Sustainability of a Teacher Professional Development Program on Students’ Proportional Reasoning Skills

Abstract

This study investigated the sustainability effects of the schema-based instruction (SBI) program and corresponding PD on the instructional practices of two cohorts of teachers (i.e., SBI experienced-teacher implementers and SBI novice-teacher implementers) and on students’ ability to reason with proportions and overall mathematics performance. SBI is a multicomponent program that focuses on recognizing the underlying mathematical problem structure (e.g., ratios, rates, percent) needed to reason with proportions. Results indicated that both experienced- and novice-teacher implementers delivered SBI with similar levels of fidelity; there was an SBI experience effect on the immediate test of proportional problem-solving (PPS), but not on a 11-week retention test of PPS, a general measure of problem solving, or the end-of-year state mathematics achievement tests.

Keywords:

• Professional development
• schema-based instruction
• proportional reasoning
• seventh-grade students

Acknowledgments

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. We acknowledge the efforts of all teachers and students who participated in the study.

Declaration of interest

Asha Jitendra is the lead author of the SBI program. However, to ensure objectivity of findings, all scoring, entry, and data analysis were conducted by research assistants and the methodologist, who do not have any interests that might be interpreted as influencing the research. The research assistant and methodologist independently reviewed the manuscript to ensure that data analysis, findings, discussion, and interpretations were appropriate, accurate, and objective.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant #R305A110358.