Improving Teacher Quality Grants, Cycle 6: External Evaluation Report Highlights and Spotlights

1. Improving Teacher Quality Grants, Cycle 6:External Evaluation ReportHighlights and Spotlights December 3rd, 2009 University of Missouri Evaluation Team

2. Principal Investigators Sandra Abell Fran Arbaugh Mark Ehlert John Lannin Rose Marra Graduate Research Assistants Ya-Wen Cheng Mark Gagnon Michele Lee Dominike Merle S. Rená Smith Evaluation Team

3. Context of the Evaluation • Improving Teacher QualityGrant program, Cycle 6, 2008-2009 • Required 50% or more participants from high-need schools • Funded 8 professional development projects (2 from previous cycle) • Science and mathematics, grades K-12 • Formative and summative evaluation

4. Funded Projects

5. Participant Summary • 264 participants: 252 teachers, 8 pre-service teachers, and 4 administrators;   • More taught science at the end of Cycle 6 than at the beginning; • Most were elementary or middle level teachers; • 58.7% were new to the ITQG program; • Taught in 61 different Missouri school districts, and 6 private schools; • Directly impacted 15,523 students in the 2008-2009 school year.

6. Percentage of Participants from High-Need Districts • 5 projects met or exceeded 50% goal • 3 projects involved fewer than 50% (2 funded in Cycle 4) • Overall greater % than in Cycles 3, 4, or 5

7. ITQG Objectives • Improve student achievement in mathematics and/or science • Increase teachers’ knowledge and understanding of key mathematics and/or science concepts • Improve teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices in inquiry-based instruction • Enhance teachers’ use of assessment to monitor effectiveness of instruction • Impact the preparation of pre-service teachers

8. Teacher Content Knowledge Pre- and Posttests Show Gains

9. Curriculum Design and Content Knowledge: Teachers as Learners

10. Curriculum Design and Content Knowledge: Teachers as Learners

11. Student Achievement

12. Student Achievement

13. Student Achievement

14. Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry • Objective 3 from the Cycle 6 RFP: • “To improve teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices that utilize scientifically-based research findings and best practices in inquiry-based instruction.”

15. Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry

16. Teacher Knowledge and Practice of Inquiry

17. Teacher Assessment Knowledge • Objective 4 from the Cycle 6 RFP: • “To enhance teachers’ use of assessment data to monitor the effectiveness of their instruction.”

18. Teacher Assessment Knowledge

19. Impact on Higher Education • Objective 5 from the Cycle 6 RFP: “Impact the preparation of pre-service teachers through improvement to existing coursework or the design of new mathematics and/or science content and/or pedagogy courses.” • Outcomes: • 2 projects included preservice teachers • 2 new graduate content courses • New program of study—minor in physics • Changes to existing courses

20. Spotlight on Best Practices • Related to Higher Ed/K-12 Collaboration • Related to views of teaching and learning • Related to design features

21. Spotlight on Collaboration Effective PD “links with other parts of the education system” (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003, p. 44) • UMKC and Kansas City Schools

22. Spotlight on Collaboration

23. Spotlight on Views of Teaching and Learning “effective PD is driven by a well-defined image of effective classroom learning and teaching” (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003, p. 44) • Learning cycle: Rockhurst and UMKC • 5E: Lincoln and MU • Seamless assessment and universal design: MU

24. Spotlight on Views of Teaching and Learning Teacher Satisfaction with Projects: “Instructors modeled good practice”

25. Spotlight on Design Features • TRCC math coach in schools / classrooms • MU science camp for children and opportunity for teachers to plan, deliver, and review lessons with kids (mean value on contribution of Summer Institute = 10.0)

26. Questions/Comment Copies of the Cycle 6 Report and Executive Summary available at: www.pdeval.missouri.edu