1. Dr. Travis Park, Assoc Prof, Cornell University NACTEI Philadelphia, PA May 12, 2011

2. National Research Center for Career and Technical Education University of Louisville College of Education and Human Development

3. NRCCTE Partners

4. Mission The National Center will improve the engagement, achievement, and transition of high school and postsecondary CTE students through technical assistance to states, professional development for CTE practitioners, and dissemination of knowledge derived from scientifically-based research.

5. Three Foci Engagement – Completing high school, completing programs Achievement – technical and academic Transition – to continued formal learning without the need for remediation; and to the workplace

6. Four Main Activities Research (Scientifically-based) Dissemination Technical Assistance Professional Development www.nrccte.org

7. Curriculum Integration Research Math-in-CTE: study complete Math-in-CTE Technical Assistance— five years Authentic Literacy: complete Launching technical assistance this year Science-in-CTE: Full study underway

9. A Process and A Pedagogy a process and a pedagogy through which to enhance and teach the academics embedded within existing CTE curricula

10. 3 levels of integration System Administrative commitment Funding support Logistical support Curricular Opportunities in courses Coherence through programs Instructional Pedagogic framework Teacher skill/performance

11. Purpose Determine impact of reading strategies on comprehension for students enrolled in CTE Objective Compare the effects of reading strategy instruction under a control condition and two models of content-area reading interventions: Ash Framework and MAX Teaching Research Purposes

12. Literacy-in-CTE 96 teachers in 3 groups 15 returning teachers Prof Dev: July - August 2009 2.5 + days Treatment period: September 17 – April 9 Weekly teacher reports of reading activities

13. Experimental design Random Assignment Pretest only Demographic survey Pretest and posttest Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (~50 min) Grade level 7-9 Forms S & T

14. The Research Design X C C X Difference On-going fidelity of treatment measures Difference The Experimental Treatment Pre-Test Students Post-Test Students Teacher Professional Development Implementation of Lessons

15. Teachers GroupNYSCTotal X 1. MAX 14 28 X 2. Ash 131225 X 3. MAX Y2 15---15 X 4. Control 91928 Total514596

16. Student demographics Grade level Grade point average Gender Ethnicity Native language School lunch program Mother’s education level Father’s education level

17. Students DemographicOverallControlMAXAshMAX Y2 NY57.028.151.863.3100.0 SC43.071.948.236.7--- Female56.963.956.747.872.3 11-12 th grade69.667.958.962.797.5 White61.155.258.355.184.3 FRPL38.840.444.034.936.6 Mother < HS32.031.333.427.738.7 Father < HS35.633.036.632.743.7

18. Coop Learning & Skills Acquisition MAXSAMCoop Learning Before Reading M otivation Reducing the anxiety and improving the probability of success in reading Introduction and modeling of the skill Written commitment and small-group discussion During Reading A cquisition Individual silent reading for personal interpretation Guided practice in learning skill Individual gathering of data for discussion After Reading E X tension Cooperative construction of meaning through discussion, writing, etc. Reflection on how the skill worked Attempt to achieve small group and class consensus

19. 6 Essential Elements for Adolescent Literacy Instruction (Ash) 1.) Guided Reading of Text 2.) Direct Instruction 3.) Peer-Led Discussion of Text 4.) Word Study 5.) Purposeful Oral Reading and Text Production 6.) Inquiry Learning

20. Full Year Analysis Null HypothesisANCOVA H o 1a : NSD GMRT total score of MAX v. CTRLfail to reject H o 1b : NSD GMRT total score of Ash v. CTRLreject H o 1c : NSD GMRT total score of MAX Y2 v. CTRLreject H o 2a : NSD GMRT vocab score of MAX v. CTRLreject H o 2b : NSD GMRT vocab score of Ash v. CTRLreject H o 2c : NSD GMRT vocab score of MAX Y2 v. CTRLreject H o 3a : NSD GMRT comp score of MAX v. CTRLfail to reject H o 3b : NSD GMRT comp score of Ash v. CTRLreject H o 3c : NSD GMRT comp score of MAX Y2 v. CTRLreject

21. PretestPosttest GroupESS MeanRaw MeanESS MeanRaw Mean GMRT Vocabulary Control554.4830.31552.1029.28 MAX554.9430.55559.48 * 31.07 Ash553.8330.24560.05 * 31.09 MAX Y2555.0030.44566.30 * 32.56 GMRT Comprehension Control537.0629.94528.52 * 27.25 MAX546.3432.81540.17 * 30.73 Ash539.3830.82538.7630.24 MAX Y2543.5331.75551.18 * 33.40 GMRT Total Control544.1660.24538.50 * 56.53 MAX549.0263.36548.0461.80 Ash545.0461.07548.02 * 61.28 MAX Y2547.2462.19556.57 * 65.87

22. Posttest – ESS Means

23. HLM 2: Effects of Treatment and Baseline GMRT on Posttest GMRT Total ESS Fixed EffectsEstSEdftp Intercept 149.6710.421675.9814.37<0.001 MAX vs. Control 6.163.8087.101.620.109 Ash vs. Control 8.523.8279.972.230.028 MAX Y2 vs. Control 17.894.3581.344.12<0.001 Baseline GMRT ESS 0.710.021870.3738.39<0.001 Covariance ParametersEstSEWald Zp Residual 710.4223.7529.92<0.001 Random Intercept (Teacher) 145.9228.525.12<0.001

24. HLM 2: Effects of Treatment and Baseline GMRT on Posttest GMRT Total ESS Fixed EffectsEstSEdftp Intercept 149.6710.421675.9814.37<0.001 MAX vs. Control 6.163.8087.101.620.109 Ash vs. Control 8.523.8279.972.230.028 MAX Y2 vs. Control 17.894.3581.344.12<0.001 Baseline GMRT ESS 0.710.021870.3738.39<0.001 Covariance ParametersEstSEWald Zp Residual 710.4223.7529.92<0.001 Random Intercept (Teacher) 145.9228.525.12<0.001

25. HLM 6: Effects of Treatment and Baseline GMRT on Posttest GMRT Vocabulary ESS Fixed EffectsEstSEdftp Intercept 166.3911.441624.1414.54.000 MAX vs. Control 6.954.1082.861.69.094 Ash vs. Control 8.134.1075.281.98.051 MAX Y2 vs. Control 16.444.6876.863.52.001 Baseline GMRT ESS.70.021850.1534.65<0.001 Covariance ParametersEstSEWald Zp Residual 971.4332.5129.89<0.001 Random Intercept (Teacher) 161.3933.934.76<0.001

26. HLM 6: Effects of Treatment and Baseline GMRT on Posttest GMRT Vocabulary ESS Fixed EffectsEstSEdftp Intercept 166.3911.441624.1414.54.000 MAX vs. Control 6.954.1082.861.69.094 Ash vs. Control 8.134.1075.281.98.051 MAX Y2 vs. Control 16.444.6876.863.52.001 Baseline GMRT ESS.70.021850.1534.65<0.001 Covariance ParametersEstSEWald Zp Residual 971.4332.5129.89<0.001 Random Intercept (Teacher) 161.3933.934.76<0.001

27. HLM 9: Effects of Treatment and Baseline GMRT on Posttest GMRT Comprehension ESS Fixed EffectsEstSEdftp Intercept 210.7911.431603.7818.44.000 MAX vs. Control 7.014.8288.401.45.150 Ash vs. Control 8.924.8380.771.85.069 MAX Y2 vs. Control 20.435.5182.293.71.000 Baseline GMRT ESS.59.021876.2528.86<0.001 Covariance ParametersEstSEWald Zp Residual 1190.9739.8029.93<0.001 Random Intercept (Teacher) 231.3345.465.10<0.001

28. HLM 9: Effects of Treatment and Baseline GMRT on Posttest GMRT Comprehension ESS Fixed EffectsEstSEdftp Intercept 210.7911.431603.7818.44.000 MAX vs. Control 7.014.8288.401.45.150 Ash vs. Control 8.924.8380.771.85.069 MAX Y2 vs. Control 20.435.5182.293.71.000 Baseline GMRT ESS.59.021876.2528.86<0.001 Covariance ParametersEstSEWald Zp Residual 1190.9739.8029.93<0.001 Random Intercept (Teacher) 231.3345.465.10<0.001

29. Which strategies did teachers use? MAX Cornell notes Hunt for main ideas Previewing nonfiction text Pre/Post learning concepts checks Focused free writes Paired reading Guided reading procedure Anticipation guide Ash Anticipation guide Directed Reading- Thinking Activity Inquiry Charts Vocabulary from context List-Group-Label GIST 29

30. Teachers’ use of strategies How? Used strategies more early in week Asked students for feedback about which strategies worked best  assigned reading:  student engagement Adult learning approach Learner feedback Utility value Why? Selected strategies that were easy to implement Strategies helped students learn Transitioned learning to students Teachers actually “taught” less 30

31. Post-Research Teacher Meeting Students Mix of strategies is important Treat CTE learners more like adult learners – check with students to see how strategies are working, give choices Know reading is important, they just don’t want to read Teachers Students read more productively Want additional support Required additional preparation time Used 4-7 strategies regularly Text  content  strategy Try strategies ~3 times before “comfortable” 31

33. Core Principles Begin with the CTE curricula, not with academics Approach academics as essential workplace skills Maximize the academics in CTE Support CTE teachers as “teachers of academics- in-CTE”; not as academic teachers Foster and Sustain a Community of Practice

34. Common findings/themes CTE teacher fear of integration feeling incompetent in front of students lesson planning Challenge of changing teaching practice Time issues The “tipping point” Implementation  internalization Space for innovation

35. Common findings/themes Concepts  Principles  Relevant ROI Teachers have opportunity to think about “how” and “what” they’re teaching Teacher-driven reform – valuing the teacher’s voice

36. Changing the Paradigm in Practice Old Models A box of curriculum Short term “training” Little or no support after the “sage on the stage” goes away Replicable by individual teachers (assumed) New Models Process not an event Built on communities of practice On-going support – the learning curve Requires teams of committed teachers working together over time

37. Math and Literacy TA-PD

38. Math Literacy A. Linear, exact B. Episodic, sporadic C. Curriculum-driven Prescribed curriculum D. Concept-oriented E. Math partner essential F. Single CTE area G. Less stigmatizing H. Fidelity/accountability reports after lesson I. Somewhat transferrable a) Subjective, inferential b) Continual, daily c) Teacher-driven Flexible approaches d) Process-oriented e) Literacy partner optional f) Multiple CTE areas g) More stigmatizing h) Bi-monthly fidelity reports i) Transferrable

39. CI Professional Development 10 days (60+ hours) Summer = 5 days Fall = 2 days Winter = 2 days Spring = 1 day < 40 teachers Variety of CTE areas, but clusters of 5+ teachers/area Bi-monthly accountability

40. Questions?

41. Thank you!!! The work reported herein was supported under the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award No.VO51A070003 administered by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education or the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

42. For more information Travis Park, PhD, Associate Professor Cornell University tdp9@cornell.edu NRCCTE Website www.nrccte.org