This article presents the findings of an evaluation of the eMINTS (enhancing Missouri’s Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies) professional development program. eMINTS is an intensive teacher professional development program designed to promote inquiry-based learning, support high-quality lesson design, build community among students and teachers, and create technology-rich learning environments. This evaluation included 60 high-poverty rural schools across Missouri that were randomly assigned to two treatment conditions and a control condition, with approximately 200 teachers and 3,000 students in the 2011–2012 baseline academic year. The researchers conclude that after 3 years, the eMINTS treatment group and an eMINTS treatment group with an additional year of Intel support resulted in changed teacher instructional behaviors and increased student achievement in mathematics.
AllenJ. P.PiantaR. C.GregoryA.MikamiA. Y.LunJ. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034–1037.
2.
BellancaJ.BrandtR. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
3.
BellandB.GlazewskiK.RichardsonJ. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694.
4.
BerendsM.KirbyS. N.NaftelS.McKelveyC. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5.
BloomH. S. (2006). The core analytics of randomized experiments for social research (MDRC working papers on Research Methodology). New York, NY: MDRC. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_533.pdf
6.
BrandtW. C.MeyersC.MolefeA. (2012). The impact of eMINTS professional development on teacher instruction and student achievement: Year 1 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
7.
BrandtW. C.MeyersC.MolefeA.DhillonS.ZhuB. (2013). The impact of eMINTS professional development on teacher instruction and student achievement: Year 2 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
8.
BredesonP.JohanssonO. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26, 385–401.
9.
Buck Institute for Education. (2007). National survey of high school reform and project based learning. Novato, CA: Author.
10.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21–29. doi:10.1007/BF02299088
11.
CondonC.DawsonM.MolefeA.SwanlundA. (2009). Results of the Rasch analysis of items based on the ISTE-NETS-S technology literacy standards for 5th and 8th grades (pretest). Chicago, IL: Learning Point Associates.
CookT. D.ChurchM. B.AjanakuS.ShadishW. R.Jr.Jeong-RanK.CohenR. (1996). The development of occupational aspirations and expectations among inner-city boys. Child Development, 67, 3368–3385.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
17.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–479.
18.
DrakeS. M. (2007). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning curriculum, content, assessment, and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
19.
eMINTS National Center, University of Missouri. (2009). eMINTS teacher technology literacy skill survey (Survey instrument). Columbia: Author.
20.
ErtmerP. A.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284.
21.
GaretM.PorterA.DesimoneL.BirmanB.YoonK. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
22.
GaretM.WayneA.StancavageF.TaylorJ.EatonM.WaltersK.. . . DoolittleF. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
23.
GeierR.BlumenfeldP.MarxR.KrajcikJ.FishmanB.SolowayE.Clay-ChambersJ. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922–939.
24.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.BarbosaP.PerencevichK. C.TaboadaA.DavisM. H.. . . TonksS. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
25.
HallingerP.HeckR. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5–44.
26.
HamiltonL.HalversonR.JacksonS. S.MandinachE.SupovitzJ. A.WaymanJ. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/dddm_pg_092909.pdf
27.
HartH. M.AllensworthE.LauenD. L.GladdenR. M. (2002). Educational technology: Its availability and use in Chicago’s public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
28.
HeritageM. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do?Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 140–145.
29.
HickeyD. T.WolfeE. W.KindfieldA. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technology-supported genetics environment: Evidential and consequential validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6, 155–196.
30.
Hmelo-SilverC. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In O’DonnellA. M.Hmelo-SilverC. E.ErkensG. (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Hmelo-SilverC. E.DuncanR.ChinnC. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.
32.
HustonA.MillerC.Richburg-HayesL.DuncanG.EldredC.WeisnerT. S.. . . RedcrossC. (2003). New hope for families and children: Five-year results of a program to reduce poverty and reform welfare. New York, NY: MDRC.
33.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009: National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010451.pdf
34.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). What Works Clearinghouse reviewer training manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
KohnA. (2006). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
39.
LangerJ. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837–880.
40.
LawlessK. A.PelligrinoJ. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614.
41.
LembkeM.GonzalesP. (2006). U.S. student and adult performance on international assessments of educational achievement (NCES 2006-073). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006073.pdf
42.
LindstromP. H.SpeckM. (2004). The principal as professional development leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43.
MartinW.ShulmanS. (2006). Intel teach essentials instructional practices and classroom use of technology survey report. New York, NY: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology.
44.
MartinW.StrotherS.ReitzesT. (2009). eMINTS 2009 program evaluation report: An analysis of the persistence of program impact on student achievement. New York, NY: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology.
45.
McKnightP. E.McKnightK. M.SidaniS.FigueredoA. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46.
MiddletonM. J.MidgleyC. (2002). Beyond motivation: Middle school students’ perceptions of press for understanding in math. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 373–391.
47.
MidgleyC.MaehrM. L.HrudaL. Z.AndermanE.AndermanL.FreemanK. E.. . . UrdanT. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
48.
MinnerD.LevyA.CenturyJ. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474–496.
49.
MitchemK.WellsD. L.WellsJ. G. (2003). Effective integration of instructional technologies (IT): Evaluating professional development and instructional change. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 397–414.
50.
MonkD. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. Future of Children, 17, 155–174.
51.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
52.
National Research Council. (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
53.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Observation protocol for technology integration in the classroom. Portland, OR: Author.
54.
Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis. (2005). Analysis of 2004 MAP results for eMINTS students. Columbia, MO: Author.
55.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that Foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921–958.
56.
PiantaR. C.La ParoK. M.HamreB. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
57.
PulakosE. D.AradS.DonovanM. A.PlamondonK. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624.
58.
PumaM. J.OlsenR. B.BellS. H.PriceC. (2009). What to do when data are missing in group randomized controlled trials (NCEE 2009-0049). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
59.
RaschG. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Exp. ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
RossS. M.MorrisonG. R.LowtherD. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1, 17–35.
61.
SchmidR. F.BernardR. M.BorokhovskiE.TamimR.AbramiP. C.WadeC. A.. . . LowerisonG. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: A Stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 95–109.
62.
ShearL.GorgesT.MeansB.SingletonC.NovaisG.GallagherL.LundhP. (2010). The Microsoft Innovative Schools Program year 2 evaluation report. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
63.
SimonsK. D.KleinJ. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72.
64.
SlavinR. (2010). Co-operative learning: What makes groupwork work? In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (Ed.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 161–178). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
65.
StrangeM.JohnsonJ.ShowalterD.KleinR. (2012). Why rural matters 2011–2012: The condition of rural education in the 50 states. Washington, DC: Rural School and Community Trust.
66.
StrotherS.MartinW.DechaumeT. (2006). Analysis of 2006 MAP results for eMINTS and non-eMINTS students. New York, NY: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology.
67.
TamimR. M.BernardR. M.BorokhovskiE.AbramiP. C.SchmidR. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4–28.
68.
TomlinsonC.BrightonC.HertberyH.CallahanC.MoonT.BrimijjoinK.. . . ReynoldsT. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 119–145.
69.
TourangeauR.RipsL. J.RasinskiK. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
70.
West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Classroom observation instrument scoring rubric. Charleston: Author.
71.
WigginsG.McTigheJ. (1998). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
WuY.-T.TsaiC.-C. (2005). Effects of constructivist-oriented instruction on elementary school students’ cognitive structures. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 113–119.
74.
YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W.-Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. (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 Laboratory Southwest.
75.
ZimmermanB. J.BanduraA.Martinez-PonsM. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.
