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.