LINKING LANGUAGES FOR LEARNING Enhancing Reading and Math through Career and Technical Education Grand Junction CO

1. LINKING LANGUAGES FOR LEARNING Enhancing Reading and Math through Career and Technical EducationGrand Junction CO James R. Stone III Director Stone003@umn.edu

2. The work reported herein was supported under the National Dissemination for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award (No. VO51A990004) and /or under the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, PR/Award (No. VO51A990006) as administered by the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U. S. Department of Education.However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education or the U. S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Disclaimer:

3. Math-in-CTE Research Team University of Minnesota James R. Stone III Donna Pearson Corinne Alfeld Susan Jensen Gregg Gross The Ohio State University Morgan Lewis Colorado Linda Harrison Sherrie Schneider Penn State University Mary Kisner Barbara Senapedis Oklahoma State University Craig Edwards Brian Parr Brent Young Michigan Mary Fudge Kathleen Szuminski

4. What do we know about CTE? There is evidence that: • CTE does not limit postsecondary education • Math and science course taking by CTE students is increasing: amount and complexity • CTE as a function of the HS experience reduces the probability of dropping out of school • CTE is an economic value to the individual and the community (ROI) • It is possible to “major” in CTE and Academics One conclusion is that A decade of reform (Perkins II & III, STWOA & various state efforts) is beginning to have an effect but . . . achievement and transition are the challenges put forth. . .

6. The Problem: Math PerformanceOf American Youth NAEP Scores for 17 Year olds

7. The number of 17-year-old students taking advanced math classes has also increased -- with 17 percent studying calculus and 53 percent studying second-year algebra --  it is unclear why that trend has not resulted in higher average math scores over all. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/

8. Students earn more credits in CTE than in math or science 97% take at least one course Nearly half earn at least 3 Specific Labor Market (SLMP) credits One-quarter are concentrators” Why Focus on CTE - I NAVE 2004

9. Why Focus on CTE II Levesque, K. (2003). Public High School Graduates Who Participated in Vocational/Technical Education

10. Why Focus on CTE - III • CTE provides a math-rich context • CTE curriculum/pedagogies do not systematically emphasize math skill development

11. Alternative CTE Math Improvement Strategies • Related Math class*(e.g., Business math) • Applied Math class* (e.g., Tech Prep math) • Pull out math classes*with math teacher • Math teacher team teaches* in CTE class • The NRCCTC, Math-in-CTE model-a research based approach to improving math skills *Note: while some of these may improve math skills of students, the evidence is lacking.

12. Math-in-CTE A study to test the possibility that enhancing the embedded mathematics in Technical Education coursework will build skills in this critical academic area without reducing technical skill development.

13. Key Questions of the Study • Does enhancing the CTE curriculum with math increase math skills of CTE students? • Can we infuse enough math into CTE curricula to meaningfully enhance the academic skills of CTE participants (Perkins III Core Indicator) • . . . Without reducing technical skill development • What works?

14. Study Design: Key Features • Random assignment of teachers to experimental or control condition • Five simultaneous study replications • Three measures of math skills (applied, traditional, college placement) • Multi-method: quantitative and qualitative • Focus of the experimental intervention was naturally occurring math (embedded in curriculum) • A model of Curriculum Integration • Intense focus on Fidelity of Treatment

15. Study Design 04-05 School Year Sample 2004-05: 69 Experimental CTE/Math teams and 80 Control CTE Teachers Total sample: 3,000 students*

16. Participant Experimental CTE teacher Math teacher Control CTE teacher Liaison Primary Role Implement the math enhancements Provide support for the CTE teacher Teach their regular curriculum Administer surveys and tests Study Design: Participants

17. Global math assessments Technical skill or occupational knowledge assessment General, grade level tests (Terra Nova, AccuPlacer, WorkKeys) NOCTI, AYES, MarkED Measuring Math & Technical Skill Achievement

18. Building Academic Skills in Context: Math-in-CTE The “method” of Math-in-CTE

19. The Experimental Treatment • Professional Development • The Pedagogy

20. Math-in-CTEThe Method • Curriculum mapping • Enhancing the math – The Pedagogy

21. Curriculum Maps • Begin with CTE Content • Look for places where math is part of the CTE content (V-Tecs, AYES, MarkED, state guides, last year’s maps) • Create “map” for the school year • Align map with planned curriculum for the year (scope & sequence)

