowledge and skills, learn how to better manage time, and discover classroom management

techniques.

Establishing a Link. Inclusive classrooms must address the varied learning styles of all

students; therefore, schools must support both teachers and students in the classroom (Shaffer &

45

Thomas-Brown, 2015). Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, and Shamberger (2010) found that

professional development can result in inclusion being implemented and sustained in schools.

As the number of inclusive programs continues to increase, the need for professional

development is prominent (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Implementing professional

development can help establish an environment which values inclusive practices and utilizes

inclusion effectively (McMaster, 2012). Following the completion of a professional

development program, Forlin and Sin (2010) found that teachers exhibited more positive

attitudes towards students with disabilities and expressed fewer concerns about inclusive

practices.

Traditional models of professional development have failed to be impactful when schools

are attempting to implement inclusion (Nishimura, 2014). Successful professional development

has been identified as occurring over a period of time (Boyle et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond,

1995; Heibert, 1999). Professional development focused toward inclusion should also occur

over a period of time (McMaster, 2012). Implementing inclusion is an ongoing process which

should include questioning and reflection (Nishimura, 2014). McLeskey and Waldron (2002)

found that to maintain a successful inclusive program continued professional development is

necessary. Furthermore, the professional development practices must be individualized for the

specific schools and districts. In order for teachers to change teaching practices and successfully

implement inclusion, educators must participate in professional development activities which

meet the needs of the individual (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). Professional development

programs that build upon one another have been linked to improved teacher practices (Garet et

al., 2001; Birman et al., 2000). In addition, cooperative planning involving both general

education and special education teachers developing units, delineating responsibilities, and

46

discussing roles is also important (Nishimura, 2014). When considering inclusion, professional

development opportunities should be built into a school-wide plan for improvement (McLeskey

& Waldron, 2002).

Evaluation

In previous years, teachers operated under the premise that professional development is

beneficial and few questions were asked about the resulting outcomes (Guskey, 2000).

However, today’s educational environment is focused on accountability. For this reason, staff

development must now be purposeful and intentional (Sparks, 2000). More in-depth evaluation

methods are needed in order to expand the knowledge base and move forward in this area

(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Educators, professional development presenters, and

administrators must evaluate the procedures and outcomes associated with a chosen professional

development activity (Guskey, 2000). Past evaluation methods focused on teachers’ perceptions

and attitudes regarding the specific activity (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). This evaluation

method provided little information which could be used to determine whether or not professional

development activities resulted in pedagogical changes or the impact these activities had on

student learning (Guskey & Sparks, 1991; Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987). Lawless &

Pellegrino (2007) discussed that professional development is focused on a variety of topics.

Therefore, the evaluation procedures chosen must provide information in response to the goals

identified. Guskey (2000) outlined a number of ways to evaluate professional development

programs at various stages of the activities. Of these, examining student learning is identified as

a significant evaluation method.

47

Current State of Professional Development

While professional development is at the center of educational reform (Guskey, 2002),

the readily available professional development opportunities are inadequate (Borko, 2004). The

20th century has been dominated with professional development occurring in a short, lecture

format (Lieberman, 1995). Traditional professional development opportunities are classified as

short workshops or attendance at a conference (Boyle et al., 2005). These provide only passive

learning experiences, but teachers need active learning in order to see a shift in teacher practices

(Stewart, 2014). While these opportunities do foster teacher awareness, they often fail to alter

what and how teachers teach (Boyle et al., 2005). Furthermore, professional development

opportunities are criticized for being disconnected from one another as the content of the various

workshops are not related (Garet et al., 2001).

Diaz-Maggioli (2004) outlined that professional development is typically chosen and

designed by administrators rather than teachers. Furthermore, Guskey (2002) discussed that

unsuccessful professional development often fails to engage teachers in the content. This results

in a lack of teacher ownership in the process and the results (Diaz-Maggioli, 2004). Avalos

(2011) reported that not all professional development is relevant for all teachers even when the

professional development has proven successful. For positive learner outcomes, the professional

development must be linked to the identified needs of each learner (Timperley, 2011). Many

professional development opportunities do not take into account the specific characteristics of

individual teachers, disregard the varied needs of individual teachers, and often include a plan for

universal application of practices without regard to grade level or subjects taught (Diaz-

Maggioli, 2004).

48

Professional development programs often neglect the ways in which teacher change

occurs as experienced teachers may require a different approach for change when compared to

young teachers (Guskey, 2002). In addition, Diaz-Maggioli (2004) discussed that unsuccessful

professional development fails to account for differences in teacher experience. Furthermore,

teacher collaboration is a significant component of professional development (Stewart, 2014);

however, collaborating continues to be misunderstood by teachers resulting in a lack of

collaborative practices (Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015).

Professional Development and Inclusive Schools

State and federal mandates (e.g., IDEA) have resulted in schools utilizing new methods to

educate students with disabilities. Evidence suggests that inclusion is an increasingly popular

practice utilized throughout schools to educate all students (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002).

Teaching in an inclusive environment poses a specific challenge for educators who completed

collegiate careers prior to the implementation of inclusion, because they were not trained in ways

to reach a diverse set of learners (Nishimura, 2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward

inclusion have been found to impact the effectiveness of the program; however, many teachers

are not supportive of inclusive practices as they do not feel confident in their ability to teach a

group of diverse learners effectively (Campbell et al., 2003). Therefore, schools and districts

utilizing inclusion need to provide additional support and training to increase a teacher’s ability

to educate a group of learners with varied needs (Nishimura, 2014).

Research Opportunities

Currently, NCLB (2002) requires that high-quality professional development be available

for all teachers (Borko, 2004; Yoon et al., 2007). In addition, the law outlined that the practices

taught be supported by empirical evidence (Wayne et al., 2008). In recent years, a large amount

49

of funding has been dedicated to providing professional development opportunities for teachers

(Borko, 2004; Ingvarson et al., 2005). These funding sources are becoming more reliant on the

need for empirical evidence to prove the successfulness of a program (Ingvarson et al., 2005).

While studies do address the link between professional development and teacher effectiveness,

few studies examine the effect of professional development on student achievement (Yoon et al.,

2007). The impact professional development has on student performance provides critical

information when evaluating the successfulness of a program (Guskey, 2000).

The established requirements place professional development as a central, critical

component of modern reform efforts (Guskey, 2002) and current research topics (Borko, 2004;

Garet et al., 2001). Policy makers are increasingly searching for research to help guide the

development of effective professional development programs; therefore, the need for further

research is evident (Ingvarson et al., 2005). Many policies outline the need for evidence based,

high-quality professional development for teachers; however, little empirical evidence exists to

truly understand what constitutes high-quality and which specific characteristics of professional

development programs increase teacher effectiveness (Borko, 2004; Garet et al., 2001). While

the amount of literature available has increased, few studies have specifically examined the

individual characteristics associated with successful professional development programs (Garet

et al., 2001).

Evidence versus Proof

The need for empirical evidence to determine what makes professional development

effective is evident (Ingvarson et al., 2005). However, linking professional development and

student success with absolute proof is unlikely (Kirkpatrick, 1977). This would require the

researcher to control all variables, develop control and experimental groups, and utilize random

50

assignment (Guskey, 2000). Research evidence involves the findings of trustworthy, empirical

research (Becker & Bryman, 2012). Professional development activities typically occur in a

real-life school setting with a variety of other factors impacting students and teachers which

makes it challenging to acquire absolute proof (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Rather than proof,

researchers should strive to collect powerful evidence to support or negate the impact a

professional development activity has on student performance through pre- and post-measures

which are valuable to those needing the information (Guskey, 2000).

Conclusion

In conclusion, a push for educational reform in America has led to increasingly difficult

standards and vigorous expectations for students (Borko, 2004; Garet et al., 2001). For students

to achieve the current level of expected learning, a change in teaching practices must occur.

Professional development has been identified as a key and crucial component of improving a

teacher’s ability to increase student performance (Ingvarson et al., 2005). NCLB (2002)

mandated that teachers receive high-quality professional development aimed at improving

teacher practices and increasing student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007). Previous research has

identified specific characteristics associated with successful professional development.

Professional development should have a content focus to increase teacher knowledge and skills

(Birman et al., 2000; Borko, 2004; Guskey, 2003). It should provide opportunities for active

learning (Desimone, 2011; Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014). Activities which include job-

embedded aspects have been found effective (Quick et al., 2009). Professional development

should encourage and provide opportunities for collaboration (Garet et al., 2001; Hiebert, 1999;

Stewart, 2014). Furthermore, these activities should be sustained and include a large number of

contact hours (Boyle et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Heibert, 1999) and should build

51

upon one another (i.e., coherence) (Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2001). While a number of

studies discuss the relationship between professional development and teacher effectiveness,

most lack empirical evidence, and few studies address how professional development impacts

student learning (Yoon et al., 2007). Furthermore, inclusive practices are frequently being used

in the classroom (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Many teachers lack the knowledge and skills

required to teach a diverse group of learners; therefore, further training is needed (Nishimura,

2014). Professional development remains at the forefront of educational reform, and past

research has provided insight into some of the successes and failures of these activities.

However, there continues to be a need for further research.

52

CHAPTER 3: Methodology

This study was established to determine if a specific characteristic of professional

development impacted student performance on state mandated assessments. A quantitative study

was developed to evaluate the effect, if any, a professional development program had on the

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program [TCAP] end-of-course math test scores in a

particular district. In November 2014, the TDOE approved a new comprehensive assessment for

English and math courses known as TN Ready (TDOE, 2015c). This assessment will be utilized

for the first time during the 2015-2016 school year.

Participants and Setting

Participants included high school students enrolled in Algebra I and Algebra II courses at

two high schools in rural East Tennessee. This included 211 students taking the Algebra I test

and 212 students taking the Algebra II assessment. Only students who received both predicted

and observed scores were included in the analysis. In addition, information in the form of

interviews was collected from math teachers who participated in the professional development

program. This included nine high school math teachers. Table 3.1 outlines the number of

students taking the Algebra I end-of-course assessment.

Table 3.1

Algebra I Students

District School 1 School 2

Number of Students 211 174 37

Percentage of SPED Students 7.6% 7.4% 9.6%

The number of students used in the Algebra II end-of-course assessments is outlined in

Table 3.2.

53

Table 3.2

Algebra II Students

District School 1 School 2

Number of Students 212 172 40

Percentage of SPED Students 6% 7% 0%

In 2013-2014, the school system involved in this study was comprised of 3,651 students.

Ninety-four percent of students within the school system were white, and five percent were

reported as Hispanic. Sixty-six percent of students were labeled as economically disadvantaged,

and fifteen percent of the student population received special education services. The larger high

school involved consisted of 926 students. Ninety-five percent were recorded as white and four

percent were reported as Hispanic. Of the 926 students, 58% were labeled as economically

disadvantaged and 10% received special education services. The smaller school involved serves

pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. It consisted of 574 students in 2013-2014. Ninety-eight

percent were classified as white, and two percent were classified as Hispanic. Seventy percent

qualified as economically disadvantaged, and twelve percent received special education services

(TDOE, 2015a). See Table 3.3 for a summary.

Table 3.3

2013-2014 Student Population Information

School Grades

Served Number of

Students Demographics

Economically

Disadvantaged

Special

Education

System Pre-K-12 3,651 94% White

5% Hispanic 65.7% 14.5%

School 1

9-12

926

95% White

4% Hispanic

57.9% 10.2%

School 2 Pre-K-12 574 98% White

2% Hispanic 69.5% 12%

TDOE, 2015a

54

Quantitative data helps explain phenomena by collecting and analyzing numerical data

(Muijs, 2004). This study was quantitative in nature since TCAP end-of-course test score data

were analyzed. Student data from TCAP end-of-course Algebra I and Algebra II tests were

retrieved for students enrolled in these courses. Test data prior to the implementation of the

professional development program were compared to test data following the implementation.

Data from the subgroup of students coded as receiving special education services were included

in the overall analysis and an individual analysis. See Table 3.4 for a makeup of the disability

categories included in the special education population analyzed.

