What Research Says about... The National Project on Common Planning Time  PDF version of a PowerPoint presentation given at the National Middle School Association Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, Nov. 6, 2009

Anfara, Vincent A., Jr.

Caskey, Micki M.

Flowers, Nancy

Mertens, Steven B.

PDXScholar (Portland State University)

Portland State UniversityPDXScholarCurriculum and Instruction Faculty Publicationsand Presentations Curriculum and Instruction6-28-2013What Research Says about... The National Project on CommonPlanning TimeSteven B. MertensUniversity of IllinoisVincent A. Anfara Jr.University of TennesseeNancy FlowersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignMicki M. CaskeyPortland State University, caskeym@pdx.eduLet us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ci_facPart of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Educational Assessment, Evaluation,and Research CommonsThis Presentation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Curriculum and Instruction Faculty Publications andPresentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.Recommended CitationMertens, Steven B.; Anfara, Vincent A. Jr.; Flowers, Nancy; and Caskey, Micki M., "What Research Says about... The National Projecton Common Planning Time" (2013). Curriculum and Instruction Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 14.http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ci_fac/14NMSA Annual ConferenceIndianapolis, INNovember 6, 2009Presented by:Steven B. Mertens, Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., Nancy Flowers, & Micki M. CaskeyWhat Research Says about…The National Project on Common Planning TimeNational Middle Grades Research ProgramTopics of Discussion• Introduce AERA and the MLER SIG• Overview of the CPT Project• Group activity• National middle-grades database• CPT Project: Phase II AERA and the MLER SIGAERA• American Educational Research Association• National organization of educational researchers• Comprised of sub-organizations including divisions and special interest groups (SIGs)MLER SIG• Middle Level Education Research SIG• Largest group of middle-level education researchers in USOverview of the CPT Project• MLER SIG’s strategic plan called for, among other things, a national research project Collaboration; train researchers; nat’l database• Project Steering Committee was formed in 2006 Several planning meetings were held• Project was launched in Nov 2007 with first training session at NMSA (Houston)Project Goals1) Create a national middle-grades database2) Design & conduct longitudinal national research studies3) Expand research knowledge on CPT4) Provide professional development to researchers and practitioners5) Disseminate research findings6) Contribute to training of new generation of education researchersWhy Study CPT?• CPT is a critical component of MG conceptHandout: Key Research Findings• Quantitative research has demonstrated positive effects of CPT on teacher practices and student outcomes When teachers have high levels of CPT, schools report better student outcomes• What is not known: “What do teachers do during their CPT that brings about these positive changes in student outcomes.”Project Research Questions1) What are teachers’ understandings of CPT?(e.g., purpose, goals, value)2) How do teachers use their CPT?3) How are teachers professionally prepared to use CPT?4) What are the perceived benefits of CPT?5) What are the perceived barriers of CPT?Common Definitions• Often teachers have both types if they are engaged in teaming• CPT is defined by Kellough & Kellough (2008) as “A regularly scheduled time during the school day when teachers who teach the same students meet for joint planning, parent conferences, material preparation, and student evaluation.”(p. 394)Common Planning Time and Individual Planning TimeCommon Definitions• Interdisciplinary team is an organizational pattern of two or more teachers representing different core curriculum areas (math, science, language arts, social studies)• Teams share same students, schedule, areas of the building, and the opportunity for teaching more than one subject (Kellough & Kellough, 2008)Interdisciplinary TeamsProject Parameters• Participant researchers required to attend a training prior to participation in project• During training, reviewed & discussed… Institutional Review Board (IRB) application Sampling issues (sample of STW schools) Linking data sources Order of data collectionData Collection Protocols• Observation Protocol Observe CPT meeting Description of observed behaviors• Interview Protocol Interview teachers participating in CPT meeting Use of scripted interview Digital recordings & transcriptsProject Benefits• Creation of large, national database• Train next generation of educational researchers• Potential to increase membership of SIG• SIG publications and presentations based on research from national projects• Potential to impact educational policyGroup Activity1) How many of you have CPT in your school? 