Active Learning in Math and Science

Education Development Center Technology Tools for Teaching and Training (T4) December 31, 2010

Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Active Learning in Math and Science: Executive Summary Active Learning in Math and Science is a six-month professional development program that focuses on helping middle school math and science teachers integrate learner-centered instructional practices into their math and science classroom. The program operated in two states—Karnataka and Chhattisgarh—and consisted of three five-day workshops. In these workshops, teachers experienced learner-centered activities as if they were students; reflected on the activities as teachers; and became instructional designers, creating and practicing their own math/science learner-centered activities to do in their schools with students. As part of the professional development, teachers were scheduled to receive four follow-up support meetings per month—one in-class visit by an EDC support person; one monthly sharing meeting with EDC staff; one open lesson in which they conducted a learner-centered activity in their classroom and invited all teachers to observe; and one cluster-level meeting. The following case study qualitatively examines the results of the program using six teachers (three from Chhattisgarh and three from Karnataka as informants). Based on data review, the following professional development program outcomes have been observed: 





 

Instructional changes: Change in teachers’ instructional practices—particularly their use of collaborative techniques which in turn have altered how teachers interact and communicate with students; teachers’ use of teaching and learning materials; and formative assessment strategies. Improvement in teacher-student relationships: Teachers claim that students are better behaved, more engaged in learning and exhibit greater academic success. Students in turn claim that classes are more interesting and engaging, that they feel less fear toward their teachers and that teachers are more approachable since they are not standing lecturing in front of the class. Improved student - student relationships: Students in both states have expressed that they learn better by collaborating. When probed further, they said that they can teach one another in groups and share ideas. A common quote among students was: “I ask my friends if I do not know. I will share with my friends what I know. If my friends also do not have an answer, then we consult our teacher.” EDC professional development is regarded as very effective: Teachers credit EDC’s professional development and support for such changes and regard it as more effective than professional development they regularly receive. Follow-up support is essential to change: The regularity of follow-up appears to be positively related to the frequency and quality of implementation of learner-centered activities. Where teachers received consistent follow-up (Karnataka), they implemented learner-centered instruction on a more regular basis and express greater confidence in students’ abilities. Where teachers received less consistent inclass support (Chhattisgarh) they reported less implementation of learner-centered practices and more reservations about students’ academic abilities.

Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 1





Teachers need more support: All case study teachers expressed the need for involvement and support by principals and district level officials in this professional development program. All case study teachers stated that the program should be open to all subject area teachers, not just math and science teachers, and request that all teachers—not just one—in each school be trained in these methods. Teaching and Learning Materials: All teachers spoke of the need for additional teaching and learning materials, requesting help from states, districts or schools in procuring such materials.


Page 2

Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report If the children are in groups they will discuss about what I am teaching and ask doubts. Before that they would all keep quiet and never concentrate on the topic. Anuranjana, Teacher (Chhattisgarh)

Background: Active Learning in Math and Science In June 2010, Education Development Center’s Technology Tools for Training Teachers (T4) initiated a six-month professional development program to help 86 maths and science teachers across 68middle schools in two Indian states— Karnataka and Chhattisgarh—begin to implement learner-centered instructional methods in their classrooms. This program was initiated in response to USAID’s request that EDC conduct professional development with math and science teachers in Chhattisgarh and Karnataka. In Karnataka, EDC worked in eight districts. In Chhattisgarh, a newly formed state, EDC worked in six districts. The program built on an initial professional development pilot developed by EDC that took place from October 2009 to April 2010. In this pilot, EDC conducted three five-day sessions focused on helping teachers build learner-centered instructional and assessment skills within maths and science. EDC monitored the outcomes of the professional development, maintaining what “worked” and attempting to address what were viewed as the weaknesses of the initial pilot. These changes were applied to the “second” round of professional development (which this case study addresses) and included:     

Modification of professional development activities Hiring of full-time staff to provide ongoing support to teachers Elimination of certain activities that, though important for learner-centered instruction, did not conform to the Indian curriculum or board examination system Creation of an ongoing series of data collection procedures to allow EDC to further refine the professional development, its activities and the system of ongoing support Development of video documentation of teacher practice (to serve as “models” for any future professional development)

The professional development activities in this second round of professional development are outlined in greater detail in Appendix One. Briefly, they included instruction in the following areas:     

Collaborative learning Concept mapping Project-based learning Formative assessment Instructional design

The professional development was highly active and interactive, sequential and cumulative. The underlying proposition was that allowing children to “work together” in various Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 3

collaborative configurations could transform the teaching and learning experience — altering teachers’ interactions with students, allowing students to learn using authentic— versus artificial— teaching and learning materials, changing classroom organizational and assessment practices, and laying the groundwork for an eventual shift toward promoting students’ higher-order thinking skills. Within the professional development workshops, teachers spent two to three full days participating in learner-centered activities as “students” in a learner-centered (or “active learning”) classroom. They reflected on activities as teachers, discussing how they might adopt or adapt such activities themselves; the challenges they would encounter; and strategies and techniques for overcoming such challenges. The last two to three days were spent in instructional design. Teachers worked in block teams to create their own learnercentered activity. Their facilitator provided feedback on the activity and teachers revised it in an iterative fashion. They outlined the objectives of the activity; created all materials, groupings and resources; and designed the assessment. They then practiced the activity in a “dress rehearsal” with their EDC facilitator, received feedback and modified the activity accordingly. They then team taught the learner-centered activity with their teacher colleagues on the last day of the workshop. Colleagues provided additional feedback and teachers were given time for subsequent revisions. All of this was to prepare teachers to conduct the activity successfully with their students when they returned to their schools. The above sequence occurred in all three professional development sessions.

Defining Learner-Centered Instruction Active Learning in Math and Science is based on learner-centered instruction and in turn seeks to promote learner-centered instruction in middle school math and science classrooms. Learner-centered instruction is an instructional approach grounded primarily in constructivist learning theory and in neuroscience. As Figure 1outlines, learner-centered instruction is rooted in the notion of individual differences—a recognition that learners are unique individuals who have particular and distinct ways of working and learning. These individual differences are: 1. Individual learners have different learning styles (Learners have different aptitudes, intelligences; the process of inputting, processing and outputting knowledge is unique to each learner. 2. Individual learners have different working styles (Some learn better working alone, some work better collaborating, some work better in pairs) 3. Individual learners learn in different ways depending on learning resource/tools (computer, multimedia, a person, a book, etc.) 4. Individuals construct knowledge in different ways (via inductive thinking; higher-order thinking skills—problem-solving; analysis; identifying pattern; application of learning to new situations, etc.).


Page 4

Given this diversity, one instructional style cannot hope to “reach” all learners. Rather, instruction must be organized to address these individual differences in working and learning. Figure 1: Learner-centered Instruction

EDC’s professional development attempted to help teachers address all four of these characteristics of learnercentered instruction during the sixmonth professional development. EDC recognized that the fourth construct— creating knowledge (specifically higherorder thinking) would be most difficult for teachers and impossible to inculcate in a six-month period—and focused more intently on the remaining three constructs.

Case Study Upon conclusion of this six-month pilot in December 2010, this report examines what, if any, differences the professional development program has had on teacher practice and on student behavior— largely from the perspective of six teachers and their students. The following case study is the first of a two-step evaluation focused on EDC/T4’s professional development. This case study, like the mixed-methods evaluation report which follows in February 2011, formatively assesses EDC/T4s professional development program by answering the three evaluation questions listed in Figure 2. As with all case studies, it explores individual experiences across different conditions in order to hone in on key elements of the professional development and explain not just what happened, but why it did, or did not, happen. The second part of the evaluation, due in February 2011, will render a much broader picture of the professional development outcomes for all teachers. A fuller explanation of case studies can be found in Appendix 2 which also outlines in greater detail the rationale for and procedures involved in the case study research.


Page 5

To immediately orient the reader, however, we briefly note that data for the case study were gathered from the following seven sources:     

Figure 2: Case Study Questions This case study attempts to address the following three questions:

Case study teacher interview Baseline, mid-course and final classroom observations (3 for each teacher) Focus group discussion Focus group with case study teachers’ students Interviews with EDC teacher support staff

1. What changes have occurred in teachers’ classrooms as a result of the professional development? 2. What are teachers’ perceptions of this type of professional development (its strengths, weaknesses; value and any impact)? 3. What kinds of supports did teachers find most helpful, and what did they need more of, as they attempted to shift instructional practice to more learner-centered approaches?

Case Study Teachers Our case study teachers are evenly divided between Karnataka and Chhattisgarh, with three teachers representing each state. Figure 3 provides a demographic overview of these teachers: Figure3: Sampling Frame for Case Study

Chhattisgarh

Karnataka

Cases

Name

Teaching Experience (Yrs)

Subject Gender

Professional Preparation

Type of Location

Total Number of Students

F

26

Trained

Rural

46

F

40

Trained

Urban

120

M

31

Trained

Rural

47

Trained parateacher Untrained para-teacher Untrained para-teacher

Rural

43

Rural

103

1

Asha

5

2

Shashikala

10

3

Yoganarasimha

7

4

Anuranjana Beck Vijay Sharma

16

Maths

F

37

20

Science

M

43

Shobha Ramchandrakar

5

Maths

M

40

5 6

Science &Maths Science &Maths Science &Maths

Age

91 Tribal

Figure 3 outlines the most prominent professional characteristics of case study teachers as well as the demographics of their schools. Five of six teach in rural schools (including tribal Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 6

areas). Teaching experience among the six case study teachers ranges from five to twenty years with five of six at their current school between one and five years. Additional data (not included in Figure 3) reveal that teachers received very little professional development in the current or past years before Active Learning in Math and Science, with only one teacher reporting participating in a project-based training through his or her block during the current school year. The teachers reflect the overall socio-economics and educational context of their states: While the three Karnataka case study teachers—Asha, Shashakila and Yoganarasimha—have earned their B.Ed., and are “full” teachers, the three Chhattisgarh teachers are para-teachers who must supplement their teaching with a second job (a fact that impacted their ability to fully implement professional development learning in their classrooms). Two of the three Chhattisgarh teachers—Vijay Sharma and Shobha Ramchandrakar—are untrained. Case study teachers also exhibit a good deal of parity—with males and females equally represented. All teach either math or science, with the three Karnataka case study teachers teaching both subjects. Finally, all teachers have to contend with board examinations. Karnataka and Chhattisgarh are very different states economically, demographically and politically (given Chhattisgarh’s fairly recent emergence as a state). Similarly, teachers’ and students’ experiences vary greatly between the two states. For these reasons, we discuss the experiences of Chhattisgarh and Karnataka teachers separately though where appropriate we will summarize their aggregate experiences. The remainder of this report examines the three case study questions.


Page 7

Question 1: What changes have occurred in teachers’ classrooms as a result of the professional development? “I’m definitely a different teacher this year,” says Shashikala, a maths and science teacher at an urban school in south Bangalore. Although she has been teaching for a decade, Shashikala claims she is also a “better teacher” as a result of Active Learning with Math and Science. This sentiment is echoed by all six case study teachers across the two states.

Introduction A range of data—interviews with case study teachers, focus group discussions with their students, classroom observations and interviews with EDC staff—confirm that a number of instructional changes have occurred as a result of the implementation of the Active Learning with Math and Science professional development. When EDC staff conducted baseline classroom observations in June 2010, they observed “one” instructional style—a “stand and deliver” approach in which the teacher lectured and asked questions. Over the course of the six months, the same teachers both reported and demonstrated much greater instructional diversity focusing on the following practices:    

Collaborative approaches Creation of more diverse and authentic teaching and learning materials Shift from information delivery to facilitation of student learning Increased and more varied use of formative assessment strategies

We discuss each of these practices in detail below.

Discussion Question One discusses many of the changes in the case study teachers’ instructional practices. What accounts for such changes in teacher practice is the EDC professional development and the support (albeit varying) that teachers received. Our examination of all data; the observable link between very specific professional development activities and the same specific classroom instructional techniques; and the fact that five of six teachers state that they received no professional development in the prior year are responsible for such a causal claim. Collaboration The six case study teachers easily and immediately grasped the learning benefits of collaborative learning and directly implemented such approaches with their own students.

A number of positive changes were made in other areas of their teaching as a result of this one modification to their instruction. To facilitate collaborative learning, teachers realized they must carefully plan instruction, including creating multiple learning materials. Because students would now be working in collaborative teams, teachers could not simply rely on traditional learning materials such as the chalkboard—rather they had to create materials that could be used and shared in a jigsaw or learning centers activity. Another outcome of collaboration was an overall change in teachers’ communication practices. Because students would be working in groups, teachers had to facilitate group learning and this is in turn reflected in an increase in teacher facilitation techniques. Finally, as teachers began facilitating more lessons (as opposed to lecturing), observers noted an increase in the use of formative assessment practices—not just questioning students but observing them and listening to their discussions. Teachers encouraged students to ask questions and explain ideas to one another. Teachers also asked their students to demonstrate their group work to the whole class. Figure 4 illustrates these changes for the three Chhattisgarh teachers. As can be seen, initial or baseline observations revealed a predominantly, indeed exclusively, traditional approach—teacher lecture; teacher demonstration; the teacher questioning students who provide one-word answers; an A (teacher)-B(individual) communication pattern; students working individually; and predominant, if not exclusive, use of the chalkboard, notebook and teacher as the primary teaching and learning materials. As Figure 4 demonstrates, the prevalence of these teacher-centered methods (aggregated by the indicator, “Traditional Instruction”) decreased dramatically for the three Chhattisgarh case study teachers over the course of their formal classroom observations resulting in three dominant instructional practices—formative assessment, use of a greater variety of teaching and learning materials and collaborative techniques. Figure 4: Changes in Instructional Diversity among Chhattisgarh Case Study Teachers (Pre-, mid- and post1 professional development observations).

