1. Promoting Learning & Understanding for Students MSP project meeting  January 9, 2014 MathPLUS 1 and 2

2. Funded through the Math/Science Partnership program (KDE through the USDE) Grant cycle: July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013 Professional learning for high school teachers of mathematics, principals and instructional supervisors

3. The GRREC Team  George Wilson, Executive Director  Sandra Baker, Associate Executive Director  Kim Estes, Math Consultant  Johna Rodgers, Grant Writer

4. WKU Partners Dr. Hope Marchionda, Asst. Professor, Mathematics Dr. Ric Keaster, Professor, Ed. Leadership Dr. Gary Houchens, Assoc. Professor, Ed. Leadership

5. Participating Districts MathPLUS 1 Allen County-Scottsville Campbellsville Independent Hart County LaRue County Monroe County MathPLUS 2 Butler County Logan County Russellville Independent Taylor County Union County

6. Project Goals #1 Create model classrooms of student-centered learning in mathematics Increase in teacher content knowledge Measurable shift in classroom practice from mostly teacher-centered to more student-centered Measurable shift in teacher beliefs related to teaching and learning in mathematics

7. Project Goals #2 Increase academic success for high school students in mathematics An overall increase in student achievement as measured by the state assessment in mathematics (EOC); ACT and PLAN scores as well as school-level benchmark assessments

8. Project Goals #3 Improve leader capacity to support instruction in mathematics Principals and instructional supervisors will know what good mathematics education looks like and will have the capacity and knowledge to support good mathematics teaching and learning within their buildings.

9. Project Design  Content PD through the new Common Core State Standards for Mathematics MathPLUS staff helped teachers deconstruct the standards then embed the targets in intentional lessons focused on thinking strategies and student-centered problem solving.

10. Project Design National math trainer and educator, Amy Jones-Lewis, along with Dr. Hope Marchionda - †modeled for teachers within a student-centered environment †moved teachers toward a deeper conceptual understanding of mathematics †demonstrated good instruction incorporating strategies teachers could utilize with students †increased teacher content knowledge

11. Project Design  Authentic, guided learning communities Resources: Secondary Lenses on Learning: Team Leadership for Mathematics in Middle and High School (Grant, 2009) and PRIME Framework (capacity building to support mathematics instruction) Dr. Gary Houchens, Sandra Baker and Kim Estes worked with teacher leaders and administrators through problem-solving tasks, research articles and case studies. The work transferred to school-level PLCs and helped teams create a mathematics improvement plan for their school.

12. Project Design  Thinking strategies in mathematics Provided direct training and modeling of the thinking/literacy strategies for mathematics  Coaching On-site visits were made by project coordinator to plan, observe and reflect with teachers on lessons. Teachers were also coached through collegial observations and hosting of demonstration lessons.

13. Project Design  Creation of demonstration high schools to showcase student-centered learning in mathematics - teachers created and used intentional, well-planned lessons with student friendly learning targets, formative assessment, and embedded thinking strategies

14. Professional Learning Strategies Content academies and face-to-face professional development throughout the project focused on Stretch learning in mathematics Embedding Thinking Strategies for mathematics literacy Student-centered problem solving Lenses on Learning guided PLC work Cognitive Coaching Demonstration lessons

15. Data Collection Praxis II (PRE/POST) required of all participants Fall of 2010 and Spring of 2013 Pre/post observations using multivariate rubric designed around INTASC Standard 1 (Instructional Strategies Continuum, University of North Carolina, 2001) Project-created Coaching Instrument completed by program personnel following coaching sessions (components based on Thinking Strategies and Cognitive Coaching®)

16. Data Collection Project-created Program Goals Instrument (“Before and After” Perceptions) – End of program reflection assessment Self-Evaluation Rubric for PRIME Equity Leadership - participants estimate where they lie regarding their capacity to influence the quality of instruction and learning that goes on in their schools PD evaluations (quantitative and qualitative)

17. Data Collection Beliefs about Mathematics Teaching and Learning Instrument Baseline data from benchmark assessments EOC, ACT, PLAN data – – Individual Teacher Data – Students’ Scores of participating teachers – Participant schools and comparison schools

18. Evaluation Methods PRAXIS -Means from PRE and POST compared (including subscales); T tests run for test of significant difference gains Coaching instrument - Individual results and group means from Session 1 and Session 2 compared; T tests run for test of significant difference (gains) PRIME - Results were assessed based on movement (PRE/POST) from lower to higher numbers or understanding/actions regarding two activities

19. Evaluation Methods o PD Evaluations - Means from Year 1 compared to Year 2 and Year 3 on questions concerning math content o INTASC – movement to right of continuum from year 1 to year 3 with participants classified (Basic, Emerging, Proficient or Master) o Before/After assessments - T tests run for test of significant difference (gains)

20. Evaluation Methods o EOC - (Years 1 through 3) data comparison to measure stated goal increases in % of students achieving Proficient/Distinguished o ACT and PLAN – (Years 1 through 3) data comparison to measure stated goal increases in % of students scoring benchmark o Beliefs - Results analyzed by examining movement of group means toward program goal- preferred responses

21. Challenges Change in state assessment during the project Teachers more focused on new content standards and less focused on standards for mathematical practice Minimal understanding of the Thinking Strategies and metacognition for students Busy schedule of administrators resulted in low attendance by full leadership teams throughout the project

22. Lessons Learned Due to administrators’ busy schedules, we are now taking the PLC work of the new grants into the schools; making site visits along with WKU partners; limiting the number of events that take teachers and administrators away from the school Need for thinking strategies to be modeled within a lesson; intentional transfer to students selecting and using the appropriate thinking strategy during the learning process

23. Successes Demonstration Lessons – Value of protocol (prebrief, look fors; observation, noticings; debrief, take aways) In-house collegial observations Regional networking Building capacity within the schools Sustainability