Table 3.4

Disability Category Makeup of Students Tested

Primary Disability Category Percentage of SPED

Students in Algebra I

Percentage of SPED

Students in Algebra II

Autism 0% 8%

Functionally Delayed 25% 0%

Intellectually Gifted 6% 8%

Language Impaired 0% 17%

Other Health Impairment 25% 25%

Specific Learning Disability 44% 33%

Interviews were conducted with math teachers involved in the professional development

program. This provided qualitative information regarding teacher thoughts and feelings about

the professional development program and student performance. Data were collected from the

Tennessee Department of Education (2015a) and the East Tennessee high schools.

Assessments

As part of TCAP, students enrolled in Algebra I and Algebra II courses are required to

participate in an end-of-course exam upon the completion of each course. The Algebra I end-of-

course exam contains 10 to 13 questions in reference to mathematical processes. This accounts

for 20 to 26% of the exam. Five to six questions address number and operations, which accounts

55

for 10 to 12% of the exam. Forty to forty-eight percent of the exam and twenty to twenty-four

questions address algebra content. Data analysis, statistics, and probability, as well as, geometry

and measurement account for 10 to 12% of the exam respectively (TCAP-EOC Algebra I

Framework, 2014). This information is outlined in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5

Makeup of the Algebra I TCAP End-of-Course Test

Category Number of Items Percentage

Mathematical Processes 10-13 20-26

Number and Operations 5-6 10-12

Algebra 20-24 40-48

Geometry and Measurement 5-6 10-12

Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability 5-6 10-12

TCAP-EOC Algebra I Framework, 2014

The Algebra II end-of-course exam consists of six to eight items regarding mathematical

processes. This accounts for 12 to 16% of the exam. Number and operations and geometry and

measurement are addressed by 5 to 6 items and accounts for 10 to 12% of the assessment

respectively. Algebra makes up 44 to 50% of the exam, which equates to 22 to 25 of the

questions. Data analysis, statistics, and probability accounts for 16 to 18% of the exam and is

addressed by 8 to 9 items (TCAP-EOC Algebra II Framework, 2014). This is outlined in Table

3.6.

Table 3.6

Makeup of the Algebra II TCAP End-of-course Test

Category Number of Items Percentage

Mathematical Processes 6-8 12-16

Number and Operations 5-6 10-12

Algebra 22-25 44-50

Geometry and Measurement 5-6 10-12

Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability 8-9 16-18

TCAP-EOC Algebra II Framework, 2014

56

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews with the math teachers involved in the professional

development were conducted to obtain information regarding teacher perceptions of the program.

This type of interview does not test a specific hypothesis (David & Sutton, 2004). In semi-

structured interviews, questions are asked in any given order, a conversational style is used, and

the interviewer is given the freedom to ask questions and probe as he or she deems necessary

(Corbetta, 2003). Probing allows the interviewer to ask questions that were not originally

considered based on the responses received (Gray, 2004). Patton (2002) recommended for the

interviewer to build a conversation with an interviewee around a desired subject. Having

questions to guide the conversations aids in the quality of information one can obtain (David &

Sutton, 2004). Guiding questions were developed prior to the semi-structured interviews. A list

of these questions is included in Appendix A.

Procedures

TCAP end-of-course data were collected from the Tennessee Department of Education.

The data analysis utilized information from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System

(TVAAS). In 1984, McLean and Sanders published a paper, which outlined the process of using

student achievement data to assess teachers. This process utilizes Henderson’s mixed-model

methodology (Sanders & Horn, 1994). Henderson (1982) believed a mixed model approach to

complete an analysis of covariance was more appropriate than the traditional model where all

factors and interactions were fixed. In response, he created a set of mixed model equations

developed on the basis of the normality assumptions (Witkovsky, 2002). These equations

concurrently yield the best linear unbiased estimator and the best linear unbiased predictor.

57

Utilizing student achievement data to assess teachers became an integral part of teacher

evaluation when the Education Improvement Act was passed in 1991 (Sanders & Horn, 1994).

Value-added measures are not an achievement measure. Rather, value-added measures look at

student growth (SCORE, 2014). TVAAS analyses follow students over time to assess teachers’

impact on student progress and provide trajectories for academic benchmarks (SAS EVAAS,

2014). TVAAS assesses a student’s past achievement data and makes a prediction regarding the

amount of academic growth the student will make on future assessments (SCORE, 2014). These

figures are calculated based on the average growth of students across the state with similar

present levels of achievement. A teacher’s TVAAS score is calculated by assessing the amount

of growth a student makes on the state achievement test in a particular school year (SCORE,

2014). A student’s actual growth is compared to their expected growth and can be above, below,

or at expectation.

In this study, TVAAS data were collected for Algebra I and Algebra II courses during the

2014-2015 school year from two high schools. These data were analyzed as a whole to

determine if gains were noted in the area of growth. In addition, data from a subset of students

receiving special education services were analyzed. Any student having an individualized

education program was included in this analysis regardless of their eligibility category. These

data were used to determine if gains were noted in the special education population on Algebra I

and Algebra II TCAP end-of-course exams.

Time Period of the Study

District level TCAP end-of-course test data were collected for the 2012-2013 school year.

These data represent test score data prior to the implementation of the professional development

program. The district 2012-2013 data were compared to the district 2014-2015 Algebra I and

58

Algebra II TCAP end-of-course test score data. This analysis was chosen to determine if the

TVAAS scores were affected in any way after the professional development program was fully

implemented. The 2013-2014 test score data were not analyzed in this study. Professional

development began in the summer prior to the 2013-2014 school year; however, the aspects of

the program were not fully implemented until the 2014-2015 school year. Therefore, utilizing

2014-2015 school year data provided a more informative sample following the implementation

of the professional development procedures.

Analysis of Data

TCAP end-of-course test score data for Algebra I and Algebra II were analyzed using a t-

test. A t-test determines whether two groups are statistically different from one another

(Trochim, 2000). When conducting a t-test, a ratio is used in which the numerator is the

difference between the two scores and the denominator is the standard error of difference.

Specifically, a one-sample t-test was utilized. In a one-sample t-test, the population mean is

known (Statistics Solutions, 2013). One-sample t-tests look to determine if a statistically

significant difference exists between a sample mean and a hypothesized value (UCLA: Statistical

Consulting Group, 2015). In this study, Algebra I and Algebra II district TCAP end-of-course

test score data from 2012-2013 were compared to the district’s 2014-2015 data. A t-test was

conducted for each course. In addition, a t-test was conducted utilizing only 2014-2015 data.

Student expected scores were compared to student actual scores to determine if the difference

was statistically significant. The risk level was set at .05. A risk level is established to rule out

that the findings happened by chance (Trochim, 2000). Furthermore, a separate t-test was

conducted which compared the general education students with the special education students.

This analysis was implemented to determine if the professional development program impacted

59

the special education population. Utilizing a t-test allowed the researcher to determine if the

ongoing professional development program had any impact on student TVAAS test score data in

Algebra I and Algebra II.

In addition to TVAAS data, information was obtained from the semi-structured

interviews. This material was used to provide a form of qualitative information concerning the

math teachers’ feelings and thoughts about the professional development process. Questions

were asked to give the researcher insight as to what, if any, impact the professional development

had on the classrooms and test scores from the teachers’ perspective.

Conclusion

This study analyzed data from 2014-2015 Algebra I and Algebra II TCAP end-of-course

assessments. From this data, student predicted scores were compared to student observed scores.

TVAAS data were utilized to determine if there was a statistically significant impact on student

growth following the implementation of an ongoing professional development program. Data

were collected from two high schools in rural East Tennessee. The 2012-2013 data represent test

scores prior to the implementation of a professional development program, and the 2014-2015

test score data represent test scores following the implementation of the program. A t-test was

utilized to compare the pre- and post-test score data. Student predicted scores were compared to

student observed scores from the 2014-2015 school year. A separate analysis was conducted to

determine the effect of the professional development on student test scores who received special

education services.

60

CHAPTER 4: Analysis of Data

Educational reform efforts to increase student achievement have resulted in an increase in

the expectations of teacher and student performance (Borko, 2004). Professional development

provides an avenue for teachers to improve skills in order to reach increased expectations

(Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). A variety of characteristics have been suggested as necessary

components of professional development. Implementing professional development

opportunities, which are sustained over time (Boyle et al., 2005) and part of a coherent program

(Garet et al., 2001), have been proposed as successful components of a professional development

program. This study was developed to determine what, if any, impact an ongoing professional

development program had on math end-of-course test scores in Algebra I and Algebra II.

Researchers often describe data as nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio (Allen & Seaman,

2007). Nominal data represents the weakest level of measurement and signifies information as

non-parametric. Ordinal data includes information that is ranked; however, the distance between

the various rankings is unknown and often unequal (Harwell & Gatti, 2001). For example, one

may know that a rating of five is better than a rating of four, but the difference between a four

rating and a five rating is unknown. Interval and ratio data represent data that are ordered and

the distance between each rating is known (Allen & Seaman, 2007). This study used interval

data in the form of test score data. Data were analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests, a type

of parametric test. T-tests are statistical tests of differences in means (Coman, et al., 2013). A

paired t-test is used when two values exist for the same individual (e.g., pre- and post-test scores)

(McDonald, 2014). An unpaired t-test is used when the researcher has one set of scores and

wants to compare two groups within the same set of data (e.g., males versus females).

61

TVAAS data from two high schools in rural East Tennessee were analyzed. Value-added

measures address student growth rather than achievement (SCORE, 2014). Regular education

students and special education students taking the Algebra I and Algebra II end-of-course

assessments were included in the analyses. See Appendix 2 for specific Algebra I TVAAS data

and Appendix 3 for Algebra II TVAAS data for the district involved. All students receiving a

projected and observed score were included in the analyses. Two hundred eleven students were

included in the Algebra I analyses. Table 4.1 outlines the population of students included in the

Algebra I analyses.

Table 4.1

Population of Student Data Analyzed from Algebra I Assessment

Student Group Number of Students Percentage

District 211 100%

School 1 174 82%

School 2 37 18%

Special Education 16 8%

Two hundred twelve students were included in the Algebra II analyses. Table 4.2

outlines the population of students included in the Algebra II analyses.

Table 4.2

Population of Student Data Analyzed from Algebra II Assessment

Student Group Number of Students Percentage

District 212 100%

School 1 172 81%

School 2 40 19%

Special Education 12 6%

Research Question 1 and Hypotheses

Two research questions were developed to guide the investigation. Computer data

analyses were computed using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) V22.0.

62

Research Question 1: What is the effect on student end-of-course math test scores

following the implementation of an ongoing, coherent professional development program? From

Research Question 1, the following hypotheses were developed and tested:

H01a: There is no difference in district end-of-course Algebra I predicted and observed

test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional development program (H0:

µ1 = µ2).

H01b: There is no difference in School 1’s end-of-course Algebra I predicted and

observed test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional development

program (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01c: There is no difference in School 2’s end-of-course Algebra I predicted and

observed test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional development

program (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01d: There is no difference in district end-of-course Algebra II predicted and observed

test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional development program (H0:

µ1 = µ2).

H01e: There is no difference in School 1’s end-of-course Algebra II predicted and

observed test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional development

program (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01f: There is no difference in School 2’s end-of-course Algebra II predicted and

observed test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional development

program (H0: µ1 = µ2).

63

H01g: There is no difference between the mean observed end-of-course Algebra I district

wide test score in 2012-2013 and the mean observed end-of-course Algebra I district wide test

score in 2014-2015 (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01h: There is no difference between School 1’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra I

test score in 2012-2013 and School 1’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra I test score in

2014-2015 (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01i: There is no difference between School 2’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra I

test score in 2012-2013 and School 2’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra I test score in

2014-2015 (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01j: There is no difference between the mean observed end-of-course Algebra II district

wide test score in 2012-2013 and the mean observed end-of-course Algebra I district wide test

score in 2014-2015 (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01k: There is no difference between School 1’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra

II test score in 2012-2013 and School 1’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra II test score in

2014-2015 (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H01l: There is no difference between School 2’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra II

test score in 2012-2013 and School 2’s mean observed end-of-course Algebra II test score in

2014-2015 (H0: µ1 = µ2).

