report - a study of lesson study’s impact on student achievement€¦ · ·...

Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative A Study of Lesson Study’s Impact on Student Achievement

Data Analysis, Evaluation of the 2009-10 Lesson Study Project - Waterman 1

Data Analysis, Evaluation of the 2009-10 Lesson Study

Project Steve Waterman, [email protected], February 2, 2011

Overview Lesson study has been employed as a professional development process by teams of teachers from SVMI institutions for a decade. During the past five years, the Kabcenell Foundation has supported continued and deeper lesson study work in SVMI institutions. Each year lesson study teams write summary reports about their experiences and learning from the cycle of planning, teaching and reflecting on a research lesson. They have reported high satisfaction with the process, better research lesson designs, new insights into teaching and changes in teaching strategies. In parallel, over the course of the past five years, SVMI has seen increased student performance on the annual MARS assessment exam. A logical questions remains: Has lesson study contributed to increased student achievement? With funding from the Kabcenell Foundation a study was conducted to address this question and other related but more focused questions. Research questions: Has lesson study contributed to increased student achievement? What are the learning outcomes of students of teachers who are engaged in professional development through the use of lesson study and how to they compare to others? Is there a difference in student learning related to mathematics topics studied by teachers who participated in lesson study? Are there general differences in mathematical performance between students from lesson study teachers’ classrooms and similar students whose teachers’ were not engaged in lesson study? Orientation of the Report This research report contains a narrative and analysis along with four appendices. Appendix A include data tables of student scores from the spring 2010 MARS exam that was used in analyzing the student achievement for this study. Appendix B is the annual summary report for SVMI’s 2009-‐2010 lesson study project. Appendix C is the financial summary of the 2009-‐2010 lesson study project. Appendix D is a description and architecture of the MARS performance assessment exam. This report includes data collected and prepared by an independent data company, Educational Data Systems. The database was generated and prepared by Tracy Sola, SVMI Lesson Study Coordinator along with clerical support by Dia Foster. Steve Waterman conducted the analysis and wrote the report.



Introduction of the Study Data from fifty classroom teachers, one RSP teacher, several coaches, and 1936 students participated in the Lesson Study program during the 2009-‐10 school year was provided for this analysis. Missing data for some cells resulted in results from some classrooms to be omitted. In some cases, teachers may have participated in more than one Lesson Study experience, or SVMI may have determined that the topic of the Lesson Study spanned concepts contained in more than one item on the MAC Assessment. Therefore, the data includes some duplication of students and teachers. The tables below are organized by grade and the focus skill included in the Lesson Study Project and tested on the MARS. As the MARS categories are fairly broad and the lesson study focused on the development of a single or small group of lessons within a broad area, there is only a general correlation between the lessons taught through the model and the student results. As teachers in the treatment group were volunteers, and the control groups included teachers who may or may not have participated in various trainings offered by the Noyce Foundation and Silicon Valley Math Initiative in the past, there are always alternate possible explanations for either finding a difference or finding no difference within a school or district. Occasionally, we were unable to find data that was missing from the data base. When that occurred, affected classes have been omitted from the sample. In other cases, when a single teacher at a grade level participated in the lesson study project with a school coach, that data is omitted from this study. Here, we are attempting to look at student samples large enough to make a judgment about the effectiveness of the lesson study project on later performance on the MAC assessment. For each set of classes, there will be at least two tables, the first will look at the performance on the MARS task Mr. Foster believes is closest to the concepts taught through the particular lesson study. This Table, then looks at traces of impact on a particular skill/concept that might be attributed to the actual lesson study. These determinations were not made prior to the MAC testing, thus, the teachers involved were not aware that their lessons would be analyzed through the selected items. In fact, the teachers were not aware the lesson study project was being evaluated at all. The second table looks more broadly at the performance of students whose teachers participated in the lesson study on the total MAC test compared to the performance of that grade by the entire MAC group and, when possible, compared to the district totals and school totals. (In small districts and small schools, sometimes the entire faculty took part or most took part, leaving either no comparison group or one too small to be seen as presenting reliable comparisons.)



