LINKING LANGUAGES FOR LEARNING Enhancing Reading and Math through Career and Technical Education Grand Junction CO James R. Stone III Director Stone003@umn.edu Disclaimer: The work reported herein was supported under the National Dissemination for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award (No. VO51A990004) and /or under the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award (No. VO51A990006) as administered by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U. S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education or the U. S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Math-in-CTE Research Team University of Minnesota The Ohio State University James R. Stone III Morgan Lewis Penn State University Mary Kisner Barbara Senapedis Colorado Donna Pearson Linda Harrison Corinne Alfeld Sherrie Schneider Gregg Gross Susan Jensen Michigan Oklahoma State University Mary Fudge Craig Edwards Kathleen Szuminski Brian Parr Brent Young What do we know about CTE? There is evidence that: • CTE does not limit postsecondary education • Math and science course taking by CTE students is increasing: amount and complexity • CTE as a function of the HS experience reduces the probability of dropping out of school • CTE is an economic value to the individual and the community (ROI) • It is possible to “major” in CTE and Academics One conclusion is that A decade of reform (Perkins II & III, STWOA & various state efforts) is beginning to have an effect but . . . achievement and transition are the challenges put forth. . . The Problem: Math Performance Of American Youth NAEP Scores for 17 Year olds 304 300 299 302 305 307 306 307 308 307 19 73 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 04 350 330 310 290 270 250 230 210 190 170 150 The number of 17-year-old students taking advanced math classes has also increased -- with 17 percent studying calculus and 53 percent studying second-year algebra -- it is unclear why that trend has not resulted in higher average math scores over all. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/ Why Focus on CTE - I Students earn more credits in CTE than in math or science 97% take at least one course Nearly half earn at least 3 Specific Labor Market (SLMP) credits One-quarter are concentrators” NAVE 2004 Why Focus on CTE II Characteristics of Students Enrolled in 3 or more SLMP Courses . 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Native American Black (nonHispanic) Hispanic Has Disability Limited English Proficiency Levesque, K. (2003). Public High School Graduates Who Participated in Vocational/Technical Education GPA less than 2.0 More than 50% FRL Why Focus on CTE III • CTE provides a math-rich context • CTE curriculum/pedagogies do not systematically emphasize math skill development Alternative CTE Math Improvement Strategies • • • • • Related Math class*(e.g., Business math) Applied Math class* (e.g., Tech Prep math) Pull out math classes*with math teacher Math teacher team teaches* in CTE class The NRCCTC, Math-in-CTE model-a research based approach to improving math skills *Note: while some of these may improve math skills of students, the evidence is lacking. Math-in-CTE A study to test the possibility that enhancing the embedded mathematics in Technical Education coursework will build skills in this critical academic area without reducing technical skill development. Key Questions of the Study • Does enhancing the CTE curriculum with math increase math skills of CTE students? • Can we infuse enough math into CTE curricula to meaningfully enhance the academic skills of CTE participants (Perkins III Core Indicator) • . . . Without reducing technical skill development • What works? Study Design: Key Features • Random assignment of teachers to experimental or control condition • Five simultaneous study replications • Three measures of math skills (applied, traditional, college placement) • Multi-method: quantitative and qualitative • Focus of the experimental intervention was naturally occurring math (embedded in curriculum) • A model of Curriculum Integration • Intense focus on Fidelity of Treatment Study Design 0405 School Year AutoTech National Research Center BusEd Ag P&T IT Health Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Control Control Control Control Control Sample 2004-05: 69 Experimental CTE/Math teams and 80 Control CTE Teachers Total sample: 3,000 students* Study Design: Participants Participant • Experimental CTE teacher • Math teacher • Control CTE teacher • Liaison • • • • Primary Role Implement the math enhancements Provide support for the CTE teacher Teach their regular curriculum Administer surveys and tests Measuring Math & Technical Skill Achievement • Global math assessments • General, grade level tests (Terra Nova, AccuPlacer, WorkKeys) • Technical skill • NOCTI, AYES, or MarkED occupational knowledge assessment Building Academic Skills in Context: Math-in-CTE The “method” of Math-in-CTE The Experimental Treatment • Professional Development • The Pedagogy Math-in-CTE The Method • Curriculum mapping • Enhancing the math – The Pedagogy Curriculum Maps • Begin with CTE Content • Look for places where math is part of the CTE content (V-Tecs, AYES, MarkED, state guides, last year’s maps) • Create “map” for the school year • Align map with planned curriculum for the year (scope & sequence) CTE Unit CTE Concepts Math Concepts Bus/Mkt: Distribution Manufacturing Tech: Measurement Control Inventory: order, receive, count, maintain Ratio/Percentages Graphing/Predictions Algebraic Expressions Equations Measure items for production Number Sense Fractions Decimals Angles Sample Curriculum Map Agricultural Mechanics Curriculum Mathematics Content Standards Determining sprayer nozzle size given flow rate and speed Problem solving involving cross-sectional area, volume, and related rates Determine pipe size and water flow rates for a water pump Problem solving involving cross-sectional area, volume, and related rates Determine amount of paint needed to paint a given surface (calculate surface area, etc) Problem solving involving surface area, ratio and proportions Determine the concrete reinforcements and spacing needed when building a concrete platform or structure Problem solving involving cross-sectional area, volume, and related rates PASS Standards PASS Process Standard 1: Problem