2) What do you do when you meet for CPT?3) How many of you feel you had adequate preparation in your pre-service program in how to best use your CPT?4) What do you see as the benefits of CPT?5) What do you see as the barriersof CPT?National Middle Grades Database• MLER SIG’s strategic plan called for development of a large, national database Similar to NAEP or NELS (NCES)• During Phase I, we trained ~60 researchers • To date, researchers have submitted data for 18 schools in 11 states • Participant researchers will have access to “national” databasePreliminary FindingsSample• 9 states (GA, HI, IL, KY, MD, MS, NY, OH, OR)• 11 schools consisting of 24 teamsTeam Demographics• 8 sixth grade teams, 8 seventh grade teams, 7 eighth grade teams, 1 cross-grade team (6th/7th/8th)• Average number of teachers/team is 6 (range: 3 to 12)• Average number of students/team is 122 (range: 50 to 256)• Average length of CPT meeting is 48 minutes (range: 30 to 90 mins)Preliminary FindingsCPT Activities• Most common team activity is discussing students.  • Two-thirds of all teams spent time on curriculum and instruction.  • Very few teams spent time discussing parents (6 teams) or professional development (4 teams).Activity Avg. MinsStudent 20Curriculum and instruction 11Business 7Engaging in other behaviors7Assessment 3Parent 1Professional development 1Preliminary FindingsOther Findings• 8 of 24 teams spent significantly less time in their CPT meeting than they were allotted.  Primarily due to the meeting not starting on time or teachers arriving late to the meeting• Several teams were quite large.  5 teams had more than 7 teachers and an average of 157 students. Larger teams tend to spend more time discussing students (avg = 25 mins) than smaller teams (avg = 18 mins)• Smaller teams had an average of 113 students Smaller teams tended to spend more time on curriculum and instruction (avg= 12 mins) than larger teams (avg = 8 mins)Preliminary FindingsResearch Symposium• Conducted CPT Project symposium at 2009 AERA Conference• 3 groups of researchers (KY, HI, & MS) presented preliminary findingsPreliminary Findings (KY)1) All core teachers in grades 6-8 expressed positive effects of CPT on student academic performance, instruction, and faculty morale.2) CPT allowed teachers to readily meet needs of their students.3) Teachers reported higher level of morale & cohesiveness, unified system of support for students, and more open and sustained communication.4) Instruction improved due to sharing of ideas among teachers related to teaching methods and assessment strategies.5) CPT was successful because of collegial, supportive climate fostered by the school administration.6) Sufficient staff development, financial resources, and scheduling priorities contributed to success of CPT.7) Success of CPT was also related to a clearly defined purpose and expectations regarding how CPT would be utilized.Preliminary Findings (HI)1) CPT facilitates both teacher and student learning and well-being.2) Teacher knowledge of CPT varies greatly and professional development would allow for more effective and efficient functioning of CPT.3) Teachers have adapted the way they use CPT since NCLB, planning fewer interdisciplinary units and developing more lessons to promote reading and math achievement.Preliminary Findings (MS)Barriers to CPT include: 1) lack of teacher buy-in;2) off-task behaviors on the part of CPT members;3) lack of time;4) the lack of leadership on the CPT team and in the school, including…  not having someone in charge of agenda and regulating norms to govern the meetings  not having clear administrative expectations communicated to teachers.Dissemination of Findings• Annual MLER SIG symposium at AERA • NMSA Annual Conference• Forthcoming volume of the Handbook of Research in Middle Level Education• Middle School Journal and other journals • Possibility of an NMSA Research SummaryCPT Project: Phase II Teacher Survey• Phase II will consist of collecting survey data from teachers on interdisciplinary teams• Questions will focus on aspects of CPT: information about team and teachers topics of discussion during CPT frequency & quality of team practices• Ability to link Phase I and Phase II data • Conducted 1st training at 2009 NMSAconferenceAdditional InformationFor additional information about the CPT Project or the MLER SIG, please visit the our website at:http://www.rmle.pdx.edu/Contact InformationSteven B. Mertens, Ph.D.Illinois State Universitysmertens@ilstu.edu(309) 438-8182Nancy FlowersCPRD, University of Illinoisnflowers@illinois.edu(217) 333-3231Vincent A. Anfara, Jr., Ph.D.University of Tennesseevanfara@utk.edu(865) 974-4985Micki M. Caskey, Ph.D.Portland State Universitycaskeym@pdx.edu(503) 725-4749

What Research Says about... The National Project on Common Planning Time

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=ci_fac

What Research Says about... The National Project on Common Planning Time

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PDXScholar (Portland State University)