Read Pdgrant.pdf text version

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 1

Empowering Teachers and Students: Job-Embedded Professional Development That Integrates New Literacies While Increasing Student Achievement in Reading, Math, and Science Goal 1 ­ Development Teacher Quality Research Grant Institute of Education Services

Co-Project Directors: Julie L. Coiro Department of Educational Psychology University of Connecticut Dr. Donald J. Leu, Jr. John & Marie Neag Endowed Chair in Literacy and Technology University of Connecticut Dr. Karen Costell Director of Curriculum Development and Finances East Lyme Public Schools, Connecticut

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 2 Empowering Teachers and Students: Job-Embedded Professional Development That Integrates New Literacies While Increasing Student Achievement in Reading, Math, and Science Goal 1 - Development Potential Contribution to the Solution of an Educational Problem. Improving teacher quality and promoting equity in student achievement in reading, math, and science is a critical national issue. The achievement gap between students from high and low-socioeconomic backgrounds in each of these academic areas is large and has not changed significantly since 1992. Second, the Internet places new academic demands on learners. Students from lowsocioeconomic backgrounds will continue to fall behind their peers without research-based conceptions of how instruction should be conceptualized or conducted in relation to online learning. Furthermore, efforts to foster student achievement and higher order thinking with staff development are hindered by a lack of systematic research on the effects of professional development on improving student learning. This research project will develop, test, and refine components of effective professional development framed around school partnerships, innovative research-based practices and an emerging theoretical model of new literacies within information and communication technologies (ICT) for the purposes of improving teacher practices and student achievement in reading, math, and science. The Population from which the Participants will be Sampled. We have selected two middle schools with starkly different profiles among students in economics, ethnicity, and achievement. The population will include teams of thirty-two grade 8 classroom teachers (and their approximately 800 students) from two Connecticut school districts. One, New London, is economically challenged with a higher percentage of minority students and lower levels of achievement. The other, East Lyme, is economically advantaged with a lower percentage of minority students and higher levels of achievement. The Proposed Research Method. A variety of methods, appropriate to the questions addressed, will be used in an integrated and complementary series of studies. These methods include surveys, interviews, observations of classroom instruction, experimental methods, and a series of teacher action research studies. Teams of teachers will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions. The control group will receive professional development in one session at the beginning of the school year, in a fashion normally provided by the districts and not necessarily grounded in teachers' unique needs. Treatment groups will also participate in these inservice sessions and then engage in job-embedded follow-up sessions throughout the year that are grounded in research-based practices and the needs of participating teachers. Year 1 and Year 2 will investigate the impact of professional development grounded in a new literacies perspective on teacher practices and student learning outcomes in reading, math, and science. In Year 3, each teacher will conduct action research projects as they apply new instructional methods in their own classrooms while we continue to investigate the impact of job-embedded staff development on teacher quality and student learning outcomes. The Proposed Intervention. Using an eight-step developmental change process to foster systematic school change and essential components of professional development framed within a new literacies perspective, we will investigate how these innovative, research-based approaches can be cohesively implemented to promote high levels of teacher success in technology integration while also working toward closing the achievement gap for all students in reading, math, and science.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 3

Project Goals: 1. Develop a model of professional development for content area training and technology integration framed around research-based practices as well as local teacher specific needs. 2. Identify and randomly assign two teams of four teachers in each school from New London and East Lyme to participate in Condition 1 (one-day traditional inservice PD model) (n=16) and two teams of four teachers in each school from these same districts to Condition 2 (ongoing, job-embedded results based PD model) (n=16). 3. Implement a job-embedded model of professional development for content area training and technology integration with classroom teachers in three phases over the course of the project. 4. Collect data related to professional development, classroom instruction and student learning outcomes before, during and after each phase of the project. 5. Analyze data and interpret the results of the impact of a job-embedded professional development model that emphasizes new literacies on teacher practice and student learning. 6. Report and disseminate the findings through electronic media, presentations and publications. Project Activities: 1. Integrate findings from a literature review, survey of teacher needs and standards for learning to construct a model of effective professional development that supports technology integration and student learning. 2. Randomly assign two teams from each school (n=16) to condition 1 (one-day traditional inservice PD) and two teams from each school (n=16) will be randomly assigned to condition 2 (teachers receive one day of PD at the beginning of the school year in traditional presentation format with no follow-up) to Condition 2 (a treatment group that receives ongoing job-embedded professional development with reform activities (e.g., teacher study groups, collaborative networking, mentoring and coaching) framed in a new literacies perspective with elements of theory, demonstration, practice, feedback, and coaching. 3. Provide ongoing support and networking opportunities for teachers with content that focuses on effective instructional models of technology integration into their content area and action research that explores the impact of new literacies instruction on student learning outcomes. 4. Develop and administer valid and reliable performance-based measures of effective teacher practices and student learning outcomes while using technology in reading, science, math and the new literacies of the Internet. 5. Gather and analyze data across teachers, students and schools to evaluate the potential of this model of professional development to improve teacher practices and student learning. 6. Present results at local school board meetings in New London and East Lyme, state conferences; national conferences including American Educational Research Association (AERA), National Reading Conference (NRC) and National Staff Development Council (NSDC); and international conferences such as the International Reading Association. Submit manuscripts to leading journals in the literacy and technology fields, such as Reading Research Quarterly, Reading Teacher, Journal of Research in Professional Learning, and Leading and Learning with Technology.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 4 A. CONTRIBUTION OF THE PROJECT TO SOLVING AN EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM This proposal is framed by an important problem for education: How should professional development be conceptualized and delivered to produce high levels of teacher quality, student engagement, and academic achievement among early adolescent youth in the 21st century such that achievement in economically underprivileged schools with high percentages of minority students equals that of economically privileged schools. It is ambitious to define the central problem in professional development in this fashion. However, we believe that it is no longer sufficient to simply show gains in teacher quality, student engagement, and academic achievement from a professional development model ­ we must seek to demonstrate that any model is capable of benefiting all schools while raising performance levels of less privileged schools to the level of more privileged schools. A nation with egalitarian ideals such as ours should demand nothing less than a solution to the increasing gap in achievement levels that exists between economically privileged and underprivileged schools. The nature of this problem is extremely complex. As a result, this proposal attempts to address the challenge by focusing on three interlocking issues that produce a sense of urgency for research-based solutions to this challenging problem. These issues include (a) low student performance on national assessments, particularly for students from low-socio economic backgrounds; (b) a lack of research-based instructional models that address increasing demands placed on learning and teaching with new information and communication technologies (ICT) such as the Internet; and (c) little systematic application of research to the design of professional development programs that increase student learning through better instruction. In terms of student performance on national assessments, recent results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that 36 percent of grade 4 students and 26 percent of grade 8 students could not read at the basic level (National Center for Educational Statistics, [NCES], 2003). Similarly, only 26 percent of grade 4 students and 27 percent of grade 8 students were judged to be at or above the proficient level in mathematics (NCES, 2000a). Finally, in science, only 28 percent of grade 4 students and 32 percent of grade 8 students were judged to be proficient (NCES, 2000b). More problematic is the fact that the achievement gap between students from high and low socio-economic backgrounds in each of these academic areas is large and has not changed significantly since 1992 (NCES, 2002). Similarly, data reveal that white, fourth-grade students perform at or above the "basic" level of reading at nearly twice the rate as many minority groups and that this gap is increasing over time (NCES, 2001; 2002; 2003). A second critical issue is that the Internet has become a vital new dimension of learning in schools, in daily life, and in the workplace. For example, 92% of K-2 classrooms in the U.S. now have at least one computer connected to the Internet (NCES, 2003). Also, the integration of the Internet into the curriculum has been identified as a key instructional issue in national standards for reading, math, and science (International Reading Association, 2002; National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, 2004; National Science Teachers Association, 1999). In addition, the Internet has become a central part of learning throughout our daily life. Nearly 60% of all households reported that they had Internet access in 2002 (Lebo, 2003). Moreover, the percentage of U.S. households with broadband Internet access has been doubling each year (United States Department of Commerce, 2002). Finally, the Internet has become a central aspect of the economic restructuring and productivity that define a global information economy. In a single year, (August 2000 to September 2001), use of the Internet at work among all employed adults increased by nearly 60%, from 26.1% of the workforce to 41.7% (United States

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 5 Department of Commerce, 2002). It is clear that the Internet has become a central aspect of our lives in school, at home, and at work. Moreover, the Internet is increasingly viewed as containing new potentials for increasing both the quality of instruction and student learning outcomes (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004; New London Group, 2000). Thus, any new model of professional development that increases student learning should take advantage of the potential for increasing student learning outcomes using Internet technologies, especially among students in underprivileged schools, who often lack access to effective instruction with these powerful new tools (Burbules & Callister, 2000; Cuban, 2001; Warschauer, 2003). Despite these changes, there is relatively little understanding, or consensus about, how instruction should be conceptualized or conducted in relation to the use of the Internet (Leu, 2000; RAND, 2002; Reinking, 1998). This is largely due to the fact that there are no widely accepted research-based instructional methods or professional development models dedicated specifically to enhancing academic achievement through the use of web-based Internet environments (Leu et al. 2004; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Surveys suggest only 20 percent of teachers consider themselves very well prepared to use technology with students in their classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Furthermore, recent research revealed that schools, especially those serving low-income and minority populations, are falling behind other institutions in exposing students to the tools and processes required to participate, compete and succeed in the digital age (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003; NCES, 2001; Solomon, 2003). Teachers in schools with the lower minority enrollments (less than 6 percent or 6 to 20 percent), for example, were more likely than teachers in schools with the highest minority enrollments (50 percent or more minority enrollments) to have the Internet available in their classrooms (69 percent and 71 percent compared with 51 percent) (NCES, 1999). Finally, Burbules and Callister (2000) and others (Cuban, 2001; Warschauer, 2003) suggest that low-income schools often limit technology use to low level learning practices, thus increasing the need for quality professional development in more effective uses within these schools. A third area of concern is that, although a large body of literature has emerged that outlines "best practices" in professional development for teachers in traditional subject areas (e.g., Cohen & Hill, 1998; Garet et al, 1999; Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsely et al, 1998), there is a lack of high quality, research based models for professional development experiences that demonstrate significant gains in student learning (United States Department of Education, 2000; Killion, 2002). The lack of systematic research in this area makes it extremely difficult for educators to adequately meet federal legislation outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act (2002). This legislation calls for practices that build on effective professional development to incorporate research-based classroom instruction and technology integration in ways that impact student achievement. Thus, there is a compelling need to develop and validate models of professional development that demonstrate direct changes in classroom instruction and gains in student achievement. The importance of these three complex and interwoven challenges is emphasized in the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) that addresses all three of these issues. This act states that recommended practices for classroom instruction, professional development, and technology integration should be based on scientific research in order to receive funding and that its impact on student achievement be documented. Thus, a growing challenge in education is establishing and implementing strategies to develop the skills and knowledge necessary for teachers to

