Educational Partnerships involving

UW-Madison

SCLAE-NSF Comprehensive MSP Terry Millar, PI and Project Director

Professor of Mathematics UW-Madison

University of Nebraska

Presentation

October 22, 2011

A Cautionary Tale

By the old system the learner was presented with a rule, which told him how to perform certain operations on figures, and when they were done he would have a proper result. But no reason was given for a single step . . . And when [the learner] had gone through and obtained the result, he understood neither what it was nor the use of it. Neither did he know that it was the proper result, but was obliged to rely wholly on the book, or more frequently the teacher. As he began in the dark, so he continued; and the results of his calculation seemed to be obtained by some magical operation rather than by the inductions of reason.

Suzanne Wilson, California Dreaming: Reforming Mathematics Education, Yale University Press (2003), p 9

Walter Colburn (paper presented at the Assistant Masters Society, 1830), p 233.

Relevant Pre-SCALE Activities at UW-Madison

1993 2003 1987 1999

NSF National Institute for Science Education

NSF GK-12 K-Through-Infinity Partnership

Inter-organizational Design Team

Fast Plants

NSF Institute for Chemistry Education

Bottle Biology

NSF Materials Research, Science, Engineering Center

University science in K-12

Interdisciplinary Partnerships

SCALE: System-wide Change for All Learners and Educators $35M MSP Comprehensive Partnership

Example of KTI Math Team

• The Quilting Unit was initially developed at the Education Development Center (EDC) through Technology Enhanced Learning of Geometry (TELG), directed by Dan Watt

• Rich Lehrer was the Principal Investigator of TELG at the UW-Madison, he worked with Millar and James Hamblin, at the time a graduate student in mathematics at the UW, to develop and implement the Quilting Unit.

• Matt Felton, then an undergraduate and now a professor at University of Arizona, carried the work forward into SCALE and advanced it considerably.

Approach

• The Quilting Unit was taught using the principals of Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI)

• Students explored and discussed their ideas, with the teacher as ‘guide on the side’

• Developed units for 2nd ,4- 5th and 12th grades

• Teacher Professional Development units

Core Square

• Students were introduced to the Core Square as the basic unit of quilting. Here are some examples of Core Squares:

Multiplication Table

Second

First

All rotations are

clockwise

UD = Up-Down flip

LR = Left-Right flip

TL = Top-Left

Diagonal flip

TR = Top-Right

Diagonal flip

90 180 270 360 UD LR TL TR

90 180 270 360 90 TR TL UD LR

180 270 360 90 180 LR UD TR TL

270 360 90 180 270 TL TR LR UD

360 90 180 270 360 UD LR TL TR

UD TL LR TR UD 360 180 90 270

LR TR UD TL LR 180 360 270 90

TL LR TR UD TL 270 90 360 180

TR UD TL LR TR 90 270 180 360

The NSF Gamble The SCALE Challenge

School District Faculty

STEM Faculty

Education Faculty

Education

Cultural Transformation STEM

School District

Educators

What strategy did we employ?

School Districts

Colleges of education +

social science

Colleges of math, science and engineering

Populate the intersections with promising new practices using “cross-cultural” working teams

Range of focus

Student

Instructor

Classroom/Institute

School/Dept

Sub-district/College

District/University

Partnership

Quantitative Qualitative

Research Methodology

Targeted studies

Case studies

Partnership studies

SCALE Research and Evaluation

Indicators

Goal 5

Resource

Production

& Delivery

Goal Perspective: Research and Evaluation (5)

Thorn $

Mason $

UW North $

UW

Berger

Glover

$

Dillen-

berg $

Webb $

King $ Kane $

Clune $

Scholl $ Osthoff $ Mason $

S. Millar $

Clifford $

Porter $ Vanderbilt

Goal 5 Leader

Cantrell

LAUSD

RET

Technology

Dev’t

Group –

SCALEnet,

Website,

Database

(WCER)

Yr 1 Think

TankDesign

RET

District

Case

Studies

(WCER)

RET

Building a

Partnership

(WCER)

RET

Targeted

Studies

Goals 1, 2

(WCER)

RET

Indicator

System

(WCER)

Schunn $

UPitt

Silk

$

Mehalik

$

Moin

$

Doppelt

$

Dorfield

$

Harper $ Webb

Dillen-

berg

Targeted Studies

(Goals 2, 3, 4)

(U Pitt)

Schunn

UPitt

Besterfield-

Sacre $

UPitt

Larpkia-

taworn $

Nichols

$

Targeted

Studies

(Goal 4)

(U Pitt)

Mason

DPS

Walters - Science

Koester - Math

Eckerling - Prog Eval

De facto

Goal 5

Leadership

Group

Pittsburgh

Public

Schools

LAUSD

Cantrell - Prog Eval

Ullah - Science

Vheru - Math

MMSD

Wachtel - Science

Ramberg - Math

Keifer - Prog Eval

PPSD

Kahn - Science

Sorum - Prog Eval

Research & Eval Team (RET) leader

Research &

Evaluation Team

Research Questions

(1) What are the component parts of partnerships at different points in time?

