Structured Abstract
Setting
Teachers and students from low-performing middle (predominately rural) schools in South Carolina will participate in the study.
Sample
Seventy percent of the students in the schools to be selected are students who receive free or reduced-price lunch. The student population of these schools is 68 percent Black, 29 percent White, 2 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent from other minority groups.
Intervention
Reading and mathematics teachers in selected middle schools will receive 12 weeks of intensive professional development on classroom assessment, covering 12 topic modules, using video-presentation of material, collaborative small group work, presentation of a performance task related to a specific aspect of classroom assessment, and submission of parallel performance tasks for feedback. A final semester exam will be given to the teachers. Teachers receiving either an A or B in the course will receive 3 hours of recertification credit from South Carolina. Some follow-up activities will continue throughout the school year from trained coaches.
Research design and methods
The researchers will randomly assign 40 low-performing schools that agree to participate in the study to treatment and control groups. The 20 treatment schools will have grade 6 language arts and mathematics teachers receive the assessment training along with follow-up from trained coaches. Phase 1 tests the efficacy of the full intervention comparing grade 6 teachers in the treatment schools to their counterparts in the control schools. Phases 2 and 3 test the effect of providing follow-up training from trained coaches as compared to follow-up training from relatively untrained facilitators. In phase 2, the comparison is betwee grade 7 language arts and mathematics teachers in the treatment and control schools. In phase 3, the comparison is between grade 8 language arts and mathematics teachers in the treatment and control schools.
Control condition
In phase 1, grade 6 language arts and mathematics teachers in the control schools receive whatever professional development training the school normally provides. In phase 2, grade 7 teachers in the control schools receive the same 12 weeks of intensive professional development on assessment that the intervention group receives but the follow-up support is provided by relatively untrained facilitators. In phase 3, grade 8 teachers in the comparison schools receive the same 12 weeks of intensive professional development on assessment that the intervention group receives but again the follow-up support is provided by relatively untrained facilitators.
Key measures
Teacher assessments are being developed and field-tested, as are benchmark reading and mathematics assessments for students. In addition, standardized statewide assessments will be used to measure student achievement.
Data analytic strategy
Hierarchical linear modeling will be used to analyze the effects of the teacher development program on teachers and students.
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Products and publications
ERIC Citations: Find available citations in ERIC for this award here.
** This project was submitted to and funded under Teacher Quality: Mathematics and Science Education in FY 2005.
Supplemental information
A sub-sample of schools, teachers, and students will be randomly selected for observations and focus-group discussions and documentation of training implementation.
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
