Douglas T. Owens 1 , Karen E. Irving 1 , Stephen J. Pape 2 , Vehbi A. Sanalan 3 ,

1. Professional Development for Teaching in Connected Classrooms Classroom Connectivity in Promoting Mathematics and Science AchievementCCMS Project Douglas T. Owens1, Karen E. Irving1, Stephen J. Pape2,Vehbi A. Sanalan3, Sharilyn K. Owens4, Louis Abrahamson5 1The Ohio State University 2University of Florida, 3Erzincan University, Turkey 4Applachian State University 5Better Education Foundation

2. Additional Research Team Frank Demana, Co-PI,The Ohio State University Joan Herman,David Silver, Christy Boscardin,UCLA,CRESST Sukru Kaya, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Sedat Ucar, Cukurova University, Turkey Clare Bell, University of Missouri, Kansas City Melissa Shirley,University of Louisville Jonathan Bostic,University of Florida The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University.  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. TI Navigator slides adapted from. a presentation by Eileen Shihadeh, Texas Instruments.

3. CCMS Project Overview • Professional development and research project • Algebra I and Physical Science • Classroom connectivity technology • Summer Institute – training • T3 conference follow-up, annually

4. The TI-Navigator™ Connected Classroom The TI-Navigator System allows the teacher to: • Create a collaborative learning environment • Engage in formative assessment by way of immediate feedback • Enhance classroom management of TI graphing technology

5. Quick Poll (QP) – primarily formative assessment Learning Check and Class Analysis (LC & CA) – generally formative or summative assessment Activity Center (AC) – principally for concept development Screen Capture (SC) – may be used for formative assessment or concept development TI Navigator Components

6. Theoretical Framework • Classroom environments that support achievement and self-efficacy • Social-constructivist models of teaching and learning • Classroom discourse processes • HPL Classroom environment centeredness constructs: learner, knowledge, assessment, and community centeredness

7. Components of Classroom Connectivity Technology • Interactive instruction • Positive motivational climate • Technology-assisted formative assessment • Increased feedback to students and teacher • Access to multiple representations of mathematics concepts • Higher demands for participation

8. Research Design • Year 1 (2005-2006) – Algebra I • Randomized assignment to treatment or delayed treatment group • Cross-over design – control group received delayed treatment • Mixed methodology

9. Intervention • Teachers • One-week summer training institute • PD training on technology and pedagogical implications (brief lectures) • T-cubed International Conference (winter) • Listserv • On-line courses • Students • Use of connectivity technology with graphing calculator

10. PD has taken place in isolation and has been dependent on input from outside experts (Sandholtz, 1999) Typically “fragmented, intellectually superficial” seminars (Borko, 2004, p.4) Do not provide ongoing guidance for teachers as they attempt to learn and change their practices (Barnett, 2002) Professional Development

11. Commitment to a vision and standards Analysis of student learning Goal setting In the context of classrooms: Planning Execution Evaluation Consider teacher knowledge and beliefs Characteristics of Effective PD Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003

12. Ten Research Based Principles of PD • Determine teacher interest in professional development and provide individual choice; • Develop working groups within schools with community and administrative support; • Identify and manage possible classroom, school, and district level barriers; • Model classroom approaches to help teachers develop better understanding change; • Request teacher commitment to active and sustained participation;

13. Ten Research Based Principles of PD • Acknowledge the importance of practice on teacher beliefs by validating their classroom practices; 7. Provide time for reflection and opportunities for group discussion and feedback; 8. Allow teachers to develop ownership by encouraging the development of their professional judgment; 9. Acknowledge the slow and incremental process of change and celebrate small successes; 10. Encourage goal setting for continued professional development. Clarke, 1994

14. Attend to teacher’s varying levels of proficiency (Holland, 2001) Student gains found when classroom response systems support formative assessment within a constructivist-oriented classroom (Judson & Sawada, 2002) “Literature points to the pedagogical practices of the instructor, not the incorporation of the technology as being key to student comprehension” (Judson & Sawada, 2002, p. 167) Effective Technology-Focused PD

15. Week-long summer institute Follow-up workshops at T3 Conferences Web-based training Project listserv CCMS Professional Development

16. Teachers teaching other teachers—“You have to walk the walk to talk the talk” Experienced teacher-instructors who use technology in their own classrooms teach from their experience Assistants also experienced T3 instructors to aid in practice sessions Daily debriefing sessions T3 Model of PD

17. Curriculum-specific applications: Algebra I Technology-focused hands-on instruction and practice in “student” and “teacher” roles Faculty lectures infused theoretical and pedagogical focus Differentiation based on technology ability level Lesson projects and presentations Summer Institute Components

