2008 Case Studies

 

Background

The most perplexing problem facing policy makers and others who work to improve mathematics and science education is figuring out how to improve “typical” practice. To take reforms to scale would mean that all or nearly all of the teachers in a school, or schools in a district, or districts in a state, would fully embrace the reform, and implement it reasonably well. Concerns about the future economic competitiveness of the United States fuel the need to learn how to improve teaching and learning in mathematics and science on a large scale.

A key goal of the Local Systemic Change (LSC) Initiative supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) was to improve the teaching of science, mathematics, and technology by focusing on the professional development of teachers within whole schools or school districts. Each targeted teacher was expected to participate in a minimum of 130 hours of professional development over the course of the project. In addition to its focus on involving all teachers in a jurisdiction, the LSC initiative was distinguished from previous teacher enhancement efforts by its emphasis on preparing teachers to implement district-selected exemplary mathematics and science instructional materials in their classrooms. A total of 88 LSC projects worked over a 10-year period to provide professional development on a large scale in various contexts and, as such, are well-positioned to share lessons about system-wide improvement.

In order to learn more about strategies for, and barriers to, improving mathematics and science education broadly, eight Principal Investigators (PIs) of NSF-funded Local Systemic Change Initiatives were asked to prepare case studies describing their efforts and the lessons they learned. The projects described in these case studies implemented mathematics and/or science education initiatives in a variety of contexts and utilized a range of strategies. Regardless of the varied contexts, the lessons that the PIs communicated in their case descriptions were surprisingly similar.

The importance of addressing all aspects of the K-12 system in order to support the work of large scale mathematics and science improvement was a common theme among the PIs. According to these leaders, support must be provided at every level of the system in order to address the various barriers to quality implementation. Building a common vision among, and gaining the support of teachers, principals, and district-level administrators provides a sound basis for the work as these individuals often serve as advocates. A number of the PIs also described the integral role of external stakeholders (e.g, businesses, universities) in adding credibility and providing a consistent message about the importance of the efforts to improve mathematics/science education.

In describing the elements that were essential in large scale mathematics and science education improvement, the PIs highlighted the need to build capacity in support of the work. In all cases, capacity was not limited to helping teachers to provide high quality instruction. Equally important was the need to develop a cadre of leaders who could support the work at scale, whether it was developing teacher leaders who would provide professional development or increasing the capacity of administrators who facilitate the efforts of teachers at the building level.

PIs also recommended working to create policies and practices that encourage teacher participation in high-quality professional development and support effective mathematics and science instruction. In the case of LSC projects that were focused on the implementation of exemplary instructional materials, providing easy access to the materials and establishing a system for refurbishing them were considered central components of a system to support instructional change. In addition, PIs suggested the need to attend to the amount of time available for mathematics and especially, science instruction and to make sure that literacy and other instructional priorities do not detract from the teaching of mathematics and science.

Another theme that emerged in the LSC cases was the integral role of evaluation and research in supporting large scale mathematics and science education initiatives. PIs emphasized the importance of utilizing feedback in making mid-course corrections so that the work is responsive to the strengths and weaknesses of the program, both real and perceived. Also, the results of carefully planned evaluations that demonstrate success of the initiatives often acted as a lifeline when policymakers had to prioritize programs for on-going funding.

2002 Case Studies

 

K-8 Science

K-8 Mathematics

6-12 Science

6-12 Mathematics

 

Background

The goal of the LSC program is to improve the teaching of science, mathematics, and technology by focusing on the professional development of teachers within whole schools or school districts. Each targeted teacher is to participate in a minimum of 130 hours of professional development over the course of the project (prior to 1999, the requirement for K-8 projects was 100 hours). In addition to its focus on involving all teachers in a jurisdiction, the LSC initiative is distinguished from previous teacher enhancement efforts by its emphasis on preparing teachers to implement designated exemplary mathematics and science instructional materials in their classrooms.

HRI worked with the National Science Foundation and PIs and evaluators of the LSC projects on the design and implementation of a core evaluation system to allow aggregating information across projects. The core evaluation is designed to answer the following questions:

  1. What is the overall quality of the LSC professional development activities?
  2. What is the extent of school and teacher involvement in LSC activities?
  3. What is the impact of the LSC professional development on teacher preparedness, attitudes, and beliefs about mathematics and science teaching and learning?
  4. What is the impact of the LSC professional development on classroom practices in mathematics and science?
  5. To what extent are school and district contexts becoming more supportive of the LSC vision for exemplary mathematics and science education?
  6. What is the extent of institutionalization of high-quality professional development systems in the LSC districts?

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the link between questions 1 and 4, the quality of LSC professional development and classroom practices. Analysis of data from classroom observations conducted as part of the core evaluation indicate that lessons taught by teachers who had participated in at least 20 hours of LSC professional development were more likely to be judged by observers to be strong in a number of areas, including the extent to which:

  • The mathematics/science content was significant and worthwhile;
  • Teacher-presented information was accurate;
  • There was a climate of respect for students’ ideas, questions, and contributions;
  • Students were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the lesson;
  • Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism, and the challenging of ideas were valued;
  • The degree of closure or resolution of conceptual understanding was appropriate for the developmental levels/needs of the students and the purposes of the lesson; and
  • The teacher’s questioning strategies were likely to enhance the development of student conceptual understanding (e.g., emphasized higher order questions, appropriately used “wait time,” identified prior [mis]conceptions).

However, many teachers continue to struggle with these last three areas, with fewer than half of the lessons of treated teachers receiving high ratings on these indicators. In an attempt to better understand how professional development around instructional materials could affect teachers’ classroom practices, ten Principal Investigators (PIs) of NSF-funded Local Systemic Change Initiatives were asked to prepare case studies on the professional development conducted in their project focused on science or mathematics instructional materials, typically modules from IMP, Investigations, FOSS and STC. Specifically, PIs were asked to describe one instructional module, including the challenges teachers would likely face in teaching with this particular module; describe the professional development teachers experience for this module; observe at least three teachers teaching a lesson from this module, describing how well aligned the implementation was to the project’s vision; and discuss modifications they would make to the professional development based on these observations.

While the module-based professional development described in the cases varied in length (from 4 to 60 hours) and extent of follow-up support, all of the cases describe the introductory professional development as workshops to familiarize teachers with the activities. In most professional development described, teachers spent time going through the activities, getting tips on implementation from the facilitators, and discussing the content in the unit.

The sample of teachers observed in each project was left to the discretion of the case study writers. The methods of sample selection included random selection, teacher volunteers, teachers in schools new to the project, and teachers with varying attitudes toward professional development. In most instances, each teacher was observed for one lesson. Four PIs supplemented the observations with interviews of the sample teachers.

PIs described variable quality in implementation of the instructional materials. Most of the case writers reported teachers using materials with students at a mechanical level, incorporating some of the specific strategies used in the professional development. However, the extent to which the implementation promoted student engagement with the concepts in the modules was limited. For example, teachers rarely exhibited higher-level questioning strategies or sense-making, e.g., of data students had collected in their investigations. Teachers did not demonstrate the meaning behind the particular activities or how particular activities fit into the “big picture” of the unit.

Based on the observations, PIs suggested a number of modifications that they would make to their professional development in the future: provide more professional development to the trainers, especially around the concepts underlying the modules; provide more emphasis in the professional development to questioning strategies, developing more quality student-student interactions, and lesson closure; take into account the range of learners when structuring the professional development; provide more illustrations of student-centered instruction; and increase the amount of support to teachers while they are implementing the unit.