 |  |  |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| |
||
| |||
 |
     |
|
|
Annual Report Overviews
Annual Overview
Results and DiscussionQuality of ACME Professional Development The quality of professional development that the ACME facilitators provided was evaluated primarily from eight direct observations. All observations involved sessions with teachers, except one session with administrators. Feedback from teachers about professional development came from two additional sources. First, teachers who participated in professional development responded to questionnaire items. Second, teachers who attended the summer institutes of 1998 completed evaluations about those experiences in professional development. At the end of the first year, the project had developed a strong professional development plan that supports implementation of standards-based curriculum and instruction and is responsive to participants’ needs. Observations of Professional Development The ACME project has planned long-term professional development and ongoing support for all mathematics teachers in the district in accordance with current staff development models, including yearly week-long institutes and continued support during the academic year. Structure of Professional Development The ACME project staff have developed what one staff member called "custom-designed" professional development. Project staff members have assembled materials and activities to promote exploration and acquisition of standards-based pedagogy, mathematical content and instructional strategies tailored to the preparation of the district’s teachers. The observed professional development sessions addressed classroom pedagogy by modeling effective mathematics instruction, demonstrating how to use materials in the classroom, and examining issues of scope and sequence in elementary and middle school mathematics. In a majority of the observations, facilitators promoted reflective practice. Topics that received little attention in the observed sessions included using computers in classrooms and addressing issues of access, equity, and diversity. In more than half of the observed sessions, the discussions and activities covered specific mathematics content. The project staff focused on broad topics that go beyond the computation and numeration traditionally taught in classrooms. Computation arose primarily as a tool for solving problems, not as a topic unto itself. The sessions involved a variety of topics such as numeration and number theory, measurement, patterns and relationships, and geometry. Additional topics informally observed included pre-algebra, data collection and analysis, and estimation. The topics of probability, statistics, and calculus were not observed. Project staff designed professional development to actively involve participants with their peers and to model investigative activities and instructional strategies. In the format of all professional development observations, the facilitator led large group discussions with the participants, and in all but one of these sessions, teachers discussed topics in small groups. In almost all observations with teachers, the participants were involved in investigative activities and problem-solving. In some observations, teachers briefly read NCTM standards or journal articles before discussing the topics in small and large groups. In only one observation, a session for school administrators, did the facilitators primarily present information to the participants. Quality Ratings of Professional Development As for the classroom observations of mathematics lessons, the evaluator rated the quality of design, implementation, mathematics content and culture of the professional development observed as well as the quality of pedagogical content. The observations were assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from ineffective to exemplary professional development. Level 1 refers to ineffective professional development that does not engage participants in ideas of mathematics education and is unlikely to influence their capacity to provide high quality instruction. Level 2 contains elements of effective professional development such that participants are sometimes engaged, but the session has substantial problems and is limited in its positive impact on instruction. Level 3 presents beginning stages of effective professional development with activities that are sometimes effective in enhancing participants’ effectiveness as educators, but has some weaknesses. Level 4 is effective professional development that engages most participants in the concepts of high quality mathematics education and influences their capacity as leaders. Level 5 refers to exemplary professional development in which the facilitator demonstrates skill and artful orchestration of the session, and enhances the capacity to provide high quality mathematics education and leadership qualities of all participants. Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations across the 5-point scale for dimensions of the eight professional development observations. Overall, the quality of the ACME project’s professional development is effective, but some sessions revealed areas for improvement. In general, the strengths of the observed professional development lie in the design and the culture of the sessions, both of which averaged at level 4. The design included the activities, the roles of participants and facilitators, organization, and resources of the observations that influence the participants’ capacities to provide children with effective mathematics education. The culture involved a climate of collaboration, respect, and encouragement of teachers’ active participation in sessions. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Dimensions of Eight Professional Development Observations
Source: Professional development observation protocols Other dimensions of the observed professional development sessions were effective but less powerful. Implementation, or the style in which the facilitator carries out the session, was variable (represented by a standard deviation of 1.0). On the basis of this finding, implementation of some observations was exemplary professional development, but the implementation of others presented beginning stages of effective professional development. The dimensions of mathematics content and pedagogy had the lowest average ratings (Mean = 3.4). It is possible that the variation in implementation is related to the lower ratings for mathematics content and pedagogy. If the facilitator is not highly effective at carrying out the professional development, the communication about mathematics content and pedagogy may be less likely to move participants’ understanding forward. Comparison of the following two observations that represent quality ratings of level 4 and 3 illustrates this point. Effective Professional Development The following observation exemplifies highly skilled implementation that supports participants’ exploration of standards-based pedagogy.