Solving NCTM Standards NCTM Problem Solving Standard for Grades 912 Scope & Sequence TIME CTE CONCEPT MATH CONCEPT MATH-IN-CTE LESSON MATH STANDARD MATH PARTNER MEETING DATE WEEK 1 Aug. 17 Marketing and DECA Orientation NA NA NA NA WEEK 2 Aug. 23 DECA Orientation General Overview of the Math-in-CTE Project NA NA NA Sales Unit Introduction to the 7 Math Concepts Consent Forms, Student Survey, and Math Pre Test NA Sept. 2 Sales Unit Ratio/Percentages #1 – To Market, To Market; Lesson #25 Standards 1, 6 Sept. 9 Graphing/ Predictions Algebraic Expressions & Equations, Pattern Recognition, Functions, Data Representation #4 - What Product to Sell Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 Sept. 16 WEEK 3 Aug. 30 (Officer Elections) WEEK 4 Sept. 7 (TSLP begins) WEEK 5 Sept. 13 Sales Unit Building the Enhanced CTE Lesson The Pedagogy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Introduce the CTE lesson Assess students’ math awareness Work through the embedded example Work through related, contextual examples Work through traditional math examples Students demonstrate understanding Formal assessment Professional Development • CTE-Math Teacher Teams; occupational focus • Curriculum mapping – derived from the workplace • Scope and Sequence • CTE and math teachers professional development • On going collaboration CTE and math teachers What did we find? What did we learn? Map of Math Concepts Addressed by Enhanced Lessons in each SLMP Math Concept Number of Corresponding CTE Math Lessons Addressing the Math Concept Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Number and Number Relations 8 4 4 10 2 Computation and Numerical Estimation 8 7 6 12 12 Operation Concepts 0 0 1 0 0 Measurement 5 7 3 0 12 Geometry and Spatial Sense 0 1 0 0 2 11 9 4 1 4 Patterns, Functions, Algebra 7 1 3 5 2 Trigonometry 0 0 0 0 2 Problem Solving and Reasoning 0 1 0 3 0 Communication 1 1 0 0 0 Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability Analysis Pre Test Fall Terra Nova Difference in Math Achievement C Post Test Spring Terra Nova Accuplacer WorkKeys Skills Tests X What we found: Difference in % correct – All Experimental & All Control 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Classroom Level TerraNova Student Level AccuPlacer Work Keys p<.05 Comparing Experimental Classrooms to Control Classrooms by Replication Site* 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Site V Site W TerraNova Site X Accuplacer *Only Significant effects shown Site Y Site Z WorkKeys Comparing Experimental Students to Control Students by Replication Site* 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Site V Site W TerraNova Site X Accuplacer Site Y Site Z WorkKeys Magnitude of Treatment Effect – Effect Size the average percentile standing of the average treated (or experimental) participant relative to the average untreated (or control) participant Effect Size Cohen’s d = .80 50th percentile X Group C Group 79th percentile 0 50th 100th Effect Size Obtained: Classroom Analysis Effect size (Cohen’s d) All Classes Terra Nova (d=.28) Accuplacer (d=.11) By Site Site V –WorkKeys (d=.20) Site W-AccuPlacer (d=.54) Site X –Terra Nova (d=.43) Site Y-Terra Nova (d=.87) Site Z – AccuPlacer (d=.18) -TerraNova (d=.45) Percentile Shift From 50th to: • 62nd Carnegie • 56th Learning Corporation Cognitive • 58th Tutor Algebra I • • • • • 71st 67th nd .22 82d= 58th 68th Math Ability Effect: Test Score Differences 5 Lower Quartile Upper Quartile 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Terra Nova Accuplacer Work Keys Evidence of the “Matthew Effect” – Higher Ability Students Gained more than Lower Ability Students with this Approach BUT both gained more than the Control Students Does Enhancing Math in CTE Affect Technical Skill Development? Difference on Occupational Skills Post Test - Classroom Level 20 15 10 5 0 Site V Site W Site X Site Y Site Z No difference in four sites; experimental students scored significantly higher in one site Time invested in Math Enhancements • Average of 18.55 hours across all sites devoted to math enhanced lessons (not just math but math in the context of CTE) • Assume a 180 days in a school year; one hour per class per day • Average CTE class time investment = 10.3% • Average total school time investment (assume 6 classes per day) = 1.7% • Modest investment for major payoff What we learned When We Began the Study • A box of curriculum • Teacher training • Replicable by individual teachers As a Result of the Study • A curriculum development process • Building and sustaining a community of practice • Replicable by teams of committed teachers working together over time • Core Principles Replicating the Math-in-CTE Model: Core Principles A. Develop and sustain a community of practice B. Begin with the CTE curriculum and not with the math curriculum C. Understand math as essential workplace skill D. Maximize the math in CTE curricula E. CTE teachers are teachers of “math-in-CTE” NOT math teachers What we are and are not: A contextual continuum • Traditional academic class (e.g. Algebra 1) • Disconnected • Algebra 1 • Coordinated • Academies • CTE & Academic teachers • Context Based • Contextual coordinate around themes (e.g. ‘health’) • Integrated • Occupation is the context for delivery of traditional math academics (Related or applied math) • NRC Model • Academics emerge from occupational content Issues • How much math can be enhanced in CTE before it is no longer a CTE class? (The “tipping” point issue) • Crisis Immediacy – we want a fix and we want it now • System investment (teacher time and PD costs) • Should math credit be provided for enhanced CTE classes – are we teaching math or providing a venue for students to learn how to use math? 1. Highly qualified teacher 2. Loss of CTE integrity • What are the barriers in moving this model to pre-service education? Conclusion: The NRC Model (Process)(Pedagogy)=Math achievement Core Principles Bringing Math-in-CTE to your Community 1. Communities of practice A. 10+ CTE-Math Teacher teams B. Specific occupational foci B. Regional or state C. Invite not compel 2. Administrator support A. Professional Development – (5:3:2) – for at least one full year B. Substitutes C. PD support (facilities, etc.) D. Staff the structure 3. Document!!! 4. Support structure

Descargar
# Curriculum Mapping - Colorado State Plan