Edmund W. Gordon
Eleanor Armour-Thomas

The research monograph that follows describes the implementation of an intervention called Dynamic Pedagogy and its effects on the academic achievement of ethnic minority students in the third grade during the first year and the third and fourth grades during the second year. For the first year 10 third grade teachers participated in the study, 2 from each of 5 schools. For the second year, 8 third grade teachers (2 returning teachers and 2 new teachers) from 2 schools and 2 fourth grade teachers participated in the study.

The results regarding the impact of Dynamic Pedagogy on the academic achievement of students at the third and fourth grade levels were mixed. The pilot year data showed significant school effects of Dynamic Pedagogy on a third grade mathematics achievement test and district assessments in target mathematics units. The second year data showed significant effects of Dynamic Pedagogy on a fourth grade mathematics achievement test but the results on the district assessments were not significant. These results were obtained for a sample of students who were exposed to the Dynamic Pedagogy treatment the previous year. Similarly, the results were mixed for a new cohort of students at the third grade level. Although there were school effects, as in the previous year on the third grade mathematics achievement test, the results showed no significant differences between students in the Dynamic Pedagogy and non-Dynamic Pedagogy groups on the district assessments. These results should be read with caution since there were clear limitations to the study, including non-random sample and significant interaction between the covariate and grouping variables. Our analyses of race/ethnic comparisons on mathematics achievement were also mixed, indicating that Dynamic Pedagogy had a differential impact on different race/ethnic groups.

Reference:

The Effects of Dynamic Pedagogy on the Mathematics Achievement of Ethnic Minority Students
Edmund W. Gordon
Eleanor Armour-Thomas
 

Conclusions
Three assumptions of the model guided our work:

1. curriculum, instruction, and assessment are interdependent processes,
2. teacher thoughts and decisions about curriculum instruction-assessment are centered around learners’ strengths and needs before, during, and after classroom practice,
3. students are responsive to the teacher’s decisions and actions about curriculum, instruction, and assessment in ways that promote their learning.

Evidence of the efficacy of the model was found in:

1. teachers’ preplanning thoughts, lesson plans, classroom practice, and post lesson reflections,
2. students’ quality of engagement in classroom activities as well as on their performance on mathematics achievement tests and district assessments of mathematics units that were incorporated in the professional development for 118 participating teachers.

Data analysis revealed that:

1. a higher percentage of Dynamic Pedagogy students when compared to their non-Dynamic Pedagogy counterparts performed at the highest level of achievement,
2. our results showed differential impact of Dynamic Pedagogy on the mathematics achievement of different race/ethnic groups.