Document Sample

LINKING LANGUAGES FOR LEARNING Enhancing Reading and Math through Career and Technical Education Grand Junction CO James R. Stone III Director Stone003@umn.edu Disclaimer: The work reported herein was supported under the National Dissemination for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award (No. VO51A990004) and /or under the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award (No. VO51A990006) as 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. Math-in-CTE Research Team University of Minnesota The Ohio State University James R. Stone III Morgan Lewis Colorado Donna Pearson Linda Corinne Alfeld Penn State University Harrison Susan Jensen Mary Kisner Sherrie Gregg Gross Barbara Senapedis Schneider Oklahoma State Michigan University Mary Fudge Craig Edwards Kathleen Brian Parr Szuminski Brent Young What do we know about CTE? There is evidence that: • CTE does not limit postsecondary education • Math and science course taking by CTE students is increasing: amount and complexity • CTE as a function of the HS experience reduces the probability of dropping out of school • CTE is an economic value to the individual and the community (ROI) • It is possible to “major” in CTE and Academics One conclusion is that A decade of reform (Perkins II & III, STWOA & various state efforts) is beginning to have an effect but . . . achievement and transition are the challenges put forth. . . The Problem: Math Performance Of American Youth NAEP Scores for 17 Year olds 350 330 304 302 305 307 306 307 308 307 310 300 299 290 270 250 230 210 190 170 150 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 04 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 The number of 17-year-old students taking advanced math classes has also increased -- with 17 percent studying calculus and 53 percent studying second-year algebra -- it is unclear why that trend has not resulted in higher average math scores over all. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/ Why Focus on CTE - I Students earn more credits in CTE than in math or science 97% take at least one course Nearly half earn at least 3 Specific Labor Market (SLMP) credits One-quarter are concentrators” NAVE 2004 Why Focus on CTE II Characteristics of Students Enrolled in 3 or more SLMP Courses . 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Native Black (non- Hispanic Has Disability Limited GPA less than More than American Hispanic) English 2.0 50% FRL Proficiency Levesque, K. (2003). Public High School Graduates Who Participated in Vocational/Technical Education Why Focus on CTE - III • CTE provides a math-rich context • CTE curriculum/pedagogies do not systematically emphasize math skill development Alternative CTE Math Improvement Strategies • Related Math class*(e.g., Business math) • Applied Math class* (e.g., Tech Prep math) • Pull out math classes*with math teacher • Math teacher team teaches* in CTE class • The NRCCTC, Math-in-CTE model-a research based approach to improving math skills *Note: while some of these may improve math skills of students, the evidence is lacking. Math-in-CTE A study to test the possibility that enhancing the embedded mathematics in Technical Education coursework will build skills in this critical academic area without reducing technical skill development. Key Questions of the Study • Does enhancing the CTE curriculum with math increase math skills of CTE students? • Can we infuse enough math into CTE curricula to meaningfully enhance the academic skills of CTE participants (Perkins III Core Indicator) • . . . Without reducing technical skill development • What works? Study Design: Key Features • Random assignment of teachers to experimental or control condition • Five simultaneous study replications • Three measures of math skills (applied, traditional, college placement) • Multi-method: quantitative and qualitative • Focus of the experimental intervention was naturally occurring math (embedded in curriculum) • A model of Curriculum Integration • Intense focus on Fidelity of Treatment Study Design 04- 05 School Year National Research Center AutoTech BusEd IT Ag P&T Health Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Control Control Control Control Control Sample 2004-05: 69 Experimental CTE/Math teams and 80 Control CTE Teachers Total sample: 3,000 students* Study Design: Participants Participant Primary