Place-based randomized trials to test the effects on instructional practices of a mathematics/science professional development program for teachers

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 599, Issue , 2005, Pages 147-175

  Porter, Andrew C ^a,b   Blank, Rolf K ^c   Smithson, John L ^d   Osthoff, Eric ^d,e  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

^c Cncl of Chief State School Officers   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^e Los Angeles Unified School District   (United States)

Author keywords

Data based decision making; Instructional practices; Place based randomized trials; Professional development model; School leadership team; Urban middle schools

Indexed keywords

EID: 17744385147     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716205274743     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Berman, Paul, and Milbrey W. McLaughlin. 1975. Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 4. The findings in review. R-1589/4-HEW Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
2. Boruch, R. F. 1997. Randomized experiments for planning and evduation: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Boruch, Robert, Dorothy De Moya, and Brooke Snyder, 2002. The importance of randomized field trials in education and related areas. In Randomized trials in education research, ed. Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
4. Campbell, David T., and J. C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research teaching. In Handbook of research on teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, 171-246. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5. Cohen, David K., and Heather C. Hill. 2001. Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Cook, Thomas D. 2002. Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (3): 175-99.
7. Council of Chief State School Officers. 2002. Experimental design to measure effects of assisting teachers in using data on enacted curriculum to improve effectiveness of instruction in mathematics and science education. DEC Project: Year 2 Report to the National Science Foundation on Grant REC no. 0087562. September. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
8. Creighton, Theodore B. 2001. Data analysis in administrators' hands: An oxymoron? The School Administrator 4 (58): 6-11.
9. Desimone, Laura, Andrew C. Porter, Michael Garet, Kwang Suk Yoon, and Bea Birman. 2002. Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (2): 81-112.
10. Fullan, Michael. 2002. The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan 81 (8): 581-84.
11. Gamoran, Adam, Andrew C. Porter, John L. Smithson, and Paula A. White. 1997. Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19 (4): 325-38.
12. Garet, Michael S., Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Bea F. Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 915-45.
13. Loucks-Horsley, Susan, Peter W. Hewson, Nancy Love, and Katherine E. Stiles. 1998. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
14. Love, Nancy. 2002. Using data/getting results: A practical guide for school improvement in mathematics and science. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
15. Martin, Michael O., Ina V. S. Mullis, Eugenio J. Gonzalez, Kathleen M. O'Connor, Steven J. Chrostowski, Kelvin D. Gregory, T. A. Smith, and R. A. Garden. 2001. Science benchmarking report TIMSS 1999-Eighth grade: Achievement for U. S. states and districts in an international context. Boston: Boston College, Lynch School of Education.
16. Mullis, Ina V. S., Michael O. Martin, Eugenio J. Gonzalez, Kathleen M. O'Connor, Steven J. Chrostowski, Kelvin D. Gregory, R. A. Garden, and T. A. Smith. 2001. Mathematics benchmarking report TIMSS 1999 - Eighth grade: Achievement for U.S. states and districts in an international context. Boston: Boston College, Lynch School of Education.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. 2002. http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ ESEA02/107-110.pdf (accessed April 29, 2003).
18. Porter, Andrew C. 1997. Comparative experiments in education. In Complementary methods for research in education, 2nd ed., ed. Richard M. Jaeger, 523-85. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
19. _. 2002. Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher 31 (7): 3-14.
20. Porter, Andrew C., Michael S. Garet, Laura M. Desimone, and Bea F. Birman. 2003. Providing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Science Educator 12 (1): 23-40.
21. Porter, Andrew C., Michael W. Kirst, Eric J. Osthoff, John L. Smithson, and Steven A. Schneider. 1993. Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Final Report to the National Science Foundation on Grant no. SAP-8953446 to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
22. Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. 1984. Implementation. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23. Schmocker, Michael. 2002. Up and away. Journal of Staff Development Council 23 (2): 10-13.
24. Smith, Christopher L., and Rachel L. Freeman. 2002. Using continuous system level assessment to build school capacity. American Journal of Evaluation 23 (3): 307-19.
25. Stebbins, Linda B., Robert G. St. Pierre, Elizabeth C. Proper, Richard B. Anderson, and Thomas R. Cerva. 1976. Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Vol. III, U.S. Office of Education Contract no. 300-75-0134. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
26. Streifer, Phillip A. 2001. The "drill down" process. The School Administrator 4 (58): 16-19.
27. Stringfield, Samuel, Linda F. Winfield, Mary Ann Millsap, M. Puma, B. Gamse, and B. Randall. 1994. Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: First year report. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2000. NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. NCES 2000-469. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29. _. 2002. The condition of education 2002. NCES 2002-025. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30. Wellman, Bruce M., and Robert J. Garmston. 1999. The adaptive school: Developing and facilitating collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
31. Yeagley, Raymond. 2001. Data in your hands. The School Administrator 4 (58): 12-15.