1The

histogram notes the prevalence of certain teacher behaviors. The classroom observer records all activity during the 40 minute classroom observation period using the Five Minute Observation Inventory (a standard observation protocol that records classroom activities in five-minute increments). Thus one 40-minute class may record several instances of traditional instruction (lecture, teacher demonstration, teacher talk). Text from the observation protocol evaluator is then analyzed using a series of “codes” and sub-codes—words or short phrases that break the text into segments (See Appendix 2 for a full list of codes). The segments are then combined into larger themes (axial coding) and analyzed to inform the evaluation questions. For instance, such individual codes as “students working in groups, “ “students teaching each other, “ and “student discussion” are aggregated into a larger descriptive code called “collaboration.” What should be taken from this graph and the following is that certain instructional approaches became far more prevalent throughout the course of observations. Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 1

60

Number of Coding References

50

40

30

20

10

0

Formative assessment 18

Use of TLMs*

Baseline

Traditional instruction 27

Collaboration**

1

0

Midline

0

14

9

56

Final

0

28

20

49

*One teacher, Vijay Sharma, used concept maps which have been included under TLMs. **The same teacher, Vijay Sharma, used a project-based approach which has been included as part of “collaboration.”

The assertion that collaboration drove instructional change is supported by interviews and focus group discussions with Chhattisgarh case study teachers. The three teachers understand the cognitive and affective benefits of “learning together” for themselves and for their students. By observing his students, Vijay Sharma notes that, “(i)f you do something by yourself you are the only one learning and the others are not getting the benefit. But if you do something together, the entire group will learn and the result will be very good.”Anuranjana concurs with Vijay Sharma’s reflection: “Collaboration is the best. When children do things in a group, they are more interested and do it properly.” Figure 5 demonstrates the same pattern among the three Karnataka case study teachers.


Page 2

Figure 5: Changes in Instructional Diversity among Karnataka Case Study Teachers (Pre-, mid- and post-professional development observations).

30

Number of Cding References

25

20

15

10

5

0

Formative assessment 14

Student use of TLMs 4

Collaboration

Baseline

Traditional instruction 13

Midline

3

15

15

17

Final

0

18

12

29

0

While traditional instruction (lecture, teacher demonstration, students as recipients of information, etc.) prevailed in baseline observations, individual learning quickly gave way to collaborative learning, an increased use of diverse teaching and learning materials and a greater degree, and greater kinds, of formative assessment—at least during formal classroom observations. EDC’s support person in Karnataka summarized the changes she witnessed over the past six months: (Teachers) now know that they have to prepare the lesson; they just can’t walk in and teach it. They know how to prepare a lesson so they are confident.

A teacher in the rural district of Magadi in Karnataka summarizes her instructional style before EDC’s professional development as “monotonous.” Before this year, she says, her students were “afraid” to interact with her because she “stood only at the blackboard.” Now, she says, “the children have become very close to me. This year I sit among the children or move around…I’m a better teacher.”


Page 3

They are not losing their temper because the children don’t listen. When that happened they were brutal with children. They’re not harassing students. Now they know the children won’t be distracted because they are engaged.

Teaching and Learning Materials (TLMs) Baseline observations of all six case study teachers revealed essentially three types of TLMs: the chalkboard; the teacher; and the students’ notebook.2 Yet, over the course of six months, two patterns of change emerged for teachers in terms of teaching and learning materials. First, as Figures 4 and 5 again display, case study teachers began to create more teaching and learning materials with which students could interact. In addition to the traditional TLMs used during baseline observations, teachers created readings, concept maps, models, and realia with which students could interact as part of either learning stations or jigsaw activities. For instance, Yoganarasimha made charts and “models” that students could use. To help students understand the composition of matter, he also procured a number of “found” materials—rocks, sand, and wood so students could learn about the composition of matter via a hands-on, exploratory process. Rather than having students “read about” or “watch” teacher demonstrations (for example, Figure 6: Teaching and Learning Materials of using a microscope), all case study Teaching and Learning Materials are so basic to teachers had students interact with student learning that their importance is often authentic learning materials. overlooked. Young students, in particular, learn Additionally, all six case study more readily about concepts that are tangible and directly accessible—visual, auditory, tactile, teachers to one degree or another and kinesthetic—to their senses. The had students create learning manipulation of “tools” for “concrete operations” materials. Most important, by is essential to children’s cognitive development. organizing students into Learning tools, or aids or materials provide collaborative groups, all case study several direct and critical benefits to learning: teachers utilized students as learning They help to situate learning within a particular aids. context; the manipulation of tools or learning aids can help students begin to understand abstract concepts and symbols; and view relationships among different types of ideas such as cause and effect, logic and sequences. They can reinforce or assist with concepts that students may not understand through audiovisual inputs only. Finally, and not inconsequentially, learning materials if well designed, sufficiently interesting and attractive, can interject the notion of play, choice and autonomy for students—all of which motivate student learning.

As important as teachers’ creation of a variety of TLMs, is also teachers’ increased, renewed or initial awareness of the importance of a using variety of TLMs as part of collaborative learning. Case study teachers, in interviews and as part of focus group discussions, spoke of their need for more TLMs; they spoke of the time and money spent on creating or buying TLMs and, as we will discuss in Question 3, they specifically requested that EDC provide them with assistance in procuring or creating more TLMs. Taken together—their use of more diverse 2

Baseline observations made no explicit mention of textbooks.


Page 4

learning materials and their agitation for help in creating more types of TLMs— is a positive development which allows us to make several inferences. First, it would seem to signify case study teachers’ recognition that student-driven, “hands-on” learning (associated with more interactive TLMs) is an essential feature of collaboration. As an extension of this point, it seems to indicate teacher recognition that collaborative learning can provide students with opportunities to interact with authentic tools and resources and do so in an exploratory and autonomous fashion. Finally, it suggests a paradigm shift from the traditional “audio-visual” mode of instruction that is the bedrock of teacher-centered pedagogy toward a learner-centered approach grounded in the notion of individual differences and multiple intelligences.

Teacher as Facilitator With students increasingly working in groups and interacting with multiple— versus single—learning materials, the case study teachers could not continue with their traditional role of standing in front of the classroom and dispensing information. Logistically it would just be impossible.

Figure 7: Changes in Students Aptitudes and Behavior

Before some students were not able to answer questions now students ask more and more questions. Now they show wonder, surprise and are interested. (Asha, GMPS,Thigalarapalya, Magadi Taluk, Karnataka) Kids can articulate and present their learning at the end of activity. Kids are more responsible and they know the importance of doing something and could make working models of many things. I taught them very little about soil but they learned a lot about that since I took them outside and showed different samples of soil. ((Vijay Sharma, MS Patparpali, Mahashamu Zilla, Bagban Block, Chhattisgarh)

The shift toward collaborative learning arrangements meant that teachers had to also change The kids are lively and interested and are always their role. Over the course of motivated. In the new method I see more energy six months, classroom and participation too. Yoganarsimhaswamy. (GHS, Shivasandra, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District, observations point to Karnataka) teachers as facilitators of student learning. Teachers planned instructional experiences for students; circulated among groups and assisted students as needed; interacted with students on a more intimate, small-group level; and prompted students to learn from and help one another. This shift toward a more facilitative instructional role was viewed positively by case study teachers, and more importantly by students themselves, who stated that this new teacher role made the teacher more accessible and less remote and as such students felt greater comfort and less “shyness” and “fear” seeking help from their teacher. As a result of their shift from lecturing to facilitating learning, every case study teacher noted a positive change in their relationship with students. All teachers noted improvements in students’ attitudes, aptitudes and behaviors as a result of teachers’ Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 5

implementing new instructional strategies learned in the professional development (See Figure 7). This positive improvement in relationships is critical since it is well established in educational research that the strength and teacher-student relationships can positively impact student learning

Assessment While initial classroom observations involved a good deal of formative assessment— teachers asking questions—the assessment was almost uniformly one-dimensional. The only forms of assessment observed were asking questions and giving (in the case of maths classes) problems for individual completion. A review of all data reveals two types of questions: (1) those that assess students’ declarative knowledge (their knowledge of facts) and/or (2) rhetorical questions (“Does everyone understand?”) that really seek no answer. With students working in groups, interacting independently with learning materials and with the teacher guiding and facilitating group learning, assessment practices were bound to change. Over the course of six months, teachers diversified the way they formatively assessed students. For instance, midline and final observations show that while teachers continued with oral questioning the whole class (with choral responses by students), they also included a number of other assessment practices: individual student questioning within a whole-class context; small group questions and individuals questions within a collaborative group context; small-group questioning; and one-on-one questioning techniques. Further, teachers added a host of assessment techniques—visual and auditory observations of student work; discussing with students; assessment by walking around (global scans of whole class work); doing math problems; asking students to summarize; asking students to co-teach one another; asking students to make brief presentations of their work; and more whole-class discussions in which individual students were encouraged to question and discuss with one another as part of the larger discussion. Vijay Sharma (Chhattisgarh) attempted to embed assessment within instruction by having students work on a project-based activity as part of his final formal observation. All are important developments because they suggest greater teacher cognizance of students’ individual strengths and weaknesses. Such developments also suggest that teachers recognize that there are a number of ways—versus one way—of taking the measure of what students know. Case study teachers, in particular Vijay Sharma, did attempt to introduce and utilize more higher-order questioning techniques—assessing students’ procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge. However, this remains a significant area of difficulty for case study teachers—indeed all teachers as will be discussed momentarily. Multiple assessment methods were utilized only for formative assessment. Summative assessment methods remain constant. All case study teachers report the futility of applying


Page 6

more learner-centered types of summative assessment (e.g., project-based learning) within a system that is so focused on examinations. Student focus groups confirmed results of classroom observations presented in Figures 4 and 5. Using worksheets, pictures and verbal activities, EDC evaluators met with students of case study teachers to better understand what was happening in the classroom from the learner perspective. Student focus group data confirms that teachers are in fact utilizing more learner-centered approaches in their classrooms—not just during classroom observations. It also provides some understanding about the frequency and fidelity of such instructional practices. Students could describe in detail teachers’ instructional changes and they expressed palpable enthusiasm about such changes. Students were asked to estimate the frequency of certain types of instructional practices this year versus last year. Figure 8 summarizes those practices for Arunjana, Shobha and Vijay Sharma.3 For a number of reasons, we urge caution in interpreting results. First, retrospective assessments are often unreliable. Second, students were asked these questions in September and October, thus the school year was quite young and doesn’t offer a fair full year of comparison with “last year.” Finally, this sort of assessment was so new to students that there is bound to be social acceptability bias—providing the answers students believe their interviewers want to hear. Figure 8: Frequency of Instructional Approaches (Student Focus Groups for Chhattisgarh Case Study Teachers)

3

Appendix 3 of this report contains the student focus group data disaggregated for all six focus group teachers.


Page 7

T. asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Asking each other questions Seated in rows with teacher at front of class T. facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Groups consulting with teacher Working in groups Participating in group work with group roles Doing jigsaw activity Working individually Doing hands-on activities Using different kinds of TLMs Displaying work Working in pairs Collaborating on a learning product Concept-mapping Doing outside research Building models Conducting interviews/surveys Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0.0

1.0 This Year

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year

Scale is as follows:0=Never; 1= Once; 2= Once a Month; 3= Once a Week; 4= More Than Once a Week; 5=Every day

Figure 8 again confirms two main patterns that have been previously discussed: The first is a reduction on the frequency of “traditional” or “teacher-centered” practices—working individually, sitting in rows and listening/taking notes as the teacher lectures from almost “every day” to “more than once a week.” The second is the ascension of practices that are more learner centered—various forms of collaboration (outlined in - brick) as well as indicators such as “collaborating on a learning product,” “asking the teacher questions,” “asking each other questions” “displaying work,” “hands-on learning” and “using different types of TLMs.” In many instances, such learner-centered practices never occurred before the EDC professional development. This pattern holds true for Karnataka case study teachers as well, as Figure 9 illustrates.


Page 8

Figure 9: Frequency of Instructional Approaches (Student Focus Groups for Karnataka Case Study Teachers)

T. asking questions to whole class Asking each other questions Asking the teacher questions Working in groups Facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Participating in group work with group roles Groups consulting with teacher Collaborating on a learning product Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Jigsaw activity Working in pairs Displaying work Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Using different kinds of TLMs Working individually Hands-on activities Building models Concept-mapping Conducting interviews/surveys Doing outside research 0

1 This Year

2

3

4

5

Last Year


As with their Chhattisgarh counterparts, Figure 9 shows that Karnataka case study teachers have begun utilizing more collaborative practices—on average between once and more than once a week. In contrast to their Chhattisgarh colleagues, Karnataka teachers appeared to exhibit some baseline use of “different kinds” of TLMs, hands-on learning activities and concept maps, albeit minimal. It was noticeable in student focus groups that students had already internalized a number of collaborative routines. They clearly knew how to form collaborative groups; assigned roles without being told to do so; fulfilled their roles; could discuss “jigsaws” and “learning stations” (though a few groups did not know the terms but understood the concepts) and worked together to achieve consensus. This could not have occurred unless teachers were in fact utilizing collaborative techniques with some regularity Students in all focus groups (n=90) were unanimous in their enthusiasm about collaboration. Figure 10 shows student responses to the question—“What helps you learn best?” What is striking about the responses is the degree to which they confirm some of the


Page 9

major tenets of human motivation theory—desire to work motivated by joint enterprise, a sense of belonging, group bonds, autonomy and a sense of play and fun. Alternatively, all 90 students were unanimous in what impeded learning—working alone. Students mentioned that, though they tried, sitting alone and listening to the teacher was “boring” and un-engaging and their minds wandered. Several groups mentioned the “fear” associated with working alone—fear of making a mistake; of being solely responsible for learning; of not having someone to help them if they didn’t understand; and fear of their teacher. Said one group: “When we work individually there is fear and we are less confident.” Another group of students said they wouldn’t ask the teacher a question if they were working alone. But when working in a group, they felt more confident asking questions and did in fact ask more questions of the teacher. Shobha Ramchandrakar’s Figure 10: What Helps You Learn Best? (Student Focus Groups n=90) students may have best summarized the affective differences We like to work in groups as we help each other, share what between working alone and we know and ask doubts to each other.We are a little scared individually: to ask doubts to our teacher but we are free with our friends. With group work, we discuss with each other and when one of us does not know, then we ask one another and learn. We ask the teacher only when all of us in the group do not know. When we work individually there is fear and we are less confident. But when we work in groups we do not have fear.