While sampling statistical analyses could be performed, as these groups represent the entire population, statistical tests (intended to determine whether a sample actually represents the total population) do not seem applicable. Rather, it will be up to the reader to determine whether the differences represented indicate an approach that was worth the cost. Lastly, it is essential to remember that neither the item performance nor the total scores on the MAC represent the total value of the lesson study activities. Teaching at the elementary level is an isolating experience. The impact of working together can have a career-‐long impact on a teacher’s work with students. Moreover, in the conversations among the participating teachers about a particular lesson or the observation thereof, teachers may share ideas that impact the quality of instruction in many areas of their classrooms and/or that may not show up on tests of students for many years. Summary of Results Tables A and B below, summarize the information contained in the individual grade tables and allow an overview of the impact of the training. Table A. Tracing the Lesson Study Skill in the Assessment Table A focuses on the specific item(s) that SVMI believes best measure the specific skills taught in the lesson developed during the project. This type of evaluation, termed modus operandi, was first introduced in the late 1970’s as a strategy for looking back (ex post facto) at a project to look for what were termed, footprints, of the treatment. The technique was an attempt to delve beneath the general results of a broad test or outcome to find specific traces/effects of an intervention. It was felt necessary because a broad test or exam includes so many skills the results often clouded any program effect. The table below summarizes the results from the various grades included in the study. As can been seen from this summary, the students in the classes of participating teachers outscored the students in the MAC as a whole in nine of the eleven comparisons. In most cases the differences were substantial. For two items, both in seventh grade, the sample underperformed the MAC as a whole. The table includes the total possible number of points for the items as well as what SVMI determined to be the number of points needed to have mastered the core concepts tested by the item. The number of students reaching the core number of correct was unavailable. However, the average scores provide a close proximate to



that number. The treatment group of students reached the core in five of the comparisons, in many cases outscoring the MAC by an average of an entire point. On many of these items, the difference in understanding required to raise a score by a point is significant both in proportion to the number of points possible and in relationship to the actual knowledge of and ability to apply math concepts. Table A. This Table Compares the Student Performance on the MAC Item(s) Judged Most Closely Related to the topic of the Lesson Study projects of the Teachers. Students in Targeted Classes are Compared to Students in the MAC as a Whole. The Table Includes the Title of the Item, Total Possible Points, Core Points, Number of Students in Participating Teacher Classes, Average Score on the Item, with Number, Average Score for the Total MAC and the Difference as Expressed in a Percent Comparison.

Target Task -‐ Grade Tot Possible

Core Pts Teachers MAC

Num Ave Correct Num

Ave Correct %Difference

Fun at Fair -‐ 2 8 5 73 5.5 5897 4.7 17% Basketball Scores -‐3 10 6 42 6.9 6886 5 38% Gift Card -‐4 8 4 268 4.98 6796 3.5 42% Calculation -‐5 4 5 428 4.64 6945 3.5 33% Table Decoration -‐ 5 8 6 129 4.67 6945 3.5 33% At the Laundry -‐ 6 8 4 217 4.67 4551 3.4 37% Fractions -‐ 6 10 6 126 3.6 4551 3.2 13% Baseball Jersey -‐ 7 9 4 220 3.56 3376 3.9 -‐9.50% Percents -‐ 7 8 4 220 4.14 3376 3 38% Presidents -‐ 7 9 5 101 4.19 3376 6.5 -‐55% Driving -‐ 8 9 4 61 3.82 Missing 3.15 21.30% Table B. Spill-Over Impact on Test as a Whole The larger question of the study was whether the Lesson Study process had an impact on student performance on the MAC as a whole. The table below looks at the overall performance of the students in participating classrooms in comparison with the scores for the MAC as a whole, and when possible, with the remaining students in the local school districts. These comparisons were separated in grades five, six, and seven based on the concept covered by the Lesson Study. This was done to



make the results more comparable with results as reported in Table A. Specific concepts included in the Lesson Studies are listed in the grade level charts at the end of this report. In most cases, the differences noted in Table A held up on the test as a whole. In most comparisons, the percentages of the treatment group of students scoring “At Standard” or “Above Standard” were at least ten percent higher than the MAC as a whole. Moreover, the students in the participating classrooms also outperformed the other students in their districts. These differences appear to be educationally significant. For example, when looking at the fourth grade results, one could conclude that 52 more students from the treatment group of 268 scored at or above standard because of their participation in the lesson Study than would have had they just been a part of the MAC as a whole and eighteen more scored at or above standard in the local school districts than would have without this training. (It is important to know that the local districts scores are usually higher than those for the MAC because these districts have been most active in staff development over the years, and many of the students and teachers have benefited from training in past years. Thus the impact of this new training is not as dramatic as in districts with less prior training.) Table B. This Table Summarizes the Performance of Three Sets of Students on the MAC Assessment as a Whole. It Provides the Percentages of Students Who Scored at the “At Standard” and “Above Standard” for Students of Target Teachers, All Students Who Took the MAC, and Students in the Affected School Districts whose Teachers Were Not Lesson Study Participants.