Source: Professional development observation field notes This observation illustrates how effective facilitation actively involves teachers in professional development. In this example, teachers challenged traditional approaches to mathematics education, explored the meaning of standards-based strategies, and aired different opinions. The skill level of the facilitator seemed to promote the engagement of participants and to boost their thinking about standards-based pedagogy to high levels. The effective implementation of the session’s design and rich cultural climate supported the deep exploration of pedagogy. Beginning Stages of Effective Professional Development The next example illustrates how implementation that is not fully effective may hamper the exchange of information between facilitator and participants about mathematical content.
Source: Professional development observation field notes This observation demonstrates how limited implementation may detract from the participants’ exploration of mathematics content. The facilitator could have encouraged participants to discuss their expertise and delved more into the development of children’s thinking and mathematical concepts embedded in fractions. This facilitator also did not draw out mathematics pedagogy as in the previous example. In conclusion, the ACME professional development highly involved participants in investigative activity, the exploration of pedagogy, and the acquisition of mathematics content. Overall, the ACME project staff provided effective professional development, although some sessions were somewhat limited in the dimensions of mathematics content and pedagogy. It is possible that by strengthening the implementation skills of some facilitators, the project will improve the mathematics content and pedagogy provided and enhance teachers’ capacity to implement standards-based curriculum and instruction. Teachers’ Attitudes Toward ACME Professional Development Teachers who had participated in ACME professional development reported on their attitudes and experiences. However, these responses must be interpreted with caution because it appears that many teachers may have misunderstood the items. An introduction to these questions referred to "the NSF-supported Local Systemic Change (LSC) project." The acronyms LSC and ACME were explained in a cover letter that accompanied the questionnaire. However, the responses indicated that teachers may have thought that the items referred to any mathematics professional development in the district. For example, over 50% of the teachers who responded indicated that they had received 20 hours or more of LSC professional development. Yet, according to attendance records as of March of 1998, only 14% of the teachers who received questionnaires had attended 20 hours or more of ACME professional development. In an earlier survey, teachers reported that they did not recognize the name of the project as ACME, and in the first year they often referred to the project by the names of the curriculum resources, Investigations and CMP (Batchelder, 1998). Moreover, prior to the ACME summer institutes of 1998, many teachers did not know that NSF has funded the ACME project, and were probably less familiar with the acronym of LSC than ACME. Because most of the teachers who responded to the questionnaire were not fifth or sixth grade teachers, and many had received professional development throughout 1997 and 1998, the validity of these responses is questionable. Teachers who reported that they attended "LSC" professional development were asked about the extent of their involvement. In general, a majority of these teachers gave intermediate responses between involved not at all and to a great extent. Over three-quarters of these teachers perceived some encouragement to develop an individualized professional development plan for mathematics education. Three-quarters or more of these teachers felt supported with time to work with other teachers in professional development, time to reflect on classroom applications, and help in implementing what they learned. In contrast, 29% of the mathematics teachers and 41% of the special education teachers who responded did not feel at all involved in planning their own professional development in mathematics education. In summary, many teachers who responded felt some encouragement and support in their professional development regarding mathematics education, although a number of these teachers did not feel involved at all in the planning. When asked how the "LSC" professional development increased their knowledge and skills in mathematics, again, most teachers gave responses between not at all and to a great extent. Over 80% of the teachers reported that participating increased their mathematics content, their understanding of how children think about/learn mathematics, and their ability to implement high-quality mathematics instructional materials. Overall, more