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 6 effectively prepare students for academic success while using technology as part of instruction. Several recent studies have demonstrated that ongoing, systematic professional development embedded into classroom practices positively impacts student achievement in reading, math, science and higher order thinking skills (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Ball, 1997; Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000; Wenglinsky, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Similarly, professional development for technology integration that allows considerable time for collaborative learning and practice within and beyond one's school increases teachers' confidence and motivation for using technology, (e.g., Martin et al, 2003); promotes positive change in instructional practice, (e.g., Gora & Hinson, 2003) and positively impacts student achievement on standardized tests (Brannigan, 2002). As yet, however, no long term, systematic studies have been conducted to investigate the impact of a comprehensive professional development model that combines long-term jobembedded supports with new instructional models (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004) designed to promote all three of these inter-related issues; namely, teacher quality, academic achievement of all students, and proficiency in using the Internet for learning and communicating with others. We believe that technology integration framed in an emerging theoretical model of new literacies (Leu et al., 2004) is likely to improve teaching and learning for students in both economically privileged and underprivileged school districts when paired with a model of professional development grounded in (a) accountability, (b) collaboration and (c) the precise instructional needs of teachers. This three-year research project will develop, test, and refine components of effective professional development framed around these three issues for the purpose of enhancing teacher quality while increasing student achievement in reading, math, science and the new literacies of the Internet. B. RATIONALE To address the aforementioned educational problem, we propose a series of staff development experiences and applied instructional activities across three years. (Table 1 in Appendix A provides an outline of the activities that will be conducted to achieve these project goals and objectives, including personnel responsible for each activity and the timeline for the project.) In Year, 1, we will survey and interview teams of Grade 8 classroom teachers in two Connecticut school districts (East Lyme and New London) with regards to their needs and priorities related to student outcomes, technology integration and professional development. The findings, along with learning outcomes related to district and national content standards, will be woven into a series of face-to-face and online job-embedded staff development experiences with content that focuses on each teacher's understanding of a new literacies perspective. For this project, job-embedded staff development is defined as "professional development that is rooted in the context of an educator's daily job;...these opportunities occur as colleagues work together and reflect on research, evaluate current practice, share information, and develop strategies for change in classroom practice" (Office of Standards and Professional Development, 2002). In Year 2, we will continue to provide job-embedded support that focuses on student learning outcomes, though the content of the staff development experiences will be framed around four specific instructional models for integrating technology and the Internet with content area learning. These include Internet Workshop, Internet Project, WebQuest and Internet Inquiry (Leu, Leu & Coiro, 2004). Conversations in ongoing faculty study groups and coaching sessions will focus primarily on two issues: (a) each teacher's ability to integrate each of these models into instruction and (b) the utility of each model for increasing teacher quality and classroom learning in the content area he/she teaches.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 7 In Year 3, customized support, training and networking opportunities will continue to build on experiences from Year 1 and 2 as teachers design and revise lesson modules using each of the four Internet-based instructional models introduced in Year 2. Using action research methods, self-reflection and coaching supports, teachers will explore the impact of each module on teacher quality and student learning outcomes in reading, math and/or science. In the remainder of this section we present the theoretical positions and empirical work guiding and justifying this proposal; we define our target population; and we detail the research questions, procedures and analysis for each year of this project. B1. Theoretical Frameworks and Prior Empirical Evidence. Underlying the research proposed here is our complementary and collaborative work at understanding the nature of learning with technology, and the components of effective instruction and professional development that lead to gains in student achievement. For example, Leu et al. (2004), Leu (2002) and Coiro (2003a; 2003b) have proposed that new high-level comprehension strategies and critical reading skills are required to use the Internet for learning and communicating. This work has led to discussions of the implications that these changes have for developing classroom lessons (e.g., Leu, Castek, Henry, Coiro, & McMullen, 2004; Leu, Leu & Coiro, 2004), evaluating instructional materials (Coiro, Karchmer & Walpole, in press), designing professional development (Coiro, work in progress), refining models of school leadership (Coiro & Leu, 2003), and rethinking educational policy and assessment (Leu & Coiro, 2004). The ideas in this proposal are guided primarily by two areas of theoretical frameworks; one that frames our ideas about how to deliver the content of professional development and a second that frames our ideas about what content should be delivered to teachers in order to have an impact on academic achievement. After a brief discussion of each theoretical construct, we provide empirical evidence of the potential for each to increase teacher quality, technology integration and/or academic achievement in reading, math, and science. How should the content of professional development experiences be delivered? A set of three research-based perspectives frames the process of professional development in our proposal. These include (1) job-embedded professional development; (2) professional learning communities; and (3) the notion of multiple realities. 1. Job-Embedded Professional Development. Our ideas about how the content of professional development experiences should be delivered is grounded in the research-based components of comprehensive professional development as developed by Joyce & Showers (1995) and the criteria for results-based staff development outlined by the National Staff Development Council (2001). Research on the impact of traditional formats of in-service training for educators suggest that the "one-size-fits-all experiences seldom address teachers' specific needs or skill levels, resulting in uneven or infrequent implementation that rarely leads to instructional change" (Gora & Hinson, 2003, p. 36). To break the mold, learning organizations should promote "long-term and continuous professional development that takes into account new roles, and creates new structures, a culture of inquiry, and standards" (Leiberman, 1995, p. 596). Joyce and Showers (1995) suggest that the role of a job-embedded staff development system should "serve the needs of individuals, schools, and districts, both by nourishing the professional growth of adults in the system and by directly addressing student learning" (p. 23). Their model integrates research on adult learning and how that learning is transferred into the classroom. Furthermore, it is grounded in significant findings from thirty years of literature and experience that conclude staff development should be designed to allow teachers to take something back to experiment within the classroom (Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987).

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 8 As such, we have framed our model of professional development for this proposal in the elements of theory, demonstration, practice feedback and coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Moreover, the elements in our proposed model address standards for effective process components of professional development as outlined by the National Staff Development Council [NSDC] (2001) and as reported in "What Works in Middle School" for increasing student learning outcomes (Killion, 2003). Most importantly, Joyce & Showers (1988) have demonstrated that this model of professional development results in very large effect sizes in outcome measures related to teacher quality and changes in instructional practice. They report that when the training components of theory, demonstration, practice with training and feedback and coaching, teachers demonstrate 90% transfer rate of a new skill into their practice. These findings indicate the important relationship between the specific training components of staff development and training outcomes of knowledge, skills and transfer of training to the classroom. More recent data from the U.S. Department of Education (2000) complements these findings. In this study, researchers examined the direct effects of staff development on teacher instruction as well as associated gains in student achievement in math and science. Although they found significant differences in the quality of staff development among school districts nationwide, longitudinal data from nearly 300 teachers confirmed the most effective staff development experiences are those that are (a) delivered through reform activities (e.g., teacher study groups, collaborative networking, mentoring and coaching); (b) extended over long durations of time, and (c) employ a combination of features including collective participation, active learning, and coherence, that is, a sense of consistency between expected outcomes, training experiences and follow-up activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). This study also reports teachers who participated in staff development that combined these processes with math and science content that focused on higher-order teaching strategies significantly increased their use of active, project-centered instruction in their classrooms. Moreover, there was a positive trend for teachers who received training in the uses of technology linked to higher-order thinking to then incorporate higher­order technology activities into their classroom practice. 2. Professional Learning Communities. A second key component of our intervention involves the creation of professional learning communities that foster networking, teacher reflection and collaborative lesson design (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory [SEDL], 1997). Astuto et al. (1993) define a professional learning community as a "community of learners, in which teachers in a school...continuously seek and share learning, and act on their learning. The goal of their actions is to enhance their effectiveness as professionals for the students' benefit" (p. 26). Research has shown that professional learning communities promote "new types of social cohesion and shared understandings that facilitate teachers' willingness to try new ideas" (SEDL, 1997). Current attempts to extend these learning communities into online environments through the use of the Internet and web-based discussion forums have also been shown to positively impact teacher quality. Zorfass (2001), director of an electronic bulletin board service created by the National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP), explains that online forums provide teachers with another venue for expressing opinions, sharing information, and collaboratively solving problems. When properly constructed, an online community provides an alternative learning structure for reflection and critical thinking, increases social support, and actively engages teachers in the practices associated with using technology for learning and communicating (Jonassen, 1995).

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 9 In terms of impact of professional learning communities on training areas related to this proposal, research has found these learning communities (sometimes informally known as study groups) effective for staff development in the areas of literacy and content area subjects (e.g., ASCD, 2004; Lyons & Pinnell, 2001; Murphy & Lick, 2001) as well as for training for technology integration into the curriculum (Gora & Hinson, 2004; McKenzie, 2001; Martin et al., 2003). As such, these learning communities, in the form of small study groups, peer coaching partners and web-based learning groups, will form the basis for how most professional development activities are delivered across all three years of our project. Within these learning communities, teachers will be expected to (a) engage in the development of performance based instruments that define student outcomes and measure the growth of new literacies within each content area (in Year 1); (b) reflect on the quality of their teaching and the utility of each instructional model in their curriculum (in Year 2); and (c) engage in action research while sharing their reflections and data-driven experiences with other teachers in the project (in Year 3). 3. Multiple Realities. Finally, when delivering staff development opportunities for teachers, we employ a multiple-realities perspective concerning the complexities of integrating new technologies into classroom instruction (Labbo & Reinking, 1999.) This perspective argues that digital forms of communication only become integrated into instruction if they are consistent with the realities of stakeholders and the factors they see as relevant. This perspective is instantiated in several ways in our proposal. Most prominently, the customized design of professional development and support provided throughout all three years of the project is aimed at determining not just whether the interventions can affect positive increases in teacher quality and student learning, but how those interventions might be adapted to work within the multiple realities of diverse classrooms. What should guide the content of professional development experiences? A complementary set of three research-based perspectives frame the content of our project, including (1) emerging ideas about new literacies, (2) effective instructional models for teaching with the Internet, and (3) research-based models of quality instructional practice. 1. New Literacies. Our decisions about what should guide the content of these professional development experiences to improve teaching and integrate technology in ways that foster academic achievement are primarily grounded in a new literacies perspective (Leu et al, 2004). This theory proposes that learning (e.g., reading, writing, and communicating) is different and more complex on the Internet; thus new skills, strategies, and dispositions are required to be successful in learning within these online environments. Research suggests that ICT can transform schools and classrooms by bringing in new curricula based on real-world problems and providing scaffolds and tools to enhance learning (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). However, in order for students and teachers to become literate in using the Internet for learning and communicating, we must extend our conception of literacy beyond traditional print literacies to that which engages both students and teachers in becoming independent, critical thinkers and problem solvers (Coiro, 2003a; Coiro, 2003b; Leu, 2002, Leu & Kinzer, 2000). Further, whether the content of online learning involves reading, math, science or otherwise, "these new literacies allow us to use the Internet and other ICT to identify important problems, locate information, analyze the usefulness of that information, synthesize information to solve problems, and communicate the solutions to others" (Leu et al, 2004, p. 1570). Our decision to ground the content of reading instruction in a new literacies perspective is informed by research that suggests that improving reading comprehension among all students is

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 10 a critical national issue (RAND, 2002), particularly because academic achievement is dependent on the ability to read and comprehend at high levels (Alexander & Jetton, 2002; Bransford et al, 2000). Similarly, Allington (2001) recommends that these new literacy strategies be included in any research-based program for struggling readers. He argues that today's "unfettered flow of information" poses a huge challenge to our education system; that is "American schools need to enhance the ability of children to search and sort information, to synthesize and analyze information and to summarize and evaluate the information they encounter" (p. 7). Preliminary data we have collected among Internet readers suggests the presence of new complex reading comprehension strategies. Case study observations of proficient middle school readers reveal that the Internet provides engaging and challenging contexts for introducing, practicing and actively applying foundational higher level comprehension strategies such as inferencing, evaluating, self-monitoring, synthesizing and responding (Coiro & Dobler, 2003). Moreover, our data, as well as data from others exploring this area (e.g., Eagleton, 2003; Smolin & Lawless, 2003; Spiro & Estes, 2001; Sutherland-Smith, 2003) also suggests that reading and searching on the Internet provides practice with new skills and strategies for generating relevant search terms, efficiently navigating search engine results, interpreting information in multimedia formats, and synthesizing ideas from multiple electronic locations. Our decision to simultaneously ground the math and science content of our professional development in this same new literacies perspective is informed by the work of three groups of scholars who have mapped essentially parallel sets of skills and strategies directly onto current math and science standards. First, in a study that explored the role of literacy in the math and science curriculum, the authors concluded that a large percentage of the national standards in math and science address two important literacy skills: communication (speaking, listening, reading and writing) and reasoning (National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement [CELA], 1998). Thus, applying communication and reasoning skills while using the Internet may provide direct curricular connections to these content area standards as well. Second, Quellmalz & Kozma's (2003) ICT Assessment Framework, developed by an international group of scholars, outlines cognitive demands required for students to apply reasoning strategies as they use technologies to solve academic and applied problems in math and science. Similar to our new literacies perspective, they argue that the most successful students are those that demonstrate strategies for planning; accessing and organizing information and data; analyzing and interpreting information and data; critically evaluating, and then communicating their ideas, findings and arguments to others. Likewise, an ICT International Panel convened by Educational Testing Service (2003) to address real issues surrounding the use of ICT in work, education and everyday life, defines ICT literacies as the ability to "use digital technology, communications tools, and/or networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information to function in a knowledge society". Thus, by framing the content of math, science and reading instruction in the five functions of our new literacies perspective, our proposed model of professional development will be addressing teacher and student proficiencies associated with academic and work success across all three content areas while also paralleling the work of others developing research-based international models for teaching and learning with ICT. 2. Four Instructional Models for Teaching with the Internet. A second component of the content of the staff development proposed in this project is framed in the use of four instructional models designed to support teachers in translating the theory of new literacies into practical application in the classroom. We describe these four instructional models, including Internet