Since all of us are given responsibilities we get confidence and do our work well. (Shashikala’s students: Karnataka) Working in groups. We share our ideas with each other. We do not have fear working in groups. The teacher helps us in groups. If we do not know, then we ask the teacher.(Working in groups) increases our confidence.(Anuranjina’s students: Chhattisgarh) Group work is more helpful to learn maths.We share with each other, we discuss and we do not have fear.We teach other and understand better.The teacher sits with our groups and it is easy to ask help from the teacher when he is in groups. Wefeel comfortable working in groups…Ifwe sit alone it is difficult to answer and in groups since we discuss it is easy to answer.We were hesitant early and we are more confident now.(Shobha’s students, Chhattisgarh)

In many ways, collaboration is the foundation of learner-centered instruction. But collaboration is not an end in itself—rather the socialLast year we used to do only the problems that were easyand the difficult ones we used to omit,but now if one of us in the cognitive nature of collaboration group knows he/she explains to us and helps us to them.We should serve as a conduit for highershare. (Group work) is learning while playing….As roles are order learning. If collaboration is given work is done, roles also make us responsible and this the foundation of learner-centered also shared from one group to the other.Earlier we used to instruction; higher-order thinking— fight to become leaders but now we know our turn will come. the ability to apply learning to (Asha’s students: Karnataka) distinct and novel situations; to analyze information; to synthesize various points of view to arrive at a new thesis or understanding; and to evaluate the worth of competing points of view—is really the goal of learner-centered instruction. As Figure 11 suggests, students claimed that teachers have demonstrated instructional habits that have resulted in higher-order learning. Other data sources (classroom Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 10

observations, teacher self-reporting surveys and interviews with EDC program staff) suggest higher-order learning (particularly questioning techniques and project-based learning) was difficult for teachers and students. Nevertheless, these same data suggest that teachers are at the very least cognizant of the need for higher-order thinking skills and are attempting, as best they can, to promote such thinking skills. Figure 11: Frequency of Practices Indicative of Higher-Order Learning—This Year vs. Last Year (Chhattisgarh) Case Study Teachers

Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Answer a How question Answer a What question Have a classroom discussion where you can share ideas… Answer a Why question Give feedback to a classmate Answer a Who question Brainstorm ideas before writing Teach another student some concept or idea Answer a question where you give more than a one-word… Share what you already knew about a topic before the… Do a hands-on activity Do a task where you can choose how and what… Write a long essay where you describe, explain or give… Collect data Create a hypothesis Solve a problem (not just a math problem) Test your hypothesis Generate a rule or idea through testing and retesting a… Create a mind map Do a project in your community 0.0 This Year

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year


For Chhattisgarh case study teachers, increases in indicators of practices that promote higher-order learning revolved primarily around questioning techniques. Discussions with the students of Karnataka case study teachers suggested that case study teachers now use more higher-order instructional techniques across the board—though as Figure 12 also shows, Karnataka teachers started off from a stronger foundation in the use of higher-level instruction.


Page 11

Figure 12: Frequency of Practices Indicative of Higher-Order Learning—This Year vs. Last Year (Karnataka) Case Study Teachers

T. asking questions to whole class Asking each other questions Asking the teacher questions Working in groups T. facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Participating in group work with group roles Groups consulting with teacher Collaborating on a learning product Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Doing jigsaw activity Working in pairs Displaying work Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Working individually Doing hands-on activities Doing concept-mapping Building models Conducting interviews/surveys Doing outside research 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

This Year

Last Year

5.00


Promoting higher-order thinking—the heart of learner-centered instruction—remains challenging for all teachers—case study and non-case study, in better-resourced Karnataka and poorer Chhattisgarh alike. This is understandable: Teachers have themselves been students in a system that promotes memorization of facts versus critical analysis and application of information. They don’t know how to create activities that promote higherorder thinking; they don’t know how to ask open-ended and probing questions; and they don’t have the time or in many cases, the inclination, to design project-based approaches because the curriculum they follow and the examination system for which they prepare students do not focus on such skills.

Summary This section of the case study has largely focused on the instructional changes resulting Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 12

from EDC’s Active Learning in Math and Science professional development program. As the schema in Figure 13 visually displays, collaboration served as the catalyst for instructional change resulting in greater organization and planning by teachers and improvements in students’ affective, cognitive and even conative abilities. To promote collaborative learning in their classrooms, teachers had to carefully plan instruction, create learning materials and change the way they interacted with students. As the EDC support person noted, they could no longer “walk in, talk, and leave.” The ramifications of these three teacher behaviors is detailed in the left side of the schema in Figure 13, but can be synthesized as resulting in more differentiated and individualized student learning. In turn this individualization and differentiated appeared to spawn the student behaviors outlined on the right side of the schema in Figure 13. Students became, by their own and their teachers’ admissions, more engaged in learning, resulting in improved behavior and academic performance and resulting in increased teacher confidence in their abilities. As they were more engaged in learning, students began to teach one another in their collaborative groups and increased their own confidence in their own abilities. Based on examination of all data, this appears to have created self-generating momentum and a self-reinforcing pattern—greater teacher preparation makes possible more collaborative learning that the teacher must interact with, instruct and assess learners on a more individualized basis. In turn, this more supportive and individualized learning environment improved student performance, behavior and enjoyment of learning, which in turn motivated teachers to continue with planning for more collaborative and individualized instruction.


Page 13

Figure 13: Summary of Cause and Effects of Collaborative Learning

Question 2: What are teachers’ perceptions of this type of professional development (its strengths, weaknesses, values and impact?) This training really touches our heart. We learn new things and a change is happening within us. The best part here is that we experience less talk and good work. And the support meetings and phone calls rejuvenate us.—Vijay Sharma, Teacher, Chhattisgarh

Introduction This section of the case study examines teachers’ reactions to the professional development and to the ongoing school-based support that was part of the professional development program. (Appendix 1 provides a full description of the content of the professional development and ongoing support teachers received over a six-month period.) The primary data sources for this evaluation question are teacher focus groups and interviews—instruments that were deliberately designed to explore teachers’ embedded beliefs about the professional development and its effectiveness. In digesting the information in this section, it is critical that the reader not generalize the findings here to the whole population. Focus group samples and case study samples are purposeful samples—carefully selected teachers chosen for specific reasons and not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. In the case of focus group teachers, EDC sought a cross-section of high, medium- and low-performing teachers. The information presented here concerns only this small subset of teachers—13 in Chhattisgarh and 9 in Karnataka. The February 2011 evaluation will present broader and more uniform data from the whole census of teachers. All 86 teachers participated in three five-day sessions of Active Learning in Math and Science over the course of six months—for a total of approximately 120 hours. This is quite high by general international standards of professional development (though it may be less than the amount received by many Indian teachers). Since ongoing support is crucial to teachers’ actual implementation and institutionalization of what they’ve learned in professional development, teachers were also supposed to receive weekly support in the form of one monthly cluster level meeting; one classroom observation and feedback; one open lesson; and one monthly sharing meeting with EDC. Where teachers received continuous support—in Karnataka—we see greater satisfaction with the professional development and greater confidence about using learner-centered strategies; where teachers received less regular support, we see less satisfaction with the professional development and greater tentativeness about using learner-centered instructional practices.

Strengths of the Professional Development Program All six case study teachers reported that the professional development and the ongoing support helped them to change their instructional practices. In their discussions with independent evaluation staff, interviews and focus groups reveal the particular components of professional development teachers found most effective and why. We discuss these below: 1. Workshops: All case study teachers (indeed, all focus group teachers) rated the overall workshops as most beneficial in helping them change their practice. In contrast to “regular” workshops or trainings they have experienced in the past, which they regard as overly “theoretical,” “boring” and “not applicable” to their practice, the EDC professional development was described as helpful because it was “active,” “motivating,” “collaborative,” and promoted “learning by doing.” Every case study teacher insisted he or she would recommend this professional development program to their colleagues because it offered the following “benefits:”     

Continuous and ongoing professional development Discussions and reflections that helped teachers think about their practice and internalize new ideas Exposure to new and “modern” instructional methods including interactive instructional methods Gains in new and practical knowledge Changing attitudes toward students/Improved teacher-student interactions

The professional development workshops were viewed favorably by Chhattisgarh teachers:


Page 1

Figure 13: Utility of Professional Development, Chhattisgarh Focus Group Teachers (n=13)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 = The professional 2 = The professional 3 = The professional 4 = The professional development EDC development EDC development EDC development EDC provided has provided has provided is of little provided has some use to me—I can’t interesting ideas helped me apply helped me apply some of these many new ideas in apply these ideas to but don’t help me the classroom apply these interesting my classroom ideas/strategies to ideas/strategies in my classroom my classroom Responses 0 0 10 3

and by Karnataka teachers alike: Figure 14: Utility of EDC Professional Development: Karnataka Focus Group Teachers (n=9)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Responses

1 = The professional development EDC provided is of little use to me—I can’t apply these ideas to the classroom

0

2 = The professional 3 = The professional 4=The professional development EDC development EDC development EDC provided has some provided has helped provided has helped interesting ideas me apply some of me apply many new these interesting ideas in my but don’t help me apply these ideas/strategies to classroom my classroom ideas/strategies in my classroom 0 1 8


Page 2

Teachers rated the workshop format high for several reasons. First, the workshop facilitator engaged teachers in learner-centered activities as if they were students. This appeared to have the immediate effect of constructing teacher empathy for their students. In becoming learners again, teachers became aware of the kinds of activities that both assisted and impeded their own learning and, by extension, that of their students. For instance, Arunjana, identified herself as “slow” to catch on to “new ideas.” However, working collaboratively helped her learn better than if she were working alone, prompting a revelation that collaboration could actually benefit struggling learners. Asha, a young maths and science teacher from rural Karnataka, contrasted the “activity-based” and “learning by doing” format with the monotony of other forms of professional development where teachers sit and listen, much like their students in a traditional classroom. Like her students, Asha became aware of what she liked and didn’t like and what helped and didn’t help her own learning—lessons that she too applied to her own classroom. Next, the workshops provided actual models of the type of instruction teachers were supposed to implement. Until June 2010, teachers were often exhorted to utilize “active learning” approaches but were not provided models of what this actually looked like in the classroom. According to case study teachers, EDC’s professional development provided such models. Teachers participated in a number of different learner-centered models as if they were students; they reflected on such models from the point of view of teachers; and they then designed and implemented their own learner-centered models which they conducted with their workshop colleagues, with their students and in one case, with school colleagues in an open lesson. Finally, the workshops provided teachers with immediately “implementable” ideas and approaches, particularly in the case of collaborative learning. Collaborative approaches, in particular, pairs, trios and learning stations, were “easy” to implement in the words of Anuranjina and Vijay Sharma of Chhattisgarh. Formal classroom observations recorded numerous examples of ideas, tools and techniques that teachers immediately adopted and adapted in their own classrooms—concept maps, students conducting surveys, students doing oral histories, the use of role cards for collaborative groupings, summarizing the day’s activity with “big ideas,” sheets displaying the number of minutes remaining in an activity (so as not to interrupt student discussions) and so forth. Like teachers everywhere, the case study teachers assimilated ideas that they felt “worked” and disregarded ideas and strategies they felt would not work (such as project-based learning). Across both states all case study teachers found project-based learning hardest to use, mainly because their curriculum does not support the length and depth that projects entail (and consistent with our assertion of their difficulty implementing higher-order learning). Case study teachers in Chhattisgarh—though not Karnataka—expressed trouble implementing jigsaw techniques. Case study teachers in Chhattisgarh, most likely because of their own lack of formal training and what they claim is the very low academic level of students, generally expressed more difficulty implementing all techniques, in contrast to Karnataka teachers. Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 3

2. Lesson Design: Though we are not entirely certain, it appears that most of the case study teachers had never before designed a lesson— certainly not a learner-centered one. Focus-group discussions with case study teachers revealed that they appreciated help in designing lessons using the Backward Design approach. When asked why Backward Design was so helpful, most teachers stated that it helped them think about their instructional objectives—something they had not done in the past. Like most teachers, they had begun with the content topic they were supposed to teach. As a result of Backward Design, they began lesson planning by thinking about what students should know and be able to do as a result of the lesson. As Chhattisgarh case study teachers told independent evaluators: “[Backward Design] helps us in ascertaining the objectives of the lesson…we plan the content that has to be taught, prepare and use teaching aids. This makes the lesson interesting and sequential.” The EDC support person in Karnataka noted that now because of learner-centered instruction, “teachers must plan. Before with lecture methods, they never planned. They walked in, talked and walked out.” 3. Observation and Assessment: For teachers who received this on a somewhat regular basis—and this differed dramatically by state—observation and assessment of teachers’ lessons was credited by teachers as positively helping them implement and define new instructional changes. Observation and assessment was carried out in Karnataka once a month but less regularly in Chhattisgarh because of difficulty in hiring local personnel and the distance between schools. In Karnataka, the EDC facilitator and two EDC support staff (one, a 25-year teaching veteran) typically observed teachers and met with them for about an hour after the lesson to discuss its strengths and shortcomings and provide assistance in modification. One support staff person reported, and discussions with the Karnataka case study teachers reveal, that teachers were very open to suggestions for improvement. The support person spoke with EDC evaluators about the benefits of classroom observations and feedback: It makes teachers unlearn the misconceptions they learned in B.Ed. They are unlearning so they can learn new ideas. They are now less likely to do chalk and talk and stand lecturing with the stick. They have learned how to get the most from children. This gives them the confidence to be facilitators because this way they know they are getting the best from children. In Chhattisgarh too, where observation and assessment occurred, teachers were very positive about the process, noting that it “help[ed] us immediately correct our mistakes;” stating that it prompted their own self-reflection about their instructional practices; and commenting that in-class assessment and feedback helped them to “refine” what they learned in professional development sessions.

