Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKarly Coates Modified over 4 years ago

1
**TIME Teacher Improvement through Mathematics Education**

Josh Chesler University of Arizona

2
About TIME Partnership between Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) and University of Arizona. Two weeklong intensive workshop. 4th – 8th grade teachers from TUSD Taught by U of A Mathematicians and Mathematics Educators. Four daylong follow-up sessions throughout school year. Optional follow-up week the following summer

3
Content of TIME Four 15-hour modules: Number, Proportion, Fraction, Algebraic Thinking. Follow-up Session. Two 15-hour modules: Geometry and Probability. Driven by the Mathematics Problems. Example: Locker problem Swap teachers half-way through. manipulatives

4
**Structure of TIME Four Phases of Instruction.**

Learn the Content Reinforce the Content Consolidate the Learning Implement the Content Model Instruction which supports high-level mathematical activity. Pedagogical and content knowledge

5
Some Lessons of TIME Set participants’ expectations about the learning environment Build a supportive community Make methods explicit Provide ample opportunities for reflection. Hi Josh - I think you should have more than two bullets here. I imagine you were planning to talk about the things listed below anyway, but this is what I had in mind regarding the added bullets: -participants went through various levels of frustration while deepening their mathematical knowledge. Setting expectations was absolutely essential, but those expectations were only realized through the process of engaging with the mathematics which could only occur with ongoing support. Support took multiple forms, including listening carefully to and validating participants’ feelings and needs, allowing (and even encouraging) participants to work at paces comfortable to them and to take breaks as needed, and helping groups to work well together - for example, tactfully suggesting methods participants can use to help one another without “taking over” the thinking of the group. Importantly, these types of supports can create space for deeper mathematical thinking, rather than relieving participants of the responsibility for their own learning. I am thinking for bullet three about the decision-making that goes on when we lead whole class discussions. In particular, mathematical decisions such as WHAT we think about/do during small group work to set up good whole class discussion, WHY we ask for a different solutions in particular orders, WHEN AND HOW we explicitly link solutions - e.g., linking symbolic and pictoral representations, HOW we scaffold thinking, WHY we ask specific questions about solutions, etc. I think we have found through time that modeling these actions is good, but repeatedly discussing the modeling of these actions is important. Of course this also goes into your fourth bullet . . .

6
**Impact of TIME (students)**

1st Quarter to 4th Quarter Grades and Benchmarks in Math Classes during the school year. Participating Control Change N % Diff% Grades 6 – 8 Decrease Grade 126 26.4 247 36.2 -9.8 No Change 234 49.1 305 44.7 +4.4 Increase Grade 117 24.5 131 19.3 +5.2 Benchmarks Grades 3-5 144 24.1 21 25.9 -1.8 293 40 49.4 -0.3 160 26.8 20 24.7 +2.1 AIMS data was inconclusive

7
**Impact of TIME (teachers)**

Learning Mathematics for Teaching (Hill and Ball, University of Michigan) Pretest to Posttest Results for Teachers Participating in the MSP Project and Comparison/Control Teachers Impact of TIME (teachers) Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) pre- and post- tests. Tests mathematical skills/knowledge. Every participant participated in testing. The gain of the participating teachers (5.07) versus the control teacher gains (1.15) was 4.5 times greater than the control teachers . Pre LMT Post LMT LMT N M SD Diff Numbers Participating 154 7.01 2.41 8.19 2.69 1.18 Control 13 8.39 1.98 8.31 2.87 -0.08 Algebra 12.79 4.71 15.26 4.66 2.47 15.92 4.27 16.62 5.85 0.7 Geometry 11.43 3.58 12.84 2.99 1.41 13.54 2.9 14.08 3.15 0.54 Total 31.22 8.74 36.29 8.63 5.07 37.85 7.61 39 10.67 1.15 Reliable and valid measure. Teachers perceived their skills increasing due to the trainings. A total of 92% of the mathematical elements that the teachers evaluated their progress on showed a perceived improvement between 60^ and 100% Goal was: pedagogical and content knowledge

8
The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in this presentation are not intended as an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.

Similar presentations

OK

Lenoir STEM Learning Community. Just the facts, ma’am… 0 What is Lenoir STEM? A program funded by MSP grant with additional financial support from industry.

Lenoir STEM Learning Community. Just the facts, ma’am… 0 What is Lenoir STEM? A program funded by MSP grant with additional financial support from industry.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To ensure the functioning of the site, we use **cookies**. We share information about your activities on the site with our partners and Google partners: social networks and companies engaged in advertising and web analytics. For more information, see the Privacy Policy and Google Privacy & Terms.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.

Ads by Google

Download ppt on defects of vision Ppt on measuring central venous pressure Ppt on new zealand culture between men Ppt on waves tides and ocean currents lab Ppt on taking notes Ppt on national stock exchange in india Ppt on acid-base titration calculation Ppt on marie curie's husband Ppt on pin diode spice Ppt on library management system in c++