Transcript Document

Department of Education MSP Conference
March 14, 2006
A Peer-to-Peer Discussion
Overview of an NSF MSP Targeted Partnership
Goals
Principals
Activities
Evaluation
Lessons Learned
An Invitation to Share
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
The Partnership
•Western Washington University, CST and WCE
•Everett Community College, Northwest Indian
College, Skagit Valley College, Whatcom
Community College
•28 Regional School Districts (160 Schools)
•Education Service Districts 114 and 189
•Washington State LASER (Led by the Pacific
Science Center and Battelle)
•MESA (UW Engineering)
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
The Vision
Improve Science Teaching and Learning for all
•Continuous improvement of both K-12, Higher Ed
Science, and Science Education
•Spiral of improvement at all interconnected levels
•K-12, HE Content, Preservice Teacher Training,
Inservice Teachers and Administrators
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
Formal Partnership Goals
1.All students succeed in challenging science curriculum
aligned with standards.
2.Administrators understand and support science education
reform goals and programs.
3.Knowledgeable and confident teachers use curriculum with
integrity and fidelity.
4.The quantity, quality and diversity of teachers entering the
workforce increases through effective recruitment,
preparation, and retention.
5.Science education research provides evidence-based
contributions to the learning and teaching knowledge base.
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
International Grade Placement (IGP)
International Grade Placement of Curriculum
Content Across Districts
Grade
© 2005 MSU PROM/SE Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education,
Supported by NSF Cooperative Agreement EHR-0314866
Partnership Principles (Core Beliefs)
• Organization The project is organized and managed to
achieve its goals on time and within the budget
• Learning Everyone in the project is a learner
• Equity There are clear, high, and realistic expectations for all
learners, regardless of differences, in an inclusive, supportive
environment
• Research Actions will be planned and modified based on the
best research. Where no prior research is available, careful
research will be designed and carried out
• Collaboration NCOSP is a true partnership. Each partner
contributes to and benefits from achieving the goals
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
Actions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Summer Academies for teacher leaders from each building
• Facilitated by higher education science faculty (21),
science education faculty (2), master teachers (12)
Learning Community Forums -- monthly
• Planned by master teachers, focus on CSP & Lesson Study
Year-long content course for future elementary teachers
• Developed by science faculty, Taught on 5 campuses
Active recruitment of diverse and talented future teachers
• Scholarships, after school clubs, tutoring
Elementary and Secondary methods revision
• Field Experience with teacher leaders
Evaluation
Research
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
Example I: The Year-Long Course
• One quarter each of Physics, Geology, Biology
•
•
•
•
•
• Chemistry and Astronomy come later
Small Classes (25)
Reduced content coverage, increased depth
Based on principles in How People Learn
Developed using Understanding by Design
Learning Cycle Model (Physics for Elementary Teachers, SDSU)
•Purpose
•Initial Ideas
•Collecting and Interpreting Evidence
•Summarizing Questions (Reflection)
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
Developing the course
Issues that we faced:
• Survey course vs. Depth
• Integrated vs. Discipline-based
• Innovated vs. Research-based
• Academic freedom vs. Common Course
(including assessments)
• Full-time faculty vs. Part-time faculty
• Existing vs. Home-grown
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
Course Implementation
Inservice
Teachers
Preservice
Teachers
Physical
Science
Life Science
Summer 2004
Fall 2005
Summer 2005
Earth Science
Summer 2006
Winter/Spring
2005-06
Winter/Spring
2005-06
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
K-16 Reform-Based Science Instruction
New Physical Science GUR Course at a
Glance
• Participating Institutions (Fall 2005): EVCC, SVCC, WCC & WWU
• PET curriculum
• Constructivist: based on experiences, investigations, and discussions in the
classroom
• No textbook
• Part of a science sequence for elementary education students
• Approximately 80 students participated in Fall 2005
• Data, data, data
•
•
•
•
•
content assessments
student surveys of students’ beliefs
teacher interviews
student interviews
observations
PET Student Assessments
N=53
Paired Samples t-test
80
70
Percent (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
Statistically significant
difference p<.000
0
Pre Test Mean= 22.61
Post Test Mean= 73.40
PET Student Assessments
N=53
Percent Correct (%)
Preservice Elementary Teacher
Performance (PET Course)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EvCC
WWU
SVC
Pretest
Posttest
Students’ Views of the Nature of Science
The main skill I expect to get out of this course is to learn how to
reason logically about the physical world.