Weaknesses of the Professional Development Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 4

Except for one instance (the language of instructional materials in Chhattisgarh), the weaknesses of Active Learning in Math and Science can essentially be summarized as a perceived general lack of sufficient support, as the following ranked list shows.     

Not enough in-class support Lack of Hindi-language professional development materials Lack of involvement of principals Not enough materials that teachers can use in their classrooms The decision to train only one teacher per school

Question 3 will offer recommendations for remedying the above weaknesses. For now, we discuss the implications of the lack of support but first discuss the importance of supports. For case study teachers, in-class support was critical to their ability to carry out learnercentered activities. Such visits encompassed a number of activities—discussions, recommendations, reviewing lesson plans, and informal observations. For the most part, they included formal observations and feedback by an EDC support person or professional development provider (as happened regularly in Karnataka). The observation and feedback held several distinct programmatic and professional benefits: 1) It assured accountability by forcing teachers to prepare and carry out a learner-centered activities; 2) It linked professional development to actual classroom practice and stressed the importance of this new way of teaching and learning; 3) It provided “just-in-time” and classroom-based corrections and feedback; 4) It helped to build teacher confidence and self-efficacy; and 5) It strengthened the bonds between professional development provider/support person and teacher. Question 1 of this case study offers tangible classroom-based evidence of the benefits of the professional development listed above—teachers’ changing roles from purveyors of information to facilitators of learning; teachers’ changing practices—adoption of new instructional and assessment procedures; and even teachers’ changing attitudes (as exhibited in their interactions with and reflections about their students). Central to these changes are shifts in teacher beliefs—which we explore in detail in this section and which we use as the lens through which to view answers about the overall effectiveness and worth of this professional development. Chhattisgarh and Karnataka focus group teachers (again, this includes case study teachers) vary in the degree to which they felt supported as Figures 15 and 16 suggest. In Chhattisgarh, EDC was able to only hire one qualified support person who was responsible for follow-up in 43 schools across five districts. As a result, though in-class visits occurred, follow-up in Chhattisgarh occurred mainly via phone and less regularly than in Karnataka. Only three of 13 Chhattisgarh focus group teachers stated that they received “regular” or “constant” classroom support.


Page 5

Figure 15: Levels of In-Class Support: Chhattisgarh Focus Group Teachers (n=13)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Responses

1 = I often feel alone—I haven’t received any in-class support to help me do active learning

2 = I’ve had some help from support people—but it’s very minimal and isn’t enough to help me do active learning

1

9

3 = I’ve had regular in-class support—it’s made some difference but I still need more support to help me do active learning 1

4= I have had constant support and it has really helped me do active learning in my classroom 2

The varying levels of support impacted the degree to which teachers actually implemented learner-centered instructional approaches in their classrooms. In Chhattisgarh, focus group teachers who reported receiving less than optimal levels of in-class support also reported less frequent implementation of learner-centered instructional practices, as Figure 16 demonstrates.


Page 6

Figure 16: Focus Group Data: How Often Do You Use Learner-Centered Techniques in Your Classroom? (Chhattisgarh Teachers n=13)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Responses

0= Now, I understand the concept, but I still don’t really know how to do it in my class 0

1 = I know I’m supposed to, but for one reason or another I don’t really do it.

2 = I do it when I can, maybe one or two times per month

5

6

3 = Yes, I use active learning strategies pretty much constantly; it’s a central part of my teaching 1

In contrast, logistics, capacity and geography favored more regular follow-up in Karnataka. EDC employed three follow-up persons in Karnataka; several schools were located in Bangalore; and travel in Karnataka was generally easier than in Chhattisgarh. The result of this is seen in Figure 17 where Karnataka focus group teachers—though they still want more— report greater general satisfaction with the level of support they received.


Page 7

Figure 17: Levels of In-Class Support: Karnataka Focus Group Teachers (n=9)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Responses

1 = I often feel alone—I haven’t received any in-class support to help me do active learning

0

2 = I’ve had some help from support people—but it’s very minimal and isn’t enough to help me do active learning 0

3 = I’ve had regular in-class support— it’s made some difference but I still need more support to help me do active learning 7

4= I have had constant support and it has really helped me do active learning in my classroom 2

In Karnataka, where in-class support was more regular, all nine focus-group teachers use learner-centered instruction “once or twice” a month as observed in Figure 18.


Page 8

Figure 18: Focus Group Data: How Often Do You Use Learner-Centered Techniques in Your Classroom? (Karnataka Teachers)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0= Now, I understand 1 = I know I’m 2 = I do it when I can, the concept, but I still supposed to, but for maybe one or two times per month don’t really know how one reason or another to do it in my class I don’t really do it.

3 = Yes, I use active learning strategies pretty much constantly; it’s a central part of my teaching

Frequency of implementation is tied to follow-up. Since Karnataka teachers report that they generally received follow-up classroom visits once per month, they had to do at least one-learner centered activity per month as part of their in-class observation. Additionally, in Karnataka, at least three of focus-group teachers reported conducting open lessons (showcasing learner-centered activities) for their colleagues, in contrast to only one Chhattisgarh focus-group teacher. Follow-up is critical for another reason—it can help alter teachers’ beliefs. Professional development is the process by which change is set in motion, but ongoing support is the mechanism by which change is consistently reinforced. The literature on change (Hord et al., 1987; Rogers, 1983) notes that change is non-linear, complex, and takes a number of years to internalize. Teacher practice is derived from teacher beliefs. Teachers cannot successfully change their practice without changing their beliefs. In this literature on teacher change, we distinguish between teachers’ “espoused” or articulated beliefs—what they say they believe or value—and their deep or “embedded” beliefs— the drivers of classroom practice. Teachers who receive little or no school-based support to help them try new techniques experience no changes in these “embedded” beliefs and values. In turn, in a reinforcing cycle, these beliefs and values govern their actions and inaction. Capable and frequent school-based support disrupts this cycle, providing both pressure and support for teachers to change what they do. When teachers see positive changes as a result of their actions, their deeply-held beliefs about traditional


Page 9

instruction may conflict with what they in fact witnessed in their classrooms. This is the beginning of the evolution of change. This contrast between espoused and embedded beliefs is conspicuous in Chhattisgarh where teachers received little initial training as teachers, where they regard their students as “not capable” or as “other,” and where, particularly in light of the absence of principal support, community support, regular in-class support and no school-based colleagues undergoing the same professional development, they appeared to be less willing to experiment with new ideas or approaches—particularly since they were not entirely confident in their own abilities. When asked they didn’t use more active learning techniques, seven of nine Chhattisgarh teachers cited “the low levels” or “lack of competence” of their students. As the independent evaluator noted, summarizing the Chhattisgarh teachers’ focus group discussion: The jigsaw failed because of the low competence of students. Many teachers repeated that in jigsaw students are expected to move from group to group and articulate their learning individually. This can be done only if students are capable of speaking out to the others about what they have learnt. While some student (leaders) can do this, not all are capable as of now. In contrast to Chhattisgarh teachers, not one Karnataka teacher mentioned students’ low abilities (On the contrary, they discussed enlisting students to create teaching and learning materials), and though they too needed more support, they appeared to be able to apply learner-centered strategies with greater frequency. There are probably several reasons for this—teachers in Karnataka have B.Eds, they are younger (and thus have less to “unlearn”), they are culturally similar to the children they teach, and may have students who attend school on a more consistent basis. But based on what we know of teacher change, one of the reasons for their more consistent implementation of learner-centered techniques was the more regular school-based support that Karnataka teachers appeared to have received.

Summary As a transition to Question 3 and as a summary of Question 2, this section concludes with an observation by EDC’s support person in Chhattisgarh about the professional development and the issue of supports. I’d like you to step back from this program, if you can, and assess the professional development and support. Overall, what “grade” would you give it—and why? Support: 5 out of 10. Why? Because we have a long way to go. The whole system, the lack of opportunity for teachers, the lack of new ideas and personal interest, their poor training, no community support because schools are in Active Learning in Math and Science: Case Study Report

Page 10

rural areas, agricultural areas. These teachers are trying to apply new methods against these odds —new ideas in areas that hold onto old ideas. They are alone in their school and surrounded by other teachers using old teaching methods. We provide school-level support but in their school, there is no support, no motivation, no appreciation because they are the only teacher doing this. We need to build a whole system of support for them. PD: 7 out of 10. Why? Because of opportunities. We have provided new instructional pedagogies. They have a free hand in the school. Classroom support we have been able to organize but it is still not enough. There should be follow-up, refresher workshops. Three is not enough. There are so many problems. We are separate from the system. We have to get better response from the principals/headmasters. There is no induction training or session to introduce the principals to the PD and there’s only one teacher from each school. This is not enough. There should be more teachers from each school because this one teacher can’t do this alone. The whole school has to be on board. This is the major hindrance. What we’ve given them, they are good at but we need to give far more structure. But it will happen. Their quality is improving and students’ quality is improving.


Page 11

Question 3: What kinds of supports did teachers find most helpful, and what did they need more of, as they attempted to shift their practice toward a more learner-centered approach? This final section of the case study continues with the themes discussed in Question 2. It examines teachers’ reactions to the support they received as part of the Active Learning in Math and Science professional development, detailing those which were most helpful and areas where teachers feel they need more assistance. This section draws on data from interviews with the six case study teachers and focus group discussions. In many Figure 19: Levels of Support for Focus-Group Teachers: Both States (n=22) cases, it will situate teachers’ comments within the larger narrative around effective teacher professional development and teacher change as it summarizes “lessons learned” from this professional development program and as it suggests recommendations for moving forward with similar types of professional development programs.

Introduction The issue of support was paramount for focus-group study teachers (which included case study teachers). The most positive benefits, the greatest weaknesses and the most frequently suggested professional development program improvements all centered on the issue of ongoing support. “Support” contained multiple meanings for teachers, encompassing numerous dimensions, as Figure 19 demonstrates. Figure 19 frames the kinds of additional supports teachers say they need to

“Support” is not simply one type of assistance but rather a multi-layered array of different types of “infrastructure” to help teachers successfully carry out their professional responsibilities. For focus-group study teachers, “support” included: Administrative support: Leadership; compliance monitoring by principals; official recognition; serving as interlocutor between school and district or school and community; expressions of support for implementation of new innovations; and administrative decisions that provide teachers with time and resources to carry out new instructional practices. Instructional support: Typically, this is a coach, mentor, or inclass support person who guides, co-implements or helps the teacher with content, instruction, assessment, classroom management and the conceptual and logistical issues arising from change. School-based community: A community of colleagues also undergoing the same professional development. Such a community can increase the “social capital” of a school as the whole school may function better because the collective ties of its members lead to an improvement in the “common good.” Community and/or family support:Formal and informal recognition and approval by parents of teachers’ efforts. This support can manifest itself in terms of resources or materials for the classroom. Teaching and Learning Materials: The most basic level of support. Teachers need access to authentic resources or need to be able to purchase or create curriculum-specific teaching and learning materials. Time: Release time for teachers to meet in-class support person; dedicated time during the school day or week to engage in the extensive planning that is a requisite for learnercentered instruction. “Time” is also invoked by teachers who feel unsure of how to embark on change.

institutionalize learner-centered practices in their classroom. EDC designed a four-pronged support strategy as part of the Active Learning in Math and Science professional development program. This included, on a monthly basis, the occurrence one of each of the following: 1. In-class visit by EDC support staff 2. School-based “open lesson” in which the participating teacher demonstrated a learner-centered strategy for non-participating colleagues 3. Cluster-level meeting at the block level 4. Sharing meeting with EDC professional development provider and participating teachers Where EDC was able to control the support process—in-class visits, cluster-level meetings and sharing meetings— they occurred (though, as discussed, in-class support happened with less regularity in Chhattisgarh). These follow-up support opportunities were generally regarded favorably by case study teachers since they allowed teachers to receive in-class assistance; share the successes and travails of shifting their instructional practices; and furnished a community of likeminded practitioners and colleagues all experiencing the same sorts of change. Where the support activity was left to the organization of the school or principal, as in the case of open lessons (in which teachers model for all teachers a new classroom activity), they either did not occur or took place infrequently or incompletely. This was unfortunate since open lessons would have furnished some of the “models” of new instruction that teachers themselves say they need. The remainder of this question, indeed report, discusses teachers’ assessments of the most useful forms of support they received as part of Active Learning in Math and Science; their articulation of the types of supports needed to help any teachers implement any sorts of instructional or curriculum-based changes; and an overall set of recommendations for USAID, Indian state governments and any additional entities seeking to fund and/or develop teacher professional development programs.