Grade

Target Teachers'

MAC Total

Difference

Districts Total -‐ Target

Difference

Number %At or Number %At or Number At or Above Above Above

2 73 91.8% 5897 82 10.20% 154 91.5 0.30% 3 42 88% 6886 56 32% 810 88 0%

4 268 77.60

% 6796 58% 19.60% 589 70.60% 7%

5 428 77.34

% 6945 47% 30.34% 1357 62.90% 14.4%

5 129 56.50

% 6945 58% -‐1.50% 283 40.30% 16.2% 6 217 66.36 4551 54% 12.36% 99 50.40% 16.0%



%

6 126 45.24

% 4551 34% 11.24% 550 31.00% 14.2%

7 220 61.82

% 3376 61% 0.82% 0* NA

7 126 47.52

% 3376 58% -‐10.48% 156 47.10% 0.42%

8 61 40.82

% Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown NA

Conclusions The pattern of scores in both analyses indicates the students in the classrooms of teachers who participated developed more knowledge and skills than they those in the classrooms of all teachers. These results are robust across grades, districts and analyses. Moreover, based on the district level data, it appears that there is a long term impact of staff development in math on the performance of students on this measure. This impact is also substantial. The impact of both analyses is especially strong given the mathematics environment in the state. Because of the public pressure for performance on the state’s CST, school districts and teachers who extend themselves to help students understand mathematics at a deeper level during these times and in the face of budget reductions are struggling against the tide of mathematical mediocrity that looks at results on multiple choice tests as a measure of educational quality. The question of whether the results were sufficiently robust as to justify the cost is left in the hands of the funder. The impact of the Lesson Study Project needs to be reviewed in the context of the pressure to stay with the safe and low cognitive level of instruction rewarded by lower level tests. The incentive provided by these funds has given teachers the opportunity to improve their instruction and is assisting a generation of children to actually understand mathematics concepts.



Appendix A – Grade Level Results The appendix contains the charts for each of the grade levels in the evaluation study. Narrative is contained only for second grade, as the explanatory analysis is comparable for the other grades. Second Grade

Eight teachers from two schools participated in this lesson study. Two lessons were developed, one titled ‘combinations of 10,” and the other titled “Math Games.” The part of the Mac deemed most closely related to the lessons was titled, “All the fun of the fair.” There were 8 possible points to be earned in this item, and a score of five indicated that a student had attained the core math concept for the item. Despite the relatively high scores at second grade across the MAC, the students in this set of teachers scored higher on the target task than the group as a whole, and the average for the target students exceeded the base for core understanding. Achieving a core understanding at the second grade of a key concept may translate into better achievement in later grades.

Second Grade Results Participants -‐ Eight Teachers, Two Schools Chart Below includes data for seven teachers and 73 students Table I -‐ Results for Second Grade Participants, Skills Addressed -‐ Combinations of 0 and Number

Target Task Task Number Tot Pos

Core Points

Ave. Score %Dif

Teachers Fun of Fair 73 8 5 5.5

MAC Total

Fun of Fair 8 5 4.7

Difference 0.8 17%



Second Grade Tables Continued – Appendix A The second table, compares the target group of students with both the MAC generally and with the non-‐participating students in the two school districts on the total MAC test. In this analysis, nearly 92% of the target students reached the mastery level on the MAC as compared with 82% of the MAC population generally and 91.5% of the other students at this grade in the two participating schools. Second Grade Results

Participants -‐ Eight Teachers, Two Schools, Two Districts

Chart Below includes data for seven teachers

Table 2 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS

Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC

Districts -‐ Not including Treatment Group

N of Students

% At or above

N of Students

%At or above % Dif N of Students

% At or Above

% Dif from T

73 91.80% 82% 10.20% 154 91.50% 0.30%



Third Grade Tables – Appendix A Third Grade Results Participants -‐ Four Teachers, One School Concept Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Number Table 3 -‐ Comparison of Performance of Students on Target Task from Participating Classrooms and Total MAC Task Number Tot Pos Core Points Ave. Score %Dif