Logical Reasoning
50
pre
40
post
30
20
10
0
Strongly
disagree
somewhat
disagree
neutral
somewhat
agree
strongly
agree
“… a lot of the things that I just take for granted I had to question and then realize that I
was wrong on a lot of the things I thought and the good thing is that because we did
experiments… we had to figure out how to learn it ourselves and the teacher didn’t just
tell us how to think, it counteracted what I thought that was wrong so it forced me to
realize what was wrong and not go back to what I was thinking before”.
-WWU student
Learning science made me change some of my ideas about how scientific
phenomena can be used to understand the world around me.
When learning science people can understand the material
better if they relate it to their own ideas.
Understanding Science Relates to
Personal Experience
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
pre
post
Strongly
disagree
somew hat
disagree
neutral
somew hat
agree
strongly
agree
“…I just learn information like for a test, then I forget it, then I’ll just return
back to what I thought before but this way I remember it better”.
-WWU student
Observations:
Using HRI Observation Protocol
Capsule Ratings of Quality of the Lesson
Foci of Observation:
•
Design
•
Implementation
•
Content Experienced
by Students
•
Classroom Culture
Level 1: Ineffective Instruction
Highly Unlikely to contribute to students’ understanding.
Level 2:Elements of Effective Instruction
Some evidence of learning but serious problems in design,
implementation, or content.
Level 3:Beginning stages of Effective Instruction
Somewhat limited in its ability to contribute to students’
understanding.
Level 4:Accomplished Effective Instruction
Quite likely to contribute to the majority of students’
understanding.
Level 5:Exemplary Instruction
Highly likely to contribute to all or most students’ understanding
and develop capacity to do science.
Rating Averages
Standard GUR
 Design: 4
 Implementation: 3.7
 Content: 3.7
 Culture: 3.8
Capsule: 3.2
New GUR
 Design: 4.4
 Implementation: 3.8
 Content: 4.1
 Culture: 3.9
Capsule: 3.9
Standard Physics GUR: 6 observations of three courses
New Physics GUR: 8 observations of four courses
Content As Experienced by Students
• I had to start thinking differently and at the beginning of each
experiment, it asks us to talk about our initial ideas and what we
previously had thought about the topic and I had never really done
that in any of my other classes and I think that was really big because I
never really thought about what I was thinking just based upon my
previous experiences with the information, so that was a big difference
but I think it really helped with the learning because I got everything
out of my brain and I could see where I was thinking, what was wrong
with my thinking, and how to change it.
• One experiment we did was pushing a cart and we were supposed to
figure out at what point the force no longer acting upon the cart. And
initially I thought that even after you let go, your hand let go, after the
push, there was still a force acting on the cart but throughout all our
experiments I learned that there is no longer force after you let go.
And I don’t know why I thought it stayed with it but the experiments
really helped me to show that I was incorrect in my thinking and I
don’t think I’ll ever forget that, it really stuck.
Classroom Culture
“At the beginning I was very nervous about it because I
don’t feel like I’m a strong science thinker. I was
really afraid to verbalize and vocalize my opinions
and what I was thinking on a topic, but after a week
or so I began to become really comfortable because I
realized that the reason everyone’s talking about it is
to help everyone learn. And when someone would
say something that was incorrect, no one would care
because we all just wanted to help them understand
what was actually going on so…I was very
comfortable by then.”
- WWU Student
Example II: Summer Academy
PET Content Assessments
178 total participants
• 142 took parts of 2004
pre/post test
– 101 2-weekers
– 41 3-weekers
• 63 took the 2005
Follow-up test
– 50 also took pre/post in
2004
• 33 were 2-weekers
• 17 were 3-weekers
N=50
Question #1 –
A soccer goalie is practicing by punting a ball straight up into the air and
then catching it again when it falls back down. Consider a moment just
after the ball bas been kicked, but is still moving upward. Which of the
following forces do you think are acting on the soccer ball at this
moment?
3
• Significant increase in Pet score
from Pretest to Posttest
• No significant change from
Posttest to Follow-up (despite
small drop)
• Significant increase from Pretest
to Follow-up
• Percentage of Proficient scores
(score of 2+ out of 3 points)
displayed on bar
2.18
2
1.82
1.12
1
0
16%
Prof.