Discussion Most Useful Supports Most helpful to teachers, by far, were classroom visits by EDC support staff. Since Active Learning in Math and Science teachers were the only school participants in this professional development and since principals traditionally serve as administrators, versus instructional leaders, this in-class support assumed even greater importance to case study teachers, helping to lessen their sense of professional isolation. In-class support ranged from formal observations and feedback (as discussed in the previous question) to informal observations to conversations about planning and Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 1

organization to lesson-plan review. In-class support was supplemented by frequent phone-based support which helped case study teachers feel connected to the goals of the professional development, as well as to EDC’s professional development provider and support staff. Phone support was a helpful ancillary to school-based support, but was not considered an appropriate substitute to the physical presence of a support person. All case study teachers could cite specific instances where school-based support resulted in tangible classroom-based improvements. For instance, Asha, the young maths and science teacher from rural Karnataka, noted that her own content knowledge had improved through interaction with her support person. Asha contended that EDC’s support person “helped me (with) resources, especially for topic ‘Respiration’ in Biology. (The support person) suggested a working model using plastic bags as lungs for breathe-in/breathe-out action. That was very useful and kids enjoyed it a lot.” One Chhattisgarh focus-group teacher recounted how, in one class of over 100 students, he was completely lost as to how to organize collaborative groups. His school-based support person suggested that the teacher divide the class into thirds—locating one third of students on the verandah, one third in the school garden and the last third in the classroom thereby organizing each group into learning stations with their own study materials, group roles and tasks. The activity was successful and the teacher remarked that he would never have been able to allow so many students to work collaboratively were it not for the help of his support person. Teacher Suggestions for Program Improvement Chhattisgarh and Karnataka focus-group teachers (which includes case study teachers) were fairly consistent in their suggestions about the additional inputs necessary to improve the overall professional development program and to help them more successfully implement the outcomes of the professional development program. Figures 20 and 21 summarize teacher suggestions as gathered from interviews and focus groups. Since teachers were asked to provide multiple responses, these graphs demonstrate the percentage of responses as opposed to respondents. For Chhattisgarh focus-group teachers, where face-to-face support was less regular, where the community is perceived as uninvolved in their children’s education, and where the three case study teachers possess less formal training than their Karnataka counterparts, the issue of support loomed large. As Figure 20 illustrates, 60 percent of teacher responses focused on the need for more “support.” A glance back at Figure 19 reveals that almost all of what Chhattisgarh teachers say they need for successful implementation is rooted in issues of support. But Chhattisgarh teachers articulated the need for “support” in human terms. Based on their comments, “support” very clearly included the following attributes in the following order:

Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 2

   

A school-based community of learners: Broadening the content focus of Active Learning in Math and Science so that all teachers in the school could be trained Greater interaction with instructional experts and coaching: Through more frequent professional development sessions and in-class follow-up support Leadership: Including principals and district personnel in the professional development and making them responsible for supporting teachers in carrying out the new instructional methods Community support: School communication with parents and community members about the new instructional methods

Figure 20: What Do You Need More of to Successfully Implement Learner-Centered Instruction? (Chhattisgarh Case Study Teachers)

7%

5%

6%

22%

60%

Support (Training other teachers, regular follow-up, etc.) Materials Alignment with syllabus Models ("Ideal" lesson plans, examples, etc.) Miscellaneous

Though they defined “Teaching and Learning Materials” as distinct from “support,” this issue of access to and availability of sufficient materials was also pre-eminent for Chhattisgarh teachers. In interviews and focus-group discussions, teachers commented that their textbooks were “out of date” and emphasize “old ways” of instruction. As discussed earlier in this report, learner-centered instruction necessitates a shift toward working with and learning from more authentic, more “hands on” and less didactic materials. Chhattisgarh teachers appear to believe they have exhausted their potential in creating “low-cost” learning materials and asked for additional professional development; money; supplies and support to further help them in this task. When one part of an ecosystem (such as instruction) is altered while other intersecting and supporting components (such as content, curriculum, and assessment) remain intact, some degree of entropy or disequilibration ensues. It is clear from their comments that teachers were cognizant of this imbalance and wanted coherence among the various components of the educational ecosystem. Though they compose a smaller proportion of overall suggested improvements, Chhattisgarh teachers requested Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 3

alignment between instruction and all other components of the educational system and invoked the need for “models” (real and media-based) of examples of learner-centered instructional practices in government schools like their own. For Karnataka teachers, as seen in Figure 21, needs were similar but differently ordered than for Chhattisgarh teachers. Karnataka teachers, who received more regular in-class support than their Chhattisgarh colleagues, focused more on the need for teaching materials (books, microscopes, supplies and TLMs). Like their Chhattisgarh colleagues, they asked for more funds, supplies and professional development to help them create teaching and learning materials. Figure 21: What Do You Need More of to Successfully Implement Learner-Centered Instruction? (Karnataka Case Study Teachers) 18% 37% 12%

33% Materials (Books, resources, learning aids) Support (Monitoring, in-class help, include all teachers) Models (Share lessonplans, demos, video clips) Miscellaneous (Everything else)

Karnataka focus-group teachers also asked for greater “support,” much in the same fashion as Chhattisgarh teachers. Like their colleagues, Karnataka focus-group teachers want all teachers in their school to be trained “in these methods” so that teachers can support one another. They want increased in-class help, more observation and monitoring from principals and district officials—though since they have received more ongoing support and since they have better professional preparation, they may feel more confident about their abilities vis-à-vis Chhattisgarh teachers. And like their colleagues to the northeast, Karnataka focus-group teachers recognize that they, like all beginners in any professional endeavor, need feedback, models and demonstrations of what it is they are exactly supposed to be doing. Moving Forward: Improving Teacher Quality


Page 4

The shortcomings and suggestions for improvements by the Chhattisgarh and Karnataka focus-group teachers are very much aligned with recognized best practices in teacher professional development and teacher change. Globally, nations that have transformed their education systems within the past two decades (most notably Singapore and South Korea) and countries recognized for excellence in education (such as Finland, Singapore, Ireland and New Zealand) are characterized by an instructional system that is rooted in learner-centered pedagogies, for sure. But more so, these same countries have grasped some basic truths. First, professional development is about improving teacher quality. Teacher quality is inextricably linked to student learning. In fact, measure after measure, across the globe shows this to be demonstrably true. Next, improvements in teacher quality can only take place if the school—versus the teacher—becomes the focus of curative efforts. Teachers and students don’t operate in a vacuum. Their behavior and attitudes are shaped by the values, policies and practices of the educational system. “Schooling” —classroom-based teaching and learning transactions—can only change as part of systemic, versus tangential, changes in the educational context within which schooling occurs. Finally, because of weaknesses in the teacher pre-service preparation system, teacher in-service programs have the dual task of helping teachers “unlearn” outmoded or suboptimal content, curricular, instructional and assessment methods while “learning” research-based, recognized best practices—such as learner-centered instruction— in these same areas. But the unlearning/learning is neither quick nor easy nor cheap. As focus-group teachers so rightly note in Figure 19, helping teachers “redo” and “undo” poor practices that garner the variety of outcomes described in this demands time, resources, and various forms of conceptual, instructional, logistical, emotional and material supports. With these admonitions and the experiences of case-study teachers as background, we turn to the very last of this report—recommendations for “moving forward” with a teacher professional development system focused on measurably improving teacher quality and student learning. Figure 22, through a series of concentric circles, attempts to delineate the layers in the educational system that must be addressed in order to improve teacher quality (with the ultimate goal of impacting student learning which rests at the core of this graphic). This visual will frame the ensuing set of recommendations. Though we attempt to fit recommendations into a particular “jurisdiction” (system, school, professional development), we recognize that such a classification may not reflect every state or educational entity based on its own unique structure.


Page 5

Figure 22: Layers of School Change

1. Educational System/Context: The educational system, represented in Figure 22 by the outermost circle, provides the framework, the context, the belief system within which educational policies, practices and procedures are conceived, implemented and evaluated. These include beliefs and policies about how children and adults best learn and work; associated practices to disseminate such policies; the establishment of curricular, assessment and evaluation systems to implement such practices; attitudes about the professionalism and capacity of teachers and principals to implement such practices; and so forth. This is the superstructure within which teachers operate and with which—or against which— all teacher professional development systems must conform or contend. It is beyond the scope of this case study to outline the myriad systemic changes necessary to promote teacher quality. Instead, some of the key changes necessary to advance the examples of teacher quality discussed in Question one (increased planning, facilitation, development of TLMs, etc.) are outlined below: 

Changes in Beliefs: The case study earlier discussed the need to help teachers transform their “espoused” beliefs into “embedded” ones. The educational “system,” whether state or national, can do likewise by formally articulating and widely disseminating an educational philosophy or theory of action grounded in explicit learner-centered beliefs and practices—and by establishing state or national teacher-preparation and instructional standards that reflect such


Page 6

beliefs. Presently, both appear to be missing. In the absence of national professional development or teaching standards, documents such as India’s Vision2020 policy paper4 puts forth a series of “espoused” beliefs which still reside largely at the top level of the system. Such beliefs need to be pushed down the various layers of the educational pipeline so they can be transformed into discrete and “actionable” practices embedded in schools and classrooms. 



Alignment of Curriculum and Examination System: Content, curriculum, instruction and assessment in practice are inextricably linked and are the drivers of teacher practice—in particular, the assessment system. To support the types of instructional changes promoted by Active Learning in Math and Science, all four of these components must be reformed simultaneously and coherently. To focus on one at the exclusion of the others dilutes the possibility of meaningful change and creates the sort of practice-based tensions of which case study teachers spoke. The present board examination system within which the case study teachers operate makes it impossible for teachers to implement core features of learner-centered instruction, such as higher-order thinking and project-based learning, because Figure 23: The importance of teacher evaluations the exams don’t measure the knowledge and skills promoted by “Evaluations should provide all teachers with these approaches. regular feedback that helps them grow as professionals, no matter how long they have been in the classroom. Evaluations should give schools the information they need to build the strongest possible instructional teams, and help districts hold school leaders accountable for supporting each teacher’s development. Most importantly, they should focus everyone in a school system, from teachers to the superintendent, on what matters most: student academic success.” (The New Teacher Project, 2010) Available: tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10.pdf

Tailor the teacher evaluation system to include adoption of learner-centered instructional practices: There is currently no compelling reason for teachers to change their instructional practice. The curriculum, content, culture and most important, the examination system which drives the first three components, overwhelmingly favors traditional, teacher-centered, fact-based, rote instruction. Any teacher who wishes to shift his/her instructional or assessment practices does so of his/her own volition and personal force of will. And any initiative that relies on the personal goodwill or compliance of members, absent formal leadership or supporting structures, is completely unsustainable. As mentioned repeatedly here, unless all components of the educational system cohere, learning, culture and instruction are fractured and working at cross purposes.

It takes years for systems to change (if they do). One area within the education system that might be (relatively) easily addressed to support and induce teacher instructional 4

See http://www.indiavision2020.org/


Page 7

change is the teacher evaluation or appraisal system. This has been successfully accomplished in other areas where system change is slow. If utilization of learnercentered practices is integrated into formal teacher appraisal systems, teachers will at least have some greater incentive for applying such techniques. 

Develop the capacity of school-based support staff: Without ongoing classroom-based support to help them internalize what they’ve learned in professional development, teachers will either fail to implement or abandon new instructional methods, particularly in the face of difficulties such as a lack of resources, an examination system misaligned with instructional practices or lack of principal or colleague support. To unlearn less than optimal practices and learn approaches more amenable to student learning, teachers need the assistance of a school-based support person, preferably from within the block, cluster or district (versus from an external agency). But what they really need is a highly competent school-based support person who understands how to help teachers get from point A to point Z. It is not clear that the present system of support people is capable of serving in such a capacity because they themselves were trained and acculturated in a system that promotes traditional and less than optimal methods of teaching and learning. Similarly, it seems that the same group of support people has little practical experience of actually working in classrooms. For teachers to change their practice, educational entities have to build a functioning system of teacher support personnel. They must fund this support system; develop the capacity of teacher support personnel so that they can guide, mentor and assist teachers implement exemplary professional practices; and monitor and evaluate their work with teachers. Such a support system has to be concurrent with any type of teacher professional development program, regardless of the focus.



Offer more—and varied—types of teacher professional development: As teachers and EDC support staff have noted, teachers need more, and more varied, professional development. While workshops are a good one-to-many means of exposing teachers to new ideas and practices, as focus-group teachers themselves noted, there are other forms of professional development that can help deepen teachers’ knowledge and skills in certain sub-areas while at the same time complementing and refining what has been communicated in workshops.

In 2007, in discussions with hundreds of teachers across five Indian states, teachers shared with EDC the types of professional development that would best help them change practice. They stated that thy wanted professional development that provided models of the types of practices they were supposed to implement; assistance in lesson design; and in-class observation and mentoring to ensure they were correctly implementing new lessons and new instructional approaches.


Page 8

Focus-group discussions with teachers in November, 2010 reinforce the same sentiments. As teachers themselves stated, video case studies make possible in-depth study of a few critical areas of instruction—for example, classroom management or higher-order questioning techniques. Open lessons, where they occurred, helped to provide live and proximal models of teachers using targeted earner-centered strategies. EDC’s focus on lesson design helped teachers, over an extended period of time and in an iterative and cumulative fashion, become true designers of children’s learning. And observation and assessments helped them to refine their instruction and do so in vivo (in the very environment in which they work—their classrooms). 2. School-Based: The second concentric circle in figure 22 and a closer area of influence on teacher quality and student performance focuses on school-based behaviors and practices. This primarily concerns school climate and culture; school policies and procedures; leadership and collegiality. 

Secure principal involvement: Leadership is a critical ingredient in schoolbased change. School leaders/ principals establish the school-based climate; make decisions about the values and “infrastructure” of the school. They may be the head and heart of the school but are certainly its face and voice. The connection between supportive and facilitative leadership and teacher development is well established in educational research (McCann et al, 2005).

Just as teachers need to shift from being purveyors of information to facilitators of learning in a new educational paradigm, principals to must move from being purely administrators to becoming instructional leaders. This is a role for which most principals are ill-prepared and ill-equipped. Any professional development program focused on classroom practice needs to include principals both in the same types of professional development teachers undergo and in their own professional development, induction and support in institutionalizing such changes in the school. By integrating principals into the professional development, both as a participant and as its advocate, teacher training initiatives ensure that the objectives of the professional development program are also the principal’s objectives and priorities. They insure that the principal understands the new practices from a student and teacher perspective and that he/she is equipped with additional skills to carry out, support, monitor and evaluate such changes. Further, by including principals in professional learning opportunities, particularly if larger macro-level system changes are implemented, there is a greater likelihood that principals will secure adequate resources and materials so teachers can do their jobs; provide teachers with the time and impetus to promote positive collegial interaction and support and the time to meet, discuss and plan; pair novice teachers with trained, experienced mentors or coaches; and most important they set the tone—establish a culture—that demonstrates that students, and the techniques that best help them learn, are at the core of the school’s instructional culture. Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 9



Involve a “critical mass” of teachers in the professional development: Professional development succeeds if it is an overall part of school improvement. The current practice of training only math or science teachers, while attempting to deal with content priority areas, is counterproductive to school improvement and indeed teacher improvement. It is (and was for many teachers) simply too easy to “back slide” into less than optimal instructional practices in the absence of supportive leadership, an innovative instructional climate and supportive colleagues who themselves were experiencing the same professional development intervention.

