2001-2002 Project RENEW

2001-2002 Project RENEW

Professional Development Observation Protocol

_________________________________________________________

Background Information

Professional Development Team Number: Is this development session is a MEP is it individual or joint? individual joint
Location:	Date of Observation:
Observer:	Duration of Session:
	1.5 hours	half day	full day
Contextual Background and Activities
Session Demographics a. What is the total number of participants attending the session 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-20 20-40 b. Please describe the targeted audience for this development Preceptors Preceptees Other
2. What grade levels do the participants teach? K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Session Context In a few sentences describe the session you observed. Include: (a) whether the observation covered a partial or complete session, (b) whether there were multiple break-out sessions, and (c) where the session fits into the districts sequence of MEPS, etc.
III. Session Focus a. Indicate the major intended purpose of this session based on information from the presenters/facilitators 1. Increasing mathematics/science content knowledge of participants 2. Explicit attention to classroom pedagogy Understanding State and/or National Mathematics Standards Understanding student thinking/ learning about mathematics Learning how to use specific instructional materials in the classroom Learning classroom management techniques Considering issues of access, equity and diversity Understanding assessment 3. Explicit attention to strategies/issues/roles for teacher leaders

b. Indicate the major mathematics subject matter areas of this session
Patterns and relationships Mathematical structure and representation Numeration and number theory Computation Estimation Measurement Geometry and spatial sense Functions Pre-Algebra Algebra Topics in discrete mathematics Calculus History of mathematics Data collection and analysis Probability Statistics

RATINGS

I. Design
a. Ratings of Key Indicators
	1. The session effectively built on participants' knowledge of content, teaching, learning and/or philosophy of math ed.	1	2	3	4	5
	2. The session included appropriate use of the structures	1	2	3	4	5
	3. The design of the session encouraged a collaborative approach to learning	1	2	3	4	5
	4. Adequate time and structure were provided hearing participants' concerns, issues and input.	1	2	3	4	5
	5. Adequate time and structure were provided for reflection and closure	1	2	3	4	5
b. Supporting evidence

II. Implementation
a. Ratings of Key Indicators
	1. The session effectively incorporated instructional strategies that were appropriate for the purposes of the professional development session.	1	2	3	4	5
	2. The session effectively modeled questioning strategies that are likely to enhance the development of conceptual understanding (e.g. emphasis on questioning techniques, identifying misconceptions)	1	2	3	4	5
	3. The session took into consideration the learning styles/background and needs of the participants.	1	2	3	4	5
	4. The facilitators' background, experience and/or expertise enhanced the quality of the session	1	2	3	4	5
	5. The facilitators modified the session as appropriate in response to participant needs.	1	2	3	4	5
b. Supporting evidence

III. Culture of the Session
a. Ratings of Key Indicators
	1. Active participation of everyone was encouraged and valued.	1	2	3	4	5
	2. There was a climate of respect for participants' experiences, ideas and contributions.	1	2	3	4	5
	3. Interactions reflected collaborative working relationships among participants	1	2	3	4	5
	4. Opportunities were taken to recognize and challenge stereotypes and biases that became evident during the seeion.	1	2	3	4	5
	5. Participants' were encouraged to generate ideas, questions, conjectures and propositions.	1	2	3	4	5
b. Supporting evidence

Purpose Ratings

I. Mathematics Content
a. Ratings of Key Indicators
	1. Mathematics content was sound and appropriately explored.	1	2	3	4	5
	2. Participants were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the session.	1	2	3	4	5
	3. Mathematics content was portrayed in a manner consistent with vision in PSSM and/or appropriate connections were made to State Standards.	1	2	3	4	5
	4. Elements of abstraction and or real-life connections were made when appropriate to do so.	1	2	3	4	5
	5. Degree of resolution/closure of conceptual understanding was appropriate for the purpose of the session.	1	2	3	4	5
b. Supporting evidence

II. Exploring Pedagogy
a. Ratings of Key Indicators
	1. Depth and breadth of attention to student thinking/learning were appropriate for the purposes of the session.	1	2	3	4	5
	2. Participants were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the session.	1	2	3	4	5
	3. The pedagogical principals introduced were consistent with investigative mathematics practices.	1	2	3	4	5
	4. Depth and breadth of attention to instructional materials intended for classroom use were appropriate for the purposes of the session and participant's needs.	1	2	3	4	5
	5. Degree of resolution/closure of conceptual understanding was appropriate for the purpose of the session.	1	2	3	4	5
b. Supporting evidence

III. Leadership Content
a. Ratings of Key Indicators
	1. Discussion on strategies for Precepting/precepteeing were sound and appropriate.	1	2	3	4	5
	2. Participants were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the session.	1	2	3	4	5
	3. Facilitators displayed an understanding of leadership concepts consistent with the project.	1	2	3	4	5
	4. Information on mathematics reform/re-reform were presented in an appropriate manner.	1	2	3	4	5
	5. Participants were given time and opportunity to consider how the content of the session applies to their particular role.	1	2	3	4	5
b. Supporting evidence

Overall Rating of the Session

not a session goal	Likely Impact on Participants’ Understanding of What Mathematics is (as consistent with PSSM)
		negative effect	mixed/neutral effect	positive effect
1.	Participants' understanding of important mathematical ideas.
2.	Participants' understanding of mathematics as a dynamic body of knowledge generated and enriched by investigation.
3.	Participants' confidence as a "doer" of mathematics.
4.	Participants'
5.


not a session goal	Likely Impact on Participants’ Ability to Provide High Quality Mathematics Instruction (as consistent with norms set at institute)	negative effect	mixed/neutral effect	positive effect
1.	Participants' understanding of student thinking
2.	Participants' ability to plan high quality instruction
3.	Participants' ability to implement national and state standards
4.	Participants self confidence as an instructor of mathematics
5.


not a session goal	Likely Impact on Participants’ Understanding or Equity and its Relationship to Mathematics Education (as consistent with norms set at institute)
		negative effect	mixed/neutral effect	positive effect
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

not a session goal	Likely Impact on Participants’ Leadership Capacity (this I am not sure about)
		negative effect	mixed/neutral effect	positive effect
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.