Implementation of Georgia Standards

for Mathematics in
Braxton County, Georgia

Evaluation Team:
Cindy Dixon
William Foster
Sarah Phillips
Teara 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
P1. Were the initial
experience and follow up
activities implemented as
planned?

P2. What is the quality of the

initial program activities?

P3. Who are the program

participants and how were
they recruited?

Activities

Frequency/Timeline

1. Observation of professional
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.

1. During initial workshops,

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

prior knowledge of content to be
presented in all workshop sessions.
2. Post-session questionnaire to assess
growth in content knowledge of
material presented.
3. Brief surveys to gauge quality of
individual sessions.

1. June 25th (pre-workshop)

2. June 29th (post-workshop)
3. After each workshop on
June 25th-29th

1. List of possible participants will be

submitted by Ms. Lawson suggesting
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.

1 & 2. All complete before

June 25th

P4. What is the quality of

follow up and support
activities?

1. Teachers will provide lesson plan

examples that demonstrate material
learned in workshop sessions.
2. Teachers will submit notes or
transcriptions from consultation
sessions (see P1)
3. Teachers will complete survey on
quality of support and follow-up
activities.

1. 2 lps before
mid-implementation meeting
and 2 lps before debrief.
2. 1 per week during July
2-July 20
3. After debrief

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

modules that connected local
businesses and industries with
math instruction.

State assessments
County assessments
Assessments every few weeks,
months, or once a year

To what extent were the

teachers able to
implement and evaluate
PBL modules?

Teachers worked through

modules, surveys, pre and post
evaluations and lesson plans
that show competency of
implementation and how these
evaluations were evaluated in
each module.

Mid and end of unit assessments

Designed to provide information
about 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 able to develop
PBL modules that aligned
with NSSM, and
incorporated appropriate
uses of technology?

Teachers shared modules that

aligned with the standards and
incorporated technology into
the lesson plans.

A rubric was used to evaluate

the effectiveness of programs,
school improvement goals, and
alignment of curriculum.

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,
2015

5-day Summer Workshop

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,
2015

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

August 1 December
31, 2015

Implementation of Modules
Once the modules are finalized, teachers will implement with their students and conduct
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
2016

Post Workshop #1
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
2016

Post Workshop #2
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.