than half of these teachers rated the "LSC" professional development as fair or good, over one-fifth rated it as very good or excellent, and less than one-fifth rated it as poor or very poor. In sum, for most of the teachers who responded to these items, their feelings about the professional development in mathematics education are between positive and negative. As a group, they reported neither strong negative feelings nor strong positive feelings about the project and their participation in charting their own professional development in mathematics education. Nevertheless, because many of these teachers may have misunderstood that these items referred only to ACME professional development, it is likely that these findings do not paint a representative picture of how teachers feel about ACME professional development. These responses possibly included the teachers’ thoughts about other mathematics professional development in the district. Key Features of ACME Professional Development Curriculum Materials The ACME professional development provides teachers with a rich opportunity to explore and become conversant with the curriculum resources of the project, Investigations in Number, Data, and Space and Connected Mathematics Project, in a number of ways, such as modeling lessons and analyzing units above and below grade levels. The project staff also helped teachers become familiar with pacing of units, demonstrated how choice time works, and how to implement partner quizzes. Participants solved problems using nontraditional algorithms, modeled mathematics concepts, and shared strategies for approaching mathematics. The following example demonstrates how facilitators lead participants in hands-on experiences with specific activities found in the resources.
Source: Professional development observation field notes By sampling the games, participants learned logistically how to manage the same activities in their classrooms. They practiced communicating about the materials in small and large group discussions and developed a deeper understanding of the implications for practice and the mathematical ideas behind the games. In the particular observation cited, several teachers came up with variations on the games to further children’s mathematical exploration through the activities. Thus, teachers were supported as they tested out materials and developed skills in communicating with colleagues about the curriculum resources. Additionally, the ACME project staff supported teachers’ exploration of the designated curriculum resources by addressing their requests. During the 1997-98 school year, fifth and sixth grade teachers requested time to compare the curriculum resources across grade levels. ACME project staff thus let participants decide what the last follow-up day would look like and designed materials to guide discussions of the similarities and differences in the fifth and sixth grade curriculum resources. Thus, in this example, ACME project staff supported not only teachers’ exploration of materials, but also responded to participants’ needs to understand scope and sequence in the project’s mathematics curriculum across resources and grade levels. Mathematics Content A major thrust of the ACME project staff’s design of the professional development in the 1997-98 school year was to help teachers deepen their knowledge of mathematics content. Major areas of focus included fractions, decimals, and multiple strategies for approaching mathematical operations (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). Some units on geometry and algebraic concepts were included. Estimation and measurement were sometimes covered as secondary topics. Facilitators also used "ten-minute math" exercises to demonstrate data collection and analysis. In content areas where the project staff recognized that the designated curriculum resources had gaps at the fourth grade level (e.g., in decimals), the professional development provided participants with supplementary exercises and materials. Through group activities, project staff introduced many tools that support these content areas such as fraction cubes, bars, and blocks; snap cubes; tens and ones blocks; and so on. Some topics such as geometry, measurement, and probability and statistics, were infrequently addressed and could be expanded in future years. In general, the ACME professional development in the baseline year exposed participants to often neglected areas of mathematics content and helped teachers move beyond the traditional mainstay of computation. The facilitators presented different models for approaching mathematical problems such as drawing pictures. In addition, the project staff facilitated teachers’ developing their abilities to "do" mathematics in ways they had never before. The following example reported by ACME project staff demonstrates how one teacher attained algebraic thinking through a professional development activity.
Source: Project staff interviews This example illustrates how a teacher gained the ability to carry out a mathematics procedure that he had not been able to do before from the ACME professional development. This teacher acquired knowledge and skills that he can now take back to his classroom and share with his students. Pedagogy A strong point of the ACME professional development is the depth and complexity in its approach to standards-based pedagogy. This point is powerful because central to standards-based practice is an understanding of the underlying philosophy and how this practice differs from traditional practice. As mentioned previously, in the first year, project staff recognized that most teachers did not understand NCTM standards for mathematics education. In the summer institutes of 1998, the staff designed an activity for all participants–newcomers and trained teachers alike–to reflect on and come to consensus with their peers about the meaning of mathematics as problem-solving, communication, reasoning, and connections to other disciplines. Other topics addressed included asking questions to promote children’s mathematics competence, journal writing to encourage reflection, and transforming ideas of reforms in mathematics education. Assessment The standards-based assessment strategies that accompany this pedagogy is an area of major concern for teachers. Grading and assessment emerge often in participants’ questions to facilitators and evaluations of ACME professional development. A major struggle for teachers has been adjusting their grading to performance-based assessment. As noted only one-quarter of the teachers who responded to the questionnaires reported that their students took tests that required descriptions or justifications, which are characteristic of investigative practice, often or always (see Table 2 in Classroom Instruction in the Baseline Year). As a result, teachers who have not received professional development in how to develop such assessments may be at a loss for how to proceed. In ACME follow-up professional development in the Spring of 1998, an example of how ACME project staff is supporting teachers in their struggle with assessment occurred when fifth grade teachers brought in student work that they had evaluated with rubrics. A rich discussion of students’ reasoning, problem-solving strategies, and mathematical understanding ensued. To address teachers’ concerns, project staff should expand and allocate more time for this sort of activity in future follow-up sessions. Generally, in the first year of the ACME project, the professional development provided participants with opportunities to explore and deepen their knowledge of the designated curriculum materials, mathematics content, and effective pedagogy. The project has some room for improvement in various areas. For one, some facilitators implement the professional development more proficiently than others. Taking steps to strengthen the skills of staff who are less experienced than others could not only improve implementation but also the delivery of mathematics content and pedagogy. Another area of improvement could be to build on the basic mathematics content already addressed with more diverse topics. Assessment is another area to consider expanding and devoting more time to in follow-up sessions. Support for Teachers’ Implementation By design, ACME professional development supports teachers as they try out the curriculum materials in their classrooms. As noted, the professional development plan is extensive and intends to involve each teacher for three years. In addition to two years of summer institutes and follow-up professional development during the school year, teachers participate in one year of support on their campuses. These follow-up sessions provide opportunities for teachers to bring in their experiences from their classrooms and share with their peers. Teachers also exchange strategies that they used for classroom management, assessment, student grouping, differentiation, and problem-solving. For example, project staff reported that teachers brought in factor pairs for the number 1100, looked at all of the different strategies, and compared them. Although the project team orchestrated this activity, the team stepped back and the participants took over by pointing out how other teachers’ students were approaching the problem. ACME project staff have adopted other strategies to support teachers in implementing the new curriculum materials. A substantial area of support for implementation was allotting teachers planning time during professional development and providing an opportunity for them to share with their colleagues. On the teacher questionnaires, 67% of the mathematics teachers and 77% of the special education teachers who responded reported that they did not have time during the regular school week to work with their peers on mathematics curriculum and instruction. In evaluations of professional development and in direct conversation with facilitators, participants requested time to plan with their peers. Thus, project staff integrated this activity into the plan of professional development sessions. In addition to planning time to support implementation, project staff laid out suggestions for the order of units and number of days to spend on each unit as well as basic structures for mathematics lessons. Project staff also supplied participants with supplementary materials to carry out activities in their classrooms, such as card stock copies of activity pieces from the resources. In addition to support in professional development, ACME project staff are beginning to provide teachers with more personal, informal support. In the Fall of 1998, the ACME project staff began devising a method for team teaching with teachers in the district. The purpose of this plan is to provide campus-based support and to allow staff