AURORA UNIVERSITY
IMSP STEM PROGRAMS:
IMPACT & INITIATIVES
Superintendent Meeting
Illinois Mathematics and Science Partnership Programs
February 8, 2012
Hans Beck, Jane Davis, Sherry Eagle,
Saib Othman, Chetna Patel
DISTINCTIVE FEATURES
A genuine partnership with school districts,
community partners, and university faculty
Incorporate content knowledge and
teaching methods
Accommodate teachers’ schedules
Measure and evaluate student achievement
Teacher leadership
Follow-up visits
Action Research
Internships
COMMUNITY COLLABORATION
 Ten school districts
 Ten community partners
 More than 150 teachers benefited
AURORA UNIVERSITY IMSP TEAM
Principal Investigators:
Hans Beck, Jane Davis, Sherry Eagle,
Saib Othman, Chetna Patel
Team Leaders:
Geoff Apel, Sharon Miller, Regina Rahn
Evaluators:
David Abler, Dorothea Chianakas,
Joan Fee, Carolyn Kerkla
MATL LIFE SCIENCE 2011
Growth in Teacher Content Knowledge
80
70
60
50
Pre
Post
40
30
20
10
0
Genetics
Biotech
DTAMS
Content Effect Size, d = 1.89, 2.17, -0.43, 1.33
VNOS
MATL LIFE SCIENCE 2011
Growth in Student Achievement
14
12
10
8
Pre VNOS
Post VNOS
6
4
2
0
Grade 6
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Student Achievement Effect Size, d = 0.28, 0.19, 0.09, -0.98
MATL LIFE SCIENCE 2009-2011
Growth in Student Achievement:
Percent meeting and exceeding AYP goals based
upon mean scores on ISAT and PSAE
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2009
2010
2011
ISAT
PSAE
MATL ELEM MATH/SCI 2011
Growth in Teacher Content Knowledge
25
20
15
Pre
Post
10
5
0
DTAMS
MOSART
VNOS D+
VOSI-S
Content Knowledge Effect Size, d=1.16, 0.60, 3.20, 0.07
MATL ELEM MATH/SCI 2009-2011
Growth in Student Achievement
(ISAT-Math mean scale scores for same students)
250
245
240
235
230
pre
post
225
220
215
210
205
Grade 4
Grade 5
ISAT Effect Size, d=0.73, 0.53, 1.36
Grade 6
MATL ELEM MATH/SCI 2009-2011
Growth in Student Achievement:
Percent meeting and exceeding AYP goals based
upon mean scores on ISAT-Math
80
78
76
74
2009
2010
2011
72
70
68
66
64
ISAT
MATL MATHEMATICS 2011
Growth in Teacher Content Knowledge
25
20
15
Pre
Post
10
5
0
MDTP Calculus
Content Knowledge Effect Size, d=0.93
MATL MATHEMATICS 2011
Growth in Student Achievement
40
35
30
25
20
Pre
Post
15
10
5
0
Gr 7
Gr 8
Algebra Algebra
Gr 7
Elem.
Alg.
Gr. 8
Geom
Gr. 11
Gr. 7 Gr. 7 Pre
Calc Alg. Spn. Alg.
Student Content Readiness Effect Size, d=1.06, 0.66, 1.01, 2.56, 1.48, 1.71, 1.48
MATL MATHEMATICS 2009-2011
Growth in Student Achievement:
Percent meeting and exceeding AYP goals based
upon mean scores on ISAT Math (Elementary &
Middle School) and PSAE (Secondary)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2009
2010
2011
ISAT
PSAE
WIP 1 MATHEMATICS 2009-2011
Mean Growth in Teacher
Content Knowledge
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Mean Growth in Student
Achievement (ISAT)
280
270
260
Pre 2009
Post 2009
Post 2010
Post 2011
250
240
230
220
210
DTAMS Algebra
ISAT Effect Size, d=0.78, 0.68, 0.95 (“considerably significant”)
2009-2010
2010-2011
WIP 1 PHYSICAL SCIENCE 2009-2011
Mean Growth in Teacher
Content Knowledge
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Mean Growth in Student
Achievement (ISAT)
300
290
280
Pre 2009
Post 2009
Post 2010
Post 2011
270
260
250
240
230
DTAMS Physical
Science
ISAT Effect Size, d=0.72, 0.89, 0.88 (“considerably significant”)
2009-2010
2010-2011
AU IMSP WIP2 (2010-2011)
Mean Growth in Teacher
Content Knowledge
(DTAMS)
40
Mean Growth in Student
Achievement (ISAT)
300
35
250
30
200
25
20
Pre
Post
15
10
5
150
2010
2011
100
50
0
2010 2010 2011
Ratnl. Whole Algebra
Numbs. Numbs.
0
Grade Grade Grade
4
5
6
ISAT Effect Size, d=1.07, 2.21, 1.02 (“considerably significant”)
AU IMSP WIP3 2011
EARLY SUCCESS
Tremendous improvement in teachers’
DTAMS-Physical Science scores
18
The focus of the workshop was in
physical science integrated with:
• Engineering based
applications
• Problem based learning
• Real world applications of
science at partner sites
• Strategies to enhance
problem solving and
teaching skills of teachers
• Technology
15.9
16
14
12
10.5
10
Pre
Post
8
6
4
2
0
DTAMS
TEACHER LEADERSHIP ROLES







Chairs of Math & Science Departments
Middle School Team Leaders
Curriculum Committee Leaders
Faculty Mentors
Community Programs in Math & Science
Lead Seminars and Workshops
Presentations at State & National Meetings
ISBE-IMSP EVALUATION RUBRIC
Beginning: articulated plan, but no action
Emerging: shows clear, articulated plan, but not enough
substantive activity to establish implementation; high-quality
implementation has not reached a minimum threshold
Developing: shows a clear, strong
implementation is in place; positive outcomes
are evident but all goals not fully realized
Transformative: shows a clear, strong
enacted plan and can be considered a
model for others to use
FINAL GRADUATE PROGRAM
PARTNERSHIP QUALITY
Based on the 2011 State of Illinois evaluation of
partnership quality across seven stage dimensions,
AU is transformative in all stages:
– Partnership composition
– Organizational structure
– Action plan and operational
guidelines
– Partnership quality
– Sustainability
– Performance and outcomes
– Local evaluation implementation
WIP-1 PROGRAM
PARTNERSHIP QUALITY
Based on State of Illinois final evaluation:
Transformative in six categories:
– Partnership composition
– Organizational structure
– Action plan & operational guidelines
– Partnership quality
– Sustainability
– Local evaluation implementation
Developing in the performance and outcomes category
NEW AND FUTURE PROJECTS
IMSP WIP4 Proposal
– Math Core Standards
– Recently Approved
NSF grants
– MSP
– Discovery
– S-STEM
THANK YOU!