Rather, any professional development program that aims for serious teacher change and school reform must target a “critical mass” of teachers at each school—enough teachers so that the intervention becomes self-sustaining, carried forward by its own momentum and teachers sense of ownership, belief and success in implementing the intervention rather than nurtured by outside sources. Creating a critical mass of teachers at the same school undergoing the same professional development, can cultivate a school-based community of learners and practitioners. By working together with colleagues, teachers can customize, personalize and adapt new skills and concepts to their particular setting, enlisting colleagues to help them critique and improve implementation of a particular idea or strategy; and they can nurture a public repertoire of agreed-upon best practice at a particular school or set of schools. 3. Professional Development Programs: The third layer impacting teacher quality and student performance is programmatic—the professional development program (or system). Professional development is the vehicle through which an educational system’s beliefs, values and priorities about teaching and learning are communicated to teachers. There is a wide body of internationally accepted research and evidence on what best helps teachers learn. Successful professional development programs (are): Address teachers’ needs, as well as the needs of students and systemic educational goals Align with broader educational goals to ensure that professional development is supported by policy and by national, school and classroom improvement plans Long term, ongoing and sustained, giving teachers the opportunity to gain new knowledge and skills, reflect on their practice, and increase their abilities over time. As research (Hord, et al., 1987) on teacher change notes, teachers need years not months to change their practices. Sequenced or scaffolded so that activities build on each other in a comprehensive and cumulative way


Page 10

Focus on student outcomes in ways that enable teachers to use their new knowledge and skills to directly impact student learning. Address teachers’ ideas about learning, about their roles in the classroom, the roles of their students and teachers’ embedded beliefs about student learning in general, and their students’ ability to learn, in particular. Combine various learning experiences that promote observation, direct experience, reflection, and practice Use modeling and learner-centered instruction so that teachers experience and reflect on the learning activities that they will lead Support collaboration and peer support among teachers, enabling them to share knowledge and experiences of the implementation of new ways of teaching Include vigorous follow-up that guides teachers in their approach toward change in teaching and learning. Engage school leadership in creating a school environment that promotes learning and experimentation and that supports the specific professional development goals Incorporate formative evaluation and direct feedback from teachers, leading to summative evaluation that gauges change based on teachers’ practices, student activities, and learning outcomes Target lasting and systemic change, so that teachers know they are part of a larger movement toward improvement and that they are the lynchpins for implementing what has been learned. Any professional development program that hopes to create lasting classroom impact must embody the above characteristics.  Structure ongoing school-based supports: While case-study teachers appeared to benefit from school-based supports, they probably would have benefitted to a greater degree had the support sequence been differently structured. Essentially, teachers received the same type of support across the six-month period, irrespective of their developmental trajectory. EDC’s work in similar international contexts (primarily Indonesia) suggest that teachers benefit from a more developmental “gradual release” type of ongoing support involving a support person’s co-planning and co-teaching activities with teachers, then “shifting down” to allow the teacher to plan for solo teaching with observation and feedback. This gradual release provides a uniform structure throughout the whole school follow-up phase but frontloads highly structured support when the teacher is less comfortable with new approaches. The scaffolding then loosens in favor of greater teacher independence and autonomy as teachers become more comfortable with new instructional approaches. Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 11

 Help teachers develop the capacity to create and find teaching and learning materials: Teachers need instructional materials with which to teach; students need instructional materials with which to learn. As has been discussed in this report, this is especially so when shifting from a centralized, hub-and-spoke type of instructional pattern to a more decentralized, collaborative and networked type of learning environment demands that students learn from a variety of tools and experiences. This lack of adequate resources could be solved by leadership, resource allocation and capacity building. If principals and districts want their teachers involved in programs that promote learner-centered instruction, they can agree to develop a materials fund and/or resources so teachers can create or buy their own learning materials. They can link resource prioritization to compliance and evidence of demonstrated excellence in the professional development program. And professional development programs, such as EDC’s, can devote time to helping teachers create content specific, low-cost teaching and learning materials. There is often a misconception that teachers don’t know what they need. There is also a perception that teachers are barriers to, not conduits of, change and progress. As always, EDC has been struck by the eloquence and instincts of the Indian teachers with whom we have worked. Minus the jargon, the abstractions and the clichés that often characterize academic research, teachers over and over again echo what research states is most essential to improving teaching and learning. And far from being barriers to change, focus-group teachers worked in the face of real obstacles (outlined in this section) to change the way they teach—minus resources, minus principal support, minus colleagues and with far less professional development and support than they need. They did so with enthusiasm and dedication. Based on discussions with these case study teachers, discussions with their students and evidence from their classroom, we conclude with a final reiteration—teaching and learning cannot be fixed by working only with teachers. As teachers themselves have noted, and as has been discussed here at length, change demands involvement of the whole system, of all personnel—with carefully calibrated interventions that are discrete yet intersecting; particular to a component of the educational system yet mutually reinforcing. It demands time, resources and expertise, but above all belief, commitment and will.


Page 12

Appendix 1: Professional Development Intervention Active Learning in Math and Science is a three-week professional development program that focuses on helping grades 6-8 math and science teachers learn to implement learner-centered methodologies in their math and science classrooms. The program was carried out in three five-day sessions over a period of five months (late June-late November, 2010) with approximately 86 science and math teachers from 68 schools in predominantly rural areas in two Indian states—Karnataka and Chhattisgarh. Teachers were self-selected to participate in the program. In addition to three five -day professional development sessions, teachers are provided with thrice-monthly support consisting of cluster-level demonstrations of new practices, classroom-based support by and meetings with EDC staff. Professional Development Activities The professional development engages teachers in three main roles: 

Teacher as learners



Teachers as instructional designers



Teachers as instructors

Typically, for the first two days of the professional development, teachers experience activities as if they were students in a learner-centered classroom. They then reflect on and discuss how, as teachers, they can implement similar instructional strategies in their own classrooms. Finally, during the last two days of the workshop, teachers, in district teams design, practice and micro-teach their own learner-centered activity with all participants acting as students. This way, EDC is able to see how well they’ve been able to apply, internalize and transfer what they’ve learned to their own practice. Specifically, the professional development may be seen as focusing on three key areas: (1) The form of learner-centered instruction (collaboration) (2) The “heart” of learner-centered instructions (a focus on “higher-order thinking:” This includes inductive thinking, open-ended questioning techniques, concept mapping and project-based learning) (3) Developing a set of god procedural practices (specifically through Backward Design in which the teacher focuses on learning objectives, formative assessment, stating the topic goals and summary of the lesson; planning and preparation of teaching and learning materials) Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 13

Within the above approach the professional development aims to introduce teachers to the following areas:    

Foundations of learner-centered instruction (with an emphasis on collaboration; inductive thinking and higher-order thinking); Concept mapping; Project-based learning; Instructional design

1. Foundations of Learner-Centered Instruction: Active Learning in Math and Science professional development aims to help teachers realize that learner-centered instruction is based on the notion of individual differences. Learners have different learning styles; they work differently; they learn by interacting with multiple resources and experiences; and they process information in different ways through multiple “channels.” Through this simplified framework, it is hoped that teachers gain a practical-based understanding of learner-centered instruction (evidenced through use of different instructional methods; attention to different learning styles; use of multiple resources (not simply the textbook) and organizing students in collaborative teams). Learner-centered instruction, rooted in constructivism (an epistemology of learning grounded in psychology, education and neurological science) is an instructional philosophy that emphasizes a broad range of practices. Given the limited duration of the professional development time frame, Active Learning in Math and Science emphasizes the following areas of learner-centered instruction: A. Collaboration: Collaboration underpins learner-centered instruction. Collaboration affords students opportunities to articulate and hear new ideas; it allows students to gain multiple perspectives from one another; and its social dimension engages students in multiple styles and modalities of learning (speaking and listening, in addition to reading and writing). In EDCs professional development, we help teacher-learners identify the characteristics of collaborative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1988) so they can integrate these characteristics into the instructional design process. According to Johnson & Johnson (1988) “real” collaboration involves: 1-Positive interdependence 2-Individual accountability (group roles) 3-Social Skills (have to negotiate, make decisions, resolve conflicts, etc.) 4. Face-to-face interaction 5-Group processing As important, the professional development helps teachers organize students in one of four collaborative approaches (pairs; collaborative groups of 3-6 learners; jigsaw


Page 14

groups (Aronson, 2008); learning stations; and/or a division-of-labour approach). These collaborative approaches all embody the five characteristics of collaboration. B. Higher order-thinking: The critical outcome of a learner-centered instructional approach is what Benjamin Bloom (1956) referred to as “higherorder thinking.” Higher-order thinking in the cognitive domain of learning typically involves the ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information (Given the emphasis on rote learning in the Indian curriculum, EDC also includes the “application” or transference of information to new situations as a higherorder cognitive skill.) With this in mind, Active Learning in Math and Science helps teachers focus on five specific areas associated with higher order thinking. These are:  Differentiating Levels of Learning: Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy to develop awareness that not all learning is equal and to understand that there the higher-order thinking skills of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation must be developed in learners.  Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom-up" approach. In inductive reasoning, learners begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses or inferences that they explore, and develop general conclusions or theories.  Analysis: Analysis involves separating a whole concept into its constituent and inter-related parts in order to study the parts and their interrelationship. Within this professional development, this was attempted mainly through the use of concept maps.  Questioning techniques: The professional development aims to help teachers ask questions that focus, not just on declarative knowledge (what? Who? When? Where) but also procedural knowledge (How?) as well as conceptual knowledge (Why? What if..?)  Project-Based Learning: (This will be discussed as a separate outcome but is also included here since it falls under the rubric of higher order learning.) C. Concept (Mind) Mapping: Learner-centered instruction recognizes that each learner is unique and processes information via different modalities. Some learners process information best through images; others through a combination of audio and visuals and some through text. The primary mode of knowledge dissemination in schools is alpha-numeric (text and numbers). This automatically makes learning less accessible to students who may have undiagnosed learning disabilities; reading disabilities; or who simply envision and process information differently. To help address this issue, EDC/T4 professional development introduced concept mapping. Concept maps (a.k.a., mind maps or thinking maps) are non-linguistic representations of information (concepts) that visually display the hierarchical, Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 15

horizontal, linear and non-linear relationships between these concepts or ideas. They provide visual scaffolds that encourage students to extract and represent key concepts from text and, by linking concepts, express how these concepts are related. Since expository texts are often embedded with relational structures including exploratory, explanatory, causative and sequential structures, this relating of concepts has been demonstrated to aid in reading comprehension (Oliver, 2009) and in the writing process (specifically in pre-writing). Because of the multitude of relational structures in text, teachers explored different types of concept maps (e.g., Brace Maps, Venn Diagrams, Cause-and-Effect Maps, Problem-Solution Maps, Areas of Influence, Descriptive Maps and Compare-and-Contrast Maps). D. Project-based Learning/Project-oriented Learning: Learner-centered instruction is not one instructional approach, but a family of instructional approaches that includes, as examples, case-based learning; inquiry learning and problem-based learning. Project-based Learning (as it is known in the US) or Project-Oriented Learning(a term frequently used outside the US) is one type of learner-centered instruction and collaboration, higher-order thinking and alternative ways of processing and displaying information all have their culmination in project-based learning. Projectoriented learning (POL) is highly varied but shares several common characteristics:  Organizing issue: The activity is organized around an issue or question—usually real-world or “non-school” like.  Complex: Learning in POL is complex. Students engage in multiple tasks, multiple processes and multiple procedures and there are multiple ways to assess learning.  Student choice: Students are involved (i.e. have choice) in how they solve the issue, how they use the resources they’ve been given, the conclusions they draw (as long as they are reasonably based on evidence) and how they present findings—all within acceptable guidelines  Collaboration: Students work as part of a collaborative team that investigates the issue.  Autonomy: Learners are given guidelines and parameters within which to operate but can make choices and have autonomy within these parameters.  Real tools: Learners use many of the same tools a researcher would use to answer a particular question. For example, they conduct research, and may design and administer surveys to collect real-world data and then analyze these data.  Realistic product: In most real-world (i.e., non-academic) assessment situations, tests and exams are not used to measure performance; rather realworld occupations use other assessment measures. In the working world or the world outside of school, employers want to see that their employees can do Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 16

something (produce a written report, complete a task or make an oral presentation). Project-based learning advocates that teachers utilize such authentic means of assessment to diagnose, assess and evaluate students’ work. In project-based learning, learners are given a choice of the learning product they create. It must be relevant, germane to the task and be an appropriate way of presenting findings. E. Instructional Design: If teacher professional development has any hope of effecting change, teachers need to apply what they’ve learned about -centered instruction to their own professional context. Yet, teachers, particularly in systems where the curriculum is rigid, may have no or limited experience in the area of instructional design. For that reason, in all three professional development sessions, teachers learn how to design learner-centered activities using a Backward Design approach. Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) is a design framework that helps teachers plan and organize instruction and assessment. The first step in Backward Design is for the teacher to determine the learning goals of the activity. The second is to plan for assessment (How will the teacher collect, analyze, and summarize evidence from multiple sources of data to determine the degree to which students have met learning goals?) Finally, once the teacher has determined learning goals and determined how he will assess whether or not students have met those goals, the teacher plans the learning activity. Within this instructional design process, teachers work in district-level teams to design a math or science lesson that incorporates collaborative learning, POL, or concept mapping (the emphasis varies based on the workshop focus). They design the lesson, utilizing the Backward Design approach and receive feedback on the lesson design from a group of colleagues (“critical friends”) and from the EDC facilitator. Upon receipt of this feedback, teams revise their design. Because a learner-centered approach is so new to participants, they practice the lesson and divide co-teaching roles (Groups contain 56 members and all are expected to co-facilitate or co-teach the activity). They then practice in front of the facilitator in a “dress rehearsal.” The facilitator provides feedback on the lesson and teams incorporate this feedback. These multiple opportunities for feedback are designed to engender confidence among teacher teams as they carry out this teaching activity with colleagues and with students. On the last day of each workshop, teacher teams conduct a 45-minute learner-centered activity. The team acts as the teacher(s) and participants as students. Activities are very active and hands on. Upon conclusion of the 45-minute lesson, participants provide 30 minutes of feedback for the team. The rationale is that the team incorporates this feedback in order to prepare to do this activity with students.


Page 17

Appendix 2: Case Study Design

The Case EDC has proposed an instrumental case study to examine the professional development. A case is a unit of analysis. The notion of a “case” is often confusing, even to experienced evaluators, who typically understand a case as a person. However, a case can be a person, group of individuals, program, innovation, decision, institution or jurisdiction (e.g., a school district) (Patton, 2003:447). Our overall case (or unit of analysis or “quintain”) is EDC/T4’s learner-centered professional development. Our embedded cases (that is, the instruments that will help evaluators understand the effectiveness of the overall case) are six teachers—three from Chhattisgarh and three from Karnataka. Thus using this framework of an instrumental case study, the six teachers serve to explain both the outcomes and processes of the professional development. Case studies diverge in terms of their type—they are typically defined as descriptive, exploratory or explanatory, definitions of which can be derived from the terms. This case study will be explanatory. Explanatory cases studies use multiple sources of data as part of their construct and as the name suggests, seek to explain what occurred and why and how it occurred. They attempt to establish a clear chain of evidence, leading in theory to “replication” of knowledge. They attain internal validity through techniques such as pattern matching, explanation building (and in terms of sequential case studies, analysis over time) and internal validity.5The use of an explanatory case study “type” allows evaluators to examine “How?” and “Why?” and in so doing, generate, through logical reasoning and reference to existing research on teacher change, issues of causality.

Sampling Frame An important feature of case study design is sampling. Sampling in case studies is far different from sampling in an experimental design. While experimental designs focus on probabilistic sampling to ensure randomization, case studies use purposive samples. Purposive samples are chosen because they are information-rich. They allow evaluators to address very specific questions and gather much more in-depth information than can occur with surveys and observation tools. There are numerous types of purposive samples—typical case samples; deviant case samples; theoretical case samples; etc.) The six “embedded” cases (teachers) have been selected because of their “instrumental” value. They will help us generate evidence that will help us understand the larger case 5

To ensure internal validity, EDC/T4 developed protocols for information gathering and data collection and trained observers and interviewers in methods of objectivity and consistency in data collection.


Page 18

(the professional development intervention).Since the intervention is being implemented across a range of schools in two distinct educational settings, EDC/T4 utilized a multiple case approach so we can do multiple comparisons, and generalize on a theoretical basis. This should help evaluators understand what, if any, contextual differences exist between teachers across educational levels, states, location, content area and populations.

Case Study Data Collection Instruments Data collection instruments include the following: (1) Case study teacher interviews: This focuses on teachers’ individual perceptions of their instructional practice—particularly focused on learnercentered practices and of the change process. (Total number of teachers=6 (3 from Karnataka and 3 from Chhattisgarh). These interviews were administered in November 2010 by RVEC, a Bangalore-based evaluation agency. (2) Focus group protocol: EDC/T4 conducted two focus group discussions in October 2010—one with case study teachers (and non-case study teachers) in October 2010 in Chhattisgarh; and one with case study teachers (and non-case study teachers) in October 2010 in Karnataka. The focus groups, conducted in November 2010 by RVEC, included three case study teachers and 6-7 additional teachers, all of whose opinions were solicited anonymously. RVEC staff used an EDC-designed focus group protocol that probes teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practice and reasons for change from a group perspective. (3) Student focus groups: This involved capturing students’ perceptions of teacher practice. EDC/T4 will staff conducted one focus group of students per case study teacher. Student focus groups were homogeneous (by standard and subject area) and were conducted using an EDC-designed student focus group protocol and sets of visual instructional aids. Because this process is so new to students and because of concerns that they might have been coached by teachers, the student focus group protocol focused on triangulating data among student groups and included some redundant activities that measured the same teacher behavior. All research instruments were designed to allow researchers to examine implementation of the professional development from multiple perspectives. To do so, it is important to utilize multiple measures, multiple indicators within measures and, where necessary, multiple administrations of measures in order to gather the information needed to document any outcomes of this professional development. Each instrument is described in detail below: 1.

Case Study Teacher Interview Protocol


Page 19

While the Measures of Learner-Centeredness Survey and Classroom Observation protocol answer “what” teachers state about their own practice and “what” they are doing or not doing in classrooms as a result of the professional development, neither instrument tells evaluators “why” or “how” changes have or have not occurred. In contrast, this teacher interview protocol attempts to answer these “why” and “how” questions—to help evaluators understand why teachers’ practices have or have not changed and the enabling or disenabling factors that have contributed to change or lack of change. Evaluators did not attempt to interview all teachers but rather conducted a purposive sample of “low-,” “medium-” and “high-” performing teachers and interview This interview protocol has three main sections that ask teachers about their experience at the EDC professional development, implementation of what they learned, and the types and effectiveness of the support they have received since the training. The interview data will provide explicit examples of teacher experiences to accompany the survey and observation findings. The information can also be used to help improve the training in the future. Observers typed their notes in MS Word and emailed their notes to EDC’s evaluators in Boston and New York. This interview data will be analyzed and coded by EDC’s USbased staff using the qualitative research software, NVivo. 2. Teacher Focus Group Protocol This protocol, modified from one administered in 2007, asks teachers to rate the frequency and quality of learner-centered practices. It explores their reasons for applying, and not applying, learner centered approaches in their classroom and asks them to discuss what elements of the professional development were—and were not— most helpful to their changing practice. 3. Student Focus Group Protocol EDC/T4 will conduct one student focus group discussion with each case study teacher’s students. Students will be homogeneous—from the same grade level or content area. Using a series of images, a narrative list, a worksheet and some discussion, this focus group technique asks students to share how often and to what degree teachers utilize learner-centered approaches (particularly in relationship to the previous year) Focus groups offer several benefits. Because the unit of analysis is the group, versus an individual, members of a focus group often feel more validated in their opinions and responses than they would if they were responding alone. Being part of a group can stimulate ideas and opinions that wouldn’t be expressed in a regular one-on-one interview and group members develop a common language and common frame of practice that is extremely useful. Focus groups also have a number of drawbacks—they Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 20

are time consuming, often go astray, are facilitator-dependent (thus influencing validity) and the information gathered is not generalizable. By utilizing individual case study teacher interviews, teacher focus groups and student focus groups, we are attempting to triangulate multiple data sources for the purposes of corroboration. Corroboration ensures that the research findings accurately reflect people’s perceptions, whatever they may be so that our findings will be seen as credible or worthy of consideration by others. Figure 22 outlines the data collection procedures for the case study. Figure 22: Case Study Data Collection Schedule I.

Qualitative Evaluation (Case Study)

Case Study Teacher Interview

Chhattisgarh Karnataka

Total Teacher Focus Group Discussion

Chhattisgarh

Karnataka

Total Student Focus Group Discussion

Chhattisgarh Karnataka

Total

3

1

November, 2010

3 20 10 (3 case study teachers plus 7 non-case study teachers) 10 (3 case study teachers plus 7 non-case study teachers) 20 10

1

November, 2010

1

November, 2010

1

November, 2010

3 (one per case study teacher) 3 (one per case study teacher) 6

September, October, 2010 September, October, 2010

10 20

Linking Data to Propositions/Data Analysis As in a quantitative design, it is important in qualitative design, to be clear about one’s data analysis methods. There are numerous types—deductive analyses, theoretical approaches, etc.—of data-analysis methods. Within this case study design, EDC ended up utilizing a theoretical or deductive approach in which we created a set of codes and sub-codes based on the professional development and coded the qualitative data using such codes. Such an approach allowed us to narrow our evaluation focus and hew to the main evaluation questions Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 21

without going “astray” as so often occurs using a more inductive or grounded analytical approach. We utilized two sets of codes. A hierarchical parent and node set of codes for all teacher interviews and a set of free (non-hierarchical codes) for student focus group data. Each set of codes we utilized are listed here:

Tree Nodes The following table lays out the parent-child (tree codes) used as part of the analysis. Type

Parent

Child

Sources

References

1

2

Learning Centers

20

36

Jigsaw

13

35

Benefits of collaboration

11

33

Group Roles

15

31

Examples in classroom setting

7

19

Students learning from one another Challenges associated with

8

15

4

11

Among teachers

5

10

Understanding of

4

6

Straight collaboration

3

4

Appropriateness of Collaborative Technique Pairs

3

3

1

1

Triads

1

1

Changing communication patterns with students Students communicating with one another

3

7

2

4

Examples of

5

14

Strengths

6

8

Challenges

3

4

1

2

Preparation of materials

12

27

Time management

13

23

State learning topic

18

23

Organization of activities

14

16

State learning objectives

11

14

Transitions

9

10

Summarize

4

7

Setting up activity

2

4

What else do teachers need

7

19

Phone support

8

17

Frequency of

6

15

Collaboration

Grandchild

Concept mapping

Evidence of Planning

Support


Page 22

From principals

4

14

Challenges

3

12

Overall assessment

5

12

Suggested improvements

5

12

Open lessons

6

7

Benefits

4

7

School visits

5

7

6

6

Sharing meetings working together sharing

3 4

demonstrations Teachers' reactions to sharing meetings Types of support offered during sharing meetings

2 3

5

2

2

organizing for collaboration motivation

4

organize content time management general

2

Higher-order thinking Lesson planning or instructional design Checking in

1

assessment

1

confidencebuilding other

1

facilitation

1

Learning materials New ideas

1

questioning techniques sequence of activities- topic, goals, activity, summary

0

In-class

2

2 2

2

2

1

1

0

1

1

observation and feedback Lesson planning Suggestions

6

Conversations

2

General help

2

co-teaching

0

Working with students

0

Cluster-level meetings

2 5

0

0

Sharing

1

Demonstrations

0


Page 23

What helps

0

Project-based learning

0

0 Examples of activities

5

14

Challenges associated with

6

7

Benefits of

2

3

Components in class

2

3

Understanding of PBL

3

3

Overall PD

0 Suggested improvements

9

156

Strengths

9

60

Weaknesses

8

32

Overall assessment

10

26

Changes in instruction

8

25

Changes in student behavior

9

21

What doesn't work

7

18

Teachers' reactions to PD

6

16

Changes in student attitudes

6

14

What works

4

10

Changes in teachers' attitudes

6

8

3

3

Changes in students aptitudes Exemplary activities

0

0

science activities

6

7

why exemplary

3

4

math activities

3

3

Higher-order thinking

0

0

Examples of

8

20

Challenges of

3

4

0

0

Strategies in class Instructional design

0

0

Successes

5

18

Challenges

4

4

Examples

3

4

Understanding of Backward Design Lesson planning before

4

4

0

0

Overall Instructional Methods

0

0

Obstacles to implementation

5

49

Understanding of l.c. instruction

7

37

Now

7

24

Reasons for change

3

15

Before

6

11

Reasons for lack of change

4

5

Example of

2

2

Other issues (TLMs)

9

13

Questioning

17

50

Eliciting prior knowledge

12

17

Ongoing assessment


Page 24

Brief presentation of information

8

13

Math problems

5

9

Observing

7

9

Students Summarizing

4

5

Student discussion

4

4

Product

2

2

Checking student work -observation Embedded in activity

1

1

0

0

Principals

5

11

Students

3

7

Parents

5

7

Teachers

2

4

Reaction to new instructional methods

Free nodes Name

Sources

References

Changes from last year to this year

12

71

Traditional instructional practices

15

50

Teacher facilitation of groups

14

45

Collaboration

10

39

What helps students learn

6

37

Discussion

13

30

Activities that are most frequent this year

7

30

Reductions from last year to this year

7

20

Ongoing student assessment

6

19

TLMs

7

18

What impedes student learning

6

11

Students asking questions

3

3

Hands-on activities

3

3

Mind mapping

3

3

Summarizing

2

2

Reteaching

1

1

From deductive coding, we moved to axial coding, which allows codes to be amalgamated or joined because of similarity. Such a process allowed evaluators to begin to inductively generate themes. For example, codes such that signify the importance of “EDC help,” “support,” “Seeing other teachers do activities,” etc. might be aggregated via axial coding as “types of support.” Examples of this can be found throughout the case study report (most notably, the issue of “supports”). Axial coding allowed evaluators to engage in “meta-coding” in which we Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 25

aggregate codes across our six embedded cases to inductively develop “super themes” and pattern matching around which evidence and thick descriptions can be generated.

Strategies to Strengthen Claims Some designs are better than others than generating causal claims. A particular strength of an experimental design is its focus on randomization and the ability to hold other factors constant when measuring outcomes. However, all designs have strengths and weaknesses. Better than focusing on the type of design is to ask ourselves if the chosen design is appropriate to the evaluation questions and if so, is there a way to infer causality? Causality can be inferred logically and inductively (Goodrick, personal communication, 2010). Unlike experimental or quasi-experimental designs, “causality” is ascribed differently in qualitative research. Unlike an experimental design in quantitative research, causality is not determined by randomness but through the identification of common causal events and generating a logical chain of events that stand up to scrutiny and analysis. Therefore, as in quantitative designs, specific steps must be taken to ensure that causal claims withstand scrutiny within a qualitative design. There are multiple ways to ensure this. One is to examine multiple, versus single, cases to seek out “plausible rival hypotheses” (Campbell, as cited in Yin, 1994:ix). With a multiple case study design, in which a set of diverse teachers is selected, rival explanations can be tested through analytic generalization. These rival explanations are validated or invalidated through further data collection and analysis. A second technique is to conduct cross-case analysis and synthesize information from multiple cases. This allows evaluators to focus, not just on finding convergence, but also finding divergence and asking, “Why is this so?” Having divergent evidence is important in knowing what is really occurring. This allows us to also eliminate rival explanations. We will discuss emerging divergent and convergent themes via a member checking/respondent validation process in which we consult with teachers and EDC/T4 program staff. A third technique is to use triangulation, using multiple respondents, multiple data sources and a range of methods to strengthen any claims. The case study will employ three sets of qualitative data and methods with 6 case study teachers—case study teacher interviews; program staff interviews; teacher focus group discussion data; and student focus group data. In addition evaluators will examine program documents such as EDC/T4 support staff’s field notes. Triangulation helps evaluators organize information in different ways and to think about other logical possibilities and then seeing if those possibilities are supported by the data (Patton, 2004: 553). Finally, to maintain the integrity and validity of causal claims, we point to the abundant research on effective professional development, teacher change and the inputs Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 26

necessary for teacher change. In analyzing teacher data, we will match any empirical findings to well-established research before generating any propositions. We will also match patterns of teacher change to our own experience and fieldwork in the area of teacher professional development. Drawing on one’s own expertise and insight is completely acceptable within a case study design (Stake, 1995; Simons, 2009).