Research Question 2 and Hypotheses

Research Question 2: What is the effect on special education student end-of-course math

test scores following the implementation of a professional development program targeted for

general education teachers? From Research Question 2, the following hypotheses were

developed:

64

H02a: There is no difference in special education student’s end-of-course Algebra I

predicted and observed test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional

development program (H0: µ1 = µ2).

H02b: There is no difference in special education student’s end-of-course Algebra II

predicted and observed test scores following the implementation of an ongoing professional

development program (H0: µ1 = µ2).

Research Question 1 Analyses

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra I test scores for the district involved. Using a confidence interval [] = 0.05 and degrees

of freedom [df] = 210, the critical value for t is +/- 1.972 for a two-tailed test. The calculated

value of t (i.e., 5.5134) was greater than the critical value of t (i.e., 1.972). The null hypothesis

H01a was rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null

hypothesis and accepting the alternate hypothesis, it was concluded that a statistically significant

difference exists between the district’s observed scores and predicted scores. Table 4.3 outlines

that the observed scores in Algebra I are lower than the predicted scores.

Table 4.3

District Algebra I Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 722.641 702.645

SD 49.980 76.461

SEM 3.441 5.264

N 211 211

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra I test scores for School 1. Using = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 173, the critical

value for t is +/- 1.976 for a two-tailed test. The calculated value of t (i.e., 3.9177) was greater

than the critical value of t (i.e., 1.976). The null hypothesis H01b was rejected, and the alternate

65

hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the

alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a statistically significant difference exists between School

1’s observed scores and predicted scores. Table 4.4 outlines that the observed scores in Algebra

I are lower than the predicted scores.

Table 4.4

School 1 Algebra I Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 719.833 704.707

SD 50.109 74.636

SEM 3.799 5.658

N 174 174

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra I test scores for School 2. Using = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 36, the critical

value for t is +/- 2.208 for a two-tailed test. The calculated value of t (i.e., 4.7079) was greater

than the critical value of t (i.e., 2.208). The null hypothesis H01c was rejected, and the alternate

hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the

alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a statistically significant difference exists between School

2’s observed scores and predicted scores. As indicated in Table 4.5, the observed scores in

Algebra I are lower than the predicted scores.

Table 4.5

School 2 Algebra I Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 735.849 692.946

SD 47.831 84.954

SEM 7.863 13.966

N 37 37

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra II test scores for the district involved. Using = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] =

66

211, the critical value for t is +/- 1.972 for a two-tailed test. The calculated value of t (i.e.,

2.6058) was greater than the critical value of t (i.e., 1.972). The null hypothesis H01d was

rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null

hypothesis and accepting the alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a statistically significant

difference exists between the district’s Algebra II observed scores and predicted scores. Table

4.6 outlines the district’s observed scores in Algebra II are higher than the predicted scores.

Table 4.6

District Algebra II Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 713.797 720.731

SD 34.261 51.497

SEM 2.353 3.537

N 212 212

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra II test scores for School 1. Using = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 171, the

critical value for t is +/- 1.976 for a two-tailed test. The calculated value of t (i.e., 2.8044) was

greater than the critical value of t (i.e., 1.976). The null hypothesis H01e was rejected, and the

alternate hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting

the alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a statistically significant difference exists between

School 1’s Algebra II observed scores and predicted scores. As outlined in Table 4.7, School 1’s

observed scores in Algebra II are higher than the predicted scores.

Table 4.7

School 1 Algebra II Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 715.236 723.971

SD 35.459 54.443

SEM 2.704 4.151

N 172 172

67

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra II test scores for School 2. Using = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 39, the critical

value for t is +/- 2.023 for a two-tailed test. The calculated value of t (i.e., 0.1889) was less than

the critical value of t (i.e., 2.2023). Therefore, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis

H01f and concluded there is not a statistically significant difference between School 2’s Algebra

II observed scores and predicted scores. Table 4.8 outlines School 2’s Algebra II test score data.

Table 4.8

School 2 Algebra II Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 707.608 706.800

SD 28.089 33.262

SEM 4.441 5.259

N 40 40

An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean district observed score on the Algebra I

end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the district’s mean observed score in 2014-2015. See

Appendix 4 for three-year growth measures. For this analysis, = 0.05 and degrees of freedom

[df] = 520. The calculated value of t (i.e., 4.0392) was greater than the critical value of t. The

null hypothesis H01g was rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By

rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a

statistically significant difference exists between the district’s Algebra I observed scores in 2012-

2013 and the 2014-2015 observed scores. Table 4.9 outlines the district’s observed scores in

2014-2015 are significantly higher than the 2012-2013 scores.

68

Table 4.9

Algebra I District 2012-2013 Test Score Data Compared

to District 2014-2015 Test Score Data

2012-2013 2014-2015

Mean 685.4 702.6

SEM 2.7 3.3

N 311 311

An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean observed score at School 1 on the

Algebra I end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the mean observed score in 2014-2015. For this

analysis, = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 437. The calculated value of t (i.e., 5.1116) was

greater than the critical value of t. The null hypothesis H01h was rejected, and the alternate

hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the

alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a statistically significant difference exists between School

1’s Algebra I observed scores in 2012-2013 and the 2014-2015 observed scores. The School 1’s

observed scores in 2014-2015 are significantly higher than the 2012-2013 scores. Table 4.10

outlines School 1’s Algebra 1 test score data.

Table 4.10

School 1’s Algebra I 2012-2013 Test Score Data

Compared to School 1’s 2014-2015 Test Score Data

2012-2013 2014-2015

Mean 682.6 704.7

SEM 2.7 3.4

N 265 174

An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean observed score at School 2 on the

Algebra I end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the mean observed score in 2014-2015. For this

analysis, = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 80. The calculated value of t (i.e., 0.5055) was

less than the critical value of t. Therefore, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis H01i

and concluded there is not a statistically significant difference between School 2’s Algebra I

69

observed scores in 2012-2013 and the 2014-2015 observed scores. This information is outlined

in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11

School 2’s Algebra I 2012-2013 Test Score Data

Compared to School 2’s 2014-2015 Test Score Data

2012-2013 2014-2015

Mean 697.4 692.9

SEM 5.9 6.7

N 45 37

An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean district observed score on the Algebra

II end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the district’s mean observed score in 2014-2015. See

Appendix 5 for three-year growth measures. For this analysis, = 0.05 and degrees of freedom

[df] = 522. The calculated value of t (i.e., 5.6115) was greater than the critical value of t. The

null hypothesis H01j was rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By

rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a

statistically significant difference exists between the district’s Algebra II mean observed score in

2012-2013 and the 2014-2015 mean observed score. The district’s observed scores in 2014-2015

are significantly higher than the 2012-2013 scores. Algebra II district data is provided in Table

4.12.

Table 4.12

Algebra II District 2012-2013 Test Score

Data Compared to District 2014-2015 Test

Score Data

2012-2013 2014-2015

Mean 692.3 717.3

SEM 3 3.2

N 304 220

An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean observed score at School 1 on the

Algebra II end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the mean observed score in 2014-2015. For this

70

analysis, = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 427. The calculated value of t (i.e., 6.1681) was

greater than the critical value of t. The null hypothesis H01k was rejected, and the alternate

hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the

alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a statistically significant difference exists between School

1’s Algebra II mean observed score in 2012-2013 and the 2014-2015 mean observed score. The

district’s observed scores in 2014-2015 are significantly higher than the 2012-2013 scores.

Table 4.13 compares School 1’s Algebra II end-of-course test score data from 2012-2013 to test

score data from 2014-2015.

Table 4.13

School 1’s Algebra II 2012-2013 Test Score Data

Compared to School 1’s 2014-2015 Test Score Data

2012-2013 2014-2015

Mean 695.3 724.0

SEM 3.1 3.3

N 257 172

An unpaired t-test was used to compare the mean observed score at School 2 on the

Algebra II end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the mean observed score in 2014-2015. For this

analysis, = 0.05 and degrees of freedom [df] = 73. The calculated value of t (i.e., 1.3044) was

less than the critical value of t. Therefore, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis H01l

and concluded there is not a statistically significant difference between School 2’s Algebra II

observed scores in 2012-2013 and the 2014-2015 observed scores. School 2’s Algebra II end-of-

course test score information is outlined in Table 4.14.

71

Table 4.14

School 2’s Algebra II 2012-2013 Test Score Data

Compared to School 2’s 2014-2015 Test Score Data

2012-2013 2014-2015

Mean 694.3 706.8

SEM 7.4 6.2

N 35 40

Research Question 2 Analyses

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra I test scores for students receiving special education services. Using = 0.05 and

degrees of freedom [df] = 15, the critical value for t is +/- 2.131 for a two-tailed test. The

calculated value of t (i.e., 2.8956) was greater than the critical value of t (i.e., 2.131). The null

hypothesis H02a was rejected, and the alternate hypothesis (HA: µ1≠µ2) was accepted. By

rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the alternate hypothesis, it was concluded a

statistically significant difference exists between the observed scores and predicted scores of

students receiving special education services. The observed scores of students receiving special

education services in Algebra I are lower than the predicted scores. Special education student

test score data are outlined in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15

District Algebra I Special Education Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 680.175 628.313

SD 51.784 99.630

SEM 12.946 24.908

N 16 16

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra II test scores for students receiving special education services. Using = 0.05 and

degrees of freedom [df] = 11, the critical value for t is +/- 2.201 for a two-tailed test. The

72

calculated value of t (i.e., 1.3382) was less than the critical value of t (i.e., 2.201). Therefore, the

researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis H02b and concluded there is not a statistically

significant difference between students receiving special education services observed scores and

predicted scores. Table 4.16 compares the predicted and observed scores for the district’s special

education students who took the Algebra II end-of-course exam.

Table 4.16

District Algebra II Special Education Test Score Data

Predicted Scores Observed Scores

Mean 639.475 672.083

SD 34.638 75.261

SEM 9.999 21.726

N 12 12

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five math teachers who participated in

the professional development program. Semi-structured interviews utilize a conversational style,

present questions in any given order, and provide the freedom to ask questions and probe as the

interviewer feels necessary (Corbetta, 2003). Each of the five math teachers interviewed

participated in the professional development process from the beginning stages and remained

involved throughout the entire process. Roles of the math teachers included reviewing the

current curriculum, dividing the given standards, sequencing the standards, developing a pacing

guide, and creating the standards’ based assessments. Four of the five teachers interviewed

believed the process was beneficial, and the fifth teacher noted that there have been pros and

cons to the professional development. When asked in what ways the professional development

program was beneficial, responses varied. Specific responses are presented below.

“It allowed me to get an idea of the curriculum itself.”

“I was better able to understand how to sequence the standards in my classroom.”

73

“The process provided guidance for a fairly new teacher.”

“It ensures teachers are covering every standard.”

“As a group, we were able to see a successful plan outlined. We took this plan, made

some adjustments, and molded the plan into something that would work for us. It was nice to

have a leader that had been through the process to be a sounding board for problems that arose.”

“Our group had reference documents to guide us through the process of setting up our

own [pacing guide]. Through the professional development, we were warned of some of the

pitfalls that might lie ahead.”

Three of the five teachers noted that students experienced an adjustment period when the

changes were implemented. It took time for the students to understand what was required to

master a standard and why students were being reassessed over the same topic. One teacher

noted that students did adjust quickly, and the process resulted in the students becoming more

responsible for their own learning. In addition, four of the five teachers indicated the

professional development has resulted in an increase in their personal test scores.

When asked if they would recommend any changes to other schools beginning this

process, one teacher suggested increasing the opportunities for collaboration. It should also be

noted that two of the teachers referenced the changes the group made after the initial

implementation of the plan. During the first year of implementation, the group re-evaluated and

adjusted their pacing guides and assessments to meet the needs of the students.

Summary

Throughout this chapter, explanations have been provided for each research question and

hypothesis. Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to analyze the Algebra I and Algebra II end-

of-course test score data for the entire district and each individual school. Predicted and

74

observed scores were compared using 2014-2015 individual student data. The mean observed

score for the 2012-2013 school year was compared to the mean observed score from the 2014-

2015 school year for each subject. Each analysis provided a t-value. This t-value was compared

to the critical t-value in each analysis to determine if the researcher accepted or rejected the null

hypotheses.

