There is an urgent need for highly qualified and effective teachers of mathematics at the middle school level as documented in many state and national reports (1). Middle school mathematics teachers need to be proficient in what and how they teach. XXX, a U.S. Department of Education-funded MSP, has implemented an innovative master degree professional development program for teachers in middle school mathematics education. The theoretical perspective is based on work of many researchers and teacher educators in mathematics education (2). In designing and implementing coursework, state and NCTM Standards were considered (3). In mathematics instruction, teachers need to focus on the processes of learning mathematics and the mathematics content students need to learn at different grade levels. NRC’s vision of what constitutes high-quality teaching and learning of mathematics is consistent with the stance that “all students can and should be proficient in mathematics” (4). If middle school students are expected to be proficient in mathematics, at least their teachers of mathematics need to be mathematically proficient as well, but at a higher and a deeper level, among other professional capabilities. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) reaffirmed the importance of mathematical proficiency for improved achievement levels in mathematics along with increased capacity-building of teachers and effective practice (5). Consistent with recommendations, the importance of blending research and practice (6) is also emphasized throughout this program.

Methodology

The overall evaluation is based on a quasi-experimental time-series (repeated measures) design. Multiple measures and evidence were used to establish baselines, the treatment implemented (engagement in graduate courses and experiences), followed by end-of-year post-treatment measures using same baseline instruments (7). The evaluation framework included attention to the following key outcome areas: quality of professional development; change in teacher content knowledge; change in teacher instructional practices; and change in student achievement and disposition in mathematics.

From fall 2008 to spring 2011, teachers completed required graduate coursework and experiences. The initial cohort consisted of 25 teachers from a large high-needs urban school district. By the third year, the cohort consisted of 31 teachers. Professional development experiences included 256, 230, and 265 contact hours across the three years, respectively.

Data Sources

Multiple measures of teacher content knowledge were used including Content Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics (8) and cumulative GPAs. The impact of the graduate coursework on teaching practices was measured using an adapted form of the Mathematics in Context Classroom Observation Instrument (9). Three instruments were used to measure the impact on student achievement: the state mathematics achievement test; a locally designed mathematics assessment (EMMA) composed of publicly released items from NAEP and TIMSS; and Mathematical Disposition Survey (MDS; 10). Validity of the CKTM and MDS were established by their authors; validity of EMMA and reliabilities of the CKTM, EMMA, MDS, and observations were measured each year.

Results and Conclusions

For each year, data from multiple sources suggest a high quality of professional development. In Year 1, over 70% of teachers, and in Year 2, over 85% of teachers, reported that the quality of the course design, course content, and instructional materials was high or very high. (Analyses for Year 3 for this measure and other measures are in progress for teachers and students.) Teachers expressed that courses affected them as learners of mathematics and as teachers and that they learned applications of mathematics in engineering and science.

On the CKTM, overall trend analyses suggest positive significant growth in mathematics content knowledge over Years 1, 2, and 3. Trend analyses indicate there was a significant increasing linear trend in each of the three CKTM subtests. After Year 2, 75% of the teachers had cumulative GPAs of 3.75 or higher, with 30% having GPAs of 4.00. The high GPAs point to the success of teachers in the program. Only five teacher participants left after the first year and three after the second year for personal reasons.

Mathematics teaching practices were assessed on implementation of instructional content, use of instructional resources, and use of instructional strategies. In Year 1, over 90% of teachers, and in Year 2, over 80% of teachers, fully implemented the goals or implemented most goals for each aspect of instruction, suggesting a positive impact of the program on teaching practices. (Goals and their measurement are described in the presentation.)

Evidence from multiple sources suggests that this program had a positive impact on middle school students’ mathematics achievement and mathematical dispositions in Years 1 and 2. Results in Year 3 are in progress. Cronbach-alpha reliability coefficients confirm high internal consistency levels on all measures used. On the mathematics state test, statistically significant differences between the pre-test and post-test scores of 939 students in Year 1, and 686 students in Year 2 were found, indicating positive gains in students’ mathematics achievement scores. In Year 2, an opportunity arose to examine scores of students in this MSP and the scores of the rest of the middle school students in the district. MSP students outscored their district counterparts, and the difference was statistically significant. On the EMMA in Year 1 and Year 2, differences between the pre-test and post-test scores on the overall test were found to be statistically significant. On the MDS, although overall results were not significant from pre-test to post-test, in Year 1, statistically significant positive changes in students’ mathematical dispositions were found in two of the ten subscales: modeling processes that promote thinking about mathematics and demonstrating problem solving strategies. In Year 2, significant positive differences were detected in three subscales: perseverance, usefulness of mathematics, and modeling processes that promote thinking about mathematics.

This study provides research results that show the impact of a successful three-year professional development program in middle school mathematics education. Collectively, the results of the analyses suggest a high quality of professional development in the XXX MSP program. Trends suggest a positive impact on teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and instructional practices in mathematics classrooms and on their students’ mathematical performance and dispositions.

References

1. For example, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2007); National Middle School Association (2006); Association of Teacher Educators; National Research Council (2001); National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000); Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation (2000); Council of Chief State School Officers (1999).

2. For example, Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. G., & Schifter, D. (Eds.) (2003). A Research Companion to the Principles and Standards. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Lester, F. (Ed.) (2007). Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Information Age Publishing.

3. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989), Professional Standards for Teaching School Mathematics (1991), Assessment Standards for School Mathematics (1995), Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), Curriculum Focal Points for Pre-kindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence (2006), and Mathematics Teaching Today (2007).

4. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

5. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

6. Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. (1997). Teacher learning in a social context: Integrating collaborative and institutional processes with the study of teacher change. In E. Fennema, & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 155-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

7. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago:  Rand McNally.

8. Ball, D. L., Heather, H. C., Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. G. (2005). Content knowledge for teaching mathematics measures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

9. XXX. (1997). Classroom observation scale. (Mathematics in Context Longitudinal/Cross-Sectional Study Working Paper No. 6). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

10. Kisunzu, P. (2008). Teacher instructional practices, student mathematical dispositions and mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.