Role • Experimental CTE • Implement the math teacher enhancements • Math teacher • Provide support for the CTE teacher • Control CTE teacher • Teach their regular curriculum • Liaison • Administer surveys and tests Measuring Math & Technical Skill Achievement • Global math • General, grade assessments level tests (Terra Nova, AccuPlacer, WorkKeys) • Technical skill • NOCTI, AYES, or MarkED occupational knowledge assessment Building Academic Skills in Context: Math-in-CTE The “method” of Math-in-CTE The Experimental Treatment • Professional Development • The Pedagogy Math-in-CTE The Method • Curriculum mapping • Enhancing the math – The Pedagogy Curriculum Maps • Begin with CTE Content • Look for places where math is part of the CTE content (V-Tecs, AYES, MarkED, state guides, last year‟s maps) • Create “map” for the school year • Align map with planned curriculum for the year (scope & sequence) CTE Unit CTE Concepts Math Concepts Ratio/Percentages Bus/Mkt: Control Inventory: Graphing/Predictions Distribution order, receive, count, Algebraic Expressions maintain Equations Number Sense Fractions Manufacturing Measure items for Decimals Tech: production Angles Measurement Sample Curriculum Map Agricultural Mechanics Mathematics Content PASS NCTM Curriculum Standards Standards Standards Determining sprayer nozzle size Problem solving involving PASS NCTM given flow rate and speed cross-sectional area, Process Problem volume, and related rates Standard Solving 1: Standard Determine pipe size and water Problem solving involving Problem for flow rates for a water pump cross-sectional area, Solving Grades 9- volume, and related rates 12 Determine amount of paint Problem solving involving needed to paint a given surface area, ratio and surface (calculate surface proportions area, etc) Determine the concrete Problem solving involving reinforcements and spacing cross-sectional area, needed when building a volume, and related rates concrete platform or structure Scope & Sequence TIME CTE CONCEPT MATH CONCEPT MATH-IN-CTE MATH MATH LESSON STANDARD PARTNER MEETING DATE WEEK 1 Marketing and NA NA NA NA Aug. 17 DECA Orientation WEEK 2 DECA General Overview NA NA NA Aug. 23 Orientation of the Math-in-CTE Project WEEK 3 Sales Unit Introduction to Consent Forms, NA Sept. 2 Aug. 30 the 7 Student (Officer Math Concepts Survey, and Math Elections) Pre Test WEEK 4 Sales Unit Ratio/Percentages #1 – To Market, To Standards 1, 6 Sept. 9 Sept. 7 Market; Lesson (TSLP #25 begins) WEEK 5 Sales Unit Graphing/ #4 - What Product Standards 1, Sept. 16 Sept. 13 Predictions to Sell 2, 3, 5, 6 Algebraic Expressions & Equations, Pattern Recognition, Functions, Data Representation Building the Enhanced CTE Lesson The Pedagogy 1. Introduce the CTE lesson 2. Assess students‟ math awareness 3. Work through the embedded example 4. Work through related, contextual examples 5. Work through traditional math examples 6. Students demonstrate understanding 7. Formal assessment Professional Development • CTE-Math Teacher Teams; occupational focus • Curriculum mapping – derived from the workplace • Scope and Sequence • CTE and math teachers professional development • On going collaboration CTE and math teachers What did we find? What did we learn? Map of Math Concepts Addressed by Enhanced Lessons in each SLMP Number of Corresponding CTE Math Lessons Addressing the Math Concept Math Concept Site Site Site A Site B Site E C D Number and Number Relations 8 4 4 10 2 Computation and Numerical Estimation 8 7 6 12 12 Operation Concepts 0 0 1 0 0 Measurement 5 7 3 0 12 Geometry and Spatial Sense 0 1 0 0 2 Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability 11 9 4 1 4 Patterns, Functions, Algebra 7 1 3 5 2 Trigonometry 0 0 0 0 2 Problem Solving and Reasoning 0 1 0 3 0 Communication 1 1 0 0 0 Analysis Pre Test Fall Terra Nova Difference in Math Achievement Post Test C Spring X Terra Nova Accuplacer WorkKeys Skills Tests What we found: Difference in % correct – All Experimental & All Control 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Classroom Level Student Level p<.05 TerraNova AccuPlacer Work Keys Comparing Experimental Classrooms to Control Classrooms by Replication Site* 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Site V Site W Site X Site Y Site Z TerraNova Accuplacer WorkKeys *Only Significant effects shown Comparing Experimental Students to Control Students by