1. CFF•21st CTL Evaluation ResultsChanges in Teaching Practices Jeanne Vilberg & Robin Clausen Penn State University 1
2. What is CFF•21st CTL? 2
3. 21st CTL Evaluation Since March 2007, the 21st CTL Evaluation Project has collected:• 5,500 21st CTL Classroom Observations• 55,000 Teacher Surveys• 650,000 Student Surveys• 18,000 PATI Surveys (Instructional Phase) 3
4. AnalysisStart of Program Spring 2010 (Fall 2007/2008) • The same 21st CTL teachers compared at different points in time. • Data collection periods (fall/spring 2007 - 2010) • Cohorts (teachers with different number of years in program) 4
7. Has 21st CTL Changed... • complexity of class content • relevance of class content • instructional style 7
8. OverallComplexity of Basic Higher Order Content SkillsRelevance of Artiﬁcial Real World ContentInstructional Didactic Constructivist Style 8
9. Change in the Complexity of Content21st CTL teachers now focus moreon higher order topics than they didat the beginning of the program. 9
10. Complexity of Content Describe the content your class is designed to convey. (Almost All Higher Order Skills / More Higher Order Skills than Content Knowledge Combined) 22% Teacher 19% Survey Cohort 1 16% Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Differences 13% 5.89% 6.85% 4.65% 10%Start of Program Spring 2010 10
11. Complexity of ContentPercent of Time Spent in Really Complex Thinking / Problem Solving (Quite a Lot / Almost All the Time) 43% Student 41% Survey Cohort 1 39% Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Differences 37% 2.52% 2.00% 1.74% 35% Start of Program Spring 2010 11
12. Complexity of ContentOverall Comparison by Class Period - Basic - Higher Order (Ratings of 5, 6, and 7 Combined) 70% 66% Observations 62% First Third Middle Third Last Third 58% Differences 9.12% 54% 8.35% 4.06% 50%Start of Program Spring 2010 12
13. Classroom Content is More Authentic21st CTL teachers report studentsuse technology to solve real worldproblems more often than non-21stCTL teachers. 13
14. Relevance of Content Artiﬁcial - Real World How would you describe the work that students do? Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 4 Years 3 Years 2 Years Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2008 Spring 10 Exercises & 17.48% 12.45% 19.71% 12.36% 16.67% 12.04% AssignmentsBlend First / Last 42.48% 35.65% 45.98% 39.61% 47.97% 42.95% Even Balance 30.22% 35.29% 25.59% 35.76% 28.73% 34.61%Blend First / Last 7.40% 13.31% 7.40% 10.04% 6.10% 8.21% Projects and 2.43% 3.30% 1.32% 2.23% 0.54% 1.65% Products Fewer Exercises Fewer Exercises Fewer Exercises More Even Balance More Even Balance More Even Balance More Projects More Projects More Projects Teacher Survey 14
15. Relevance of Content Artiﬁcial - Real World How often do students use technology to solve real-world problems? Daily PATI Survey (InstructionalWeekly Phase) Cohort 1 - 4 Years in 21st CTL Cohort 2 - 3 Years in 21st CTL Cohort 3 - 2 Years in 21st CTL Non-21st CTLMonthly 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 15
16. Relevance of Content Artiﬁcial - Real WorldDoes the Lesson have a “Real World” Context (authenticity)? (More real world, rating of 5, 6, or 7 combined) Cohort 3 (2 Years in 21st CTL) Start of Program 32.52% First Third of the Spring 2010 65.18% Class Difference 32.67% Start of Program 36.45% Middle Third of the Spring 2010 70.15% Class Difference 33.70% Start of Program 35.47% Final Third of the Spring 2010 70.16% Class Difference 34.68%Artiﬁcial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Real World Observation 16
17. Instructional Style is Changing21st CTL has changed the way manyteachers teach; increasingpercentages of teachers identifytheir style as constructivist. 17
18. Instructional Style Didactic - Constructivist How would you describe your teaching style? Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 4 Years 3 Years 2 Years Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2007 Spring 10 Fall 2008 Spring 10 Didactic 29.63% 26.34% 33.15% 26.21% 34.01% 29.68%Even Balance 47.64% 52.93% 48.53% 51.83% 50.41% 52.39%Constructivist 22.73% 20.73% 18.32% 21.96% 15.58% 17.92% Less Didactic Less Didactic Less Didactic More Even Balance More Even Balance More Even Balance Less Constructivist More Constructivist More Constructivist Teacher Survey 18
19. Instructional Style Didactic - Constructivist Class Period Term Mean Difference Fall 09 3.951 First Third Spring 10 4.365 0.414 Fall 09 4.372 Middle Third Spring 10 4.801 0.429 Fall 09 4.489 Last Third Spring 10 4.854 0.365Didactic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Constructivist Observation (Overall) 19
20. Instructional Style Didactic - ConstructivistWho makes decisions about... (Teacher Completely / Teacher Mostly) 100% 75% Student Survey 50% Spring 2010 How Assignments Graded Topics Studied 25% Topics of Papers or Assignments Way Topics Studied Working Together or AloneCohort 1 0% Cohort 2 Cohort 3 20
21. Instructional Strategies • What instructional strategies are being used? 21
23. Instructional Strategies Teaching Strategies (Valuable / Very valuable) 97% 95% 92% Teacher 90% Survey 87% Spring 2010 85% Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3Teacher Led Discussion - High Level Outcomes Problem Based LearningAuthentic Learning Teacher Lecture 23
24. Use of Strategies Rate the Level of Your Current Use of the Strategy (High) 50% 40% 30% PATI Survey 20% (Instructional Phase) 10% Spring 2010 0%Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Non-21st CTL Collaborative Learning Differentiation of Learning Interactive Instruction Independent Study 24
25. Use of Strategies Rate the Level of Your Current Use of the Strategy (High) 60% 45% PATI 30% Survey (Instructional Phase) 15% Spring 2010 0%Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Non-21st CTL Direct Instruction Mediating Student Thinking Inquiry Experiential Learning 25
26. ‣ What has been the impact of 21st CTL / CFF on teaching in your school? 26
27. ‣ What impact do these changing teaching practices have on student outcomes? 27
Be the first to comment