Teachers Basketball Scores 42 10 6 6.9

MAC Total

Basketball Scores 6886 10 6 5

Difference 1.9 38%

Third Grade Results Participants -‐ Four Teachers, One School Concept Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Number Table 4 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and District on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

42 88.00% 6886 56% 32.00% 810 88.00% 0.00%



Fourth Grade Tables – Appendix A Fourth Grade Results Participants -‐ Thirteen Teachers, five District, Concept Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Relational Thinking Table 7 -‐ Comparison of Performance of Students on Target Task from Participating Classrooms and Total MAC Task Number Tot Pos Core Points Ave. Score %Dif

Teachers Gift Card 268 8 4 4.98

MAC Total Gift Card 6796 5 4 3.5

Difference 1.48 42%

Fourth Grade Results Participants -‐ Thirteen Teachers, five District, Concept Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Relational Thinking Table 8 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and District on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

268 77.60% 6796 58% 19.60% 589 70.60% 7.00%



Fifth Grade Tables – Appendix A Fifth Grade Results Participants -‐Sixteen Teachers, Six Districts, Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Numbers and Operations, Relational Thinking, Fractions, Area Model Algebraic Notation, Eauality, Math Games-‐Number Table 9 -‐ Comparison of Performance of Students on Target Tasks from Participating Classrooms with Total MAC

Task Number Tot Pos

Core Points Ave. Score %Dif

Teachers Calculation 428 8 5 4.64

Teachers Table Decorations 129 8 6 4.67

Mac Total Both 6945 3.5 33% Difference Fifth Grade Results Participants -‐ Sixteen Teachers, Six Districts, Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Numbers and Operations, Relational Thinking, Fractions, Area Model Algebraic Notation, Eauality, Math Games-‐Number Table 10 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

428 77.34% 6945 47% 30.34% 1357 62.90% 14.44%



Fifth Grade Tables Continued – Appendix A Fifth Grade Results Participants -‐ Five Teachers, Two Districts, Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Fractions, Area Model Table 11 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

129 56.50% 6945 58% -‐1.50% 283 40.30% 16.20%

Fifth Grade Results Participants -‐ Five Teachers, Two Districts, Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Fractions, Area Model Table 14 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

126 45.24% 4551 34% 11.24% 550 31.00% 14.24%



Sixth Grade Tables – Appendix A Sixth Grade Results Participants -‐Seven Teachers, Six Districts, (One, PRS Not Included), One with Missing Data Omitted Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Numbers and Operations, Associative Property, Fractions, Area Model, Ratios and Proportions Table 12 -‐ Comparison of Performance of Students on Target Tasks from Participating Classrooms with Total MAC

Task Number Tot Pos Core Points Ave. Score %Dif

Teachers At the Laundry 217 8 4 4.67

MAC Total 3.4 37% Teachers Fractions 126 10 6 3.6 Mac Total 4551 3.2 13% Sixth Grade Results Participants -‐ Sixteen Teachers, Six Districts, Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Numbers and Operations, Relational Thinking, Fractions, Area Model Algebraic Notation, Eauality, Math Games-‐Number Table 13 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

217 66.36% 4551 54% 12.36% 99 50.40% 15.96%



Seventh Grade Tables – Appendix A Seventh Grade Results Participants -‐Five Teachers, Four Districts, (One,Singleton Omitted from Analysis) Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Associative Properties, Ratios and Proportions, Graphing Table 15 -‐ Comparison of Performance of Students on Target Tasks from Participating Classrooms with Total MAC

Task Number Tot Pos Core Points Ave. Score %Dif

Teachers Baseball Jerseys 220 9 4 3.56

MAC Total 3376 3.9 -‐9.50% Teachers* Percents 220 8 4 4.14 MAC Total 3376 3 38% Teachers Presidents 101 9 5 4.19 Mac Total 3376 6.5 -‐55% *Same Teachers, Two Questions related to Concept Taught Seventh Grade Results Participants -‐Five Teachers, Four Districts, (One,Singleton Omitted) Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Associative Properties, Ratios and Proportions, Graphing Table 16 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS

Associative Property


Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

220 61.82% 3376 61% 0.82% 0* NA NA

*All Students from District were in Treatment Group



Seventh Grade Tables Continued – Appendix A Seventh Grade Results Participants -‐Five Teachers, Four Districts, (One,Singleton Omitted) Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐ Associative Properties, Ratios and Proportions, Graphing Table 17 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Graphing Target Teachers MAC Tot

Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

126 47.52% 3376 58% -‐10.48% 156 47.10% 0.42%



Eighth Grade Tables – Appendix A Eighth Grade Results Participants -‐Two Teachers, One District Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐Graphing Table 18 -‐ Comparison of Performance of Students on Target Tasks from Participating Classrooms with Total MAC Task Number Tot Pos Core Points Ave. Score %Dif Teachers Driving 61 9 4 3.82 MAC Total Unknown 3.15 21.30% Eighth Grade Results Participants -‐Two Teachers, One District Concepts Taught in Lesson Study -‐Graphing Table 19 -‐ Comparison of Target Teachers with Total MAC and Districts on Total Score. This table presents the % of students who scored At or Above Standard on the MARS Graphing


Target-‐MAC


N of Students

% At or above

N of Students


% At or Above

% Dif from T

61 40.82% Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown NA



Appendix B 2009-10 SVMI Lesson Study Summary By Tracy Sola, Lesson Study Coordinator

During the 2009-‐10 school year, the Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative sponsored twenty-‐three teams in eighteen school districts with a $4000 grant per district to participate in lesson study. Teams ranged in size from three to ten members and spanned grades kindergarten to tenth grade. There were a total of 135 participants on lesson study teams. The geographical span of teams ranged from Emeryville to Watsonville and from San Ramon to Pacifica. On September 10, 2009, eighty participants met at Encinal School in Menlo Park to kick off the Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative’s 2009-‐10 Lesson Study cycle. A presentation to introduce lesson study was made by David Foster. Following the presentation, research lessons were modeled in four classrooms. Three Palo Alto lesson study teams, initiated over the summer at the SVMI Coaching Institute, modeled lessons involving the use of Everyday Mathematics games at the first, fourth, and fifth grade levels. In addition, a fifth grade team from Belmont modeled a Multiple Representations of a Growing Pattern lesson from the SVMI 2008-‐09 lesson study cycle. All four lessons were pre-‐briefed and debriefed with the help of four SVMI mathematics coaches as facilitators. New participants were able to experience the observation and lesson briefing process. After lunch, lesson study teams met to begin planning their research cycle. Each team also identified a partner team and planned a date on which to exchange research lessons. Throughout the fall of 2009, lesson study teams met to engage in a lesson study cycle of inquiry. Teams established learning goals for students, planned lessons to meet those learning goals, observed students interacting with those lessons, reflected on student work, and revised lessons to more fully meet student learning goals. Teams continued on through this cycle of inquiry until they felt that their lessons truly reached the maximum number of students in the most effective ways. In addition, each lesson study team collaborated with a partner team to exchange lessons. Through the exchange process, diverse educator perspectives were brought together to reflect upon and refine lessons. Because teachers with a wide variety of experiences and proficiencies thoughtfully analyzed student interactions with the lessons, the resulting refined lessons were better able to meet student needs in relation to the learning goals. After several months of engagement in the lesson study process, one hundred and eleven participants gathered on January 28th, 2010, at Addison Elementary School in Palo Alto for the SVMI 2010 Lesson Study Open House. In addition to the lesson study teams, local lesson study leaders and the funders attended. David Foster and Tracy Sola welcomed the group then attendees participated in the observation of one of five public lessons. The Bayshore team taught their first grade lesson Putting Ten Frames Together: The Use of Ten Frames for Students to Practice Benchmark



Sums of 5 and 10. The Emery team taught their second grade lesson Algebraic Thinking: Identifying a Constant and Growth. The Cambrian team taught their third grade lesson Using Pattern Blocks to Deepen Understanding of Part Whole Relationships. The Cupertino team taught their fifth grade lesson Investigating Equality with a Menu. The Belmont team taught their seventh grade lesson Exploring the Associative Property of Multiplication using Number Strings at nearby Jordan Middle School in Palo Alto. SVMI mathematics coaches and other Bay Area mathematics leaders facilitated the pre-‐briefing and debriefing of these five public lessons. After lunch, lesson study teams gathered to reflect upon their major insights and next steps. Below are some samples of insights identified by various teams:

• Pattern blocks help students to understand that a fraction’s numerator represents part of a whole, the whole being the number of pieces in the denominator.

• Shared materials (ie. one pencil per group) help to promote group

interactions.

• Preview lessons are a huge confidence booster for struggling students.

• Establishing a classroom protocol for mental math activities increases student access and success because it provides a safe and predictable environment.