Replication Site* 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Site V Site W Site X Site Y Site Z TerraNova Accuplacer WorkKeys Magnitude of Treatment Effect – Effect Size Effect Size the average Cohen’s d = .80 percentile standing of the average treated 50th (or experimental) percentile participant relative to the average untreated X Group C Group (or control) participant 79th percentile 0 50th 100th Effect Size Obtained: Classroom Analysis Effect size (Cohen‟s d) Percentile Shift All Classes From 50th to: Terra Nova (d=.28) • 62nd Accuplacer (d=.11) Carnegie Learning • 56th By Site Corporation Site V –WorkKeys (d=.20) Cognitive Tutor • 58th Site W-AccuPlacer (d=.54) Algebra I • 71st Site X –Terra Nova (d=.43) • 67th Site Y-Terra Nova (d=.87) • 82d= .22 nd Site Z – AccuPlacer (d=.18) • 58th -TerraNova (d=.45) • 68th Math Ability Effect: Test Score Differences 5 4 Lower Quartile Upper Quartile 3 2 1 0 -1 Terra Nova Accuplacer Work Keys Evidence of the “Matthew Effect” – Higher Ability Students Gained more than Lower Ability Students with this Approach BUT both gained more than the Control Students Does Enhancing Math in CTE Affect Technical Skill Development? Difference on Occupational Skills Post Test - Classroom Level 20 15 10 5 0 Site V Site W Site X Site Y Site Z No difference in four sites; experimental students scored significantly higher in one site Time invested in Math Enhancements • Average of 18.55 hours across all sites devoted to math enhanced lessons (not just math but math in the context of CTE) • Assume a 180 days in a school year; one hour per class per day • Average CTE class time investment = 10.3% • Average total school time investment (assume 6 classes per day) = 1.7% • Modest investment for major payoff What we learned When We Began the Study As a Result of the Study • A box of curriculum • A curriculum development process • Teacher training • Building and sustaining a community of practice • Replicable by individual • Replicable by teams of teachers committed teachers working together over time • Core Principles Replicating the Math-in-CTE Model: Core Principles A. Develop and sustain a community of practice B. Begin with the CTE curriculum and not with the math curriculum C. Understand math as essential workplace skill D. Maximize the math in CTE curricula E. CTE teachers are teachers of “math-in-CTE” NOT math teachers What we are and are not: A contextual continuum • Disconnected • Algebra 1 • Traditional academic class (e.g. Algebra 1) • Coordinated • Academies • CTE & Academic teachers coordinate around themes (e.g. „health‟) • Context Based • Integrated • Occupation is the context math for delivery of traditional academics (Related or applied math) • Contextual • NRC Model • Academics emerge from occupational content Issues • How much math can be enhanced in CTE before it is no longer a CTE class? (The “tipping” point issue) • Crisis Immediacy – we want a fix and we want it now • System investment (teacher time and PD costs) • Should math credit be provided for enhanced CTE classes – are we teaching math or providing a venue for students to learn how to use math? 1. Highly qualified teacher 2. Loss of CTE integrity • What are the barriers in moving this model to pre-service education? Conclusion: The NRC Model (Process)(Pedagogy)=Math achievement Core Principles Bringing Math-in-CTE to your Community 1. Communities of practice A. 10+ CTE-Math Teacher teams B. Specific occupational foci B. Regional or state C. Invite not compel 2. Administrator support A. Professional Development – (5:3:2) – for at least one full year B. Substitutes C. PD support (facilities, etc.) D. Staff the structure 3. Document!!! 4. Support structure

DOCUMENT INFO

Shared By:

Categories:

Tags:

Stats:

views: | 3 |

posted: | 11/2/2011 |

language: | English |

pages: | 45 |

OTHER DOCS BY liaoqinmei

Docstoc is the premier online destination to start and grow small businesses. It hosts the best quality and widest selection of professional documents (over 20 million) and resources including expert videos, articles and productivity tools to make every small business better.

Search or Browse for any specific document or resource you need for your business. Or explore our curated resources for Starting a Business, Growing a Business or for Professional Development.

Feel free to Contact Us with any questions you might have.