75

CHAPTER 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to determine what effect, if any, a coherent, ongoing

professional development program had on Algebra I and Algebra II end-of-course test scores.

Data was collected from a rural school district in East Tennessee. Two high schools were

involved in the study. TVAAS projected and observed scores were analyzed using paired and

unpaired t-tests. Analyses were completed to compare projected and observed scores from the

2014-2015 school year, special education student projected and observed scores from the 2014-

2015 school year, and 2012-2013 mean observed end-of-course test scores were compared to

2014-2015 mean observed scores. District data and individual school data were included in the

analyses for both Algebra I and Algebra II. A summary of findings, conclusions, and

recommendations for future research is presented in this chapter.

Summary of the Study

Legislation changes and educational reform efforts have resulted in increasingly complex

standards and escalated expectations for teachers. Reforming teacher preparation programs to

improve student outcomes has been a focus throughout the past several years (Hollins, 2011).

While these reform efforts could impact future teachers, current teachers may be lacking skills

needed to meet the established expectations. Therefore, support should be provided to help

current teachers overcome deficits (DeAngelis et al., 2013). Professional development provides

an opportunity for teachers to participate in additional training to help meet the current

requirements (Shaffer & Thomas-Brown, 2015). Successful professional development has been

found to increase teacher knowledge and change teaching practices (Stewart, 2014).

76

Characteristics

Past research has provided some understanding of the specific features of professional

development, which have been shown to result in successful outcomes. Professional

development, which is content focused and provides the teacher the opportunity to gain in-depth

knowledge of the subject matter, has been found beneficial (Borko, 2004). Effective

professional development programs provide opportunities for active learning (Desimone, 2011;

Stewart, 2014). Furthermore, job-embedded opportunities that take place in the educators’ daily

routine have been found impactful (Wood & McQuarrie, 1999). Collaborative learning

opportunities have been linked to increasing teacher confidence and the belief that student

performance can be improved (Stoll et al., 2006). A more prominent impact is associated with

professional development lasting longer in duration (Boyle et al., 2005) and with those that are

part of a coherent program (Garet et al., 2001). While these characteristics have been found

impactful, a lack of evidence exists to determine how individual characteristics of professional

development impact student performance and teacher effectiveness (Borko, 2004; Garet et al.,

2001).

Professional Development Program

This study investigated a particular professional development program implemented in

math departments at two high schools within the same county. The program placed an emphasis

on feedback and was based on the work of Marzano (2006) and Pollock (2007). During the

summer of 2013, math teachers met with professional development leaders who had previously

implemented the program in their district with the help of Pollock. Professional development

leaders guided the math teachers in organizing the established state standards for Algebra I and

Algebra II, developing pacing guides, and creating standards-based assessments for each skill.

77

Each teacher used the formative assessments during the same week of the semester. The

standards-based grading procedures were new to the teachers and the students. Continual

support from the professional development leaders and collaboration amongst educators occurred

frequently throughout the process. During the 2013-2014 school year, teachers met on various

occasions to discuss the progress and the sequencing of the standards. Adjustments were made

for the second semester and during the summer of 2014. The program was fully implemented

with the adjustments during the 2014-2015 school year.

Study

A quantitative study was developed to investigate the impact, if any, an ongoing

professional development program had on a math department within a rural school district.

Participants included 211 high school students enrolled in Algebra I and 212 students enrolled in

Algebra II courses at two high schools. Only students who received both predicted and observed

TVAAS scores were included in the analyses. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with

five of the math teachers who participated in the study to provide insights into teacher

perspectives of the program implemented. The professional development program began during

the summer of 2013 and was fully implemented during the 2014-2015 school year. This study

analyzed data from the 2014-2015 school year. This data was considered post-training and was

compared to pre-training data from the 2012-2013 end-of-course Algebra I and Algebra II

observed scores.

Summary and Conclusions

The study investigated two research questions. Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to

compare student predicted and observed scores on the Algebra I and Algebra II end-of-course

exams. In addition, analyses were completed which compared the predicted and observed scores

78

of students receiving special education services during the 2014-2015 school year. Each

research question is listed below accompanied by a summary of the findings and conclusions

associated with each analysis.

Research Question 1

Research Question 1: What is the effect on student end-of-course math test scores

following the implementation of an ongoing, coherent professional development program?

Algebra I. Several analyses were completed to test Research Question 1. Individual

paired t-tests were conducted to compare the predicted and observed Algebra I end-of-course test

scores for the district, School 1, and School 2. District, School 1, and School 2 observed scores

were statistically significantly lower than the predicted scores. Using the TVAAS system,

predicted scores are the expected score a student should make based on previous testing data.

Many students in the district involved did not obtain the projected measure; therefore, their

observed scores were lower than what was predicted.

Unpaired t-tests were conducted to compare the mean observed scores districtwide, at

School 1, and at School 2 on the Algebra I end-of-course exam in 2012-2013 to the mean

observed scores in 2014-2015. Analyses using district data and data from School 1 revealed that

a statistically significant difference exists between the Algebra I observed scores in 2012-2013

and the 2014-2015 observed scores. The observed scores in 2014-2015 were significantly higher

than the 2012-2013 scores. This suggests students achieved higher scores on the Algebra I end-

of-course exam in 2014-2015 than in 2012-2013. The 2012-2013 test score data is considered

pre-training and the 2014-2015 test score data is considered post-training. Students obtained

higher observed scores post-training than were achieved pre-training. At School 2, there was not

a statistically significant difference between the Algebra I observed scores in 2012-2013 and the

79

2014-2015 observed scores. This indicates students at School 2 received similar scores in 2014-

2015 as in 2012-2013, because the difference between the mean observed scores was minimal.

Conclusions. Each of the null hypotheses developed for the comparison of student

observed and predicted scores in Algebra I were rejected. Algebra I observed scores were

significantly lower than the predicted scores at School 1, School 2, and districtwide. Students

enrolled in these courses did not make the expected gains as predicted by TVAAS. These

analyses alone would not support the use of ongoing professional development to increase math

achievement test scores at the high school level as most students did not score at or above the

predicted level. However, when mean scores from 2014-2015 were compared to mean scores in

2012-2013 a statistically significant increase was discovered for the district and School 1. No

significant increase or decrease was found at School 2. While the district’s scores are not at the

expected growth level in 2014-2015, a significant increase in the observed scores resulted after

the professional development program was implemented. As Stewart (2014) discussed,

successful professional development sustained over a period of time provides the opportunity for

development, implementation, and feedback. The district investigated implemented strategies

learned from a professional development program over a period of time. This required the

teachers to develop and implement the initial plan but provided opportunities for the plan to be

adjusted based on the feedback from teachers and students. While more time is needed to

determine the full impact of the professional development program in Algebra I courses,

increases in student observed scores are present following the full implementation of the

professional development program. This is evident from the unpaired t-test comparing 2012-

2013 scores to 2014-2015 observed scores. Furthermore, upon review the three-year growth

80

measures, an increase is noted. As presented in Appendix 4, the district had a growth measure of

-20.8 in 2013. This number had increased to -18.3 in 2015.

Two of three null hypotheses addressing the comparison of 2012-2013 data to the 2014-

2015 data were rejected. These analyses revealed a positive correlation between the

implementation of the professional development program and an increase in test scores for the

district and at School 1. The comparison of pre- and post-professional development data

indicates that student observed scores at the district involved have increased throughout the

implementation process. Results of these analyses support Lieberman and Pointer Mace’s

(2008) idea that teacher learning and modifying teacher practices is an ongoing process. While

statistically significant student growth is not immediate, students are increasing their observed

scores as the teachers become more familiar with the process and adjust the plan to meet student

needs.

Algebra II. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare predicted and observed Algebra II

end-of-course test scores. A statistically significant difference exists between Algebra II

observed scores and predicted scores districtwide and at School 1. District and School 1

observed scores in Algebra II were higher than the predicted scores. This suggests the students

enrolled in the Algebra II courses exceeded the state’s expected growth measure. Students

received significantly higher observed scores than predicted following the implementation of the

strategies addressed in the professional development program. As previously discussed, TVAAS

uses past test score data to determine predicted scores for each student. Exceeding this

prediction indicates students increased their skills more than previously observed, because

TVAAS predicted scores are based on the scores an individual student has obtained on past

assessments. A paired t-test revealed that there is not a statistically significant difference

81

between School 2’s Algebra II observed scores and predicted scores. The difference between the

mean predicted and observed scores was less than one point; therefore, students at School 2

achieved the approximate amount of growth predicted by TVAAS calculations. While student

growth was not statistically significant at School 2, the growth measure increased from -7.8 in

2014 to -0.7 in 2015. The increase in the growth measure is an indication that students achieved

at a higher level in 2015 than during the previous years.

Three unpaired t-tests were used to compare the mean Algebra II observed test scores

from 2012-2013 to the 2014-2015 test scores. It was concluded a statistically significant

difference exists between the Algebra II observed scores in 2012-2013 and the 2014-2015

observed scores for the district and at School 1. The observed scores in 2014-2015 were

significantly higher than the 2012-2013 scores in these analyses. This suggests students

achieved higher observed scores in 2014-2015 than in 2012-2013 on the Algebra II end-of-

course assessment. Student observed scores were higher following the professional development

program when compared to pre-training data. While the mean observed score in 2014-2015 at

School 2 is slightly higher than the mean observed score in 2012-2013, the analysis revealed that

there is not a statistically significant difference between School 2’s Algebra II mean observed

scores in 2012-2013 and the 2014-2015 observed scores. This indicates students at School 2

performed at approximately the same level in 2014-2015 as they did in 2012-2013. Students

achieved scores similar to the scores predicted by TVAAS.

Conclusions. Two of the three null hypotheses developed for comparisons between

Algebra II observed and predicted scores were rejected. Districtwide and at School 1 a positive

correlation was found to exist between the predicted and observed student scores as Algebra II

observed scores were statistically significantly higher than the predicted scores. While 2013-

82

2014 data was not analyzed in this study, an immediate impact was seen in growth measures

following the partial implementation of the professional development procedures. District

growth measures increased from -10.2 in 2013 to 0.6 in 2014, and School 1 growth measures

increased from -5.2 in 2013 to 8.4 in 2014. As presented in Appendix 5, the district received a

growth measure of 2.5 in 2015 with School 1 receiving a growth measure of 8.8. Across a three

year span, this data reveals growth measures increased from -10.2 to 2.5 for the district and from

-5.2 to 8.8 at School 1. Districtwide and at School 1 students achieved greater growth in Algebra

II than expected based on TVAAS data following the implementation of an ongoing, coherent

professional development program. All teachers interviewed at School 1 provided positive

responses to the questions asked. The positivity toward the professional development program

could have influenced the immediate growth observed. If teachers are optimistic about the

process, students are more likely to respond to the procedures positively. One teacher discussed

the fact that the process provided a map of the standards and allowed him to have a clear plan for

his classroom each day. He went on to explain that the students liked knowing at what level they

must perform on the weekly assessments to be placed in the proficient group. In his words, this

fact encouraged students who are not typically successful in math to put forth more effort.

Increasing student effort likely resulted in an increase in student performance.

The analysis revealed no statistical significance when comparing student predicted and

observed scores for School 2’s Algebra II end-of-course assessment. While 2013-2014 data

were not analyzed in this study, it should be noted that School 2’s growth measures fell from -4.6

in 2013 to -7.8 in 2014 following the initial implementation of the professional development

program. Following the full implementation of the professional development program, the

growth measure increased from -7.8 in 2014 to -0.7 in 2015. Therefore, increased growth

83

measures are present at School 2 after the process was adjusted and fully implemented. The

initial decrease in the growth measure could reveal the teachers’ unfamiliarity with the

procedures established in the program or the students’ insecurities with the new process. The

teacher interviewed at School 2 mentioned the time it took students to become familiar with the

new testing process and grading procedures on more than one occasion. This is in contrast to a

teacher at School 1 who referred to the fact that students adjusted quickly to the new procedures.

The varied responses could be indicative of the decrease in initial growth measures at School 2

compared to the immediate impact seen at School 1.

