1

Appendix H

Process for selecting DMI from possible programs.

The goal of the proposed study is to assess the impact of a professional development program 

that focuses on developing teachers’ knowledge of the formal mathematics that underlies 

fractions in order to promote development of student understanding of the mathematical ideas as 

well as computational proficiency. In order to maximize the chance that a promising professional 

development approach would be the target of the evaluation, the research team conducted a What 

Works Clearinghouse-type review of rigorous research evaluating mathematics PD approaches. 

A search of the research literature published between January 2006 through July 2012 (or were 

identified in a previous review by Yoon et al., 2007) was conducted. All studies that potentially

could provide causal evidence of the effectiveness of teacher PD on student achievement were 

analyzed. Based on the five studies that were of acceptable technical quality, two professional 

development approaches, namely Lesson Study and intensive math content courses yielded either 

statistically significant outcomes on some mathematics measures or indicated relatively large 

impacts on mathematics outcomes (effect size greater than .25). 

While it would have been ideal to scale-up one of these two empirically supported professional 

development approaches in the proposed study, neither of these were suitable for a large 

evaluation. First, neither of these approaches has an established infrastructure for training and 

support. Implementation of these programs in the research studies were conducted by universitybased researchers who do not have a network of trainers available to travel the country or staff 

available to answer questions. Second, neither of the approaches are available in a packaged ‘offthe-shelf’ configuration. The professional development approach in each study was designed and 

implemented idiosyncratically for each study. At first glance Lesson Study may seem an 

exception to this, as books are available; however, these materials do not lead one to the 

implementation actually conducted in the supporting study (Perry & Lewis, 2011). In summary, 

these approaches lacked the capacity for a multi-state multi-site study. 

The literature search did not yield mathematics professional development programs that had a 

sufficient support infrastructure for implementing a large-scale evaluation. However, members of 

our research team in consultation with math experts in the field1had identified four professional 

development programs with existing infrastructures to support an implementation on a large 

scale. Four approaches were identified in that effort: Intel® Math (Intel, 2013), Developing 

Mathematical Ideas (DMI; Schifter et al., 2010), Math Solutions (Burns, 2013), and NUMBERS

 

1 These experts included: Sybilla Beckmann (University of Georgia), Everly Broadway (Mathematics 

Curriculum Director, Texas Education Agency), Mark Driscoll (Education Development Center), Philip 

Ogbuehi (Mathematics Specialist, Los Angeles Unified School District), Steve Schneider (WestED), John 

Woodward (University of Puget Sound).
2

(Woodward, Douglass, & Stroh, 2013). 

These four approaches were evaluated in terms of the potential scalability into the context of a 

large-scale effectiveness trial, and appropriateness for the need of stakeholders in Georgia and 

South Carolina. However, based on our initial discussions with the research alliance partners, 

two of these programs Intel Math and Math Solutions were deemed not suitable for scaling-up in 

the context of the needs of the research alliance. Intel Math requires at least 80 hours of 

participation time from teachers. This was an unrealistic expectation for the LEAs involved with 

our alliance. The developers of Math Solutions did not have a well-defined ‘fixed’ package of 

professional development. Instead Math Solutions customizes its deliverable for each LEA. 

Given the fluidity of what constitutes proper implementation, it was decided to drop this program 

from consideration.

Two approaches (DMI & NUMBERS) remained for consideration. Both had a robust 

infrastructure to deliver professional development on a large scale. 

The findings about the various professional development programs were shared with the 

members of the research alliance. The research alliance members examined DMI and Numbers 

extensively and finally voted to select DMI for this evaluation. 
3

References

Burns, M. (2013). Math Solutions: Founded by Marilyn Burns. Retrieved from 

http://www.mathsolutions.com/index.cfm?page=wp15&crid=61

Intel. (2013). Intel® Math Program. Retrieved from 

http://download.intel.com/education/math/intel_math.pdf

Perry, R. R., & Lewis, C. C. (2011). Improving the mathematical content base of lesson study 

summary of results. Retrieved on January 24, 2013 from 

http://www.lessonresearch.net/IESAbstract10.pdf

Schifter, D., Bastable, V. & Russell, S. J. (2010). Making meaning for operations in the domains 

of whole numbers and fractions: Facilitator’s guide. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 

Inc.

Woodward, J., Douglass, M., & Stroh, M. (2013). Numbers: Professional development for the 

common core. Dallas, TX: Cambium Learning, Inc.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the 

evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & 

Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs