Making Teaching Public in a Math Centered Learning Environment: What Did We Learn?
The evidence collected throughout the project was used to inform progress towards two
goals: 1) teacher change and 2) improved student achievement. Teacher change
encompasses three areas: leadership, content knowledge and delivery of instruction.
Baseline data about teachers' attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to mathematics and
teaching mathematics were collected through surveys and questionnaires, which were
re-administered during the last year of the project. Evidence supporting teacher change
with respect to their instruction consists of analysis of videos of teachers' classrooms
at the beginning and end of the project; comparison of transcripts of teacher discussions
at different stages in the project; observations from site leadership teams; analysis of
teacher journals; interviews; audio recordings of sessions; and field notes.
Evidence that indicates teacher change with respect to content knowledge includes surveys,
interviews, pre- and post- tests, transcripts of discussions, and observations from site
leadership teams. Evidence indicating teacher growth as leaders includes documentation of
activities, surveys, leadership team observations, transcripts and notes from sessions.
Student data were collected via pre- and post-tests, surveys, standardized tests, and
aptitude tests, depending on the site.
The qualitative data relating to changes
in instruction (e.g., transcripts, written reports, classroom videos) were analyzed by
de-contextualizing and re-contextualizing to reduce and then expand the information
(Tesch, 1990) in an effort to think about and with the data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996),
examining patterns within and across data sources and looking for emergent themes
(Erickson, 1986).
To look at teacher leadership, a network survey
instrument, adapted from Frank et al.'s survey to assess the diffusion of computer
technology, was developed by the evaluation team. The questions include frequency and type
of professional development opportunities, identifying curriculum and other district
personnel, perceived value of professional development, personal use of ideas and
suggestions learned in professional development, and general background questions. The
analysis of the data from these surveys uses what is commonly referred to as an
"interaction model" in social network literature (Frank, 1998). This model allows
for the estimation of an attribute for an individual that may be changed or altered
through the interactions or relations with others. In order to determine the
direction of the resource flow, the evaluation team collected longitudinal data.