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 11 Workshop, Internet Project, WebQuest, and Internet Inquiry, and provide several examples of each related to specific content areas in our 4th edition of Teaching With The Internet: New Literacies for New Times (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004). These instructional models are intended to guide learner-centered instruction of content and new literacies through active student engagement, problem solving and inquiry, each of which is cited as an important element of national standards in reading (International Reading Association [IRA] and National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 1996), mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000) and science (National Science Teachers Association, 1999). Each teacher who participates in our project will receive training, materials and support in using these four instructional models while also having time to learn about the research that grounds them in principles of effective teaching. This structure of this book and an accompanying interactive website directly aligns with the goals of this proposed project. As such, the training materials outline extensive lists of Internet resources to integrate into content area lessons, provides examples how the five functions of new literacies applies to each content area, and includes email messages submitted by educators around the world who are successfully using the Internet to improve their teaching and student achievement. For this project, we propose that the five functions of our new literacies perspective and these four instructional models can help frame both instructional practices for teaching with the Internet and student outcomes for learning with the Internet. 3. Quality Instructional Practice. The third perspective that frames the content of our professional development model integrates Bransford et al's (2000) ideas about quality instructional practice and the Institute for Learning's (2002) Principles of Learning Framework. Bransford et al., (2000) assert the need to envision new learning environments that enable students to identify and solve problems in various areas of expertise (e.g., content areas). Quality instructional practice, then, revolves around a teacher's ability to create environments that are learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered. Hence, teachers should gauge the quality of their teaching by the extent to which they are able to design learning environments that address each of these four criteria. The Principles of Learning Framework articulates four research-based principles of learning that characterize effective teachers as those that are committed to providing academic rigor, accountable talk, clear expectations, and an emphasis on each student's self-management of learning (Institute for Learning, 2002). Elements of these two perspectives will be integrated into the measures of instructional quality upon which teachers will assess themselves during our project. Teachers will be encouraged to reflect on their associated instructional practices applied to reading, math, and science during collaborative study groups and online discussions with other teachers who teach within the same content area. C. JUSTIFICATION FOR TARGET POPULATION 1. Description and rationale for the sample. The goal of this project is to improve teacher quality and increase student learning in reading, math, and science through an innovative model of professional development based on research and equity. This work will involve reading, math, and science teachers of students in Grade 8. It is important to recognize two elements of our proposal that impact the definition of our population. First, although teachers make up the population that will receive the treatment in our proposal, we are equally concerned with the impact of our intervention on the students of the teachers who participate in our professional development experiences. Thus, we have two populations that are the focus of our study (students and teachers) and the needs of both these populations inform the selection of our target

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 12 populations for this project. Second, it is also important to recognize that a central component of our model is a commitment to equity. This also informs the selection of our target populations. We plan to work in both a contrastive and a collaborative fashion with two closely adjacent school districts: one that is economically challenged, with a high percentage of minority students, and lower achievement levels and another that is economically advantaged, with a low percentage of minority students, and higher achievement levels. Consider, initially, our contrastive approach with these two districts. We work in a contrastive fashion with both a challenged and advantaged district since we seek to develop a model of professional development that is grounded in equity. We seek to increase learning in reading, math, and science among students in both districts but, and most importantly, raise the achievement and engagement level of students in the economically challenged district to that of students in the economically advantaged district. By working in paired, contrastive districts like this, we are able to both define and hold ourselves accountable to accomplishing our common goal. While our contrastive approach helps us to define the problem and also informs us when we have achieved our goal, we see our collaborative approach as a unique aspect of the solution. By working collaboratively between our two, very differentially constituted districts, we seek to accomplish fundamental change in the equation of equity. The essence of our proposal is this: (1) we believe that challenged districts, provided with appropriate professional development and opportunities for effective teacher research, possess the potential for excellence and (2) we believe that teachers and students in advantaged districts have an important social contract with their neighbors whom may appear less advantaged. In a society based on egalitarian ideals, we owe it to ourselves to ensure that all students have equal access to the benefits that achievement bestows. Thus, we intend to work collaboratively on a number of levels, recognizing our common goal while sharing and exchanging lessons that we learn in our separate classrooms so that everyone gains. Setting our collaborative goal as raising engagement and achievement levels to the same high level of performance in both districts and working together to accomplish this goal makes explicit our common commitment to excellence. 2. Justification for inclusion and exclusion criteria. To address the goals described above, it is important in this proposal to select two districts, reasonably adjacent, where one is economically challenged with a higher percentage of minority students and lower levels of achievement and one that is economically advantaged with a lower percentage of minority students and higher levels of achievement. We have selected the New London School District and the East Lyme School District. According to 2002-2003 data (Connecticut Department of Education, 2003), the New London School District has a per capita income of $18,437, 69% of students are eligible for free/reduced-price meals, and 80.7% of students come from minority ethnic populations. The East Lyme School District, on the other hand, has a per capita income of $28,765, 4.5% of students eligible for free/reduced-price meals, and 11.8% of students from minority ethnic populations (Connecticut Department of Education, 2003). We have selected Grade 8 students and their teachers for our intervention since data indicate that more than half of students who drop out, do so by the 10th grade (NCES, 2000). Furthermore, "inequities between high-achieving and low-achieving students deepen during the middle grades with detrimental consequences for those students who continue on the lowachieving track" (Killion, 2003, p. 2). Thus, Grade 8 seems an opportune level to intervene, because it provides sufficient time to alter the academic trajectory of potential dropouts before they reach high school.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 13 Within the New London School District we have selected Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School. Within the East Lyme School District, we have selected East Lyme Middle School. Table 3 in Appendix B summarizes the important difference between these two schools from 2002-2003 data. Table 3 demonstrates that we have selected two middle schools with starkly different profiles among students in economics, ethnicity, and achievement. In relative terms, Table 3 indicates that Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School has 13 times as many students who are eligible for free/reduced-price meals, 5 times as many students from minority ethnic populations, and only about 1/3 as many students meeting the state goal in reading and math. The districts, however, are only seven miles apart. First-hand experience in these two schools has reinforced further disparities that exist in access to and use of computers and the Internet. New London for example, has begun to purchase hardware and fund professional development that addresses technology integration, but many teachers still emphasize the skill and drill of foundational literacies using integrated learning systems (ILS) and traditional uses of computer labs that students visit once a week outside of the regular classroom. East Lyme, on the other hand, has created space for computers and collaborative student work within the regular classroom and encourages the use of ICTs as part of the daily classroom routine. Interestingly, informal conversations with administrators at both schools suggest that neither group of teachers feels sufficiently prepared for effectively integrating research-based instructional practices for using the Internet to increase student achievement in reading, math, and science. Despite the glaring differences in economics, ethnicity, and achievement of students, the academic qualification of the teachers at these two schools is relatively similar. At Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School in New London, 66.2% of teachers have their master's degree, while 73.6% of teachers at East Lyme Middle School have their master's degree. Since at least 2/3 of the teachers at each school possess a master's degree, we expect that both populations of teachers will be able to benefit from our intervention that requires substantial reflection and analysis of classroom data. At each school site, teachers work in teams, sharing a common cohort of students for language arts, math, science, and social studies. We will randomly select teams from each school to participate in this project as unified groups. The reason for this is that one of the important aspects of our intervention is the integration of new literacies of Internet technologies across the curriculum. Since these skills will cross curriculum areas, we seek to capture their full effect in a context where all teachers and students share and exchange the new literacy skills and strategies that they acquire. 3. Description of Strategies for Assigning Participants. Participants in Years 1-3 will be Grade 8 students and their teachers in two school districts located in urban and rural settings containing a large proportion of minority students and higher poverty rates. Currently, there are 4 teams of 4 eighth-grade teachers working in each of the two middle schools involved in the project, which results in a total of 32 teachers on 8 teams. From this sample, two teams from each school (n=16) will be randomly assigned to condition 1 and two teams from each school (n=16) will be randomly assigned to condition 2. If each individual teacher were randomly selected instead of teams, school-based teams would most likely be broken up and it would be extremely difficult to implement the proposed project without introducing confounding issues. Thus, teams of teachers will remain intact but will be randomly assigned to one of the following conditions:

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 14 Condition 1: Traditional Staff Development Control. Teachers will attend a one-day sixhour inservice workshop in August just prior to the first day of school in September. The content will provide an overview of the principles and functions of a new literacies perspective. Information will be shared in a traditional format of professional development. One speaker will present content to the whole group in the morning and then facilitate small break out sessions with teams of teachers in the afternoon. Teachers in this group will not receive any other followup training during the school year. They will, however, have access to computers and the Internet if they so choose to apply what they have learned in their classroom. Condition 2: Job-Embedded Staff Development. Teachers in this group will attend the same one-day inservice workshop in September. Each team of teachers, however, will then be partnered with another team at their own school (from those teachers randomly selected to be in condition 2) as well as with a team randomly selected to be in condition 2 from the other participating school. Throughout the year, teachers will then engage in small group study and reflection opportunities within and between school teams that meet every two weeks throughout the year. These sessions will follow an agenda grounded in the needs of each group of teachers. Content of their discussions will be related to their questions and challenges that emerge as each group of teachers works toward building a stronger understanding of the new literacies required for teaching and learning reading, math, and science in a digital age. D. PLAN OF OPERATION YEAR 1 Rationale and Empirical Evidence. Researchers experienced with effective models of professional development indicate a basic level of knowledge or skill in a new approach is necessary before teachers can "buy in" to it (Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987). Moreover, a consistent set of instructional goals and practices motivates teachers for learning how to use technology and to incorporate it into their teaching practices in ways that change student outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Thus, the first year of this project will introduce teachers to the theory and research behind the new literacies perspective to help them ground their teaching, curriculum and learning goals for students in research-based conceptions of theory and practice. The primary goal of Year 1 is to survey teacher's needs and develop and implement job-embedded support, training and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing on teachers' understanding of a new literacies perspective as applied to their subject matter curriculum (e.g., reading, math or science). (See Table 1 in Appendix A for a detailed outline of activities, personnel responsible and timeline for the project). Research Questions and Variables of Interest. In this first year, we will explore the answers to three research questions: one that examines the impact of this job-embedded professional development model on teacher quality; a second that examines the relationship between teacher quality variables and Grade 8 student learning and engagement outcomes, and a third that compares achievement over time between experimental students in the economically advantaged and challenged districts. Research Question 1: How does the first year of job-embedded professional development framed in a new literacies perspective (with content primarily focusing on the principles and functions of new literacies) impact teacher quality? Dependent Variables for Measuring Teacher Quality:

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 15 According to Hein (1997), a key to demonstrating the link between staff development and student achievement is to look for evidence of change in teacher behavior and attitudes that result from staff development (as cited in Sparks, 1997). As such, most of the variables below represent measures of teacher behavior and attitudes related to professional development experiences and its utility for improving instructional practices in their classroom. (1) Demographic data. Demographic data will be collected on all participants. For teachers, we will collect information on school, age, gender, number of years teaching, degree, area of certification, number of years using computers, and other relevant variables that will emerge after initial study group experiences. (2) Teachers' self-assessment of their self-efficacy of using technology in the classroom. This will be measured using the Self-Efficacy Teaching and Knowledge Instrument for Teachers Using Technology (Roberts, 2003). Teachers rate their level of agreement on each of 14 items using a five point Likert-scale ranging from "strongly disagree to strongly agree". Sample items include "I am typically able to answer student's questions about technology" and "I am continually finding better ways to teach with technology". Pre- and post-test measures will be conducted at the beginning of the year in September and at the end of the year in June. (3) Teachers' acquisition of new literacies required for teaching with technology in the content area in which he/she primarily teaches (e.g., reading, math or science). This will be measured using an instrument adapted from the Technology Skills Self-Assessment (SEDL, 2003). Adapted items will measure a teacher's ability to apply new literacies to perform the five functions in their content area, including (a) identifying important problems; (b) locating information; (c) evaluating and (d) synthesizing information and then (e) communicating it to their students. For each item, teachers will be asked to indicate which experience level (1-5) applies to them. (4) Teachers' integration of technology, including the Internet, into their classroom routine and curriculum. This will be measured using an instrument adapted from the Technology Determinant Survey (SEDL, 2003) that provides information about a teachers' use of technology for teaching and learning. Sample items include "My students use technology for cooperative learning projects in my classroom" and "I meet with groups of faculty regularly to discuss technology use in classroom activities". For each item, teachers will be asked to indicate which experience level (1-5) applies to them. (5) Teachers' instructional quality. This will be measured using items on the Instructional Quality Assessment (Junker, 2004) applied to reading, math, and science. This instrument assesses teacher quality based on four principles of learning that should be tied to instructional practice: a) academic rigor, or the ability to integrate rigorous content with high-level thinking and active use of knowledge; (b) clear expectations, or the ability to communicate clear expectations about what students will learn, how they will learn it, and what qualifies as good work); (c) self-management of learning, or the ability to foster students' taking responsibility for their own learning by monitoring and regulating their own cognitive processes with increasing spontaneity and sophistication; and (d) accountable talk, or to encourage students' active learning through talk (Resnick & Hall, 2000). These principles also align with definitions of teacher quality as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and the National Staff Development Council (2001). Methods, Procedures and Data Analysis. Each dependent variable will be measured quantitatively in Year 1 through pre-post measures, which will later become a series of repeated measures in years 2 and 3. The variables will be entered into a multivariate MANCOVA model

