Does the duration of professional development programs influence effects on instruction? An analysis of 174 lessons during a national-scale program

Figures & data

Table 1. UTOP Indicators.

UTOP indicators corresponding with BfM’s didactical perspectives
1. The teacher used formative assessment effectively to be aware of the progress of all students, and modified the lesson appropriately when formative assessment demonstrated that students did not understand.
2. The classroom environment facilitated by the teacher encouraged students to generate ideas, questions, conjectures, and/or propositions that reflected engagement with or exploration of important mathematics and science concepts.
3. The teacher used questioning strategies to encourage participation, check on skill development, and facilitate intellectual engagement and productive interaction with students about important science and mathematics content and concepts.
4. The teacher involved all students in the lesson (calling on non-volunteers, facilitating student-student interaction, checking in with hesitant learners, etc.).
5. The structure of the lesson allowed students to engage with and/or explore important concepts in mathematics or science (instead of focusing on techniques that may only be useful on exams).
6. The lesson included an investigative or problem-based approach to important concepts in mathematics or science.

Figure 1. Description of an UTOP Indicator and Rating Scores (Marder et al. 2010, 29–30).

Figure 2. The UTOP Sum Score for 174 Lessons Plotted Against Time During the BfM Year .

Table 2. Estimated Fixed Effects on UTOP Sum Score.

	Fixed effect estimate	95% confidence interval
Intercept	43.95	[38.57, 49.33]
Time	0.003	[−0.010, 0.015]
SES	0.19	[0.10, 0.28]
Middle school	5.37	[1.42, 9.33]
High school	0.86	[−3.90, 5.63]
Proportion of variance explained
at the lesson level	0.05
at the teacher level	0.30

Table 3. Estimated Fixed Effects on UTOP BfM Score.

	Fixed effect estimate	95% confidence interval
Intercept	14.81	[12.93, 16.69]
Time	−0.000	[−0.005, 0.004]
SES	0.06	[0.03, 0.10]
Middle school	1.63	[0.23, 3.02]
High school	0.07	[−1.62, 1.77]
Proportion of variance explained
at the lesson level	0.04
at the teacher level	0.28

Marder, M., C. Walkington, L. Abraham, K. Allen, P. Arora, M. Daniels, and M. Walker. 2010. The UTeach Observation Protocol (UTOP) Training Guide. Austin, TX: UTeach Natural Sciences, University of Texas Austin.

 Google Scholar