Program Announcement: Teacher Quality — Mathematics and Science Education CFDA 84.305A

Program Officer:
Dr. Harold Himmelfarb
Harold.Himmelfarb@ed.gov
(202) 219-2031

Purpose

The general purpose of the Institute's Teacher Quality — Mathematics and Science (Teacher Quality — Math/Science) research program is to identify effective strategies for improving the performance of current classroom teachers in ways that increase student learning and school achievement in mathematics and science. The Institute intends for the Teacher Quality — Math/Science research program to fulfill five goals: (1) exploring the relations between malleable factors¹ (e.g., practices of teachers and other instructional personnel; professional development programs) and student outcomes in mathematics or science, as well as mediators and moderators of the relations between student outcomes and these malleable factors, for the purpose of identifying potential targets of intervention; (2) developing innovative programs and practices for teacher professional development that are intended to improve teacher practices and through them student learning and achievement; (3) evaluating the efficacy of teacher professional development programs and practices that are intended to improve teacher practices and through them student learning and achievement; (4) evaluating the effectiveness of teacher professional development programs that are implemented at scale and intended to improve teacher practices and through them student learning and achievement; and (5) developing and validating new assessments or validating existing assessments of teachers of mathematics or science against measures of student achievement.

Under these goals, the Institute supports research on teacher professional development interventions and teacher assessments relevant to (a) teaching mathematics or science from kindergarten through high school and (b) teaching basic skills in mathematics to adults. By "professional development" the Institute refers to in-service training of or tools for current instructional personnel. Long term outcomes of the Teacher Quality — Math/Science program will be an array of tools and strategies (e.g., in-service programs, assessments) that have been demonstrated to be effective for improving and assessing teacher performance in ways that are linked to increases in student achievement.

Background

Current levels of mathematics and science achievement at the elementary and secondary levels suggest that the United States is neither preparing the general population with levels of mathematics and science knowledge necessary for the 21st century workplace, nor producing an adequate pipeline to meet national needs for domestic scientists and mathematicians. On the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 2 percent of U.S. students attained advanced levels of mathematics or science achievement by twelfth grade. In mathematics, large numbers of U.S. students continue to score below the basic level. On the 2007 NAEP, 18 percent of fourth-graders and 29 percent of eighth-graders scored below the basic level in mathematics. On the 2005 NAEP, the most recent assessment of twelfth-graders, 39 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the basic level. At fourth grade, scoring below the basic level means that the student is likely to miss problems such as using a ruler to find the total length of three line segments. At twelfth grade, scoring below the basic level means that the student is unlikely to be able to solve problems such as finding the perimeter of a figure. Despite the fact that levels of mathematics achievement have improved over the past decade, achievement gaps remain wide with low levels of achievement being more likely among minority groups and students from low-income backgrounds.

As in mathematics, many U.S. students are not attaining mastery of rudimentary science knowledge and skills. On the 2005 NAEP, 32 percent of fourth-graders, 41 percent of eighth-graders, and 46 percent of twelfth-graders scored below the basic level in science. At fourth grade, students performing below the basic level are likely to miss problems such as using a data table to determine which day has the most daylight. At twelfth grade, students performing below the basic level are likely to miss problems such as graphing the populations of two species. As in mathematics, low levels of achievement are more likely among minority groups and students from low-income backgrounds.

Through the Teacher Quality — Math/Science research program, the Institute intends to improve the quality of teaching through development and evaluation of teacher professional development programs. Those interested in improving teacher quality through systemic practices and policies (e.g., alternative certification, incentives for recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers) should refer to the topic on Education Policy, Finance, and Systems.

The Institute intends for the Teacher Quality—Math/Science program to support research to develop innovative professional development that address core mathematics and science content (e.g., Math: addition/subtraction, fractions, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus; Science: physical science, earth science, life science), as well as research to evaluate the impact of teacher professional development programs on teacher behaviors and student outcomes.

