Presentation of UKM-Stavanger in Spain


Published on

This presentation of our Norwegian MKT (mathematical knowledge for teaching) project was held by Arne Jakobsen.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation of UKM-Stavanger in Spain

  1. 1. Lessons learned from adapting U.S. developed MKT measures for use in NorwayPresentation at the University of Huelva, SpainMay 27th, 2011<br />Arne Jakobsen<br />Department of Education<br />University of Stavanger, Norway<br />
  2. 2. Disposition<br />History and background (Norway)<br />Students (TIMSS, PISA,…)<br />Teachers’ knowledge is important for students achievement<br />Government decide to invest in Professional development <br />Professional development programs to meet teachers’ needs<br />Mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT)<br />Our project research question: What are the possibilities and challenges of using the MKT measures in Norway?<br /><ul><li>The project so far</li></ul>Translation of items <br />Pilot: 142 (150) teachers measured and 7 focus group interviews<br />
  3. 3. MKT<br /><ul><li>Classroom studies in the U.S.
  4. 4. Workofteaching
  5. 5. Tasks ofteaching
  6. 6. Areas of MKT
  7. 7. MKT items
  8. 8. MQI - back to theclassroom</li></li></ul><li>
  9. 9. Tasks ofteachingwithitems.<br /> <br />Giving and evaluating explanations<br />Explaining a common procedure<br />Explain a concept or idea<br />Evaluating student explanations for evidence of understanding<br />Characterizing the quality of an explanation<br /> <br />Interpreting and evaluating non-standard methods/ideas and multiple solutions<br />Evaluating a particular non-standard method<br />Evaluating multiple possible solutions for a particular problem <br />  <br />Choosing examples and problems<br />Choosing examples to introduce a concept<br />Choosing examples that use or illustrate a particular idea<br />Choosing examples that lend themselves to particular strategies<br />Changing the context/numbers of a problem without changing the mathematical content<br />Designing a mathematically similar problem<br />Designing a simpler version of a problem<br />Designing a sequence of problems to teach an idea<br /> <br />
  10. 10. Tasks withitems (cont.)<br />Choosing and using representations<br />Representing a particular idea in multiple ways<br />Interpreting a particular representation in multiple ways<br />Choosing a diagram/story/model to represent and idea/concept/expression<br />Selecting a representation to match an instructional purpose<br />Analyzing student errors<br />Identifying errors of the same type<br />Evaluating difficulty<br />Choosing and using definitions<br />(+ more.) <br />
  11. 11. MKT - the «egg»<br />Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008, p. 403). <br />
  12. 12. Example item<br />
  13. 13. Translation and adaptionofmeasures<br /><ul><li>Delaney's studies (Irland)
  14. 14. Documentationofchanges
  15. 15. Aspectsofequivalence</li></li></ul><li>Aspectsofequivalence<br />
  16. 16. Translation and adaption<br />
  17. 17. Translation and adaptation<br />MKT, releaseditems<br />Mosvold, R., Fauskanger, J., Jakobsen, A., & Melhus, K. (2009). <br />
  18. 18. The multiple-choice format<br />Focusgroupinterviews.<br />How can Norwegian teachers’ reflections about the MKT items contribute to our understanding of challenges related to the multiple-choice format? <br />
  19. 19. Item ResponceTheory (IRT)<br />How can information about items psychometric properties give new insight when adapting U.S. developed MKT measure for use in Norway?<br />An item performance is described by an item characteristic function (with different difficulty and slopes).<br />Monotonically increasing function – as the MKT increase the probability of correct answer increase.<br />Slope and difficulty is of importance.<br />
  20. 20. Item performance<br />
  21. 21. From IRT analyses of data<br />
  22. 22. IRT findings<br />We found that items can be divided into three groups:<br />Items that do not seem to function in Norway <br />Items that function well, but have relatively high difference in item characteristics in Norway compared to the U.S., and <br />Items that seem to function well and that have item characteristics close to what is reported in the U.S.<br />Quantitative + qualitative analyses!<br />
  23. 23. From IRT analyses ofthe data<br /><ul><li>Snippets from theresults
  24. 24. Quantitative + qualitative analyses
  25. 25. Aspectsofequivalence</li></li></ul><li>Teachers’ MKT<br />Focus group interviews:<br />We expected that teachers with strong MKT in one content area would be strong in other content areas relevant for their level of teaching.<br /> The teachers argued that some of the content areas were not relevant and more difficult compared to others<br /> - our motivation to study correlations<br />
  26. 26. Correlation between NCOP and GEOMETRY is 0.701 (p-value < 0.0005). <br />
  27. 27. Correlations (Pearson, p-value<0.005)<br />Correlations<br />Teachers’ MKT scores in differentcontent areas arecorrelated<br />All correlationsaresignificant – weakestcorrelationbetween PFA and NCOP<br />
  28. 28. Conclusion<br />We find that teachers’ MKT scores in the three content areas are correlated<br />Teachers with high MKT in one content area have high MKT in other content areas and vice versa <br />Despite comments from teachers that not finding PFA items relevant for their teaching, their PFA MKT is related to MKT in the other content areas<br />
  29. 29. Final comments<br /><ul><li>Psychometrically items seems to function well in Norway
  30. 30. Want to establish link between Norwegian teachers’ MKT and student achievements (UiO-TIMSS 2011)
  31. 31. Discussing items as part of professional development to learn more about teachers MKT?
  32. 32. Framework and othertheories?
  33. 33. Possibilities and limitations?</li>