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 16 which will control for differences in pretreatment scores while examining differences in scores among treatment and control group participants as well as within subject changes over time (i.e., over each of the three years in the project). This model will enable us to see how the set of dependent variables accounts for differences in teacher quality among the participants in Condition 1 as compared to those in Condition 2. Supplemental, semi-structured, interview data on each of the major variables of interest will also be gathered at four-month intervals throughout the year (October, February, and June) to enrich the interpretation of quantitative prepost results. This data will help to further explain any differences and patterns in teacher quality among teachers who participate in Condition 1 (one-day traditional inservice PD model) or Condition 2 (ongoing, job-embedded, results-based PD model). The interview protocol will be adapted from protocols used by Martin et al. (2004) to measure growth in teacher use and their students' use of and experience with technology. Hypothesis Related to Teacher Quality: At the end of Year 1, we would expect to see higher scores on the set of teacher quality variables among condition 2 (those who participated in an entire year of ongoing, job-embedded professional development of a new literacies perspective with classroom follow-up) over condition 1 (those who participated in a one-day, six hour professional development session about a new literacies perspective at the beginning of the year). Research Question 2: What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes in reading, math, and science after the first year of job-embedded professional development framed in a new literacies perspective (with content primarily focusing on the principles and functions of new literacies applied to reading, math, and science)? Dependent Variables for Measuring Student Learning Outcomes: Instruments designed to measure change in each of the following variables will be administered at the beginning and end of the academic year. (1) Demographic Data. Demographic data will be collected on all participants. For students, we will collect information on school, age, gender, race/ethnicity, SES level, first language, special education status, achievement data from the most recent standardized assessments prior to their teacher's participation in the project, and other relevant variables that will emerge after initial study group experiences. (2) Reading Achievement: separate pre-post measures for reading achievement will be obtained for each student. These will include scores on (a) the reading component of Connecticut Mastery Test; (b) report card grade in reading; and (c) score on self-efficacy scale in reading (3) Mathematics Achievement: separate pre-post measures for math achievement will be obtained for each student. These will include scores on (a) the math component of Connecticut Mastery Test; (b) report card grade in math; and (c) score on self-efficacy in math. (4) Science Achievement: separate pre-post measures for science achievement will be obtained for each student. These will include scores on (a) the science component of the Stanford Achievement Test; (b) report card grade in science; and (c) score on self-efficacy in science. (5) Students' acquisition of new literacies of using technology for learning in reading, math, and science. This will be measured using a performance based rubric adapted from an instrument we have used in pilot studies (Leu & Coiro, 2004) to measure a student's ability to apply their new literacies to perform the five functions of identifying important problems (in their content area), locating information, evaluating and synthesizing information and then communicating it to their peers.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 17 (6) Students' level of engagement: Two measures of engagement will be included. Engagement in online performance of tasks related to reading, math, and science will be measured by a set of instruments developed and piloted in early preliminary studies conducted by Coiro, Leu, Henry and Castek (2004). Engagement in school learning will be measured with a school engagement questionnaire, following the work of Norris, Pignal, and Lipps (2003). Methods, Procedures, and Data Analysis. Each variable will be measured quantitatively with pre-post measures. As noted by researchers reviewing effective results-based models of staff development (NSDC, 2003), simply knowing that teachers participated in staff development and that student achievement increased does not prove that staff development was responsible for the increase. Multiple other factors are also associated with increased student learning. The National Staff Development Council (2003) recommends collecting evidence about the impact of staff development by using correlational methods that demonstrate a positive relationship exists between a certain model of staff development and student achievement. Thus, to analyze our data in this project, a series of bivariate correlation coefficients will be computed among variables within the set of student learning outcome variables and then between variables from the set of students learning outcomes and the set of teacher quality variables. As we did with teacher data, supplemental interview data from randomly selected students on many of these variables will also be collected at four-month intervals throughout the year (October, February, and June) to enrich the interpretation of quantitative pre-post results and correlations between teacher and student variables. This data will help to further explain any differences and patterns in teacher quality or student learning outcomes among participants in condition 1 and condition 2. Hypothesis Related to Student Learning Outcomes. At the end of Year 1, we would expect to see greater growth in mean scores on student learning outcomes for students with teachers in Condition 2 than for students with teachers in Condition1. We would also expect a stronger positive linear relationship between the set of teacher quality variables and the set of student learning outcomes in condition 2 (those who participated in an entire year of ongoing, jobembedded professional development of a new literacies perspective with classroom follow-up) over condition 1 (those who participated in a one-day, six hour professional development session about a new literacies perspective at the beginning of the year). Research Question 3: Does the first year of job-embedded professional development framed in a new literacies perspective (with content primarily focusing on the principles and functions of new literacies) lead to movement to close achievement gaps in the content areas of reading, math, and science between experimental students in the economically advantaged district and in the economically challenged district? Dependent Variables for Measuring Changes in the Achievement Gaps. To answer this question, the same set of demographic and dependent measures will be used as are used in Research Question 2 on reading achievement, math achievement, and science achievement. Data Analysis. A pre-post test design, identical to the one used to answer research question 2 will be used to determine if we obtain a significant decrease in the difference between achievement levels of the two experimental populations from pre to post test periods. A significant interaction between time of testing and school will be used to determine this for each of the subject areas: reading, math, and science. Hypothesis Related to Equity and Learning Outcomes. If our collaborative work begins to close the achievement gaps between experimental students in these two districts, simply from greater understanding about new literacies of the Internet, we would expect to see a significant

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 18 interaction between time of testing and school for each of the subject areas: reading, math, and science. YEAR 2 Rationale and Empirical Evidence. Almost all teachers can take useful information back to their classroom when training includes four parts: (1) presentation of theory, (2) demonstration of the new strategy; (3) initial practice in the workshop, and (4) prompt feedback about their efforts (Showers, Joyce & Bennett, 1987, p. 24). In addition, research exploring effective professional development for technology integration shows that successful computer integration is less associated with computer literacy than it is with exposure to various methods of instruction that use computers (Beaudin & Grigg, 2001). Thus, in this second year, the primary goal is to integrate new content into ongoing job-embedded support that focuses on four instructional models (Leu, Leu & Coiro, 2004) for using the Internet including Internet Workshop, Internet Project, WebQuest, and Internet Inquiry. (Again, see Table 1 in Appendix A for a detailed outline of activities, personnel responsible and timeline for the project). These models can be used to transform the quality of instruction while facilitating new literacies among students in reading, math, and science. In fact, a recent study suggests that pursuing Internet activities with students transforms instruction by "expanding a teachers' repertoire of engaging methods and materials...by reinvigorating collaborative teacher reflection on practice, instructional innovation and movement away from `transmission-oriented pedagogy' toward more current, interactive opportunities to interact with multiple interpretations of events" (Garner & Gillingham, 2001, p. 225-226). In this second year, a one-day six-hour inservice session will be provided to participating teams of teachers in both conditions from both schools to provide an overview of the four instructional models for teaching subject matter with the Internet. Teachers in Condition 1 will not receive any other follow-up training while teachers in Condition 2 will continue to engage in small group study and reflection opportunities that meet regularly throughout the year and follow an agenda grounded in the needs of each group of teachers. One new instructional model will be introduced every other month (September, November, January, and March) and the content of discussions will be related to questions and challenges that emerge as each team of teachers works toward framing and developing content area lessons within each of these models. Internet resources will be shared via the online learning community website. In addition, content area teachers will compile and evaluate instructional resources that best fit with their curriculum expectations while providing opportunities for students to engage in high-level inquiry and problem solving activities within reading, math, and science. Research Questions and Variables of Interest. We will continue to explore the answers to the three research questions outlined in Year 1 with the same group of teachers and a second group of Grade 8 students. We also plan to include one additional research question this year that examines the additive effects of sustained, systematic professional development over two years span of time. Research Question 4: How does a second year of job-embedded professional development framed around the content of each teacher's subject area expertise and four instructional models for integrating the Internet into classroom instruction impact teacher quality? Dependent Variables of Interest. See Year 1 for a description of these teacher quality variables. Methods, Procedures, and Data Analysis. Teacher quality variables will again be analyzed using a MANCOVA model to examine differences in scores among treatment and control group participants as well as within subject changes over time as a repeated measures with

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 19 three scores (pre and post test scores for years 1 and post test for year 2). Similarly, supplemental data from three more teacher interviews will be gathered and analyzed with qualitative methods to enrich the interpretation of quantitative measures. Hypothesis. At the end of Year 2, we would again expect to see higher scores on the set of teacher quality variables among those in Condition 2 when compared to teachers in Condition 1. Research Question 5: What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes in reading, math, and science after the second year of job-embedded professional development framed in a new literacies perspective (with content primarily focusing on four instructional models of integrating the Internet into the reading, math, and science curriculum)? Dependent Variables of Interest. See Year 1 for these student outcome variables. Methods, Procedures and Data Analysis. Mean scores on learning measures for this second group of student learning measures will be compared and bivariate correlation statistics will be computed to explore the relationship that exists between the set of teacher quality variables and student achievement in reading, math, and science. Hypothesis: At the end of Year 2, we would again expect greater growth in mean scores for students with teachers in Condition 2 and a positive linear relationship between measures of teacher quality and student learning in reading, math, and science in Condition 2. Research Question 6: Does a second consecutive year of job-embedded PD with content focusing on specific classroom intervention models for learning with the Internet yield a greater difference on teacher and student variables compared to the first year results when content focused on a new literacy perspective in general? Dependent Variables of Interest. See Year 1 for a description of these teacher quality variables. Methods, Procedures and Data Analysis. To evaluate differences between Years 1 and 2 on teacher quality variables a repeated measures MANCOVA model will be used to control for pre-test differences in Year 1 while evaluating for additional gains, over and beyond the effects of Year 1. Separate Year 1 measures will be entered into the model, followed by Year two measures to determine if additional significant changes in teacher quality occurred in Year 2.To evaluate differences between Years 1 and 2 on student learning variables, a between subjects MANCOVA model will be used to compare student learning outcomes. Pre-test scores on each of the learning measures will be used as the covariate and Year 1 post test scores will be compared to Year 2 post test scores to determine if Year 2 treatment yielded a greater effect on learning outcomes. Hypothesis: At the end of Year 2, we would expect to see both additional, independent gains in all teacher quality measures and a significant mean difference between Years 2 and 3 in all student achievement measures. Research Question 7: Does the second year of job-embedded professional development framed in a new literacies perspective (with content primarily focusing on four instructional models of integrating the Internet into the content areas) lead to movement to close achievement gaps in the content areas of reading, math, and science between experimental students in the economically advantaged district and in the economically challenged district? Dependent Measures. See Year 1 for a full description of these variables. Data Analysis. A pre-post test design, identical to the one used to answer research question 2, will be used to determine if we obtain a significant decrease in the difference between achievement levels of the two experimental populations from pre to post test periods during

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 20 Year 2. A separate interaction will be evaluated that includes the changes between Years 1 and 2 to determine if Year 2 added significantly to closing the achievement gap Hypothesis Related to Equity and Learning Outcomes. If our collaborative work begins to close the achievement gaps between experimental students in these two districts, from greater understanding about instructional models for integrating the new Internet into the classroom, we would expect to see a significant interaction between time of testing and school for each of the subject areas: reading, math, and science. We would also expect there to be a significant difference between the interactions of Year 1 and Year 2. YEAR 3 Rationale and Empirical Evidence. Collaborative teacher action research engages teachers in a process of inquiry with colleagues for the purposes of improving teaching, testing an educational theory, or evaluating and implementing an educational plan (Parsons, 2004). Classroom teachers who engage in action research find it to be an extremely empowering experience as they have opportunities to develop their professional expertise and critical judgments about effective teaching practices (Sagor, 2000). In addition, policy makers argue that action research is one aspect of best practice for improving student achievement (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 2003). Thus, the primary goal of Year 3 is to integrate teacher action research and inquiry into a third year of job-embedded professional development sessions so that teachers are actively involved in reflection about their own practices and their impact on student learning in reading, math, and science. In this third year, a one-day six-hour inservice session will be provided to participating teams of teachers in both conditions from both schools to provide an overview of the benefits of action research and how it can be implemented in the classroom. Teachers in Condition 1 will not receive any other follow-up training while teachers in Condition 2 will continue to engage in small group study and reflection opportunities that meet regularly throughout the year. Through this third year, teachers will move through the action research cycle as they explore, reflect on and adapt instruction in one of the four instructional models to better understand its impact on student learning in reading, math, or science. Research Questions and Variables of Interest. In this third year, we will continue to explore the answers to questions about the impact of a second consecutive year of job-embedded professional development model on teacher quality and the continuing relationship between teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes from a second group of students in reading, math, and science. We also continue our exploration into whether or not our model of professional development leads to movement to close the achievement gaps between students in the two participating schools. Finally, each teacher will engage in his/her own action research project focusing on student's acquisition of new literacies and increases in academic achievement. Research Question 8: How does the use of an instructional model of integrating ICT into a content area lesson impact student learning? (Teachers conduct action research that would result in a series of studies all exploring this issue). Dependent Measures. Evidence of change in student learning outcomes will be measured with a performance-based rubric developed by each teacher that integrates the application of new literacies into one of four Internet learning models applied to reading, math, or science. Two measures (pre and post) will be conducted for each student, including a total score, and a componential score for each function of new literacies