Null hypotheses established for district data and School 1 data comparing mean scores in

2012-2013 to mean scores in 2014-2015 were rejected as a statistically significant positive

impact was discovered. District data and School 1 data indicate a statistically significant

increase in the mean observed score in 2014-2015 when compared to 2012-2013. Appendix 5

outlines that district observed scores increased from 692.3 in 2013 to 717.3 in 2015, and School

1 observed scores increased from 695.3 in 2013 to 724.0 in 2015. This indicates observed scores

increased following the implementation of the professional development program. One teacher

interviewed at School 1 reported that the program procedures provided a map of the semester’s

material which ensured he covered each standard in a timely manner and took away some of the

stressors associated with teaching all of the standards established by the state department. It

should also be noted that no statistically significant increase in test scores was found at School 2

when comparing 2012-2013 data to 2014-2015 data. While the analysis at School 2 did not

reveal statistically significant findings, increases are seen in the average observed scores. As

presented in Appendix 5, the average observed score increased from 694.3 in 2013, to 694.6 in

2014, and to 706.8 in 2015. While the analyses chosen did not reveal statistically significant

84

findings at School 2, gains were made across a three year span. This supports the information

obtained from a teacher at School 2 who participated in a semi-structured interview. During the

interview, the teacher stated that it took his students an extended period of time to understand the

new process. As Stewart (2014) discusses, professional development occurring throughout a

period of time allows teachers time to reflect, adjust, and improve strategies. Data analysis

suggests that School 2’s initial implementation was not successful; however, as explained by a

teacher at this school, plans and strategies were modified during the first year of implementation

based on the teacher knowledge obtained during the semesters. These adjustments and the

ongoing process provided time for the procedures to have a positive impact on test scores as

evident by the increase of scores across a three year span.

Results of these analyses support the information Yoon et al. (2007) presented in a

literature review which stated that student achievement is positively impacted when teachers

receive more than 14 hours of professional development. While the total number of hours was

not calculated, teachers met multiple times during the summer months of 2013, 2014, and 2015.

In addition, teachers met throughout the year as a coherent group and maintained personal

contact with the professional development leader. Kazempour and Amirshokoohi (2014)

discussed that the inclusion of the professional development leader for guidance and support

throughout the process is a critical component of professional development. In the professional

development program studied, teachers were in contact with professional development leaders in

multiple formats (e.g., in person, electronic communication, etc.) throughout the entire process.

Analyses conducted in this study support the use of an ongoing, coherent professional

development program in high school mathematics courses. Students’ growth exceeded the

85

state’s expectations and student observed scores significantly increased across a three year span

following the implementation of a professional development program.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2: What is the effect on special education student end-of-course math

test scores following the implementation of a professional development program targeted for

general education teachers?

A paired t-test was conducted to compare the predicted and observed end-of-course

Algebra I test scores for students receiving special education services in the district studied. The

analysis revealed a statistically significant difference exists between the observed scores of

students receiving special education services and the predicted scores. The observed scores of

students receiving special education services in Algebra I were lower than the predicted scores.

This indicates students receiving special education services did not achieve the state’s expected

gains in Algebra I for the 2014-2015 school year. Furthermore, a paired t-test was conducted to

compare the predicted and observed Algebra II end-of-course test scores for students receiving

special education services. While the observed scores are slightly higher than the predicted

scores, it was concluded there is not a statistically significant difference between the observed

scores of students receiving special education services and the predicted scores. This suggests

students receiving special education services received scores similar to the TVAAS predictions.

Students receiving special education services in Algebra I and Algebra II courses did not make

significant gains following the implementation of the professional development program. Just as

Algebra II growth measures were significantly higher than Algebra I growth measures across the

entire student population, special education student observed scores were closer to the predicted

86

scores in Algebra II than in Algebra I. This is consistent with previous data analyses which

suggest students made greater gains in Algebra II than in Algebra I.

Conclusions. On the Algebra I end-of-course assessment, students receiving special

education services received significantly lower observed scores than predicted scores.

Therefore, no positive effect is associated with professional development targeted at general

education teachers on the Algebra I test scores of students receiving special education services.

Furthermore, no statistically significant impact was associated with the Algebra II predicted and

observed scores of students receiving special education services. The observed scores were

higher than the predicted scores; however, this gain was not statistically significant. Therefore,

no statistically significant effect is associated with professional development targeted at general

education teachers on the Algebra II test scores of students receiving special education services.

These analyses would not support the use of professional development targeted toward

general education teachers to improve special education student test scores. No positive effects

were revealed in the data analysis. However, the association between the 2012-2013 data and

the 2014-2015 data for the general student population in Algebra I must be considered before

making an assumption. Algebra I predicted and observed scores revealed negative effects as the

predicted scores were significantly higher than the observed scores. However, mean observed

scores in 2014-2015 were significantly higher than mean observed scores in 2012-2013. If

previous special education data were available, a comparison could be conducted to determine if

improvements have been made since the professional development program was implemented.

Furthermore, special education student observed scores in Algebra II are slightly higher than the

predicted scores. While this difference is not statistically significant, it is an indication that

students are slightly exceeding their expected growth measure. More information is needed to

87

determine if professional development targeted at general education teachers is effective for

increasing special education student test scores.

Discussion

Statistically significant positive and negative effects were most often associated with

district data and data from School 1. School 2’s analyses often revealed findings that were not

statistically significant. This could be influenced by the lower number of students participating

in the assessments at School 2 when compared to the number of participants at School 1. In

addition, School 2 employees two math teachers whereas School 1 employees seven math

teachers. While not all math teachers at School 1 taught Algebra I and Algebra II, there was a

greater variety in the student-teacher match-ups at School 1 than at School 2. The reduced

number of student-teacher possibilities at School 2 could impact the increase in test scores if a

particular teacher exhibited difficulty with the new procedures or if a particular group of students

took an increased amount of time to adjust, because it is more likely students will remain

grouped together and have the same teacher at School 2 than at School 1.

Interestingly, School 2 exhibited negative growth in Algebra I following the

implementation of the professional development. As outlined in Appendix 4, growth measures

were -9, -12.1, and -37.2 in 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively. One of the two math teachers at

School 2 participated in the interview process. This teacher indicated the need for the

professional development program to be implemented for a longer period of time before an

increase in test scores would be seen. In addition, the teacher at School 2 discussed that it took

an extended period of time for the students to adjust to the new procedures. As previously

discussed, School 2’s findings were not statistically significant for Algebra II; however, an

increase in observed scores and growth measures was present. The difficulty students exhibited

88

in Algebra I at School 2 was not revealed in the Algebra II data. Most of these students likely

participated in the procedures established by the professional development program in Algebra I

and Algebra II. Therefore, students in Algebra II were more familiar with the process than the

students in Algebra I. This supports the teacher’s comments at School 2 that students required

an adjustment period and more time was needed to see the full impact of the professional

development. This would also suggest that familiarity with the process established impacts

student performance.

Several studies (e.g., Birman et al., 2000; Boyle et al., 2005; Garet et al., 2001) discussed

the importance of teacher collaboration throughout the implementation process. The limited

number of teachers at School 2 and the distance between School 1 and School 2 could have

resulted in less collaboration between teachers at School 2 than at School 1. Garet et al. (2001)

outlined that collaboration and teacher discussions provide an avenue for collectively solving

problems and encourages a change in teacher practices. If collaboration was limited at School 2,

this could provide insight as to why growth measures declined despite the implementation of the

professional development procedures. It should also be noted that the teacher at School 2 was

the only teacher interviewed to mention “cons” associated with the program. The “cons” were

not elaborated on nor was a specific example provided. Kennedy and Shiel (2010) outlined that

peer support increases teacher confidence. Therefore, if a lack of peer support was available at

School 2, the teachers may not have exhibited the same amount of confidence implementing the

strategies as the teachers at School 1.

When comparing the observed and predicted scores for 2014-2015, a statistically

significant positive effect was noted in Algebra II but not in Algebra I. Students enrolled in

Algebra II courses likely participated in the feedback procedures developed in the professional

89

development program in both Algebra I and Algebra II. The experience and familiarity of the

teachers and the procedures could have influenced the greater amount of growth noted in

Algebra II. While greater growth was noted in Algebra II than Algebra I, all teachers

interviewed indicated that there was no difference in how the professional development program

impacted each course. This could be a result of the courses the teachers taught during a specific

time period. Some teachers taught only Algebra I and some teachers taught only Algebra II

during a given semester. However, some of the teachers taught both courses during the same

testing period. Therefore, it is interesting that greater growth was noted in Algebra II at the

district level and at the school levels, but teachers did not view the growth achieved in each

course differently.

Furthermore, the only data available for the subgroup of students receiving special

education services was from the 2014-2015 school year. Therefore, the scores could not be

compared to previous years’ tests. Just as the Algebra I 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 comparison

provided insight into some subject area gains that were not noted in the predicted and observed

score analyses, a comparison of previous years’ special education data would provide

information regarding any progress made since the professional development program was

implemented. Although these students did not achieve the expected growth measure in 2014-

2015, gains could have been made if scores could be compared to previous years’ data. In

addition, Algebra II analyses for students receiving special education services were not

statistically significant; however, the observed scores were higher than the predicted scores.

This indicates students achieved a greater level of growth than expected, but the growth was not

statistically significant. Shaffer and Thomas-Brown (2015) suggested that general education

teachers must participate in professional development targeted specifically at their deficit areas.

90

The established professional development program did not target teacher specific deficits.

Rather, department deficits were the initial target. To achieve greater gains in the sub-population

of special education students, the teachers may need to work collaboratively to determine

individual strengths and weaknesses. This information can be used as the department moves

forward and makes additional adjustments to the implemented program.

A number of proposed characteristics of successful professional development have been

discussed throughout this paper. While this study looked at the use of an ongoing, coherent

professional development program, the implemented program involved the use of other proposed

characteristics. Increasing teachers’ content knowledge has been found effective (Guskey, 2003,

Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014). The professional development program at hand directly

involved teachers working with the state’s established standards and developing a timeline for

their integration into the two courses. Borko (2004) reported that students are better able to learn

material when teachers have an in-depth knowledge of the content. The professional

development studied forced teachers to gain a better understanding of the material being taught,

because the teachers were required to create four to five question exams which assessed a

student’s understanding of the content. Therefore, the teacher was required to know what to

teach, how to teach it, and how to best assess the skill in a short format. Professional

development which includes active learning that requires teachers to observe, receive feedback,

and analyze student work has been found successful (Desimone, 2011). In addition, providing

the professional development in the context of the school which allows teachers to work together

to integrate strategies is critical (Thomas & Shaffer-Brown, 2015). The professional

development program studied required teachers to work in the context of their classrooms,

observe each other and professional development leaders, and continuously analyze student

91

work. Collaboration amongst educators has also been identified as a critical component of

professional development (Kazempour & Amirshokoohi, 2014) as collaboration can increase

teacher confidence, establish a commitment to change, and increase a teacher’s willingness to try

new things (Stoll et al., 2006). Teachers involved in this study continually collaborated

throughout the process to discuss positive and negative aspects of the implementation and make

adjustments as needed. While this study focused on the characteristics of duration and

coherence, the professional development program implemented contained other aspects

associated with successful professional development. The district studied had implemented

previous forms of professional development which also contained characteristics associated with

successful programs. These professional development programs were not directly targeted to the

mathematics department nor were they as ongoing or coherent as the program involved in this

study. While one cannot fully determine that duration and coherence were the sole

characteristics which resulted in an increase in test scores, it is likely that these characteristics

did have a positive impact. Past professional development activities implemented in this district

did not exhibit the characteristics of duration and coherence, and Algebra I and Algebra II test

score data were lower than expected when the studied program was implemented.

Recommendations

Results of this study indicate an overall increase in Algebra I and Algebra II test scores

following the implementation of a coherent, ongoing professional development program.

Although the 2014-2015 Algebra I end-of-course test growth measures did not reach the

expected level, gains are seen when comparisons are made to the 2012-2013 scores. While an

increase in test score data is evident in the analyses completed, more information is needed to

make a direct correlation between coherence, duration, and student growth. A study completed

92

on a larger scale which includes multiple districts and schools with varied demographics would

provide valuable information. In addition, including various subject areas (e.g., language arts,

reading, social studies, etc.) would allow one to research the impact of duration and coherence in

multiple areas. Obtaining pre-treatment data for subgroups (e.g., special education, free and

reduced lunch, etc.) would also offer insights into gains made throughout the professional

development process.