Under Teacher Quality — Math/Science, the Institute encourages research to determine what content should be delivered to teachers to improve instruction and thereby student outcomes. That is, what are the knowledge and skills that, if applied by teachers, would improve student outcomes? The Institute also invites proposals to determine how to deliver the content of the professional development, in order to change teacher behaviors and have an impact on relevant student outcomes. The Institute suggests that researchers consider testing different delivery modes using a curriculum or instructional approach that has already been shown to be effective for improving student outcomes. The Institute encourages researchers to consider how the complexity and amount of content to be delivered may affect the type and amount of professional development that is necessary for enabling teachers to reach a set performance criterion level. For example, is one-on-one coaching a critical component of professional development training for all types of knowledge and skills or only for the development of complex skills?

Whatever professional development model is proposed for study, the Institute expects the applicant to clearly delineate (a) what information will be communicated to teachers and (b) how that information will be delivered. For example, if coaches are delivering content to teachers, applicants should clearly describe (a) the content to be delivered, (b) what steps coaches are expected to follow to train the teachers, (c) how the coaches will be trained, (d) the frequency and duration of the intervention, and (e) how the coaching sessions will be observed to determine the degree to which coaches are delivering the expected content in the prescribed way (i.e., fidelity of the intervention). In strong applications, researchers are careful to explain what the comparison group will receive so that reviewers can better determine if the project would move the field forward in terms of understanding why and how coaching works when it is effective, and under what conditions coaching is needed or not needed as a support to other forms of professional development.

Further, despite the bodies of research in the cognitive sciences that identify basic principles of knowledge acquisition and memory, and elaborate distinct differences in the ways that experts and novices organize and use information, it is not evident that developers of teacher professional development programs have utilized this knowledge base. The Institute strongly encourages those who propose to develop new professional development to build on this knowledge base (e.g., Anderson, Reder, and Simon 2000; Carver and Klahr 2001).

In addition to research on the development and evaluation of teacher professional development programs, the Teacher Quality — Math/Science program supports research on the development of practical assessments of teacher subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and instructional skills, and validation of these assessments (or existing assessments) against measures of student learning and achievement. Understanding what skills and knowledge make a teacher effective, and identifying teacher candidates and current teachers who have these skills and knowledge is critical to developing a highly qualified teacher workforce. Ideally, assessments of pedagogical knowledge and skills and subject matter knowledge would not only predict student achievement but also be practical to administer and cost-effective. The Institute is interested in proposals to validate existing measures of pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge against measures of student learning and achievement as well as proposals to develop and validate new measures.

The Institute also invites applications to develop and/or validate measures of teacher practices that could be used by schools to provide feedback to teachers and improve the quality of classroom instruction; such measures must be validated against measures of student achievement.

The Institute particularly encourages researchers to explore the relations between malleable factors (e.g., teachers' skills or knowledge, professional development programs) and student outcomes, as well as mediators and moderators of the relations between these factors and student outcomes, for the purpose of identifying potential targets for interventions. This is translational research intended to inform the development of innovative programs, practices, or products to improve student outcomes. One approach to the identification of malleable factors is for researchers to conduct detailed, quantifiable observations of teacher practices (types of instruction, frequency, duration, under what circumstances), and then use these data in conjunction with child characteristics to predict subsequent child outcomes. The goal here is to identify teacher practices that are strongly associated with better student outcomes. Researchers following this strategy who can identify strong correlates of student performance could use this information as the basis for developing a professional development intervention. Another approach is to conduct multivariate analyses of district or state databases in order to identify existing programs and practices that may be associated with better student outcomes and to examine factors and conditions that may mediate or moderate the relations between the student outcomes and these programs and practices.

References

Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (2000, Summer). Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education. Texas Educational Review. Downloaded from http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/publications/pubinfo.php?id=146 on August 25, 2008.

Carver, S. M., & Klahr, D. (Eds.). (2001). Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.