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 21 applied to a content area task. These functions include identifying an important problem, locating relevant information, evaluating and synthesizing the information and communicating it to peers. Methods, Procedures and Data Analysis. Trends and patterns among the data will be analyzed using action research methods during study group meetings. Teachers will carefully examine data to better understand the story that the data tells. Hypothesis: At the end of year 3, we would expect students of teachers in Condition 2 to achieve at higher levels on a performance-based rubric than they did at the beginning of the school year. Research Questions 9-12 in Year 3. Please refer to Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix A for an outline and description of these questions. The dependent measures of teacher quality and student learning outcomes and the methods for analyses for each question will remain the same as described above for Years 1 and 2. Hypothesis. If our job-embedded model of professional development is effective, we would expect (a) similar changes in teacher quality and student learning over the course of Year 3, (b) similar correlations between teacher quality and student learning, and (c) similar trends toward closing the achievement gap in reading, math, and science between experimental students in the economically advantaged district and in the economically challenged district. E. TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS Table 1 provides a detailed outline of activities that will be completed to fulfill project goals and objective. It also specifies a timeline and personnel responsible for each activity. This Table 1 is the blueprint for use by the Co-Project Directors for management of this project. The narrative in the Plan of Operation above expands on the methods and procedures used to implement the design. Each research question for each year is clearly identified, along with how each set of results will be interpreted to evaluate its associated hypothesis. Due to space constraints, the research questions for Year 3 (which essentially replicate the procedures and methods for data analysis in Year 2) are outlined only in Table 1 and 2. F. EVALUATION PLAN The plan for evaluation of the project as detailed in Table 2 (see Appendix A) is designed to assure measurable and reportable implementation of the project's activities, as well as evaluating that the objectives of the research are met.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 22 G. QUALITY OF KEY PERSONNEL 1. Key Project Personnel Donald J. Leu, Jr., Co-Project Director, holds the John and Maria Neag Endowed Chair in Literacy and Technology at the University of Connecticut. He has joint appointments in the Department of Educational Psychology and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Dr. Leu is the author of more than 100 books, articles, and software in literacy education and electronic learning environments and recently co-authored the 4th edition of Teaching the Internet: New Literacies for New Times with Julie Coiro and Deborah Leu. He is a frequent speaker on new literacies, having given invited talks at Harvard and Berkeley as well as keynote addresses in Europe, Australia, Asia, South America, and North America. He also plays a role in leading administrators in the state of Connecticut towards a better understanding of new literacies and the role of the Internet for teaching and learning through a statewide program funded by Bill and Melinda Gates. He is also Co-Principle Investigator for the CTELL project, a five-year, $5.6 million IERA federal research grant funded by the National Science Foundation. This research project is studying the use of video cases of best practice early reading instruction, delivered over the Internet, to improve pre-service teacher education and young children's literacy achievement. Dr. Leu is President of the National Reading Conference and is a Fellow in the National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy. His vita appears in Appendix B. Julie Coiro, Co-Project Director, is completing the defense of her dissertation on the nature of reading comprehension in online environments at the University of Connecticut in the Department of Educational Psychology, Cognition and Instruction. Ms. Coiro has provided jobembedded professional development opportunities for educators for the past ten years in the areas of technology integration, curriculum development and literacy skills and strategies. She has worked on projects in conjunction with Connecticut's State Department of Education, Special Education Resource Center (SERC) and LEARN, one of Connecticut's six regional educational service centers. She has also worked independently as a technology and learning integration specialist in several local school districts, including several with high percentages of economically underprivileged and low-achieving students. She has several years of experience with the range of reform activities outlined in this proposal, including teacher study groups, collaborative networking, coaching, curriculum development and online learning communities. Ms. Coiro earned her Master's Degree from the University of New Orleans after working as a special education teacher for eight years in elementary and middle school. She has also worked as a reading specialist, software consultant and web designer of a portal literacy website at the University of Connecticut (www.literacy.uconn.edu). She has been invited to speak at universities and schools around the nation and her publications appear in a number of important venues, including: The Handbook of Literacy and Technology (2nd. Edition), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th Edition), The Reading Teacher, and The New England Reading Association Journal. She is also co-author, with Donald Leu and Deborah Leu, of the Teaching the Internet: New Literacies for New Times (4th Edition). Her most recent work in press is a chapter outlining models of effective professional development that integrates technology with content area and literacy instruction. Her vita appears in Appendix B. Karen Costello, Co-Project Director, is Director of Curriculum Development and Finances in East Lyme, Connecticut. She coordinates the development of curriculum in language arts, math, science and social studies across the district of 3,000 students in three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. Prior to this, Dr. Costello was the Assistant

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 23 Superintendent in Madison, Connecticut after earning her doctorate in administration from the University of Connecticut. Dr. Costello's background as classroom teacher, reading specialist, program evaluator, and finance director bring valuable administrative and technical skills to this project. She was also a former Connecticut State Language Arts Consultant and played a significant role in the development of the 2nd generation of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) for Language Arts. Her vita appears in Appendix B. 2. Additional Key Project Personnel Donna Fochi, Project Coordinator, is currently an external consultant for The Literacy Initiative at the Special Education Resource Center (SERC) for the Connecticut State Department of Education. She works closely with teachers in Mayberry School, a large, urban, economically underprivileged district in East Hartford, Connecticut. For six years, she has developed and facilitated job-embedded professional development and online learning communities focused on improving early literacy achievement of elementary school students. Ms. Fochi's experience with organizing Connecticut's Annual Literacy Convocation and her background in managing budgets and electronic databases brings valuable administrative skills to this project. She is an active member of the Connecticut Reading Association and earned her Masters Degree as a Reading Specialist from University of Connecticut. Her vita appears in Appendix B. 3. Time Commitment of Personnel Julie Coiro, Co-Project Director, and Donna Fochi, Project Coordinator, will contribute most of the time devoted to this project while the other two Co-Project Directors will contribute .1FTE (Dr. Donald Leu) and .2FTE (Dr. Karen Costello). All three Co-Project Directors will meet regularly to coordinate the development and implementation of project activities. H. ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES The University of Connecticut is a Research I university with the attendant mission and support for research. The Neag School of Education has developed partnerships with public schools across Connecticut in the form of Professional Development Centers. Through these relationships, the university has clearly illustrated its mission of working together to create new visions of professional development and research-based models of effective practice. A primary emphasis within the operation of each school is on development projects and collaborative research activities between university and public school faculty. The University of Connecticut will provide space for all project staff and will also provide the technology support and services necessary for this project, including server space for the online professional learning communities that will link teachers within and between the two participating schools. It will provide release time for the appropriate project directors to conduct this project. (See letter of agreement in Appendix B). Facilities will be made available for Graduate Assistants and the Project Coordinator in the office of the John and Maria Neag Endowed Chair in Literacy and Technology. Two Connecticut school districts have agreed to participate in this study: New London and East Lyme. Each will provide meeting space and offices necessary to conduct this research. (See letters of agreement in Appendix B.) Each district has a professional development center where many of these activities will take place and each has a school representative that will coordinate the scheduling of project activities at their respective school sites.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 24 I. BUDGET & COST EFFECTIVENESS Table 3 details expenses for the budget during Year 1, demonstrating its adequacy to undertake the outlined project activities. The Project Coordinator will keep a monthly accounting of all project expenditures. The total cost for this project is within the range specified for this competition. The University of Connecticut will contribute $13,279 in salaries and $4,542 in fringe benefits for key project personnel, and East Lyme Public School District will contribute $29,610 in salaries and $6,213 in fringe benefits. Contributed costs for all categories total $79,393.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 25 REFERENCES Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2002). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of reading research, Volume III (pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York, NY: Longman. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2004). What is a study group? Retrieved March 20, 2004 from http://webserver3.ascd.org/ossd/studygroups.html Ascher, C. (1984). Microcomputers: Equity and quality in education for urban disadvantaged students. ERIC/CUE Digest. 19. Astuto, T.A., Clark, D.L., Read, A-M., McGree, K. & Fernandez, K.P. (1993). Challenges to dominant assumptions controlling educational reform. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for the Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands. Becker (2000). Internet use by teachers: A national survey. Retrieved October 12, 2003 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/tlc_home.html Brannigan, C. (June 5, 2002). Study: Missouri's ed-tech program is raising student achievement, eSchool Newsonline. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L, & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington DC, National Academic Press. Burbules, N. & Callister, T. (2000). Watch IT: The risks and promises of information technologies for education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California (RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Coiro, J, Karchmer, R.A., & Walpole, S. (in press). Critically evaluating educational technologies for literacy learning: Current trends and new paradigms. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kiefer (Eds.) Handbook of Literacy and Technology. 2nd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Coiro, J. (in progress). Every teacher a Miss Rumphuis: Empowering teachers with effective professional development. Invited Chapter, Work in Progress. Coiro, J. (2003a). Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Online. [Article reprinted from The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464]. [OnlineSerial]. Available at: http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/rt/203_Column/index.html. Coiro, J. (2003b). Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically evaluating content on the Internet. New England Reading Association Journal, 39, 29-34. Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2003, December). Exploring how skilled readers use reading strategies while locating information on the Internet. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference. Coiro, J. & Leu, D.J. Jr. (2003). Understanding Information Technology as a New Literacy: School Leadership in the Instructional Use of Internet Technologies. Presented as part of the Technology and Leadership & Learning in Connecticut (TL2C) funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved December 15, 2003 from http://ctell1.soe.uconn.edu/CTAdminTech/.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 26 Connecticut Department of Education. (2003). Strategic school profiles by district 2002-03. Retrieved April 8, 2004 from http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/ssp/dist0203/district.htm Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2003). Connected to the future study: A report on children's Internet use. Grunwald Associates. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from http://www.cpb.org/ed/resources/connected/ Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Darling-Hammond, L. & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policy makers need to know and be able to do. CPRE Joint Report Services, with the National Commission on Teaching and America's future. Philadelphia, PA: CPRE. Eagleton, M., Guinnee, K., & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices from the Middle, 10, 28-35. Educational Testing Service (2003). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved December 15, 2004 from http://www.ets.org/research/ictliteracy/ictreport.pdf. Garet, M., Birman, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., & Herman, R. with Suk Yoon, K. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Gora, K. & Hinson, J. (2003). Teacher-to-teacher mentoring. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31, 36-40. Institute for Learning. (2002). Principles of Learning. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA: Author. International Reading Association (IRA). (2002). Integrating literacy and technology in the curriculum: A position statement. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English (1996). Standards for the English Language Arts. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association and Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1996. Jackson, L. A., von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2003). Does Internet use influence the academic performance of low-income children? Findings from the HomeNetToo project. Proceedings of the First Latin American World Wide Web Conference: Empowering the Web. Santiago, Chile, November 10-12. Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting Communities of Learners with Technology: A Vision for Integrating Technology with Learning in Schools. Educational Technology, 53(4), 60-63. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school reform, 2nd edition. White Plains, NY: Longman. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. London: Longman. Kennedy, M.M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education. (Research monograph no. 130). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation Killion, J. (2003). The link between staff development and student achievement. In What Works in the Middle: Results Based Staff Development. Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Retrieved April 10, 2004 from http://www.nsdc.org/midbook/ Labbo, L.D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Negative multiple realities or technology in literature research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 478-492.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 27 Lebo, H. (2003). The UCLA Internet report: Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Retrieved November 18, 2003 from http://www.ccp.ucla.edu. Leu, D. J. Jr. (2002). Leu, D. J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III (pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leu, D. J., Jr. & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction and networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 108127. Leu, D. J., Jr., Castek, J., Henry, L. A. , Coiro, J., & McMullen, M. (2004). The lessons that children teach us: Integrating children's literature and the new literacies of the Internet. Reading Teacher, 57, 496-503. Leu, D. J., Jr. & Coiro, J. (2004). New literacies for new times: Why and how the literacy community needs to rethink its mission. Wisconsin Reading Journal. Leu. D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J. & Cammack, D. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th Edition, 1570-1613. Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D.D. & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom, 4th Edition. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Lyon, C. A. & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Martin, W., Hupert, N., Gonzales, C. & Admon, N. (2003). Real teachers making real choices: The RETA model for professional development. Journal of Computer in Teacher Education, 20, 53-62. McKenzie, J. (2001). Planning good change with technology and literacy. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press. Murphy, C. U., and Lick, D. W. (2001). Whole faculty study groups: Creating student-based professional development (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc. National Center for Education Statistics (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2003. Retrieved February 20, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2003/natscalescore.asp National Center for Education Statistics (2002). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2002. Retrieved February 20, 2004 National Center for Education Statistics. (2001a). National Center for Education Statistics. (2001b). Teacher's Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers' Use of Technology. Retrieved March 25, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/quarterly/winter/elementary/e_section5.html fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003529 National Center for Education Statistics. (2000a). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2000. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2000b). The Nation's Report Card: Science 2000. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 28 National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2003). What matters most: Improving student achievement. Teacher's Network. Retrieved April 10, 2004 from http://www.seisummit.org/Downloads/aspd/WhatMatters.pdf National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2004). Principles and Standards for School M a t h e m a t i c s . Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved online April 2, 2004 from http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapter2/techn.htm National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA). (1998). Literacy in the national science and mathematics standards: Communication and Reasoning. Retrieved A p r i l 3 , 2 0 0 4 f r o m http://www.inquiryscience.com/phase4/documents/assessment/resources/LITERACY%20I N%20THE%20NSES%20-%20A.%20Champagne.doc National Science Teachers Association. (1999). The use of computers in science education: NSTA Position Statement. Retrieved April 10, 2004 from http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=4 National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSCD Standards for Staff Development. Retrieved April 1, 2004 from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm New London Group, The. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York: Routledge. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved December 10, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Office of Standards and Professional Development (2002). A glossary of acronyms and terms from the New Jersey Department of Education. Retrieved April 8, 2004 from http://www.state.nj.us/njded/profdev/guide/07section6.pdf Parsons, S. (2004). Teacher Research: Classrooms of the 21st Century. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from http://www.accessexcellence.org/21st/TL/AR/ Quellmalz, E.S. & Kozma, R. (2003). Designing assessments of learning with technology. Assessment in Education, 10, 389-407. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Reinking, D. (1998). Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sivin-Kachala, J. & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (7th ed). Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association. Solomon, G. (2002). Digital equity: It's not just about access anymore. Technology and Learning, 22(9), 18-26. Smolin, L. & Lawless, K. (2003). Becoming literate in the technological age: new responsibilities and tools for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 56, 570-8. Spires, H.A. & Estes, T.H. (2002). Reading in web-based learning environments. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research based best practices (pp. 115125). New York: Guilford. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they important? Issues About Change, 6 (1). Retrieved April 6, 2004 from http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 29 Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55, 662-669. Third International Math and Science Study. (1995). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved April 10, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/ U. S. Congress (2000). The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice: The Report of the Web-based Education Commission. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm U.S. Department of Commerce: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Technology and educational reform. SRI International. Retrieved April 14 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/index.html U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and Secondary Education Division (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice: Results from a three-year study, Executive summary, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, D.C.. Retrieved April 17, 2004 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/school_improvement.html U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. (USDE Publication No. NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [www document]. Retrieved August 15, 1999 from URL http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999080 Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday, 7(7). Retrieved April 1, 2004 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/ Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back to discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved March 15, 2004 from http://www.ets.org/research/pic/teamat.pdf Zorfass, X. (2001). A roundtable discussion about online professional development. Mosaic. Retrieved on March 1, 2004 from http://main.edc.org/mosaic/Mosaic4/roundtable.asp