This study observed one professional development program implemented throughout a

two to three year process. It is difficult to determine if the ongoing aspect of the professional

development was more or less impactful than the content of the professional development. To

help make this determination, a study could be developed to compare a professional development

program offered during a short time span and compare it to the same professional development

program offered throughout a longer time span. Developing a study across multiple districts

implementing the same professional development program which provides some districts with

ongoing support and other districts with a single training would allow one to compare the use of

ongoing professional development to a professional development program that is not ongoing.

Concluding Statements

A variety of characteristics have been proposed to increase the likelihood that a

professional development program is successful. Little research exists to support or negate the

proposed characteristics. This study sought to determine what impact, if any, a coherent and

ongoing professional development program had on end-of-course math test scores in a particular

district. TVAAS data were analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests. Results indicate a gross

increase in test scores following the professional development program; however, no statistically

significant positive effects were associated with the scores of students receiving special

93

education services. This research topic can be expanded by broadening the subject areas

investigated and including a larger number of school districts.

94

References

Allen, I.E. & Seaman, C. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64-

65.

Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1-74. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v10n18.2002

Ansel, S.E. & Park, J. (2003). Technology counts 2003: Tracking tech trends. Education Week,

22(35), 43-44.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over

ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10-20.

Becker, S. & Bryman, A. (2012). ‘Evidence’ and ‘other ways of knowing. In S. Becker, A.

Bryman, & H. Ferguson (Eds.) Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social

Work (2nd ed.) pp. 23-26. Chicago, IL: The Policy Press.

Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A., & Garet M. (2000). Designing professional development

that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education:

Blaschke, L.M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and

self-determined learning. The International Review of Research In Open and Distributed

Learning, 13(1), 56-71.

Bohan, C.H. & Null, J.W. (2007). Gender and the evolution of normal school education: A

historical analysis of teacher education institutions. Educational Foundations, 3-26.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003

95

Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What

makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1-27. doi:

10.1080/09243450500114819

Brackenreed, D. & Barnett, J. (2006). Teacher stress and inclusion: Perceptions of pre-service

teachers. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 34(1), 156-176.

Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 12(1), 1-43.

Burkins, J. & Ritchie, S. (2007). Coaches coaching coaches. Journal of Language and Literacy

Education, 3(1), 32-47.

Campbell, G., Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards

disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28(4),

369-379.

Coman, E. N., Picho, K., McArdle, J. J., Villagra, V., Dierker, L., & Iordache, E. (2013). The

paired t-test as a simple latent change score model. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-3.

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research theory, methods and techniques. London: SAGE

Publications.

Croft, A., Coggshell, J. G., Dolan, M., Powers, E., & Killion, J, (2010). Job-embedded

professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520830.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher development.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 9 – 26.

96

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional

development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.

David, M. & Sutton C.D. (2004). Social research the basics. London: SAGE Publications.

Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Educational change

and development series. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.

DeAngelis, K., Wall, A., & Che, J. (2013). The impact of preservice preparation and early career

support on novice teachers’ career intentions and decisions. Journal of Teacher

Education, 64(4), 338-355.

Desimone, L.M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan,

92(6), 68-71.

Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional development. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dukes, C., & Lamar-Dukes, P. (2006). Special education: An integral part of small high schools.

High School Journal, 89(3), 1-9.

Fishman, B., Best, S., Marx, R., & Tal, R. (2001, March). Fostering teacher learning in systemic

reform: Linking professional development to teacher and student learning. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science

Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Flores, M. (2005). How do teachers learn in the workplace? Findings from an empirical study

carried out in Portugal. Journal of In-service Education, 31(3), 485-508

97

Forlin, C. & Sin, K. (2010). Developing support for inclusion: A professional learning approach

for teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(1), 7-26.

Frank, V. (2009). Ambassadors of learning. National Staff Development Council, 30(2), 24-30.

Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An

illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional

development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing research in the real world. London: SAGE Publications.

Greenberg, J., McKee, A., Walsh, K. (2013). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s

teacher preparation programs. National Council on Teacher Quality.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.

The Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1012.

Guskey, T. (2003). Professional development that works: What makes professional development

effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750. doi: 10.1177/003172170308401007

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:

Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. doi: 10.1080/13540600210000051 2

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and

improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34-3 8.

Guskey, T. & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development.

Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73-76.

98

Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. (2009). An examination of co-teaching: perspectives and efficacy

indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 259-268.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. Buckingham: Open University Press

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every

school. New York: Teachers College Press

Harwell, M. R., & Gatti, G. G. (2001). Rescaling ordinal data to interval data in educational

research. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 105-131.

Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the Effects of Schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36(1), 5-

13.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,

77(1), 81-112.

Henderson, C. (1982). Analysis of covariance in the mixed model: Higher-level,

nonhomogeneous, and random regressions. Biometrics, 38, 623-640.

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3-19.

Hirsh, S. (2009). A new definition. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4), 10–16.

Hollins, E. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,

62(4), 395-407.

Hord, S. (1997a). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they

important? Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hord, S. (1997b). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and

improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

99

Hord, S. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In S. Hord (ed.) Learning

together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Huffman, J., Hipp, K., Pancake, A., & Moller, G. (2001). Professional learning communities:

Leadership, purposeful decision making, and job-embedded staff development. Journal

of School Leadership, 11(5), 448-463.

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program

evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.

Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional

development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1-28. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v13n10.2005

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kazempour, M. & Amirshokoohi, A. (2014). Transitioning to inquiry-based teaching: Exploring

science teachers’ professional development experiences. International Journal of

Environmental & Science Education, 9, 285-309.

Kelly, J. & Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case

study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational

Administration and Policy, 169, 1-27.

Kennedy, E., & Shiel, G. (2010). Raising literacy levels with collaborative on-site professional

development in an urban disadvantaged school. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 372-383.

Kenner, C. & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to non-traditional

college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 87-96.

100

Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C., Rinaldo, V. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers: A survey

of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43-56.

King, B. & Newmann, F. (2004). Key link: Successful professional development must consider

school capacity. Journal of Staff Development, 25(1), 26-30.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1977). Evaluating training programs: Evidence vs. proof. Training and

Development Journal, 31(11), 9-12.

Knight, J. (2011). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach for dramatically improving

instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf

Publishing Company.

Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.

(2nd ed.) New York: Cambridge Books.

Lawless, K. & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into

teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of

professional learning. Innovating and Evaluating Science Education: NSF Evaluation

Forms, 62-78.

Lieberman, A. & Pointer Mace, D. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to education reform.

Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226-234.

Louis, K.S. & Kruse, S.D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming

urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

101

Marzano, R. (2007). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom assessment. In D.B.

Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and

learning. (pp. 103-126). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McDonald, J.H. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Sparky

House Publishing.

McLean, R.A. & Sanders, W.L. (1984). Objective component of teacher evaluation: A feasibility

study. (Working Paper No. 199). Knoxville: University of Tennessee, College of

Business Administration.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. (2002). Professional development and inclusive schools:

Reflections on effective practice. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159-172.

McMaster, C. (2012). Ingredients for inclusion: Lessons from the literature. Kairaranga, 13(2),

11-22.

Midgley, C. & Wood, S. (1993). Beyond site-based management: Empowering teachers to

reform schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 245-252.

Miller-Levy, R., Taylor, D., & Hawke, L. (2014). Maintaining the boundaries: Teacher

preparation program admission criteria for screening quality candidates. Administrative

Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(1), 40-49.

Mindich, D. & Lieberman, A. (2012). Building a learning community: A tale of two schools.

Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education

Morrissey, M. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Austin, TX:

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

102

Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications

Mundry, S. (2005). Changing perspectives in professional development. Science Educator,

14(1), 9-15.

National Assessment of Education Progress. (2014). Achievement gaps. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/

National Commission on Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

National Staff Development Council. (2015). NSDC’s definition of professional development.

Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/who-we-are/professional-learning-

definition#.ViLp7XpViko

Newmann, F. M., et al. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual

quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nishimura, T. (2014). Effective professional development of teachers: A guide to actualizing

inclusive schooling. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 10(1), 19-42.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Oji, S.N. (1980). Adult development is implicit in staff development. Journal of Staff

Development, 1(2), 7-56.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation method. London: SAGE Publications.

Pollock, J. (2007). Improving student learning one teacher at a time. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Porter, A., Garet, M., Desimone, L., & Birman, B. (2003). Providing effective professional

development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Science Educator, 12(1), 23-40.

103

Quick, H., Holtzman, D. & Chaney, K. (2009). Professional development and instructional

practice: Conceptions and evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students

Placed at Risk, 14(1), 45-71.

Ravitch, D. (2003). A brief history of teacher professionalism. U.S. Department of Education:

White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/ravitch.html

Reeves, D. (2011). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Rieser, R. (2013). Teacher education for children with disabilities: Literature review. UNICEF,

REAP Project.

Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2012). A situated account of teacher agency and

learning: Critical reflections on professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of

Education, 35, 202–216.

Royster, O., Reglin, G., Losike-Sedimo, N. (2014). Inclusion professional development model

and regular middle school educators. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 18(1), 1-10.

Sanders, W. & Horn, S. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS):

Mixed methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in

Education, 8, 299-311.

SAS EVAAS (2015). Misconceptions of value-added reporting in Tennessee. Retrieved from

http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/education/attachments/tvaas_common_misconceptions.

pdf

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

104

SCORE (2014). Measuring student growth in Tennessee: Understanding TVAAS. Taking Note

Scriffiny, P. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based assessment. Expecting Excellence, 66(2),

70-74.

Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers’

attitude toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37-41.

Shaffer, L. & Thomas-Brown, K. (2015). Enhancing teacher competency through co-teaching

and embedded professional development. Journal of Education and Training Studies,

3(3), 117-125.

Sharma, U., Simi, J., & Forlin, C. (2015). Preparedness of pre-service teachers for inclusive

education in the Solomon Islands. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 103-

116.

Short, C., & Martin, B. (2005). Case study: Attitudes of rural high school students and teachers

regarding inclusion. The Rural Educator, 27(1), 1-10.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A

framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3),

77-87.

Smith, C. (2010). The great dilemma of improving teacher quality in adult learning and literacy.

Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 4(2), 67-74.

Sparks, D. (2000). Foreword. T. Guskey. Evaluating professional development. (p. ix-xiii).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Statistics Solutions. (2013). One-sample t-test. Retrieved from

http://www.statisticssolutions.com/academic-solutions/resources/directory-of-statistical-

analyses/one-sample-t-test/

105

Stewart, S. (2014). Transforming professional development to professional learning. Journal of

Adult Education, 43(1), 28-33.

Stockall, N., & Gartin, B. (2002). The nature of inclusion in a blue ribbon school: A revelatory

case. Exceptionality, 10(3), 171-188.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning

communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

Tate, M. L. (2009). Workshops: Extend learning beyond your presentation with these brain

friendly strategies. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 44-46.

TCAP-EOC Algebra I Framework. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/education/attachments/tst_framework_eoc_Alg_I.pdf

TCAP-EOC Algebra II Framework. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/education/attachments/tst_framework_eoc_Alg_II.pdf

Templeton, N. & Tremont, J. (2014). Improving professional practice: Mentoring as job-

embedded professional development. Texas Study of Secondary Education, 23(2), 24-28.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2014). Data. Retrieved from

http://www.tn.gov/education/data/index.shtml

Tennessee Department of Education (2015a). State report card. Retrieved from

http://tn.gov/education/topic/report-card

Tennessee Department of Education (2015b). Special education. Retrieved from

http://tn.gov/education/topic/special-education

Tennessee Department of Education (2015c). Assessment. Retrieved from

http://tn.gov/education/section/assessment

106

Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. New York: Open University

Press.

Treder, D., Morse, W., & Ferron, J. (2000). The relationship between teacher effectiveness and

teacher attitude towards issues related to inclusion. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 23(3), 202-210.

Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Atomic Dog Publishing,

Cincinnati, OH.

Trotter, Y.D. (2006). Adult learning theories: Impacting professional development programs.

Delta KappaGamma Bulletin, 72(2), 8-13

UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group (2015). Introduction to SAS. Retrieved from

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/notes2/

U.S. Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107–110. 107th

Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of

education statistics, 2011(NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Race to the top fund: Purpose. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). School improvement fund: Purpose. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). State fiscal stabilization fund. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Funding/grants: Discretionary grant definition. Retrieved

107

from http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/discgrant.html

Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk

students in the general education classroom (2nd ed.). In P. A. Smith & V. Lanigan (Eds).

Collaborating and coordinating with other professionals and family members (pp. 100-

129). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional

learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 24, 80-91.

Wayne, A., Yoon, K., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. (2008). Experimenting with teacher

professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469-

479.

Wignall, R. (1992, June). Building a collaborative school culture: A case study of one woman in

the principalship. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,

Enschede, The Netherlands.

Witkovský, V. (2002). MATLAB algorithm mixed. m for solving Henderson’s mixed model

equations. Technical Report.

Wood, F. H., & McQuarrie, F. (1999). On-the-job learning. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3),

10-13.

Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., and Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on

how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Regional

Educational Laboratory, 33, 1-55.

108

Appendix 1

Guiding questions used in semi-structured interviews

1. What was your role in the professional development?

2. How long did you participate?

3. Do you feel it was beneficial? Why or why not?

4. If so, in what ways was it beneficial?

5. Did you see an impact on the day-to-day functioning of your classroom?

6. How do you feel the students responded to the new assessment procedures?

7. Do you feel the professional development impacted your test scores? If so, in what way?

8. Was there any difference in the way the professional development program impacted

Algebra I courses versus Algebra II courses?