80%
Prof.
Pretest
Posttest
54%
Prof.
Followup
N=50
Question #2 –
A hockey player uses his stick to maintain a constant strength push on the
puck as he moves it across the smooth ice. Assuming that the effects of
friction are negligible, which of the following choices best describes the
motion of the puck while this constant strength push is acting on it?
• Significant increase in Pet
score from Pretest to
Posttest
• Significant decrease from
Posttest to Follow-up
• Significant increase from
Pretest to Follow-up
• Percentage of Proficient
scores (score of 2+ out of 3
points) displayed on bar
3
2.78
1.92
2
1
14%
0.46
Prof.
0
Pretest
92%
Prof.
Posttest
64%
Prof.
Followup
Question #3 –
N=50
A large block is on rollers so that it can move across a surface as if there
was no friction affecting it. After they have started the block moving to
the right, two men want it to continue moving in the same direction, at a
constant speed. Indicate all the situations shown (and described) above
that you think would result in the block moving to the right at a constant
speed after it has already started moving. Briefly explain the reasoning
behind your choices.
3
• Significant increase in Pet score
from Pretest to Posttest
• Significant decrease from Posttest
to Follow-up
• Significant increase from Pretest
to Follow-up
• Percentage of Proficient scores
(score of 2+ out of 3 points)
displayed on bar
2.44
2.02
2
1.4
1
0
54%
Prof.
88%
Prof.
Pretest
Posttest
76%
Prof.
Followup
Summer Academy 2005
Investigating the Flow and Matter
and Energy in Living Systems
Four Cycles (Created by NCOSP)
• What is food for living organisms?
• How do plants get food?
• How do organisms use food?
• How does matter and energy cycle in
living systems?
HRI Life Science Assessment:
Pre and Post Scores
Overall
100
84*
80
Score
67
60
40
20
0
Pre
Post
* Post-test scores significantly greater than pre-test score (p < 0.05), 1-tailed
paired samples t-test. Effect size = 1.39 standard deviations. Gain score= .51.
N=165
Comparisons by Gender
Gender
100
87
82
80
72
Score
64
60
40
20
0
Male
Fem ale
P re
P o st
No significant differences by gender.
Gain scores: M=.54 F=.50
Comparisons by Grade Level
100
91
86
79
80
79
73
Score
59
60
40
20
0
Elementar y
Middle
Pre
High
Post
Controlling for pre-test scores and other demographics, high school teachers
scored significantly higher than elementary and middle school teachers (effect
sizes of 0.45 and 0.31 standard deviations, respectively). However, no
significant differences between gain scores (ES=.49, MS=.48, HS=.57).
N = 87, 42, 36
Participant Yearly Satisfaction
SA Report 2005 : Figure 8.
SA 2005 Teacher Comments
Positive comments indicated teachers perceived
improvement in their understanding of both life
science content and pedagogy:
“The learning curve relative to my teaching practice is
reaching a point where I am able to synthesize what I
learned last year and this year and make more sense
of it.”
“The immersion gave me a ‘clear picture’ of what
inquiry looks like and feels like.”
Lessons Learned (Course Development)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less is more
Initial perceptions of “academic freedom” must be addressed
Implementing reformed courses is material, staff, and faculty
intensive with implications for sustainability
Team teaching helps
Lesson Study helps
Facilitation teams at Summer Academy is great staff training
Staff development for higher ed faculty is critical
Interpersonal relationships are critical
Course revisions being made based on data and student and
faculty feedback--including methods courses.
Can’t do it all – where is the place for chemistry, astronomy,
environmental science….?
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
Lessons Learned (Partnerships)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge and wisdom flows from HE to K-12, from
K-12 to HE, and from the outside community
Higher Ed and K-12 are mutually dependent
Collaboration among teachers is critical
Learning communities lead to coherent improvement
in classrooms
Administrative leadership is key
Principals and district leaders must be involved
Reciprocity is necessary--clear expectations (Elmore)
Curriculum is important
Teachers/Faculty cannot create independently
Research and Evaluation are integral
Five Years gives us a chance for sustainability
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060
An Invitation to Collaborate/Share
•
•
•
•
Curriculum models
Summer academy designs
Assessments
Research
Can the U.S Department of Education and the states
formalize a collaborative relationship?
We need to share our projects just as teachers need to share
their practice
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. HER-0315060