• Helping students to see that each part has a compliment to make it whole

helped students to better understand part/whole relationships.

• Making mathematical connections is more powerful for students than formally representing a strategy.

• Don’t over-‐scaffold – let the disequilibrium happen.

Teams put forth a variety of ideas for next steps. Many ideas involved sustainability. Teams proposed ideas such as:

• devoting a part of regular grade-‐level meetings to lesson study

• continuing a peer observation process

• including administrators and board members in the next round of lesson study

• sharing lessons with the parent community



The Lesson Study Open House culminated in a keynote address by Stanford University professor Aki Murata. Dr. Murata spoke about her research on lesson study. The 2009-‐10 lesson study participants left the culminating activity feeling energized and expressed commitments to continue the process and to bring others into the circle of lesson study. Looking to the future, the Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative’s 2010 Coaching Institute in August 2010, at Ralston Middle School in Belmont, will offer a Lesson Study breakout session as a precursor to the upcoming SVMI 2010-‐11 Lesson Study cycle. Coaching Institute participants that prefer to engage in lesson study rather than grade level content coaching will meet for a total of twenty hours to begin the lesson study process prior to the start of the regular school year. Teachers in the nearby San Mateo Foster City School District will open their year-‐round classrooms to the Coaching Institute lesson study teams and allow the teams to teach research lessons to their students. Without exception, participants in this year’s lesson study cycle expressed their deep satisfaction with the process and their desire to continue to participate in this highly effective form of professional development and collaboration. As educators continually seek to find more effective ways to teach students, it has become very clear that the deprivatization of learning, though the lesson study process, is a valuable and highly effective way to improve instruction. Lesson Study District Teams 2009-2010 Bayshore Belmont Brisbane Cambrian Cupertino Emery Menlo Park Moreland Oakland Military Pacifica Pajaro Valley USD Palo Alto Portola Valley Ravenswood San Carlos San Ramon South San Francisco Sunnyvale



2010 Lesson Study Open House Public Lesson Teaching Teams

Facilitator Member District Team Members

Location Grade Level and Lesson

Topic

Observing Districts

Lucy De Anda

Bayshore School District Becca Sherman - Teacher Cynthia Dalmacio Cassie Heaton Liz Schneider

Grade 1 Putting Ten Frames Together- the use of Ten Frames for students to practice benchmark sums (of 5 and 10) and to build strategies which utilize these sums

Saratoga San Ramon Valley

Jacqueline Hurd

Emery School District Laura Turner - Teacher Leslie Thornley Tracy Lewis

Grade 2 Algebraic Thinking: Identifying a Constant and Growth

Portola Valley Pajaro Valley

Ford Long Cambrian School District Tyler Graff - Teacher Sally Keyes Anne Chiotti Barrie London Jackie Smith

Grade 3 Using Pattern Blocks to Deepen Understanding of Part Whole Relationships

Menlo Park Brisbane

Candace Cloud

Cupertino School District Mariana Alwell – Teacher Elizabeth Lyon Lauren McGrath Sarah Schwinge Hannah Sun

Grade 5 Investigating Equality with a Menu

Cupertino Pacifica San Carlos

April Cherrington

Belmont Redwood Shores School District Maria San Gabriel – Teacher Wendy Lyn Shawna Matilla Tracy Sola

Grade 7 Exploring the Distributive Property of Multiplication Using Number Strings

Moreland Ravenswood South San Francisco Sunnyvale



Appendix - C

Financial Summary of Lesson Study Project 2009-2010

Event/Activity Descriptio

n of Expenses

Dates Kabcenell Foundation

SVMI Funding

Districts’ Funds

Summer Lesson Study Workshop at Coaching Institute in August. Participants sign-‐up specifically for Lesson Study training.

Project and overhead cost, Stipends

August 3 – 7, 2009

30 participants x $500 =$15,000 plus cost of Workshop $10,000 = total amount $25,000

10 participants x $500 =$5,000 plus cost of Workshop $5,000 = total amount $10,000

Lesson Study Induction Meeting

Meeting Costs, Participant Stipends Leader stipends

September 2009

Release time 15 teams x 5 participants/team x $125 = $9,375

130 participants x $30 = $3,900 + Leaders $1000 = $4,900


Planning in teams for research lesson

Release time or stipends for time to plan/revise research lessons

September -‐ January TBA by Lesson Study Teams

Release time or stipends for planning. 15 teams x 5 per team x 3 days at $125 per day $28,125