109

Appendix 2

Algebra I test score information

Student Predicted

Score

Observed

Score Percentile School Special Ed Status

1 695.3 696 22 1

2 687.0 653 11 1

Specific Learning

Disability; Language

Impaired

3 639.4 500 2 1

4 781.4 757 62 1

5 744.1 723 37 1

6 664.3 500 2 1

7 804.7 758 64 1 Intellectually Gifted

8 850.1 798 89 1

9 582.7 500 2 1 Functional Delay

10 837.8 790 85 1

11 696.2 742 51 1

12 857.8 846 98 1

13 709.9 706 27 1

14 685.7 685 18 1

15 778.5 733 44 1

16 768.0 716 33 1

17 733.1 754 61 1

18 791.7 762 67 1

19 709.1 696 22 1

20 768.7 757 62 1

21 668.2 701 25 1

22 757.8 772 75 1

23 677.6 641 10 1

24 755.9 771 73 1

25 707.9 685 18 1

26 651.2 500 2 1

27 712.1 678 17 1

28 703.8 742 51 1

29 717.9 750 57 1

30 757.0 745 53 1

31 666.3 641 10 1

32 796.0 777 79 1

33 773.1 767 72 1

34 811.9 788 84 1

110

35 798.7 762 67 1

36 722.2 734 45 1

37 634.5 601 6 1

38 713.9 719 34 1

39 635.5 685 18 1

40 679.0 500 2 1 Specific Learning

Disability

41 702.3 678 17 1

42 686.2 706 27 1

43 746.1 731 42 1

44 741.4 710 29 1

45 654.4 701 25 1

46 668.0 710 29 1

47 710.4 701 25 1

48 756.5 790 85 1

49 742.6 757 62 1

50 706.1 719 34 1

51 616.0 754 61 1

52 729.9 783 82 1

53 706.9 710 29 1

54 750.8 757 62 1

55 677.8 558 5 1

56 836.3 808 92 1

57 740.8 772 75 1

58 783.3 777 79 1

59 779.5 757 62 1

60 742.3 754 61 1

61 658.0 500 2 1

62 787.8 783 82 1

63 762.2 749 56 1

64 721.8 734 45 1

65 740.5 737 47 1

66 685.1 685 18 1

67 769.0 738 48 1

68 728.2 738 48 1

69 782.6 742 51 1

70 711.3 727 39 1 Other - Health

Impairments

71 738.5 742 51 1

72 727.9 805 91 1

73 728.3 719 34 1

74 787.1 749 56 1

111

75 653.8 671 15 1

76 768.7 762 67 1

77 686.0 500 2 1

78 758.7 715 32 1

79 748.2 746 54 1

80 735.4 710 29 1

81 758.0 767 72 1

82 716.8 710 29 1

83 675.2 691 20 1

84 683.7 671 15 1

85 784.2 757 62 1

86 685.0 696 22 1

87 625.1 500 2 1

88 699.1 710 29 1

89 647.2 653 11 1

90 741.2 766 70 1

91 787.3 745 53 1

92 743.3 678 17 1

93 778.9 741 50 1

94 703.7 715 32 1

95 751.6 725 38 1

96 672.0 738 48 1

97 716.6 731 42 1

98 683.5 738 48 1

99 764.2 741 50 1

100 621.6 500 2 1

101 656.8 500 2 1 Specific Learning

Disability

102 754.4 741 50 1

103 800.7 790 85 1

104 729.8 731 42 1

105 685.3 696 22 1

106 750.4 727 39 1

107 698.1 731 42 1

108 692.5 710 29 1

109 705.6 738 48 1

110 720.9 685 18 1

111 647.5 678 17 1

112 726.5 625 8 1

113 798.8 782 80 1

114 798.8 846 98 1

112

115 664.1 685 18 1 Functional Delay

116 739.0 749 56 1

117 762.2 749 56 1

118 715.5 653 11 1

119 660.8 678 17 1

120 743.3 708 28 1

121 719.9 641 10 1

122 743.4 708 28 1

123 719.5 727 39 1

124 669.3 696 22 1

125 719.5 725 38 1

126 672.2 691 20 1

127 727.8 723 37 1

128 725.1 701 25 1

129 657.6 558 5 1

130 658.2 685 18 1

131 740.3 719 34 1

132 612.4 601 6 1 Functional Delay

133 751.2 749 56 1

134 647.2 558 5 1

135 785.9 767 72 1

136 652.6 601 6 1

137 718.8 731 42 1

138 729.0 710 29 1

139 676.6 641 10 1

140 687.8 762 67 1

141 681.5 696 22 1

141 710.0 734 45 1

143 737.5 723 37 1

144 688.6 678 17 1

145 732.6 737 47 1

146 650.3 500 2 1 Other - Health

Impairments

147 706.1 727 39 1

148 689.6 703 26 1

149 689.4 696 22 1

150 643.0 500 2 1 Specific Learning

Disability

151 734.7 710 29 1

152 676.2 671 15 1

153 731.0 666 14 1 Other - Health

Impairments

113

154 734.3 716 33 1

155 717.9 742 51 1

156 732.0 766 70 1 Specific Learning

Disability

157 716.8 719 34 1

158 742.1 738 48 1

159 693.2 738 48 1

Specific Learning

Disability; Other –

Health Impairments

160 743.0 750 57 1

161 763.7 776 77 1

162 724.8 746 54 1

163 673.7 671 15 1

164 643.3 663 13 1

165 671.7 500 2 1

166 643.0 678 17 1

167 680.8 691 20 1

168 763.3 757 62 1

169 751.1 771 73 1

170 714.4 706 27 1

171 750.8 703 26 1

172 776.4 753 59 1

173 785.3 790 85 1

174 772.6 719 34 1

175 766.8 754 61 2

176 683.2 500 2 2

177 746.1 782 80 2

178 768.0 766 70 2

179 653.2 625 8 2 Functional Delay

180 775.8 742 51 2

181 718.8 681 17 2

182 762.5 776 77 2

183 701.8 678 17 2

184 766.6 750 57 2

185 627.6 653 11 2

186 834.5 754 61 2

187 761.6 750 57 2

188 774.2 762 67 2

189 662.0 500 2 2

190 740.4 674 16 2

191 782.7 746 54 2

192 683.2 663 13 2 Specific Learning

114

Disability

193 751.2 723 37 2

194 682.2 520 4 2

195 682.3 520 4 2

196 728.2 687 19 2

197 698.9 671 15 2 Other - Health

Impairments

198 699.9 658 12 2

199 753.6 698 24 2

200 802.5 754 61 2

201 800.5 766 70 2

202 758.7 766 70 2

203 718.3 721 35 2

204 735.1 703 26 2

205 670.8 500 2 2

206 765.8 727 39 2

207 722.0 703 26 2

208 780.3 771 73 2

209 799.3 758 64 2

210 701.2 666 14 2

211 766.6 771 73 2

115

Appendix 3

Algebra II test score information

Student Predicted

Score

Observed

Score Percentile School Special Ed Status

1 672.9 627 6 1

2 679.7 711 31 1

3 720.2 706 28 1

4 789.3 799 93 1

5 739.9 733 48 1

6 706.9 711 31 1

7 678.4 678 15 1

8 703.9 729 44 1

9 722.1 724 41 1

10 703.6 720 38 1

11 690.1 720 38 1

12 708.9 748 61 1

13 658.1 729 44 1

14 707.1 690 20 1

15 707.9 733 48 1

16 678.5 663 11 1

17 656.3 653 9 1

18 669.6 652 8 1 Language Impaired

19 749.9 778 85 1

20 694.5 678 15 1 Other - Health

Impairments

21 741.4 761 73 1

22 697.3 670 12 1

23 727.1 752 65 1

24 751.0 765 76 1

25 633.1 605 4 1 Language Impaired

26 799.2 773 82 1

27 679.2 626 5 1 Specific Learning

Disability

28 801.0 808 96 1

29 749.7 771 80 1

30 781.7 769 79 1

31 650.1 627 6 1

32 707.7 736 51 1

33 709.3 725 42 1

34 716.8 745 59 1

116

35 715.1 753 66 1

36 687.9 711 31 1

37 742.4 753 66 1

38 748.4 757 69 1

39 763.2 765 76 1

40 769.4 767 77 1

41 707.5 737 52 1

42 728.7 749 63 1

43 671.5 711 31 1

44 707.3 741 56 1 Autism

45 691.3 706 28 1

46 774.7 765 76 1

47 672.0 753 66 1

48 707.3 684 17 1

49 733.8 741 56 1

50 679.8 729 44 1

51 717.4 744 58 1

52 784.3 794 92 1

53 776.0 769 79 1

54 720.6 729 44 1

55 767.6 763 74 1

56 709.6 729 44 1

57 673.5 569 3 1

58 681.2 729 44 1

59 681.2 711 31 1

60 676.4 716 34 1

61 749.1 776 83 1

62 704.2 678 15 1 Other - Health

Impairments

63 690.0 716 34 1

64 690.6 745 59 1

65 762.7 765 76 1

66 710.6 725 42 1

67 707.6 737 52 1

68 692.0 729 44 1

69 686.9 711 31 1 Specific Learning

Disability

70 719.9 745 59 1

71 704.1 720 38 1

72 694.3 716 34 1

73 670.4 500 1 1 Other - Health

Impairments

117

74 751.7 773 82 1

75 770.0 799 93 1

76 739.4 733 48 1

77 689.4 642 7 1 Specific Learning

Disability

78 743.0 757 69 1

79 690.1 716 34 1

80 691.5 690 20 1

81 693.3 755 68 1

82 649.4 737 52 1

83 699.8 696 22 1

84 730.6 737 52 1

85 689.3 684 17 1

86 757.7 782 87 1

87 737.0 769 79 1

88 752.9 729 44 1

89 692.1 720 38 1

90 742.0 769 79 1

91 700.9 740 54 1

92 658.5 500 1 1

93 699.5 706 28 1

94 666.8 696 22 1

95 741.5 741 56 1

96 677.5 662 10 1

97 778.0 788 90 1 Intellectually Gifted

98 699.1 627 6 1

99 672.3 653 9 1

100 719.2 748 61 1

101 752.1 782 87 1

102 740.4 737 52 1

103 756.2 776 83 1

104 733.3 794 92 1

105 737.7 776 83 1

106 686.6 729 44 1

107 693.3 690 20 1

108 746.2 765 76 1

109 767.5 749 63 1

110 665.7 725 42 1

111 670.7 701 25 1

112 724.0 757 69 1

113 642.5 569 3 1

118

114 688.9 724 41 1 Specific Learning

Disability

115 740.7 765 76 1

116 725.8 720 38 1

117 747.4 782 87 1

118 682.2 696 22 1

119 705.0 765 76 1

120 731.2 767 77 1

121 704.9 716 34 1

122 701.0 500 1 1

123 783.7 773 82 1

124 722.8 765 76 1

125 731.0 753 66 1

126 722.2 741 56 1

127 653.7 761 73 1

128 672.3 733 48 1

129 705.0 737 52 1

130 685.0 706 28 1

131 700.3 707 29 1

132 719.9 744 58 1

133 757.7 767 77 1

134 726.3 761 73 1

135 677.2 720 38 1

136 777.7 801 95 1

137 688.4 741 56 1

138 757.9 778 85 1

139 718.2 729 44 1

140 703.9 755 68 1

141 696.5 678 15 1

142 673.0 569 3 1

143 697.4 716 34 1

144 738.6 690 20 1

145 618.2 626 5 1

146 720.5 749 63 1

147 783.5 782 87 1

148 740.8 716 34 1

149 723.4 755 68 1

150 724.1 607 4 1

151 764.5 780 86 1

152 713.5 716 34 1

153 722.8 749 63 1

119

154 700.5 748 61 1

155 690.4 736 51 1

156 712.3 684 17 1

157 677.3 736 51 1

158 714.9 720 38 1

159 693.5 736 51 1

160 733.3 716 34 1

161 743.2 753 66 1

162 738.8 763 74 1

163 716.8 716 34 1

164 720.2 720 38 1 Specific Learning

Disability

165 735.3 737 52 1

166 718.0 733 48 1

167 773.3 771 80 1

168 725.1 724 41 1

169 726.6 767 77 1

170 779.0 778 85 1

171 709.5 626 5 1

172 763.9 767 77 1

173 710.3 749 63 2

174 721.9 733 48 2

175 679.3 670 12 2

176 713.5 678 15 2

177 737.9 761 73 2

178 682.9 678 15 2

179 710.4 640 7 2

180 709.4 701 25 2

181 686.6 652 8 2

182 722.5 729 44 2

183 743.1 725 42 2

184 690.1 729 44 2

185 711.7 678 15 2

186 643.3 678 15 2

187 686.1 725 42 2

188 707.1 707 29 2

189 700.6 684 17 2

190 720.2 652 8 2

191 706.8 737 52 2

192 757.7 757 69 2

193 740.3 716 34 2

120

194 705.2 684 17 2

195 709.3 737 52 2

196 718.0 711 31 2

197 638.7 652 8 2

198 716.7 745 59 2

199 677.3 720 38 2

200 746.1 733 48 2

201 719.2 716 34 2

202 734.7 716 34 2

203 645.3 652 8 2

204 694.9 684 17 2

205 730.0 729 44 2

206 672.2 662 10 2

207 712.4 725 42 2

208 763.3 757 69 2

209 708.3 711 31 2

210 695.5 733 48 2

211 712.2 701 25 2

212 723.3 725 42 2

121

Appendix 4

Algebra I TVAAS 3 year growth measures

District

Subject Year

Nr of

Students Avg Score

Avg

%-ile

Avg

Predicted

Score

Avg

Predicted

%-ile

Growth

Measure

Standard

Error

Growth

Measure

%-ile

District vs

State Avg

Algebra

I

2013 311 685.4 23 707.5 33 -20.8 R 2.7 4 Level 1

2014 276 695.5 25 717.5 36 -20.8 R 2.9 6 Level 1

2015 211 702.6 25 722.1 36 -18.3 R 3.3 12 Level 1

3-Yr-Avg 798 693.4 24 714.8 35 -20.0 R 1.7 5 Level 1

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

School 1

Subject Year

Nr of

Students Avg Score

Avg

%-ile

Avg

Predicted

Score

Avg

Predicted

%-ile

Growth

Measure

Standard

Error

Growth

Measure

%-ile

School vs

State Avg

Algebra

I

2013 265 682.6 21 707.3 33 -23.8 R 2.7 6 Level 1

2014 229 690.4 22 715.3 35 -23.7 R 2.9 8 Level 1

2015 174 704.7 26 719.8 34 -14.1 R 3.4 21 Level 1

3-Yr-Avg 668 691.0 23 713.3 33 -20.5 R 1.7 6 Level 1

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

122

School 2

Subject Year

Nr of

Students

Avg

Score

Avg %-

ile

Avg

Predicted

Score

Avg

Predicted

%-ile

Growth

Measure

Standard

Error

Growth

Measure

%-ile

School vs State

Avg

Algebra

I

2013 45 697.4 28 708.5 33 -9.6 LR 5.9 25 Level 2

2014 46 720.1 39 733.6 49 -12.1 LR 6.0 22 Level 2

2015 37 692.9 21 735.8 46 -37.2 R 6.7 3 Level 1

3-Yr-Avg 128 704.3 28 725.5 42 -19.6 R 3.6 6 Level 1

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

123

Appendix 5

Algebra II TVAAS 3 year growth measures

District

Subject Year

Nr of

Students

Avg

Score

Avg

%-ile

Avg

Predicted

Score

Avg

Predicted

%-ile

Growth

Measure

Standard

Error

Growth

Measure

%-ile

District vs State

Avg

Algebra

II

2013 304 692.3 29 703.0 35 -10.2 R 3.0 22 Level 1

2014 196 709.2 33 708.7 33 0.6 LG 3.4 47 Level 3

2015 220 717.3 35 714.9 33 2.5 LG 3.2 53 Level 3

3-Yr-Avg 720 704.5 32 708.2 34 -2.4 LR 1.8 33 Level 2

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

School 1

Subject Year

Nr of

Students

Avg

Score

Avg

%-ile

Avg

Predicted

Score

Avg

Predicted

%-ile

Growth

Measure

Standard

Error

Growth

Measure

%-ile

School vs State

Avg

Algebra II

2013 257 695.3 30 700.6 34 -5.2 LR 3.1 33 Level 2

2014 160 717.6 40 709.1 33 8.4 B 3.6 68 Level 5

2015 172 724.0 40 715.2 33 8.8 B 3.3 66 Level 5

3-Yr-Avg 589 709.8 35 707.2 34 4.0 B 1.9 50 L

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

124

School 2

Subject Year

Nr of

Students

Avg

Score

Avg %-

ile

Avg

Predicted

Score

Avg

Predicted

%-ile

Growth

Measure

Standard

Error

Growth

Measure

%-ile

School vs State

Avg

Algebra II

2013 35 694.3 30 699.6 33 -4.6 LG 7.4 34 Level 3

2014 26 694.6 25 703.8 31 -7.8 LG 7.9 25 Level 3

2015 40 706.8 29 707.6 29 -0.7 LG 6.2 43 Level 3

3-Yr-Avg 101 699.3 28 703.8 31 -4.4 LR 4.2 30 Level 2

SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). TVAAS. Retrieved from https://tvaas.sas.com/valueAdded.html

125

Appendix 6

Teacher interviews

Semi-Structured Interview 1

1. What was your role in the professional development?

I was a teacher in the professional development process. My role was to work

with other teacher to develop a standards based curriculum for Algebra I. I helped

develop a pacing guide, quizzes, and other assessments.

2. How long did you participate?

Two years

3. Do you feel it was beneficial? Why or why not?

Yes, I believe it was beneficial because it allowed me to have a clear plan for my

classroom. Each day was mapped out and all the assessments were already created. It

made teaching much easier for me, knowing that I had a plan to cover each standard in a

timely manner.

4. Did you see an impact on the day-to-day functioning of your classroom?

I did see an impact on my classroom. The students adapted to standards based

grading very quickly. The students knew exactly what to expect on a day to day basis.

5. How do you feel the students responded to the new assessment procedures?

I did see an impact on my classroom. The students adapted to standards based

grading very quickly. The students knew exactly what to expect on a day to day basis.

6. Do you feel the professional development impacted your test scores? If so, in what way?

I feel my test scores were impacted in a positive way.

126

7. Was there any difference in the way the professional development program impacted

Algebra I courses versus Algebra II courses?

I do not believe so.

Semi-Structured Interview 2

1. What was your role in the professional development?

As all other math teachers I help set local standards for both Algebra I and

Algebra II. I did most of my work in Algebra 2. I sequenced the standards, created

the pacing guides, and developed all the quizzes and tests.

2. How long did you participate?

This would be the 2nd year of implementation of standards based grading. I was

apart of the process from the beginning which began in the spring of 2014.

3. Do you feel it was beneficial? Why or why not?

The professional development was beneficial. We, as a group, were able to see a

successful plan outlined. We took this plan, made some adjustments, and molded into

something that would work for us. It was nice to have a leader that had been through

the process to be a sounding board for problems that arose.

4. If so, in what ways was it beneficial?

Our group had reference documents to guide us through the process of setting up

our own. Through the professional development we were warned of some of the

pitfalls that might be ahead of us.

5. Did you see an impact on the day-to-day functioning of your classroom?

Students had to become more responsible for their own learning.

6. How do you feel the students responded to the new assessment procedures?

127

There was an adjustment period for students but they responded quickly. The

reassessment process was the biggest change for students. Most students when they

know what is expected of them will rise to the challenge.

7. Do you feel the professional development impacted your test scores? If so, in what way?

I feel the professional development did have an impact on our scores. I honestly

feel that by having a good plan, taking ownership of it, and executing it had the greatest

impact on our test scores.

8. Was there any difference in the way the professional development program impacted

Algebra I courses versus Algebra II courses?

The program was the same for both courses.

Semi-Structured Interview 3

1. What was your role in the professional development?

I helped create the standards-based assessments, and I worked with the group to

create and divide the standards.

2. How long did you participate?

Throughout the entire process.

3. Do you feel it was beneficial? Why or why not?

Yes, it provided guidance for a fairly new teacher.

4. Did you see an impact on the day-to-day functioning of your classroom?

Somewhat

5. How do you feel the students responded to the new assessment procedures?

128

The students liked the quizzes overall, because they were short. Dividing the

quizzes helped keep the students’ attention; however, they disliked the fact that the

quizzes were not multiple choice.

6. Do you feel the professional development impacted your test scores? If so, in what way?

Yes, my scores increased after the program was implemented.

7. Was there any difference in the way the professional development program impacted

Algebra I courses versus Algebra II courses?

I have not taught Algebra II since the program has been implemented.

8. If you were to implement this program again, what changes would you make?

Provide more opportunities for collaboration.

Semi-Structured Interview 4

1. What was your role in the professional development?

I assisted the team in looking through the curriculum to determine in what order

skills should be tested. I developed a pacing and standards guide.

2. How long did you participate?

Throughout the entire process.

3. Do you feel it was beneficial? Why or why not?

It allowed me to get an idea of the actual curriculum and provided a pacing guide.

4. Did you see an impact on the day-to-day functioning of your classroom?

I have not taught Algebra I or Algebra II since the program has been

implemented.

5. What changes would you make to this process?

None

129

Semi-Structured Interview 5

1. What was your role in the professional development?

I helped create the curriculum, pacing guides, and assessments.

2. How long did you participate?

From beginning to end

3. Do you feel it was beneficial? Why or why not?

I feel the program has pros and cons.

4. In what ways was it beneficial?

It ensures the teachers cover every standard.

5. Did you see an impact on the day-to-day functioning of your classroom?

There were pros and cons. The program assessed every standard; however, it too

my students time to adjust.

6. How do you feel the students responded to the new assessment procedures?

It took some time for the students to adjust, because the quizzes were so short. It

took time to increase their understanding that they had to answer three of the five

questions correct to master the specific standard.

7. Do you feel the professional development impacted your test scores? If so, in what way?

I feel that it will eventually impact my test scores after it has been implemented a

longer period of time.

8. Was there any difference in the way the professional development program impacted

Algebra I courses versus Algebra II courses?

Not at this time.

9. What changes would you make to this process?

130

We adjusted the program as we went through, so I feel like we implemented the

changes as necessary.

131

Appendix 7

Permission to reproduce