18. Productive classroom discourse Formative assessment Teacher’s role in supporting self-regulation Student self-regulated learning strategies Learning environments - How People Learn (NRC) Pedagogical Components

19. Mixed methodology Treatment group in 2005 (N=62); control group in 2006 (N=55) Five days - 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Participant feedback shared with instructors during planning session prior to year 2 summer institute Research Design - PD

20. Teacher Characteristics (treatment and control, respectively) 70% female 88.2% and 82.3% white 67.6% and 79.4% math majors 13.18% (SD=7.19) and 14.79 (SD=10.66) years teaching experience 87 (76%) teachers remained at the end of year 1 Instructors – 3 instructors each week (4 total year 1; 3 total year 2); each >20 years teaching experience; T3 instructors Participants

21. Measures: Demographic survey Technology Use and Professional Development survey Institute Evaluation form Audio-taped planning session Videotaped summer institute sessions Teacher telephone interviews Classroom observations Data Collection

22. Descriptive statistics of Likert-type questionnaires Grounded analysis of open-ended responses on institute surveys, telephone interviews, and classroom observations Data Analyses

23. Year 2 videotapes provide evidence of teacher-instructors incorporating pedagogy. For example: In discussion of indicating correct answer for a SC, instructor discussed potential for increased argumentation if correct answer is not indicated Before I show it to the class, I could group all the “good” wrong answers to the top. I could ask “How did someone get such and such. I could have kids defend. Why is 3 the correct answer? Have them tell why do you think it is. Why is it not? Having kids starting to talk mathematics. [July 31, 2006; year 2, day 1] Results

24. I can capture this entire [class] snapshot to look at later during my conference period. Also, in addition to [disciplinary acts], saving a [SC] picture is crucial for us deciding which kids need remediation, which kids need intervention, who do I need to focus on, all this educational stuff we have to be concerned about. We can save it to look back at later. In the heat of the battle of the classroom we might not be able to address every single misconception. [July 31, 2006; year 2, day 1] Results

25. Results • Teacher –instructor (I 1) reinforced pedagogical strategies of speaking mathematically in class discussion, classroom discourse, and engagement: Participant 1 (P 1): We have to reset our window. I 1: Ahh – This is a great discussion because I would hope the kids would say our window is not right now. What do we need to change our window to? P 1: Something above 84. I 1: So we have students in the calculator change the window to something above 84. Now we have a discussion. I want to pause for a second. [continued]

26. I 1: Why do you think it might be more powerful to have every student look at this graph versus the teacher standing up here just graphing “watch [me].” P 2: Ask them what they thought. P 3: And you could do a Quick Poll of what they thought. P 4: That way you would have everybody engaged. I 1: You said the magic word, engaged! They are taking active participation in the activity. . . I 1: (summarizing a few seconds later) Obviously we are talking about discourse, and this is great discussion. In the Navigator world this is what should be going on. . . . So we get engagement. [August 2, 2006; Year 2; Day 3; PM]

27. In discussion a participant asked about indicating the correct answer for a Quick Poll. Another instructor discussed the potential for increased argumentation if the correct answer is not indicated: I 2: When it comes to your presentations on Friday, . . . use all of this technology in a pedagogically sound way. [After a brief exchange I 2 continued] That’s the discourse; when we get to the point where we can talk about mathematics and talk about error analysis and get kids to revise their incorrect thinking and get their incorrect thinking to be correct. [continued] Results

28. I 2: I use a little trick: I say give me a good case for why we choose ‘false;’ or make a good case for choice ‘c.’ P 5: If they saw the correct answer [bar] in green, there would be no discussion. If you set the system so the correct answer is not indicated we can go back later to see the correct answer. I 3: Certainly there is tremendous discussion without knowing the correct answer, because the kids argue more vehemently. Sometimes, I seed my questions so the [apparently] obvious answer is the wrong one. [August 1, 2006; Year 2; Day 2; PM]

29. Institute Evaluation Survey Results • Administered at the end of each summer institute • Likert-type scale 1 (low) to 5 (high) • Overall, participants rated the Summer Institute very highly

30. Institute Evaluation Survey Results

31. Appropriateness of Institute Content

32. Understanding Specific Pedagogies

33. Understanding Specific Pedagogies

34. How might we strike a balance between technology-focused and pedagogy-focused PD? What are the roles of university faculty members and classroom teacher instructors? How do we make pedagogy explicit while embedding within technology training? Participant Discussion

35. Thank You! Copies of this presentation will be available at the “project publications” link on our project website http://www.ccms.osu.edu