(2) How do these factors interact to result in outcomes in particular contexts?

The Study

• The UDEP Partnership: Improving math and science instruction in large, urban K-12 districts

• Design: Embedded case study

• Sample: 50 faculty, teachers, administrators and program staff

• Data collection: Semi-structured interviews; meeting observations

• Data analysis: Structured approach to grounded theory; causal network analysis

“We must all hang together, or assuredly

we shall all hang separately"

Benjamin Franklin

Advice on forming a historic Partnership

Cultural dynamics in education partnerships

Matthew Tadashi Hora

Wisconsin Center for Education Research

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Current Views of Education Partnership

The Black Box of Partnership Operations

CULTUREWhat precisely is it?

How is it measured?

How does it influence partnership outcomes?

A view of cultural dynamics in organizations and partnerships

Affinity Group (e.g., Chemistry faculty)

Peering inside the black box of partnership

Science teachers from Mayfair Middle School

Chemistry and Biology faculty from Mayfair University

The 3rd Space of Partnerships

Component Parts of a Partnership

Antecedents Process Outcome

Structural Policies Org hierarchy

Structure Communications systems Resources

Structure New policies New artifacts (e.g., curricula)

Relationships Personal relationships

Relationships Power dynamics Tone and respect

Relationships New relationships Estranged relationships

Socio-cultural Factors Cultural models Organizational norms

Socio-cultural Factors Cultural models Organizational norms

Socio-cultural Factors Cultural models Organizational norms

Routines & Practices Teaching tasks Administration

Routines & Practices Leadership Administration

Routines & Practices Teaching tasks Degree of collaboration

Individual Experiences Beliefs and values Motivations

Individual Experiences View of partnership work

Individual Experiences Beliefs and values Views of problem/tasks

Causal fragment: Larry’s account of Math PD Group

Relevant Pre-QED SCALE Immersion History with LAUSD/CSUDH

2002 2003 2004 2005

SCALE Proposal

First Immersion Meeting - Madison

Immersion/IFL Interface created

QED Proposal

QED Start

Partial Immersion/DL Integration started

Immersion Team LAUSD Science Leadership meetings

Early Immersion LAUSD PD

Early Immersion/Instructional Guide co-construction

Science Immersion Concept Paper

LAUSD District

District Secondary Science Leader Team

Local District Secondary Science Experts

District Research and Evaluation

Science Immersion Team

SCALE

SCALE RET

Immersion Teams

Phase I – Immersion unit design for Instructional Guides

CSUDH

Science faculty

Science Education faculty

Phase 2 – Immersion unit design for Instructional Guides + QED

Review & Feedback Teams

Phase 3 – Immersion unit Instructional Guides field-testing

Phase 4 – Immersion unit Instructional Guides rollout

Rollout

Immersion Teams

SCALE Funding-$ District Funding-$# QED Funding-$* Other Funding-$@

SCALE Immersion Unit Development Workflow Teams

Immersion Unit SCALE LAUSD UW-Madison CSUDH/CSUN IFL

Grade 5

Earth Science Bill Tarr-$@

Weather Jen Folsom-$ Henry Ortiz-$# Steve Ackermann-$@

Kevin Niemi-$ Margaret Mooney-$@

Hedi Baxter-$

Dan Lauffer-$

Grade 6

Earth Science Ellen Friedman-$ Don Kawano-$# John Keyantash-$* Bill Tarr-$@

Plate Tectonics Hedi Baxter-$ Dan McDonnell-$# Hedi Moscovici-$*

Dan Lauffer-$ Dave Hicks-$#

Gilberto Samuel-$# Gerry Similia-$*

Grade 7

Life Science Dan Lauffer-$ Don Kawano-$# Paul Williams-$@ Irene O.-$* Bill Tarr-$@