Release time or stipends for planning. 6 teams x 5 per team x 3 days at $125 per day $11,250

Observations of research lesson

Release-‐time or stipends for teachers to observe or teach the research lessons

October – January TBA by Lesson Study Teams

Release time or stipend for teaching/observing research lessons 15 teams x 5 participants x 1 days at $125 per day $9,375

Release time or stipend for teaching/observing research lessons 6 teams x 5 participants x 1 days at $125 per day $3,750

Exchange Lessons Release Time November – January TBA by Lesson Study

Release time or stipend for teaching/observing research lessons 15 teams x 5

In-‐Kind Leader time to observe advise lesson study teams

Release time or stipend for teaching/observing research lessons 6 teams x 5



Teams participants x 2 days at $125 per day $18,750

participants x 2 days at $125 per day $7,500

Lesson Study Open House

Meeting Costs, Consultants. Release Time

January 2010


130 x $30 = $3,900 + leaders/ Consultants $2,000 = $5,900


Department/Grade Level Meetings to develop PLCs

Meetings are during scheduled teacher workday

September -‐ June

In-‐Kind teacher meeting time

Lesson Study Team sharing at school meetings or local public lessons

Teams work within their school day sharing and disseminating findings

November -‐ June

In-‐Kind teacher and leader meeting time during school hours

Coaches Professional Development Meetings

Meeting costs and consultants for 7/ year

7 meetings x 60 coaches x $20 =$8,400

In-‐Kind coaches’ time

Total

$75,000

$44,200

$40,000



Appendix - D

The Mathematics Assessment Collaborative (MAC) is program of the Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative (SVMI). The San José State Foundation is the fiscal agency of SVMI. MAC is comprised of member public school districts from the San Francisco Bay Area who have formed for the purpose of producing, scoring and reporting student mathematics performance assessments at grades second through plane geometry. The exams are administered once each school year in March. The exams have been given each year, beginning with the 1998-99 school year. MAC created a document that outlined five core math topics at each grade level. The core ideas document references; standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and will be aligned to Common Core Standards. The core ideas document frames the scope of the performance assessment exams. MAC contracts with the Mathematics Assessment Resource Service (MARS) to design the exams. MARS is a NSF funded center for design and consultancy in performance assessment and housed at two universities - University of California, Berkeley, and the Shell Centre at Nottingham England. Accompanying each performance assessment exam are specified rubrics and training materials for scoring student papers. Each grade-level exam is made up of five tasks. The tasks assess mathematical concepts and skills that involve the five core ideas taught at that grade. The exam also assesses the mathematical processes of problem solving, reasoning, and communication. The tasks require students to evaluate, optimize, design, plan, model, transform, generalize, justify, interpret, represent, estimate, and calculate their solutions. The MARS exams are scored using a point-scoring rubric. Each task is assigned a point total that corresponds to the complexity of the task and the proportional amount of time that the average student would spend on the task in relation to the entire exam. The points allocated to the task are then allocated among its parts. Some points are assigned to how the students approach the problem, the majority to the core of the performance, and a few points to evidence that, beyond finding a correct solution, students demonstrate the ability to justify or generalize their solutions. In practice, this approach usually means that points are assigned to different sections of a multi-part question. The combination of constructed-response tasks and weighted rubrics provides a detailed picture of student performance. Where the state’s norm-referenced, multiple-choice exam asks a student merely to select from answers provided, the MARS exam requires the student to initiate a problem-solving approach to each task. Students may use a variety of strategies to find solutions, and most of the prompts require students to explain their thinking or justify their findings. The administration of the exams also differ from the state’s approach, in that teachers are encouraged to provide sufficient time for students to complete the exam without rushing. In addition, students are allowed to select and use whatever tools they

The Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

Math Assessment Collaborative

Content Student

Teacher

Learning

The Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative

Math Assessment Collaborative

Content Student

Teacher

LearningThe Mathematics Assessment Collaborative Performance Assessment Exams



might need, such as rulers, protractors, calculators, link cubes, or compasses. MAC contracts with an independent data analysis company - Education Data Systems (EDS). EDS collects and analyzes the student assessment results, provides a reliability audit and produces three types of reports -- including individual student reports, district reports and an entire collaborative report. The student reports are produced in May and the other reports are published the following October.

report - a study of lesson study’s impact on student achievement€¦ · ·...

Documents