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 30 APPENDIX A -- TABLE 1: Plan of Operation and Timeline

Research Goals and Objectives 1. Develop a job-embedded model of professional development (PD) for content area training and technology integration framed around research-based practices as well as local teacher specific needs. a. Identify what is known about effective instructional practices for technology integration that impact learning Identify what is known about effective models of professional development for technology integration that impact learning Identify local needs and priorities of classroom teachers Activities Timeline Personnel Responsible

·

b.

·

Analyze and integrate the literature to summarize research-based effective instructional practices (e.g., Marzano's Classroom Instruction that Works) and effective technology integration (electronic research databases) Analyze and integrate the literature to summarize effective models of professional development (e.g., state models, electronic research databases) Design, conduct and analyze results from a survey of specific classroom teacher needs and priorities related to student outcomes, technology integration and professional development. Gather information about local, state and national standards for student learning outcomes in reading, writing, math and science Synthesize findings from literature review, survey of teacher needs and standards for learning to develop a model of PD to be implemented.

Pre-Grant

J. Coiro & D. Fochi

Pre-Grant Early Fall, 2005

J. Coiro & D. Fochi J. Coiro & D. Fochi

c.

·

d.

Identify local standards for student learning outcomes

·

Early Fall, 2005 Early Fall, 2005

K. Costello

e.

Synthesize these findings into a model of PD for technology integration

·

J. Coiro, K. Costello and D. Leu

2. Identify and randomly assign 2 teams with 4 teachers in

each school from New London and East Lyme to participate in Condition 1 (one-day traditional inservice PD model) (n=16) and 2 teams of 4 teachers in each school from these districts to Condition 2 (ongoing, job-embedded results based PD model) (n=16). a. determine sample of participants

· ·

Initiate communication with East Lyme and New London School Districts to compile a list of names of teachers and teams at each town's middle school. Randomly assign 8 teachers from each school to condition 1 (n=16) and 8 teachers from each school to condition 2 (n=16) · Teachers in condition 1 will attend one six-hour day of training at the beginning of the school year that focuses on the content goal for each year. · Teachers receiving condition 2 ("job embedded PD") will participate in the one day training at the beginning of each school year as well as followup study group sessions led by teacher leaders and/or project facilitators, online learning communities, follow-up coaching sessions, collaborative lesson development and action research of impact on student learning Obtain district-level permission for research. Obtain agreement from participants to take part in study. Obtain permission from parents/guardians of students in each teacher's class to gather demographic and achievement data in reading, math, and science.

Pre-Grant Fall, 2005 Fall, 2005

K. Costello & New London Proj. Asst & J. Coiro

b.

obtain appropriate permission

· · ·

Fall, 2005

D. Fochi D. Fochi D. Fochi

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 31

Research Goals and Objectives 3. Implement a model of professional development for content area and technology integration with classroom teachers in different phases over the course of the project a. Phase 1: Provide ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing on teacher's understanding of a new literacies perspective as applied to their subject matter. Activities Timeline Personnel

· · · ·

· ·

· b. Phase 2: Provide ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing on four specific instructional models for technology integration as applied to their subject matter.

Work with administration to schedule sessions for various PD formats (e.g., large and small group and coaching) and to provide for coverage in classrooms. Present large group training in new literacies framework to teachers in both conditions. Facilitate faculty study groups for addressing technology integration from a new literacies perspective customized to meet specific teacher needs. Develop an online learning community with features for electronic bulletin boards, a private listserv, chatrooms, and tools for uploading and sharing resources electronically to provide practice in new literacies and ICT. Provide at least two coaching and mentoring support sessions in each participating teacher's classroom as a follow-up to study group meetings. Facilitate development of new literacy measures specific to content areas that will be used to measure student and teacher growth in these areas throughout the project. Sponsor, plan and host an annual conference to share successes and challenges with administration, parents and other teachers. Weave content of four instructional models for integrating technology into the PD activities listed above. One model will be introduced every other month. These four instructional models include: (1) Internet Workshop (2) Internet Project (3) WebQuest (4) Internet Inquiry Facilitate discussions of teacher ability to integrate each of these models into instruction and the utility of each model for increasing classroom learning. Jobembedded PD formats will include large group training, faculty study groups, online learning community, coaching sessions in the classroom. Sponsor, plan and host an annual conference to share successes and challenges with administration, parents and other teachers Continue facilitating the activities described above in Phase 1 while customizing the delivery to address particular needs and priorities for each group of teachers and student learning needs. Integrate four modules for action research into content of action plans generated by classroom teachers during study group meetings. Modules include phases to (1) identify the problem and plan for intervention; (2) implement the intervention and collect data; (3) analyze the data; and (4) take action on the results. Facilitate teacher planning and initiating a series of design studies framed in the four steps of action research to investigate the impact of professional development on teacher quality and student learning. Sponsor, plan and host an annual conference to share successes and challenges with administration, parents and other teachers

Fall, 2005 Fall, 2005 Fall, 2005 Fall, 2005

D. Fochi J. Coiro, D. McMasters & Grad Assts Webmaster

Fall/Spring 2005

J. Coiro & D. McMasters K. Costello

Spring 2005 Fall, 2006 ­ Spring, 2007

D. Fochi

·

J. Coiro, D. Leu D. McMasters & Grad Assts

·

2006-2007

·

Spring, 2006 Fall, 2007 ­ Spring, 2008 2007-2008

Coiro, Leu, D. McMasters Grad Assts & WebMaster D. Fochi

· c. Phase 3: Provide ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing using action research to explore the impact of integrating a new literacies perspective and these four instructional models into their classroom instruction. ·

J. Coiro, D. Leu D. McMasters Grad Assts & WebMaster K. Costello J. Coiro, D. McMasters Grad Assts D. Fochi

·

2007-2008

·

Spring, 2008

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 32

Activities Research Goals and Objectives 4. Collect quantitative and qualitative data related to professional development, classroom instruction and student learning outcomes. a. Year1: Investigate the impact of the first year of jobembedded PD framed in new literacies of ICT on measures of teaching practices and student learning. Timeline Personnel

· ·

Develop pre-post measures for each of the variables listed in the next activity. Collect baseline data and post-test data in a pre-post-test design to investigate the following research questions from teachers and students in treatment & control group: (1) How does the first year of job-embedded PD framed in a new literacies perspective impact the following teacher quality variables: i. teacher's self-efficacy of using technology in the classroom ii. teacher's acquisition of new literacies of using technology for teaching iii. classroom integration of technology iv. quality of instructional practice in reading, math or science (depending on the content area they teach) (2) What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes in reading, math, and science after the first year of jobembedded PD? i. Reading Achievement: a. CMT or Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) reading component, report card grades, and self-efficacy ii. Math Achievement a. CMT or Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) math component, report card grades, and self-efficacy iii. Science Achievement a. Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) science component, report card grades, and self-efficacy iv. acquisition of new literacies of using technology for learning in at least one content area (reading, math or science) v. student's level of engagement in learning online and offline (3) Does the first year of job-embedded PD framed in a new literacies perspective lead to movement to close achievement gaps in reading, math, and science between experimental students in East Lyme and New London? i. Same student dependent variables listed for Question 2 above.

Fall, 2005 Fall, 2005Spring, 2006 2005-2006

J. Coiro, D. Leu, & D. Fochi And D. McMasters & Grad Assts.

2005-2006

J. Coiro & K. Costello

· · b. Year 2: Investigate the impact of the second year of job-embedded PD framed around four instructional models of integrating technology on teaching practices and technology integration.

Conduct teacher interviews with treatment and control groups to gather supplemental data about teacher quality variables. Conduct randomly selected student interviews in both groups to gather supplemental data about student learning outcomes of a first group of students. Collect data on the variables above to investigate the following research questions from teachers (repeated measures) and students (pre-post) in treatment & control group: (4) How does a 2nd year that includes of four instructional models in content of job-embedded PD impact teacher quality variables?

2005-2006 2005-2006

J. Coiro, D. Fochi J. Coiro, D. Fochi J. Coiro, D. McMasters & Grad. Assts

·

Fall, 2006 ­ Spring, 2007

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 33

Research Goals and Objectives Year 2 continued Activities (5) What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes after 2nd year of job-embedded PD? (6) Does a second consecutive year of job embedded PD with specific classroom intervention models yield a greater difference on teacher and student variables compared to the first year? (7) Does the second year of job-embedded PD with focus on instructional models lead to movement to close achievement gaps between students in experimental groups in East Lyme and New London? Conduct teacher interviews as a repeated measure of growth in teacher quality over two years (October, February, and June). Conduct student interviews to gather supplemental data about student learning outcomes of a second group of students. (October, February, and June). Facilitate teacher planning and initiating a series of design studies framed in the four steps of action research to investigate the impact of professional development on teacher quality and student learning. Teachers decide on the instructional model(s) and content area resources to use for intervention in one of three different content areas (1) reading/language arts; (2) math; or (3) science and gather data about student learning outcomes using performance based rubrics developed by the teachers. Facilitate and support teacher collection of data framed in action research to investigate the impact of four instructional models on measures of their own instructional quality and student learning. (8) How does the use of an instructional model of integrating ICT into a content area lesson impact student learning? (teachers conduct action research that would result in a series of studies all exploring this issue) Collect data to investigate the following research questions from teachers (repeated measures) and students (pre-post) in treatment & control groups: (9) How does job-embedded PD that involves teachers' active study of the effects of these four instructional models impact teacher quality variables? (10) What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes after 2nd year of job-embedded PD that involves teachers' active study of the impact of four instructional models on student learning variables? (11) Does a third consecutive year of job embedded PD with teacher action research using the Internet in the classroom yield a greater impact on teacher and student variables than the first year or second year? (12) Does the third year of job-embedded PD with focus on teacher action research lead to movement to close achievement gaps between students in experimental groups in East Lyme and New London? Conduct teacher interviews as a repeated measure of growth in teacher quality over three years. (October, February, and June). Conduct student interviews to gather supplemental data about student learning outcomes of a third group of students. (October, February, and June). Timeline 2006-2007 2006-2007 Personnel J. Coiro, D. Fochi J. Coiro, D. Fochi

· · c. Year 3: Investigate the impact of the third year of job-embedded PD framed around action research modules that focus on use of instructional models for integrating technology with content area lessons on teaching practices and technology integration.