Variation Hedi Baxter-$ Dan McDonnell-$# Jim Stewart-$@

MiRobin Webster-$ Robin Hall-$#

Eva Bear-$# Univ. of Pittsburgh –

Mike Ford-$@

Review and Feedback

Kim Kelly-$#

Grade 8

Physical Science Ellen Friedman-$ Don Kawano-$# Jim Hill-$* Bill Tarr-$@

Density and Buoyancy Hedi Baxter-$ Dan Mcdonnell-$# John Keyantash-$*

Dan Lauffer-$ Tom Yee-$# Hedi Moscovici-$*

SCALE Funding-$ District Funding-$# QED Funding-$* Other Funding-$@

SCALE Immersion Unit Review and Feedback Teams

Immersion Unit SCALE LAUSD CSUDH/CSUN IFL

Grade 4 Megan Chrysler-$

Life Science Amy Becker-$ Ann Carnes-$# Bill Tarr-$@

“Rot it Right” Hedi Baxter-$ Kim Kelly-$#

Dan Lauffer-$

Grade 5 Jen Folsom-$

Earth Science Kevin Niemi-$

Weather Hedi Baxter-$

Dan Lauffer-$

Grade 6 Ellen Friedman-$*

Earth Science Hedi Baxter-$ Todd Ullah-$# John Keyantash-$* Bill Tarr-$@

Plate Tectonics Dan Lauffer-$ Dan McDonnell-$# Hedi Moscovici-$*

Gerry Similia-$*

Grade 7 Dan Lauffer-$

Life Science Hedi Baxter-$ Todd Ullah-$# Irene O.-$* Bill Tarr-$@

Variation Don Kawano-$#

Dan McDonnell-$#

Monitoring and Feedback

Steve Cantrell-$#

Kim Kelly-$#

Grade 8 Ellen Friedman-$* LAUSD

Physical Science Hedi Baxter-$ Todd Ullah -$# Jim Hill-$* Bill Tarr-$@

Density and Buoyancy Dan Lauffer-$ Don Kawano-$# John Keyantash-$*

Dan Mcdonnell-$# Hedi Moscovici-$*

How partnership components lead to particular outcomes The role of trust in group operations

Causal Network Theme

Antecedent Process Process Outcomes

Mark: Ed faculty Relationship History of HE/K12 mistrust

Practices Tasks were meaningful and productive

Relationship Collaborative production led to trust

Structural Group produced high-quality Science PD

Janice: K12 teacher Relationship Did not know anyone in the working group

Structure Leaders created safe atmosphere for K12/disagreement

Relationship High trust developed over time; new team continued

Fred: Geology faculty

Practices Knew nothing about K12 classrooms or teachers

Practices Leaders built a common language and framework for all participants

Relationship People were able to disagree b/c of trust

Structural Group produced good PD that reflected HE/K12 expertise

A flexible diagnostic approach to designing and managing education partnerships

Bruce Tuckman

30

Component parts of a partnership interact in a complex and often unpredictable fashion Cultural dynamics are at the heart of collaborative work Pre-partnership planning and careful design of organizational and administrative processes are key

“Building Education Partnerships” http://www.stylus.com

Identifying specific mechanisms of partnership operations provides a diagnostic framework for practitioners

UW-Madison Math Department Madison Metro School District

Mathematics Example

School District Faculty

Math Faculty

Education Faculty

Education

Cultural Transformation STEM

School District

Educators

Quote from Deborah Ball

“How well teachers know mathematics is central to their capacity to use instructional materials wisely, to assess students progress, and to make sound judgments about presentation, emphasis, and sequencing.”

Ball, D. L., Hill, H.C, & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well

enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator.

TOTAL FOR ALL Dane County Partner Districts

(in 2008) Middle School Teacher Credentials

208 Regular Ed Teachers Teach Math 17 (8%)

Secondary Math Certified

154 Special Ed. and ESL Teachers Support Students in Math

0 (0%) Secondary Math Certified

Solution? Collaborative Teacher PD Workshops

• Year 1: 20 hours Content – 2 Monday Nights (3 hours)

– 2 Saturdays (7 hours)

• Year 1: 20 hours Pedagogy – Completed through SCALEnet

• Year 2-3: 40 hours Content/Pedagogy – 3 Monday Nights (3 hours)

– 3 Saturdays (7 hours)

– 10 hours On-Line Interaction

Workshop Topics

• Based on NCTM Standards

– Algebraic Reasoning

– Geometry

– Measurement

– Statistics and Probability

• Year 2 Additions

– Algebraic Reasoning II

– Proportional Reasoning

Workshop “Team-Teaching”

• Delivery

• In-class coaching

• Feedback from participants

PD Instructor knowledge

PD instruction

Math Faculty Ed Faculty District Math

Personnel

Teachers Explanation structures

Classroom Instruction

Summer Institute

Study

Matt Felton

What is the relationship between PD instructor knowledge, PD instruction, and teacher explanation structures for teaching

mathematics?

How does teacher participation in the PD affect classroom instruction?

Follow-up Study/Suppo

rt

Odette

Math Masters Research

Nathan Rosin

Pedagogy Follow-up

Brian Sniff

QED Math Masters

Madison Metropolitan School District Mathematics Task Force Report:

Review of Mathematics Curriculum and Related Issues

Task Force Chairs

Jim Lewis – University of Nebraska Lincoln

Merle Price – U.C.L.A.

Submitted to the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education June 2008

Task Force Recommendations (Abbreviated)

Establish the goal of moving to the full use of mathematics specialists in grades 5 through 8.

Focus hiring of grade 6-8 math teachers on candidates who are mathematics specialists

Make a much larger commitment to mathematics professional development

Extend the partnership with the University of Wisconsin and other colleges/universities…. to provide coherent programs that lead to mathematics specialist certification programs consistent with recommendations in the first two recommendations

Advocate to Department of Public Instruction for new middle school-level mathematics certification requirements consistent with the first two recommendations

Quote from Deborah Ball

“How well teachers know mathematics is central to their capacity to use instructional materials wisely, to assess students progress, and to make sound judgments about presentation, emphasis, and sequencing.”

Ball, D. L., Hill, H.C, & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well

enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator.