• Tacos & Next Steps: Staff Reactions to the Initial Findings

    As we, the Monticello Teacher Institute staff, read the factor descriptions and talked to the research team, we knew that some time and thought would be required to make actionable meaning of the initial findings. So, we ordered our favorite local tacos and called a lunch meeting to figure out “what’s next?” For the Monticello […]

  • Factor 4: A Focus on the Relevance of History

    Factor 4 can be described as having a Focus on Relevance, connecting the on-site experiences to their students’ lives and worlds. Of all the factors, Factor 4 has the greatest number of participants move on or off of the factor. There were three teachers from both the pre and post who loaded on this factor. […]

  • Factor 3: A Focus on Learning from Peers On-Site

    Factor 3 can be characterized as having a Monticello-Learning from Peers/Colleagues focus. This is the largest factor, consisting of nine participants prior to the Institute, and a total of eleven participants afterwards, with eight remaining constant, creating a fairly stable group. While it is not exclusive, one of the interesting aspects about the individuals who […]

  • Factor 2: A Focus on Learning from the Experts

    Factor 2 can be characterized as having a Monticello-Learning from Experts focus. This is the smallest and most stable grouping, comprised of three teachers at the beginning of the Institute, and three afterwards, with two teachers remaining on the factor throughout. These teachers were characterized by statements that emphasized the value of working with the […]

  • Initial Findings: Factor 1

    Once the Q-Sorts were completed, the sorts were correlated and factors were identified. A factor is a grouping of participants who rank the Q-sort item statements in a similar way. Each factor represents a different viewpoint, and when people load on, or fall into, a factor this indicates that they have a shared viewpoint. Some […]

  • What’s Up Next? Initial Findings

    After data collection and analysis this fall, we are thrilled to start sharing our initial findings next week. Unlike surveys, where the information you get is roughly how many people liked or did something, the results in Q are presented as profiles, called “factors.” These profiles illuminate how people clustered their answers in similar ways. […]

  • A New Perspective on the Research

    This week’s blog post comes to us from Hanadi Sharata, a former classroom teacher and current research assistant and doctoral candidate at Teachers College, Columbia University. After assisting with the administration of the Q-Sorts at the Monticello Teacher Institute, she reflects on her experience and explains the research from her perspective:       Every spring, my fellow […]

  • Participating Teachers Reflect on the Q-Sort

    Now that we’ve shared with you about how we developed the Q-sort concourse and the program (the Monticello Teacher Institute) with which we tested the evaluation, the next question to ask is “what did the teachers think of interacting with the Q-sort?” Here are a few of their thoughts and reactions after the onsite pre- […]

  • Administering the Q-Sort

    We administered the Q-Sort a total of four times during summer 2016, once at the outset and once at the conclusion of each session of the Monticello Teacher Institute (two identical sessions were offered). This pre-post administration was designed to capture teachers’ initial thinking about their professional development program and how, if at all, that […]

  • The 2016 Concourse

    After several rounds of review and revision, the following statements are the concourse that was used during the summer 2016 pilot study phase at the Monticello Teacher Institute. Each of these statements was prefaced with the phrase “Professional Development at historic sites affects my development as a teacher by.” We chose this phrase to begin […]