Fall, 2007 ­ Spring, 2008

J. Coiro, D. McMasters & Grad. Assts

·

Fall, 2007 ­ Spring, 2008

J. Coiro, D. McMasters & Grad. Assts

·

Fall, 2007 ­ Spring, 2008

J. Coiro, D. McMasters & Grad. Assts

·

Fall, 2007 ­ Spring, 2008

J. Coiro, D. Fochi J. Coiro, D. Fochi

· ·

Fall, 2007 ­ Spring, 2008

J. Coiro & D. Fochi J. Coiro & D. Fochi

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 34

Research Goals and Objectives 5. Analyze data and interpret the results of the impact of a job-embedded professional development model on teacher practice and student learning. a. Code and enter data · · b. Analyze and interpret data using descriptive and inferential statistics as well as qualitative methods (described further in Table 2: Evaluation Plan in Appendix) · · Code qualitative data from teachers and students at various stages over the course of the project. Enter data for all quantitative and qualitative measures into HLM, SPSS and Nudist software packages. Compare two groups of teachers (Job-embedded PD vs. traditional PD) on measures of teacher quality (using MANCOVA models Compare measures of teacher quality over time for treatment group teachers Compare student learning measures for reading, science and math between classes of teachers each year. (compare changes in mean scores, compute bivariate correlation statistics, and examine interaction between students groups) Incorporate findings into content of professional development (e.g., annual conference celebration) Present at local PTO and school board meetings Publish findings on the project website and share findings on teacher listservs such as RTEACHER and MIDDLEWEB Submit to professional research journals (e.g., Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Literacy Research, and Journal of Educational Computing Research) Submit to professional practice journals (e.g., The Reading Teacher, Learning and Leading with Technology) Present at local conferences such as Connecticut Reading Association (CRA), Connecticut Educational Computing Association (CECA), and national academic and practitioner conferences, such as National Reading Conference (NRC), Technology, Reading and Learning Difficulties (TRLD), and American Education Research Association (AERA). 2005 ­ 2008 (ongoing) 2005 ­ 2008 (ongoing) J. Coiro, D. Fochi, & Grad Assistants J. Coiro, D. Fochi, & Grad Assistants Activities Timeline Personnel Responsible

·

6.

Report and disseminate the findings through electronic media, presentations and publications.

· · · · · ·

2005 ­ 2008 (ongoing)

J. Coiro, K. Costello and D. Leu

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 35 APPENDIX A -- TABLE 2. METHODS OF EVALUATION

Research Goals and Objectives Process Evaluation 1. Develop a job embedded model of professional development (PD) for content are training and technology integration framed around researchbased practices as well as local teacher specific needs. a. Analyze and integrate literature on effective instructional practices for technology integration that impact learning Analyze and integrate literature on effective models of professional development for technology integration that impact learning Gather information about local needs and priorities of classroom teachers · Completed prior to study. · Integrated results of literature review of effective instructional practices and effective models of professional development into one review. Integrated results of literature reviews (see above) Pre-Grant ­ Early Fall, 2005 J. Coiro & D. Fochi Evaluation Methods Product Evaluation Timeline Personnel

b.

·

Completed prior to study.

·

Pre-Grant ­ Early Fall, 2005

J. Coiro & D. Fochi

c.

·

d. e.

Identify local, state and national standards for student learning outcomes Synthesize and distribute findings from literature review, survey of teacher needs and standards for learning to help frame the nature of job-embedded PD.

·

·

Distributed and collected needs surveys to teachers and gather information in interviews with school leaders in East Lyme and New London. Analyzed local, state and national documents for student learning outcomes in reading, writing, math and science. Held meetings with Co-Project Investigators to update on progress and manage synthesis of literature review

·

Generated rank order list of local needs and priorities of classroom teachers.

Early Fall, 2005

D. Fochi & K. Costello K. Costello

·

·

Created a table with local, state and national standards for student learning outcomes in reading, writing, math and science. Shared general findings of the integrated literature review, needs survey and outcomes with participating teachers during initial school based meetings.

Early Fall, 2005 J. Coiro, K.Costello, D. Leu

Early Fall, 2005

2. Identify and randomly assign sample. a. Determine sample of participants · Randomly assign 2 teams of teachers from each school to job-embedded PD treatment group (n=16) or traditional PD control group (n=16) Initiated communication with East Lyme and New London School Districts about study and names in participant pool. Participants entered in randomization pool and notified of their assignments to the treatment or control group. Send out packets containing permission forms and project information to district leaders and participating teachers. Send out packets containing permission forms and project information to parents, explaining how and why data that will be collected. Developed log of appropriate contacts for each school system (e.g., administrators, technology leaders, curriculum directors). Developed log of contact information for all 32 teachers (both treatment and control groups) who agree to participate. Gathered returned permissions and filed according to IRB protocol. Gathered returned permissions and filed according to IRB protocol. Fall, 2005 D. Fochi

·

·

·

·

Fall, 2005

D. Fochi

b.

Obtain appropriate permission · Obtain district-level permission and participants' permission to take part in study. · Obtain permission from parents/guardians of students in each teacher's class to gather demographic and achievement data in reading, writing, math and science.

· ·

· ·

Fall, 2005 Fall, 2005

D. Fochi D. Fochi

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 36

Research Goals and Objectives Process Evaluation 3. Implement a model of professional development for content and technology integration with classroom teachers in different phases over the course of the project a. Year 1: Provide ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing on teacher's understanding of a new literacies perspective as applied to their subject matter curriculum. · Schedule training sessions. Evaluation Methods Product Evaluation Timeline Personnel

·

·

Arrange substitute coverage for teachers during study group meetings. Present large group training that meets teacher requests for topics. Facilitate faculty study groups Develop online community of support and resources to provide practice in new literacies and ICT.

·

·

·

Coordinated communications with administration to schedule sessions for various PD formats (e.g., large and small group). Coordinated efforts to arrange substitute coverage in classroom with a team of assigned "floating" substitutes. Presented large group training in new literacies framework when requested. Customized study group agendas to meet specific teacher needs. Webmaster developed and maintained site, adding features an online community with features for electronic bulletin boards, a private listserv, chatrooms, and tools for electronically uploading and sharing resources. Maintained a list of coaching and mentoring sessions provided for teachers.

·

·

Compiled a list of large and small group trainings provided and teachers present at each throughout the year in the form of a final report. Ensured that all teachers have coverage and support when needed. Collected results of teacher ratings of the topics presented in large groups. Collected results of teacher satisfaction of whether or not study group met needs. Submit a report of features added throughout Year 1 indicating how each was used by teachers to meet their professional or instructional needs.

Fall/Spring 2005

Fall/Spring 2005

D. Fochi & K. Costello & Project Assistant for New London J. Coiro & D. McMasters

·

Fall/Spring 2005

· ·

· ·

· ·

Fall/Spring 2005 Fall/Spring 2005 Webmaster

·

Provide coaching and mentoring support sessions in participating teachers' classrooms to follow-up study group tasks. Facilitate development of new literacy measures specific to content areas that will be used to measure student and teacher growth in these areas throughout the project. Plan and host annual conference.

·

·

Compiled a list of support sessions provided and how each addressed elements of teaching (increasing understanding of content and pedagogy). Used rubrics to determine performance levels of students in the application of new literacies to scenarios in reading, math, and science. Collected evaluations from conference and post summary of offerings on website.

Fall/Spring 2005

Graduate Assistants

·

·

Provided opportunities and support for teachers designing performance-based measures of new literacies growth in reading, math, and science. Arranged for facility, speakers, food, materials, and advertising.

·

Fall/Spring 2005

J. Coiro

·

·

·

Fall/Spring 2005

D. Fochi Webmaster

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 37

Research Goals and Objectives Process Evaluation b. Year 2: Provide ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing on four specific instructional models for technology integration as applied to their subject matter curriculum. · Weave content of four instructional models for integrating technology into the PD activities listed above. Plan/host conference at end of year · Introduced one new instructional model every two months (October, December, February and April). These four instructional models include: (1) Int. Workshop (2) Internet Project (3) WebQuest (4) Internet Inquiry Arranged for facility, speakers, food, materials, & advertising · Introduced four new models for integrating technology in the classroom to teachers in the context of relevant content related lessons. Fall, 2006 ­ Spring, 2007 J. Coiro, D. McMasters, D. Fochi, D. Leu, K.Costello, & Grad Assts. Evaluation Methods Product Evaluation Timeline Personnel

· c.

Year 3: Provide ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities for teachers with content focusing using action research to explore the impact of integrating a new literacies perspective and these four instructional models into their classroom instruction. · Customize study group agendas.

·

·

Collected evaluations from conference and post summary of offerings on website.

·

·

Integrate four modules for action research into content of action plans generated by classroom teachers during study group meetings.

·

Facilitated topical study to match needs and priorities of each group of teachers related to student learning outcomes. Collected from teachers outline of 1) problem and plan for intervention; (2) intervention and collect data; (3) data analysis and (4) action steps.

·

·

Collected results of teacher satisfaction of the topics presented from teacher surveys and interviews. Compiled a summary of action research plans completed by teachers and findings. Disseminate on project website.

Fall,2007 ­ Spring, 2008

J. Coiro, D. McMasters, D. Fochi, D. Leu, K.Costello, & Grad Assts.

4.

Collect quantitative and qualitative data related to professional development, classroom instruction and student learning outcomes.

Year 1: Investigate the impact of the first year of ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities on teaching practices and technology integration. · RQ1: How does this PD model focusing on new literacies perspective impact teacher quality?

·

Administered baseline pre-test in Sept. and post-test in June on set of teacher quality dependent variables. Conduct pre-post interviews with teachers in both groups. Administered pre-post measures on set of student achievement measures. Conduct pre-post interviews with random sample of students in both groups. Administer pre-post student outocome measures

·

Entered scores on dependent variables for teacher quality into computer and coded teacher interview transcripts.

Fall, 2005 ­ Spring. 2006

·

RQ2: What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and student learning outcomes? RQ3: Does 1st year of PD model lead to movement to close achievement gaps?

·

·

·

·

·

Entered scores on dependent variables for student achievement into computer and coded student interview transcripts. Entered scores into computer.

Fall, 2005 ­ Spring. 2006

J. Coiro, D. McMasters, D. Fochi, D. Leu, K.Costello, & Grad Assts.

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 38

Research Goals and Objectives Process Evaluation

Evaluation Methods

Product Evaluation

Timeline

Personnel

4. Collect data (continued)

Year 2: Investigate the impact of the second year of ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities on teaching practices and technology integration. · RQ4: How does a 2nd year of a PD model that focuses on four instructional models of integrating technology into reading, math, and science impact teacher quality? · RQ5: What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and a second set of student learning outcomes in reading, math, and science impact? RQ6: Does a second consecutive year of jobembedded support yield a greater impact on teacher and student variables than the first year? RQ7: Does a second year of job-embedded PD lead to movement to close achievement gaps?

·

Administered post-test measure in June on set of teacher quality dependent variables. Conduct interviews with teachers in both groups in June. Administered pre-post measures on set of student achievement measures. Conduct pre-post interviews with random sample of students in both groups. Administered appropriate pre-post measures for students and teachers over the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Administered appropriate pre-post measures for students over the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

·

Entered scores on dependent variables for teacher quality into computer and coded teacher interview transcripts.

June, 2007

·

·

Entered scores on dependent variables for student achievement into computer and coded student interview transcripts.

Fall, 2006Spring, 2007

J. Coiro, D. McMasters, D. Fochi, D. Leu, K.Costello, & Grad Assts.

·

·

·

Entered appropriate scores on dependent variables and coded transcripts relevant to this research question. Entered appropriate scores on dependent variables and coded transcripts relevant to this research question.

