Building a Successful Professional Development Model Presented by: Howard Landman Project Director “Eastern Connecticut Elementary Science Coaching Consortium” Contact: HLL333@AOL.COM Getting Started Evaluate the five key components of effective professional development in an MSP Grant Efficacy starting point Content starting point The individual district’s needs The role of the I. H. E. Blueprint for tomorrow Establishing the Base Line - 1 Efficacy pre-test - Ask the tough questions about confidence in presenting the content (subject competency) - Ask about confidence in allowing experimentation and exploration – “are the participants afraid of what questions might be asked by students” (process competency) Establishing the Base Line - 2 Content pre-test - Look at your state licensing exams for secondary teachers - Look at your state student “mastery” tests for the next level up - Look at content expectations for the next level up (elementary middle high) Establishing the Base Line – 3 Project Design and organization - Meet with all administrative representatives to review the Base Line Data - Meet with the I.H.E. to develop the content presentations - Meet with partners to develop the “content vs. standards” needs - Develop a calendar of events to ensure success Think Outside the Box Who are the best presenters? - Guest lecturers vs. I.H.E. staff - External providers vs. Partner staff Participants in grants need special attention - They could see their own staff every day - Participants need to see that their efforts are truly recognized and rewarded The State Standards -1 - Never assume that staff knows the standards or how to handle them - Never assume that staff knows how to best incorporate the standards into effective lesson planning - Never assume that help will be seen as criticism The State Standards - 2 - “Guided Group Workshops” on how to address standards should be considered - Experts who can show innovative ways to present lessons within the frameworks of the standards are an exceptional addition to any professional development presentation - Modeling coupled with a “hands on” experience is key to effective professional development for teachers Overcoming the Fears - Have the I.H.E. place the participants in the role of students as often as possible - The I.H.E. must be confident and competent in their understanding of new methods of addressing curriculum as well as content - By assuming the role of the student, teachers will feel more comfortable with their own students in the same setting Checklist for Tomorrow - Are we aware of our teacher needs? - Are we aware of our district needs? - Is our “presentation team” well versed in all aspects of our training? - Do we need to do some additional “homework?” (P.D. staff training) - Where will we go after the music stops? Evidence of Success Participation in the ATLAST teacher evaluation by Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC. ATLAST = Assessing Teacher Learning About Science Teaching (funding source = NSF) Purpose of the Evaluation To determine the increase in content knowledge To hopefully show an improvement in efficacy To hopefully show an increased awareness of the use of the Inquiry Method for instruction. Evidence of Success Results showed growth in content knowledge in all three areas of science. Results showed statistically significant growth in content knowledge in life science, the grant’s main area of concentration. Pre: min(36); max(75); mean(50.12) Post: min(42); max(76); mean(54.82) Results showed increases in efficacy. Results showed increases in use of the Inquiry Method. All districts will be using the TLC’s to further their PD in the year after the grant funding has run out Evidence of Impact-Teachers Impact on Teachers(from CCSAR): A paired-samples t test was conducted to measure growth in content knowledge of TLCs in the Windham Elementary Science grant. The results indicated that the mean posttest score (M = .77, SD = .08) was not significantly greater than the mean pretest score (M = .80, SD = .09), t(16) = 1.30, p<.01. The standardized effect size index, d, was .31, which is considered a small effect. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the two scores was -.03 to .09. TLCs’ content knowledge did not change. Why did this happen? Let’s look at the test. Evidence of Impact-Students Impact on Students: **NOTE REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS: # 13 was deleted (poor question). Paired-samples t tests were conducted on the mean scores of the pretest and posttest, with and without number 13. The results indicate that the pretest scores without number 13 (M = .61, SD = .24) were significantly greater than the pretest scores with number 13 (M = .62, SD = .24), t(1129) = -23.05, p < .01. The standardized effect size, d, was .69. This is considered a medium effect size. The results also indicate that the posttest scores without number 13 (M = .64, SD = .29) were significantly greater than the posttest scores with number 13 (M = .63, SD = .28), t(1129) = -21.51, p < .01. The standardized effect size, d, was .64. This is also considered a medium effect size. Students’ scores were significantly higher on both the pretest and posttest when number 13 was deleted. Evidence of Impact-Other Other Impacts: Change in Coaches and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: Windham Elementary School Science:A paired-samples t test was conducted to measure change in efficacy of TLCs in the Windham Elementary School Science grant. The results indicated that the mean posttest score (M = 4.10, SD = .40) was significantly greater than the mean pretest score (M = 3.63, SD = .49), t(15) = - 5.41, p<.01. The standardized effect size index, d, was 1.35, which is considered a large effect. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the two scores was -.67 to -.29. TLCs’ sense of efficacy was significantly greater after the training. Evidence of Impact-Partners Impact on Districts: With respect to the districts, each of the 5 districts completing the grant entered into the grant with the expectation of realizing a teacher leader coach in science who could confidently and competently lead the professional development of teaching the inquiry method of science within the respective district. To this extent, the grant has been eminently successful. Each of the districts has at least one TLC who will be spearheading Professional Staff Science Development for the elementary teachers within the district next year. In the 2007-2008 school year, it is expected that the professional development will center on grade level and faculty presentations, each regularly scheduled throughout the school year. Evidence of Impact-I.H.E. The work of the I.H.E. has led to considerable interest in extending interactions with the K-12 participants in a number of ways. New connections have been made that will lead to additional classroom visits and whole new projects have been developed to extend and strengthen the relationships. UConn has generated three new grant proposals that would greatly extend the work that was initiated as part of this MSP proposal. Disclaimer The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in these presentations are not intended as an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.
Pages to are hidden for
"Elementary School Science Grant Proposal Samples - PowerPoint"Please download to view full document