23. Sample Curriculum Map

24. Scope & Sequence

25. Building the Enhanced CTE Lesson

26. The Pedagogy • Introduce the CTE lesson • Assess students’ math awareness • Work through the embeddedexample • Work through related,contextual examples • Work through traditional math examples • Students demonstrate understanding • Formal assessment

27. Professional Development • CTE-Math Teacher Teams; occupational focus • Curriculum mapping – derived from the workplace • Scope and Sequence • CTE and math teachers professional development • On going collaboration CTE and math teachers

28. What did we find? What did we learn?

29. Map of Math Concepts Addressed by Enhanced Lessons in each SLMP

30. Analysis Pre Test Fall Terra Nova Difference in Math Achievement Post Test Spring Terra Nova Accuplacer WorkKeys Skills Tests X C

31. What we found: Difference in % correct – All Experimental & All Control p<.05 *Controlling for pre-test measures of math ability

32. Comparing Experimental Classrooms to Control Classrooms by Replication Site* *Only Significant effects shown

33. Comparing Experimental Students to Control Students by Replication Site*

34. Magnitude of Treatment Effect – Effect Size Effect Size Cohen’s d = .80 the average percentile standing of the average treated (or experimental) participant relative to the average untreated (or control) participant 50thpercentile X Group C Group 79thpercentile 0 50th 100th

35. Effect Size Obtained: Classroom Analysis Effect size (Cohen’s d) All Classes Terra Nova (d=.28) Accuplacer (d=.11) By Site Site V –WorkKeys (d=.20) Site W-AccuPlacer (d=.54) Site X –Terra Nova (d=.43) Site Y-Terra Nova (d=.87) Site Z – AccuPlacer (d=.18) -TerraNova (d=.45) Carnegie Learning Corporation Cognitive Tutor Algebra I Percentile Shift From 50th to: • 62nd • 56th • 58th • 71st • 67th • 82nd • 58th • 68th d= .22

36. Math Ability Effect: Test Score Differences Evidence of the “Matthew Effect” – Higher Ability Students Gained more than Lower Ability Students with this Approach BUT both gained more than the Control Students

37. Does Enhancing Math in CTE Affect Technical Skill Development?

38. * No difference in four sites; experimental students scored significantly higher in one site *p<.10

39. Time invested in Math Enhancements • Average of 18.55 hours across all sites devoted to math enhanced lessons (not just math but math in the context of CTE) • Assume a 180 days in a school year; one hour per class per day • Average CTE class time investment = 10.3% • Average total school time investment (assume 6 classes per day) = 1.7% • Modest investment for major payoff

40. When We Began the Study A box of curriculum Teacher training Replicable by individual teachers As a Result of the Study A curriculum development process Building and sustaining a community of practice Replicable by teams of committed teachers working together over time Core Principles What we learned

41. Replicating the Math-in-CTE Model:Core Principles • Develop and sustain a community of practice • Begin with the CTE curriculum and not with the math curriculum • Understand math as essential workplace skill • Maximize the math in CTE curricula • CTE teachers are teachers of “math-in-CTE” NOT math teachers

42. Disconnected Coordinated Context Based Contextual Algebra 1 Academies Integrated math NRC Model What we are and are not: A contextual continuum • Traditional academic class (e.g. Algebra 1) • CTE & Academic teachers coordinate around themes (e.g. ‘health’) • Occupation is the context for delivery of traditional academics (Related or applied math) • Academics emerge from occupational content

43. Issues • How much math can be enhanced in CTE before it is no longer a CTE class? (The “tipping” point issue) • Crisis Immediacy – we want a fix and we want it now • System investment (teacher time and PD costs) • Should math credit be provided for enhanced CTE classes – are we teaching math or providing a venue for students to learn how to use math? 1. Highly qualified teacher 2. Loss of CTE integrity • What are the barriers in moving this model to pre-service education?

44. Conclusion: The NRC Model (Process)(Pedagogy)=Mathachievement Core Principles

45. Bringing Math-in-CTE to your Community • Communities of practice A. 10+ CTE-Math Teacher teams B. Specific occupational foci B. Regional or state C. Invite not compel 2. Administrator support A. Professional Development – (5:3:2) – for at least one full year B. Substitutes C. PD support (facilities, etc.) D. Staff the structure 3. Document!!! 4. Support structure