Fall, 2006Spring, 2007

·

·

·

Fall, 2006Spring, 2007

Year 3: Investigate the impact of the third year of ongoing, job-embedded support and networking opportunities on teaching practices and technology integration.

·

·

·

·

·

RQ8: How does the use of an instructional model of integrating ICT into a content area lesson impact student learning? RQ9: How does a PD model that focuses on teacher action research applications to study effect of instructional models impact teacher quality? RQ10: What is the relationship among teacher quality variables and a third set of student learning outcomes in reading, math, and science impact? RQ11: Does a third consecutive year of ongoing, job-embedded support yield a greater impact on teacher and student variables than the first year? RQ12: Does a third year of job-embedded PD lead to movement to close achievement gaps between experimental students in both schools?

·

Facilitated data collection of student scores on task rubrics. Administered post-test measure in June on set of teacher quality dependent variables. Conduct pre-post interviews with teachers in both groups. Administered pre-post measures on set of student achievement measures. Conduct pre-post interviews with random sample of students in both groups. Administered appropriate pre-post measures for students and teachers over the years 2005-2006; 2006-2007; and 2007-2008. Administered appropriate pre-post measures for students over the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

·

Provided support in compiling relevant data about student learning. Entered scores on dependent variables for teacher quality into computer and coded teacher interview transcripts. Entered scores on dependent variables for student achievement into computer and coded student interview transcripts. Entered appropriate scores on dependent variables and coded transcripts relevant to this research question. Entered appropriate scores on dependent variables and coded transcripts relevant to this research question.

Fall, 2007Spring, 2008 June, 2008 J. Coiro, D. McMasters, D. Fochi, D. Leu, K.Costello, & Grad Assts.

·

·

·

·

Fall, 2006Spring, 2007

·

·

Fall, 2006Spring, 2007

·

·

Fall, 2006Spring, 2007

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 39

Research Goals and Objectives Process Evaluation 5. Analyze data and interpret the results of the impact of a job-embedded professional development model on teacher practice and student learning. RQ1: Year 1 on teacher quality RQ2: Year 1 on student learning outcomes RQ3: Year 1 on closing achievement gaps RQ4: Year 2 on teacher quality RQ5: Year 2 on student learning outcomes RQ6: Year 1+2 on teacher quality and student learning outcomes RQ7: Year 1+2 on closing achievement gaps RQ8: A series of teacher action research on student learning RQ9: Year 3 on teacher quality RQ10: Year 3 on student learning outcomes RQ11: Year 1+2+3 on teacher quality and student learning outcomes RQ12: Years 1-3 on closing achievement gaps Report and disseminate the findings through electronic media, presentations and publications. Incorporate findings into PD content and encourage teacher reflection/revision of action plans to consider these findings. Present at local PTO and school board meetings Submit to professional research journals (e.g., Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of Literacy Research, and Journal of Educational Computing Research) Submit to professional practice journals (e.g., The Reading Teacher, Learning and Leading with Technology) Present at local conferences such as Connecticut Reading Association (CRA), Connecticut Educational Computing Association (CECA), and national academic and practitioner conferences, such as National Reading Conference (NRC), Technology, Reading and Learning Difficulties (TRLD), and American Education Research Association (AERA) Evaluation Methods Product Evaluation Timeline Personnel

The following analysis procedures were used:

· · · · · · · · · ·

· · · · · · · · · · · ·

RQ1: MANCOVA and qualitative trends RQ2: Bivariate Correlation Coefficients RQ3: MANCOVA interactions RQ4: MANCOVA and qualitative trends RQ5: Bivariate Correlation Coefficients RQ6: MANCOVA over 2 years RQ7: MANCOVA interactions RQ8: range of action research methods pertinent to teacher's questions RQ9: MANCOVA and qualitative trends RQ10: Bivariate Correlation Coefficients RQ11: MANCOVA over 3 years RQ12: MANCOVA interactions

·

Results of the analyses for research questions 1-12 were interpreted.

·

RQ1-3 20052006 RQ4-7 20062007

·

J. Coiro, K. Sullivan and D. Leu and graduate assistants

·

· ·

6.

RQ8-12 20072008

·

o o o

· ·

Shared results of findings from each year with teachers during study groups, in online discussions and on website. Meetings dates scheduled. Articles written for research journals

·

· ·

Revisions to teacher action plans and agendas for study groups were guided by these findings. Attended local PTO and school meetings. Research articles accepted for publication.

Ongoing through three year span of the project (2005 ­ 2008)

J. Coiro, K. Sullivan and D. Leu

·

o o

Articles written for teacher practice journals. Conference proposals submitted.

·

Teacher practice articles accepted for publication. Proposals for conference presentations accepted.

·

·

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 40 APPENDIX B ­ Table 3 Table 3. Contrasts between the two target school student populations Indicators % of students eligible for free/reduced-price meals % of students from minority ethnic populations % of sixth grade students who met the state goal in reading during 2002-03 % of sixth grade students who met the state goal in math during 2002-03 Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School (New London) 74.6 81.0 31.3 East Lyme Middle School (East Lyme) 6.1 14.8 80.7

29.4

83.1

Source: Connecticut Department of Education (2003)

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 41 APPENDIX B ­ BUDGET Grant Budget ­ Year 1 August, 2005 ­ July, 2006 Personnel Dr. Donald J. Leu, Jr. Co-Project Director: Responsible for overall project management and development and implementation of training. .10 FTE x $132,798 (academic year) .10 FTE x $132,798 academic year (contributed) .11 x $132,798 (1 month summer) Julie Coiro, M.Ed., Co-Project Director: Responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of project activities. 1.0 FTE x $21,354 (academic year as GA Level III) 1.0 FTE x $4,380 x 2 months summer Dr. Karen Costello, Co-Project Director Responsible for planning and project management. .2 FTE x $70,500 (academic year) in East Lyme Public Schools (contrib.) .22 x $70,500 (2 months summer) Donna Fochi, Project Coordinator: Responsible for communication and coordination of project activities between the two research sites, scheduling meetings, coordinating schedules for appointments with schools, planning annual conference and processing all associated forms, budgets and reports. 1.0 FTE x $45,000 (calendar year) Webmaster Graduate Assistant (Level II) Responsible for development of the project web support, the project website and the dissemination of research reports and other information at the project website. 10 hours/ week (9 months) (.5 x $19,213) 20 hours/week (.5 x $3,941) x 2 months summer Two Graduate Assistants (Level III) Responsible for supporting training activities and data collection/analysis. 10 hours/ week (9 months) X 2 (.5 x 21,354) x 2 20 hours / week (.5 x $4,380) x (2 months summer) x 2 people Student Labor Responsible for copying, transcribing, collating, mailing, packaging, and data collection. 280 hours x $8.00/hour Personnel Subtotal

Federal

In-Kind

$ 13, 279 $ 13, 279 $ 1,460

$ 21,354 $ 8,760

$ 14,100 $ 15,510

$ 45, 000

$ $

9,606 3,941

$ 21,354 $ 8,760

$ 2,240 $ 135,754 $ 42,889

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 42 Fringe Benefits Donald J. Leu, Co Project Director (33% Alt. Ret. x $ 13, 279) Summer 11% x $1,460 Julie Coiro, Co Project Director, GA Level III (16% x $21,354) Summer 11% X $8,760 Karen Costello, Co-Project Director (32% x $14,100) (Contributed) Summer 11% x $15,510 (contributed) Donna Fochi, Project Coordinator (49% x $45,000) Cal Year Graduate Assistant Level II (16% x 9,606) CY + (11% x 3,941) summer Graduate Assistant Level III (16% x 21,354) CY + (11% x 8,760) summer Student Labor (1% x 2,240) Fringe Benefits Subtotal Contractual Project Assistant, New London Public Schools Responsible for coordination of project activities within New London research site and communication with East Lyme Public Schools. (3 days/month x 11 months) = 168 hours @ $20/hour Two Project Trainers Responsible for providing additional training of teachers and support for students at both research sites. 40 days @ 25/hour x 2 Scientific Advisory Board Members (6 members) Responsible for monitoring progress and providing important advice about the direction of the project and the interpretation of the results. Members will meet as an entire group once a year at AERA and once each fall for a one-day conference to monitor work and discuss emerging findings. $1,000 honorarium for participation in annual mtg x 6 members $1,000 for summer review of preliminary findings x 2 members Substitute Teachers in East Lyme and New London Responsible for covering for teachers during in-school study group meetings, planning sessions and evaluation interviews 8 days a month x 16 teachers x $70/day Contractual Subtotal $ 22,050 $ 1,971 $ 4,381 $ 23 $ 38,487 $ 10,761 Federal $ 4,382 $ 160 $ 4, 556 $ 964 $ 4,512 $ 1,707 In-Kind $ 4,382 $ 160

$ 3,360

$ 12,000

$ 6,000 $ 2,000

$8,960 $32,320

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 43

Equipment

Federal

In-Kind

Hardware o Two desktop computers for graduate assistants to be used for designing webpages, collecting and analyzing data , and creating project activities ($2,500 x 2) o One laptop computer, wireless Airport and printer for Project Coordinator for creating reports, coordinating activities and communicating with Project Directors and schools Software required for each of the new computers purchased for graduate assistants, Project Coordinator, and the Project Dircctors. Operating Systems: MS Office XP, MX Studio (Dreamweaver, Flash, etc), SPSS, Adobe Acrobat ­ full version, Filemaker Pro, Cold Fusion, etc) and Camtasia Software for recording and collecting data from student Internet activities. Sharp Notevision B10 Computer Projectors (one for each participating research site for projecting computer projects and websites in classrooms and for teachers presenting to other teachers) $2000 x 2 Rolling Projector Carts: (one for each participating research site for making computer projectors portable) $200 x 2 Books and Training Materials 1 Copy of Teaching with the Internet Textbook for each participant ($60 x 32 teachers) Other training materials on action research for teachers, effective technology integration, and research based instruction for participants

$ 5,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,500

$ 4, 000 $ 400

$ 1,920 $ 7, 000

Equipment Subtotal

$ 25,320

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 44 Supplies

Federal $ $ $ $ 350 600 120 500

In-Kind

SONY BM87-DST Transcribing Machine ­ (variable playback and foot control) for transcribing observations Four ISight Digital Video Cameras to be used for video meetings between schools and university @ $150 each Ichat Avsoftware to run Isight video cameras @ $30 each Hewlitt Packard Laser Jet 3310 Personal Copy Machine for copying handouts for training, research reports for dissemination, and data collection forms. General Office Supplies (paper, toner, etc). $200 month Electronic Versions of Articles gathered from University of Connecticut's Electronic Document Delivery for Literature Reviews

$ 3,500 $ 500

Supplies Subtotal Travel

$ 5,570

In-State Travel by Staff as they visit schools to provide training and support to teachers and students and collect data in two schools (125 miles per week X 4 GAs/Co-Project Directors x 40 weeks = 20,000 miles @ .375 = $ 7500) Travel for Conferences : Co-Pis and graduate assistants to present at national conferences: o National Reading Conference (NRC) Miami, FL (3 people x $450 airfare + $750 housing + $40 per diem) o American Education Research Association (AERA) in San Francisco, CA (3 people x $450 airfare + $800 housing + $40 per diem) Travel for Meetings: Meetings between Co-Directors held at research site to manage project, review data and revise action plans (60 miles per week X 25 meetings x 3 Co-Project Directors) 4,500 miles @ .375 = $ 1688)

$ 7,500

$ 3,720 $ 3,870

$ 1,688 $ 16,778

Travel Subtotal

Job-Embedded Professional Development Grant - 45 Other

Federal Annual Celebration Forum for teachers and students to share successes and challenges with administrators, parents and other teachers around Connecticut o Facility $1,000 o Food $2,000 o Keynote and Other Speakers $3,000 o Advertising $500 o Materials $1,000 Participant Stipend for teacher participants o 16 teachers in experimental groups for participation in extra projects and hours beyond regular teaching contract $800/teacher x 16 = $12,800 o 16 teachers in control groups for whom pre and post data will be collected and interviews will be conducted $200/teacher x 16 = $3,200 Stiped for Teachers to attend a state or regional reading conference of their choice($ 300 x 20) $ 7,500

In-Kind

$ 16,000

$

6,000

Other Subtotal Total Direct $283,729 - $25,320 (Equipment over $1,000) Indirect (48%) TOTAL

$ 29,500 $ 258,409 $ 124,036 $ 382,445 $53,650 $25,752 $79,402

Information

45 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

159614


Notice: fwrite(): send of 210 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/readbag.com/web/sphinxapi.php on line 531