Page 27

Appendix 3: Individual Case Study Data for Six Case Study Teachers (Student Focus Group Data) The following data are compiled from six student focus group sessions held in September-October 2010. The 90 students were students of the six case study teachers. Though the data are useful in that they present students’ perceptions of individual changing teacher practices, the reader will note discrepancies in data among students and contradictory or incomplete information. It’s therefore important that these data be used for impressionistic, versus strictly empirical, interpretations. Chhattisgarh Shobha RamChandrakar Frequency with which following activities occur (This year)

Teacher asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Asking each other questions Working individually Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Working in pairs Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Doing jigsaw activity Groups consulting with teacher Participating in group work with group roles Facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Doing hands-on activities Working in groups Doing concept-mapping Doing outside research Building models Conducting interviews/surveys Displaying work Collaborating on a learning product Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Number of Class Periods Per Week

Frequency with which the following activities occur (This year versus last year):


Page 28

Asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Working individually Asking each other questions Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Doing jigsaw activity Groups consulting with teacher Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Participating in group work with group roles Facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Working in groups Working in pairs Displaying work Collaborating on a learning product Doing hands-on activities Doing concept-mapping Doing outside research Building models Conducting interviews/surveys Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Average This Year

Average Last Year


Page 29

Frequency of higher-order thinking activities (This year versus last year)

Answer a What question Answer a How question Answer a question where you give more than a one-… Teach another student some concept or idea Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Answer a Who question Answer a Why question Have a classroom discussion where students can… Give feedback to a classmate Do a hands-on activity Brainstorm ideas before writing Write a long essay where you describe, explain or give… Solve a problem (not just a math problem but maybe… Share what you already knew about a topic before… Generate a rule or idea through testing and retesting… Do a project in your community Do a task where you can choose how and what… Create a mind map Collect data 0=Never Test your hypothesis 1= Once 2= Once a Month Create a hypothesis 3= Once a Week 0.0 4= More Than Once a Week 5= Every Day

1.0

This Year's Average

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year's Average


Page 30

Anuranjana Beck Frequency with which the following activities occur (This year)

Teacher asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Working individually Facilitating student groups Asking each other questions Doing jigsaw activity Groups consulting with teacher Working in learning stations Collaborating on a learning product Working in groups Doing hands-on activities Working in pairs Displaying work Doing concept-mapping Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Students doing outside research Students building models Students participating in group work with group roles Students conducting interviews/surveys Students listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0

1

2

3

4

5

6



Page 31


Teacher asking questions to whole class Students asking the teacher questions Students working in pairs Doing jigsaw activity Groups consulting with teacher Teacher facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Doing hands-on activities Working in groups Asking each other questions Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Working individually Collaborating on a learning product Participating in group work with group roles Displaying work Doing concept-mapping Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Doing outside research Building models Conducting interviews/surveys Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0.0

1.0

2.0

Last Year's Average

3.0

4.0

5.0

This Year's Average


Page 32


Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Answer a Who question Answer a How question Answer a Why question Have a classroom discussion where students can share ideas… Give feedback to a classmate Answer a What question Do a task where you can choose how and what information… Teach another student some concept or idea Brainstorm ideas before writing Share what you already knew about a topic before the… Do a hands-on activity Answer a question where you give more than a one-word… Write a long essay where you describe, explain or give your… Solve a problem (not just a math problem but maybe a real-… Create a mind map Create a hypothesis Generate a rule or idea through testing and retesting a… Do a project in your community 0=Never Collect data 1= Once Test your hypothesis 2= Once a Month 0.0 3= Once a Week 4= More Than Once a Week 5= Every Day

1.0

2.0

This Year's Average

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year's Average


Page 33

Vijay Sharma Frequency with which following activities occur (This year)

Asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Asking each other questions Groups consulting with teacher Participating in group work with group roles Teacher facilitating student groups Working individually Working in learning stations Working in groups Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Doing concept-mapping Doing jigsaw activity Displaying work Collaborating on a learning product Doing hands-on activities Working in pairs Doing outside research Building models Conducting interviews/surveys Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0



Page 34


Asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Participating in group work with group roles Facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Asking each other questions Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Working in groups Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Groups consulting with teacher Doing concept-mapping Doing jigsaw activity Displaying work Doing hands-on activities Collaborating on a learning product Doing outside research Building models Working in pairs Working individually Conducting interviews/surveys Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures 0.0

1.0

2.0

This Year's Average

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year's Average


Page 35


Brainstorm ideas before writing Have a classroom discussion where students can share… Share what you already knew about a topic before the… Answer a What question Answer a How question Answer a Why question Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Give feedback to a classmate Answer a Who question Collect data Do a hands-on activity Do a task where you can choose how and what… Test your hypothesis Create a hypothesis Answer a question where you give more than a one-… Generate a rule or idea through testing and retesting a… Teach another student some concept or idea Write a long essay where you describe, explain or give… Create a mind map 0=Never 1= Once Do a project in your community 2= Once a Month Solve a problem 3= Once a Week 4= More Than Once a 0.0 Week 5= Every Day

1.0

2.0

This Year's Average

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year's Average


Page 36

Karnataka Yoga NarasimhaSwamy Frequency with which following activities occur (This year)

Displaying work Doing jigsaw activity Working individually Doing hands-on… Working in groups Listening/taking… Groups consulting… Asking each other… Asking the teacher… Doing outside… Collaborating on a… Conducting… Working in learning… T. facilitating… Seated in rows with… Participating in… T. asking questions… Using different… Building models Doing concept-…

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Number of Class Periods Per Week n=15


Page 37


Groups consulting with teacher Collaborating on a learning product Students doing concept-mapping Working individually Teacher asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Doing jigsaw activity Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Working in learning stations Working in groups Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Teacher facilitating student groups Building models Displaying work Participating in group work with group roles Asking each other questions Doing hands-on activities Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Working in pairs Doing outside research Conducting interviews/surveys 0.0

1.0 n=15

2.0

3.0 This Year


4.0 Last Year

5.0

Page 38

Frequency of higher-order activities (This year versus last year)

Answer a question where you give more than a one-word answer Have a classroom discussion where students can share ideas and… Give feedback to a classmate Share what you already knew about a topic before the teacher… Answer a Who question Answer a How question Answer a Why question Teach another student some concept or idea Answer a What question Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Create a hypothesis Test your hypothesis Generate a rule or idea through testing and retesting a concept Write a long essay where you describe, explain or give your… Solve a problem (not just a math problem) Collect data Do a hands-on activity Create a mind map Do a project in your community Do a task where you can choose how and what information to… 0 0=Never 1= Once 2= Once a Month 3= Once a Week 4= More Than Once a Week 5= Every Day

1

2

3

This Year


4

5

Last Year

Page 39

Shashikala Frequency with which following activities occur (This year

T. asking questions to whole class Working in groups Asking each other questions Asking the teacher questions Groups consulting with teacher Participating in group work with group roles Facilitating student groups Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Working individually Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Doing jigsaw activity Working in pairs Concept-mapping Doing outside research Building models Working in learning stations Displaying work Collaborating on a learning product Doing hands-on activities Conducting interviews/surveys

0.0 n=12

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Number of Periods per Week

Frequency with which the following activities occur (This year versus last year) Education Development Center: Active Learning in Math and Science Case Study Report

Page 40

6.0

Teacher asking questions to whole class Working in groups Students asking each other questions Working in learning stations Asking the teacher questions Groups consulting with teacher Participating in group work with group roles Teacher facilitating student groups Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Doing jigsaw activity Working in pairs Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Working individually Collaborating on a learning product Displaying work Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Doing hands-on activities Building models Doing concept-mapping Conducting interviews/surveys Doing outside research This Year

Last Year

n=15

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Number of Class Periods per Week

Frequency of higher-order activities (This year versus last year)


Page 41

6.00

Answer a Why question Answer a Who question Share what you already knew about a topic before the… Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Answer a How question Give feedback to a classmate Brainstorm ideas before writing Answer a question where you give more than a one-… Have a classroom discussion where students can share… Answer a What question Create a hypothesis Do a task where you can choose how and what… Collect data Teach another student some concept or idea Generate a rule or idea through testing and retesting a… Do a project in your community Write a long essay where you describe, explain or give… Test your hypothesis Solve a problem (not just a math problem but maybe a… 0=Never 1= Once 2= Once a Month 3= Once a Week 4= More Than Once a Week 5= Every Day

Create a mind map Do a hands-on activity 0.0 This Year

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year

Asha Frequency with which following activities occur (This year)


Page 42

Working in groups Asking the teacher questions Participating in group work with group roles T asking questions to whole class Asking each other questions Facilitating student groups Working in learning stations Displaying work Goups consulting with teacher Collaborating on a learning product Doing hands-on activities Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Doing jigsaw activity Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Conducting interviews/surveys Working in pairs Concept-mapping Building models Doing outside research Working individually n=15

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Number of Class Periods per Week


Page 43

Asking questions to whole class Asking the teacher questions Working in groups Asking each other questions Facilitating student groups Participating in group work with group roles Working in learning stations Collaborating on a learning product Displaying work Doing jigsaw activity Doing hands-on activities Groups consulting with teacher Using different kinds of teaching and learning materials Working individually Listening/taking notes as teacher lectures Seated in rows with teacher at front of class Doing concept-mapping Building models Working in pairs Doing outside research Conducting interviews/surveys 0.0

1.0 n=15

2.0

3.0 This Year


4.0

5.0

Last Year

Page 44

Frequency of higher-order questioning techniques (this year versus last year)

Orally summarize what you’ve learned that day Teach another student some concept or idea Answer a question where you give more than a… Brainstorm ideas before writing Answer a Who question Answer a What question Give feedback to a classmate Share what you already knew about a topic before… Answer a How question Have a classroom discussion where students can… Answer a Why question Write a long essay where you describe, explain or… Do a hands-on activity Create a mind map Create a hypothesis Generate a rule or idea through testing and… Do a project in your community Solve a problem (not just a math problem but… Do a task where you can choose how and what… 0=Never 1= Once 2= Once a Month 3= Once a Week 4= More Than Once a Week 5= Every Day

Collect data Test your hypothesis 0.0

n=15

1.0

2.0

This Year's Average

3.0

4.0

5.0

Last Year's Average


Page 45


Page 46

References Aronson, E. (2008). Jigsaw Classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.jigsaw.net Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Conklin, E. (2007). Concept mapping: impact on content and organization of technical writing in science. (Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University, USA, 2007) Dissertation Abstract International (UMI3254433). Crane, M. (1998). Writing away! Out of chaos: Using concepts maps to re-envision students writing. The University of Louisville’s Writing across the Curriculum Newsletter, 3(4). Denzin N. and Lincoln Y. (Eds.) (2000).Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publication Inc. Goodrick, D. (2010, October). (Independent evaluation consultant).Personal communication. Ontario: Ottowa. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., &Grigoriadou, M. (2003). A coherent and integrated framework using concept maps for various educational assessment functions, [Electronic Version]. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 215-240. Haig, B. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. Retrieved from:http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/95_docs/haig.html Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993).Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: Pro-ED Hord, S., Rutherford, W.L., Huling-Austin, L. & Hall, G.E. (1987).Taking charge of change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Johnson, D. and R. Johnson (1983).Learning Together and Alone. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (2000).Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y (ed.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication Inc. McCann, T., Johannessen, L., &Ricca, B. (2005).Responding to new teachers’ concerns. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 30-34.


Page 47

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Oliver, K. (October 2009). An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. In Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18 (5), 402-414. Patton, M.Q. (2003). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, Inc. Schwandt, T. (2007).The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. London: Sage Publications Social Research Methods (2006).Single group threats. Retrieved from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intsing.php Stake, R.E. (1995).The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stufflebeam, D. L. &Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed-methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (Second Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Wiggins, G., &McTighe, J. (1998).Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.


Page 48

Active Learning in Math and Science

Active Learning in Math and Science

Suggest Documents

Investigating Active Learning in Science

Applying the Science of Learning: - Active Learning in Political Science

Active Learning in Science - Ryerson University

Active Learning in Language Study and Science - Excellence in ...

Using Math Projects in Teaching and Learning - Science Direct

NEURoBIoLogy oF LEARNINg - Sing About Science & Math

[PDF] Environmental Science: Active Learning ... - Google Sites

PDF Environmental Science: Active Learning ... - Google Sites

[PDF] Environmental Science: Active Learning ... - Google Sites

Book Environmental Science: Active Learning ... - Google Sites

ACTIVE LEARNING IN CLASSROOMS

Active and Cooperative Learning

MATH HOME - Early Math Learning

Transforming Math & Science Education - National Math and Science ...

the new science of learning: active learning ... - CiteSeerX

The Effect of Active Learning Approach in Science ... - CiteSeerX

Promoting active learning in high school chemistry - Science Direct

Active Learning Methods in Environmental Education ... - Science Direct

The Workshop Project: Active Learning Methods in ... - Science Direct

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering ...

Active Learning and the Active-Learning- Based Teaching ... - Springer

Encouraging Girls in Math and Science

active and cooperative learning techniques for the computer science ...

Women in Science and Math - Google Sites