Implementation of Georgia Standards

for Mathematics in

Braxton County, Georgia

Evaluation Team:

Cindy Dixon

William Foster

Sarah Phillips

Teresa Powell

Audra Youngblood

This project is the result of a collaboration between Great Southern University and

Braxton County Schools. An evaluation plan has been executed to ensure that the goal of this

project has been met.

 Implementation Table

Implementation Questions Activities Frequency/Timeline

1. Observation of professional 1. During initial workshops,

P1. Were the initial
experience and follow up
activities implemented as
planned?
development activities will be
conducted during all professional
development activities and mid/post
project meetings.
2. Teachers will submit notes or
transcriptions from consultation
sessions.
3. Questionnaires to gauge correct
implementation of initial and follow-up
activities.
mid-project meeting, and de-
briefing
2. 1 per week during July 2-
July 20
3. After all professional
development sessions, mid-
project meeting, and
debriefing.

1. Pre-session questionnaire assessing 1. June 25th (pre-workshop)

P2. What is the quality of the
initial program activities?
prior knowledge of content to be 2. June 29th (post-workshop)
presented in all workshop sessions. 3. After each workshop on
2. Post-session questionnaire to assess June 25th-29th
growth in content knowledge of
material presented.
3. Brief surveys to gauge quality of
individual sessions.

1. List of possible participants will be 1 & 2. All complete before

P3. Who are the program
participants and how were
they recruited?
submitted by Ms. Lawson suggesting June 25th
teacher participants in the project.
Email, word of mouth,
recommendation will be recruitment
methods.
2. Participants will be interviewed by
project team and complete a
questionnaire containing questions
pertaining to project interests and
goals.

P4. What is the quality of
follow up and support
activities?
1. Teachers will provide lesson plan 1. 2 lps before mid-
examples that demonstrate material implementation meeting and
learned in workshop sessions. 2 lps before debrief.
2. Teachers will submit notes or
transcriptions from consultation 2. 1 per week during July 2-
sessions (see P1) July 20
3. Teachers will complete survey on 3. After debrief
quality of support and follow-up
activities.
 Implementation Evaluation

The initial experience was implemented during the timeline that was planned. The follow

up activities were conducted during the timeline as well. Observations of the activities were

conducted during mid and post project meetings. Teachers also had to submit notes and

transcriptions from their sessions.

The quality of the initial program activities included a pre-session questionnaire that

allowed us to assess prior knowledge of the content that was being presented. This was followed

up with a post-session questionnaire that allowed the presenters to assess the quality of the

workshop.

The program participants were teachers that were recommended by Ms. Lawson. They

were recruited by email, word of mouth, and recommendations. The participants also had to

participate in a pre-workshop questionnaire that assessed their interests and goals.

The follow up and support activities included the teachers having to write and submit a

lesson plan that demonstrated the material that was learned in the workshop. The notes were

submitted by the participants from each session, and their surveys were turned in.

Summative Table

Questions Specific objectives addressed Tools for assessment

To what extent were the
teachers able to develop
PBL modules that were
connected to local business
and industries?
Teachers were able to create State assessments
modules that connected local County assessments
businesses and industries with Assessments every few weeks, months,
math instruction. or once a year

To what extent were the Teachers worked through Mid and end of unit assessments
teachers able to implement modules, surveys, pre and post Designed to provide information about
and evaluate PBL evaluations and lesson plans
modules? that show competency of
implementation and how these
evaluations were evaluated in
each module.
the amount of learning that has occurred
at a particular point
Assessments every few weeks, months,
or once a year

To what extent were the Teachers shared modules that A rubric was used to evaluate the
teachers able to develop aligned with the standards and effectiveness of programs, school
PBL modules that aligned incorporated technology into improvement goals, and alignment of
with NSSM, and the lesson plans. curriculum.
incorporated appropriate
uses of technology?

Summative Evaluation

The summative evaluation will help answer the following questions addressed in the Summative

Table. Each question is aligned with a corresponding objective. The data sources that will be

used for the outcome evaluation will be the state and county assessments, mid and end of unit

assessments, and a rubric evaluating the alignment of NSSM standards and the incorporation of

available technology. Great Southern faculty will use the results from the evaluation report to

help teachers continue to refine their PBL modules after the workshop during the period of July 2

- 20, 2015. Communication between the Great Southern faculty and teacher participants will be

electronic via a Wiki. After the teachers implement the modules with their students and conduct

self-evaluations of the implementation, two post workshops will be conducted in January 2016.

The data sources that will be used for the outcome evaluation will be the state and county

assessments, mid and end of unit assessments, and a rubric evaluating the alignment of NSSM

standards and the incorporation of available technology.

Data Collection Schedule

DATE DESCRIPTION

June 1 - 5, 5-day Summer Workshop

2015 Day 1 (Monday): Introductions & New Standards
Day 2 (Tuesday): Visits to local business for ID of math in context
Day 3 (Wednesday): Problem-based learning and Instructional Design;
Identification/review of Mathematics in context
Day 4 (Thursday): Instructional Technology, Idea Sharing, Problem-based Learning
module creation
Day 5: (Friday): Problem-based Learning Module creation, Planning for
implementation and Evaluation (Action Research)

July 2 - 20, Revisions

2015 Refinement of Problem-based learning modules through electronic communication (e.g.
Wiki)

August 1 - Implementation of Modules

December Once the modules are finalized, teachers will implement with their students and conduct
31, 2015 self-evaluations, which will be shared with project staff members.
GSU faculty members will conduct a mid-implementation meeting with the teacher
participants to discuss questions and concerns

January Post Workshop #1

2016 Braxton County participants and project staff will discuss the teacher-created self-
evaluations, implementation and to identify best practices.
Workshop participants will work in small groups with other participants, mathematics
experts, instructional design and technology experts and an expert on the New State
Standards for Mathematics.

January Post Workshop #2

2016 Braxton County participants and project staff will discuss the teacher-created self-
evaluations, implementation and to identify best practices.
Workshop participants will work in small groups with other participants, mathematics
experts, instructional design and technology experts and an expert on the New State
Standards for Mathematics.