to return to classrooms, but also to develop strategies to support teachers who are attempting to implement the standards-based curriculum and instruction on their campuses. Because the project staff consists of eight mathematics specialists who cannot reach personally the more than 2000 mathematics teachers who will participate in ACME professional development, the project must enlist more facilitators. Perhaps staff could adapt this model of peer coaching to teachers and develop strategies to support more teachers districtwide. Quality Facilitation At the end of the first year of the ACME project, the professional development facilitators consisted of eight mathematics specialists. Project staff reported that all team members were hired because they were outstanding mathematics teachers, demonstrated leadership on their campuses in mathematics education, and implemented a standards-based curriculum in their classrooms. Every one had experience providing professional development to other teachers through the district, regions of the state, and/or national organizations, although some had more experience than others. Additionally, every team member developed their own professional development by attending conferences and workshops where they received training and information that they brought back to the classroom. In the first year, the ACME project essentially had no teacher leaders to facilitate professional development. At that time, the project staff was able to handle the demand. This plan was devised in collaboration with the Dana Center to avoid the diffusion of knowledge and skills that can occur when information passes through multiple trainers with different levels of expertise. However, to continue the project as planned, ACME project staff recognize that teacher leaders will need to be added to help with professional development in the Summer of 1999 because the number of teachers attending will increase as grade levels are added. As the cross-site evaluation of local systemic change suggests (Weiss, Rapp, & Montgomery, 1997), the quality of professional development that teachers receive may decrease. ACME project staff should take steps to ensure that teacher leaders are well trained for their roles and that they are motivated to become leaders in mathematics reform. Development of Professional Learning Community Several components of ACME professional development foster a learning community of professionals. The ACME project staff of eight members together comprise a community of learners. As one staff member stated, the team has a "focused vision," use the "same language," and is "philosophically aligned." The team has a culture of learning and supportive collegiality. The team’s vision and enthusiasm for learning spreads to participants in professional development. The team encourages participants to build on the community by presenting itself as an accessible resource and by drawing upon the experiences of teachers to facilitate rich discussion during professional development. One facilitator opened a summer institute with an invitation for participants to interrupt and an impromptu question and answer period. This climate inspired participants to share and support each other. Another observation of fourth grade teachers’ summer institute began in the following way:
Source: Professional development observation field notes This observation illustrates how the environment that the ACME facilitators have established for professional development can set the stage for a powerful exchange between adult learners. In this example, the community of learners ignited spontaneously by sharing essential information and supporting one another. The ACME project provided a forum in which teachers themselves addressed concerns about implementing the new curriculum and instruction. To further guide the development of a professional community of learners and to foster ownership in the community, ACME project staff need to recognize similar events as they emerge. Another format for developing a community of learners in the original design of the ACME project was to foster support among teachers on every campus. Thus, in the first year of the ACME project, grade level teams attended follow-up sessions during the school year together. This design allowed campus teams to take their shared learning experiences from professional development back to their campuses and expand on them. Although many teachers appreciated this arrangement, some teachers and school administrators did not feel comfortable with all teachers from one grade level being away from their campuses on the same day. To accommodate this concern, ACME project staff planned a variety of follow-up options, including release time during the day and afternoon and Saturday sessions. These options allow campuses to continue to attend together. In sum, as ACME project staff support implementation and contribute to the development of a professional learning community, the strengths emerge in the flexible character of the staff and their willingness to take stock and make adjustments in the plan. However, one point to consider is the size and scope of the project. In a growing urban district, ACME project staff cannot address every need or concern that arises. In the team’s August retreat, a major theme that arose was sharing responsibility for the project. Teachers, parents, administrators, central office staff, board members, and other stakeholders in the community can also take a lead to help make the project work. Project staff needs to take note of where initiative and motivation may be emerging across the district. While the staff could remain a resource for support and ideas, recognizing interest, enthusiasm, and devotion to the new curriculum and resources could help share the responsibility for making the project work.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
