Transcript Daily PPT - Welcome to RMC Portland

Sentinel Site Visitor
Panel Discussion
Laura Krebs
Dave Weaver
RMC Research Corporation
111 SW Columbia, Suite 1200
Portland, Oregon 97201
[email protected]
(800) 788–1887
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction of Panel Members
WebEx Protocols
Background
Discussion Questions
Questions and Answers
2
Panel Members
•
•
•
•
•
Don Blagsvedt
Virginia (Ginni) Erion
Karen Madsen
Joyce Nishimura
John Parker
3
WebEx Protocol
• This Session Is Being Recorded
– Please keep your phone on mute unless you have a question
• * 6 to mute or unmute
– Will be available at
• http://www.rmccorp.com/LASER/
• Meeting Logistics
– Use chat box to submit questions
– Raising your hand
4
Background
• Sentinel Site Selection:
– Schools with significant LASER participation during
the 3 years prior to the site visit
– Schools visited
• 34 schools during 2007-08 school year
• 30 schools during 2008-09 school year
– Used standard protocol and rubrics
• http://www.rmccorp.com/LASERSiteVisits/
– Defined 2 groups of schools based on science WASL
change for 2 years prior to site visit
• Demonstrated Significant Positive Gains
• Demonstrated Little, No, or Negative Gains
5
Sentinel Site Visits
• Mostly outside consultants
• Conducted web-based training
sessions
• Each site visit: 1 ½ to 2 days
– Principal interview
– Teacher surveys
– At least 3 interviews
– At least 3 classroom observations
6
Question 1
• As a result of your experience visiting
schools and observing science classes
what was one thing that you discovered
about the teaching and learning of
science?
7
Question 2
• What were some of the characteristics
of the schools that you felt had strong
science instruction?
8
Question 3
• What were some of the characteristics
of the schools that you felt were
struggling with their science instruction?
9
Question 4
• What would be the best thing
Washington State LASER could do to
help teachers use the modules to
effectively improve student learning?
10
Questions For the Panel
•
•
•
•
•
Don Blagsvedt
Virginia (Ginni) Erion
Karen Madsen
Joyce Nishimura
John Parker
Sentinel Site Data Collection Instruments:
http://www.rmccorp.com/LASERSiteVisits/
11
Thank You!
Further Questions? Contact:
Dave Weaver
RMC Research Corporation
111 SW Columbia, Suite 1200
Portland, Oregon 97201
[email protected]
(800) 788–1887
12
Sentinel Site Finding 1
• There were a number of traits that
site visitors consistently rated high,
many of which were a direct outcome
of Washington State LASER.
13
What Was Going Well At The School Level
•
Materials Support System
–
•
Condition of Modules
–
•
Strong evidence indicated that the district administrators were very supportive of inquirybased science instruction.
Sequence
–
•
Strong evidence indicated that the school administrators were very supportive of inquirybased science instruction.
District Support
–
•
The school was implementing 3 or more modules per grade level as the core science
curriculum materials. Ninety-four percent of the teachers used the modules as the core
science curriculum.
Administrative Support
–
•
Teachers always received modules that were complete and ready for classroom use.
Inquiry-Based Materials
–
•
The system for maintaining, storing, and refurbishing the instructional modules was
effective and well organized.
All science teachers used the modules according to a sequence clearly prescribed by the
district.
Critical Mass
–
Most (80% or more) teachers in the school had attended the initial use training for all of
14
the modules they used.
School Level Areas Receiving Low Scores
•
Summative District Assessments
– Very few school had districtwide or schoolwide summative assessments in
science that were administered to students annually
•
Formative Assessments
– A few teachers (25% or less) had adopted a standard formative assessment
strategy for science.
•
Instructional Time
– Science instructional time varied considerably amount teachers at the
elementary level and few schools required a minimum amount of
instructional time for science.
•
Professional Development Time for Teachers
– Teachers rarely had scheduled time during normal work hours to participate
in school-based professional development in science.
•
Partnership With Business, Informal Science, or Higher Education
– A few teachers had a tentative partnership with a business, an informal
science organization, or an IHE around science education.
15
Classroom Observation: High Scoring
•
Alignment of Lesson Activities
– Lesson activities addressed the stated learning objectives but there was
some question about how the lesson activities would lead to a deeper
student understanding of the learning objectives.
•
Motivation
– The lesson provided mostly extrinsic and some intrinsic motivation. The
intrinsic motivation was truncated by the lesson structure and was relatively
short lived.
•
Understanding of Purpose
– Throughout the lesson, many students understood why they were doing
each activity but the purpose of activities could have been more explicit.
•
Classroom Discourse
– For the most part, students and teachers support and encourage respectful
and constructive discourse around important science concepts, however,
only some students feel comfortable asking questions, backing up their own
claims, and/or critiquing claims made by others.
16
Classroom Observation: Low Scoring
• Lesson Closure
– By the end of the lesson, the teacher provided a brief review,
but students did not have an opportunity to fully make sense
out of how the lesson related to science concepts.
• Application of Science
– A few students applied something they learned in the lesson
to a new context.
• Reflection and Meta-cognition
– By the end of the lesson, students had some opportunity to
reflect on their thinking but students were not asked to
identify ways in which their thinking about the science
concepts had changed.
17
Analysis of Gains
• Divided the schools into 2 groups
– Based on:
• Percent of students who met the science standard
• Gains calculated over 2 years prior to the site visit
– Group definition
• Schools that demonstrated an increase in student achievement
• Schools that had no change or decreasing student
achievement
• The 2 groups of schools had significant demographic
differences
• Percent of students who qualified for free or reduced price
lunch
• Percent of Asian students
18
Finding 2
• Although schools that demonstrated
increasing student science
achievement were significantly
different demographically from those
that did not, there were also
significant differences in the
instructional practices of the teachers
observed by the site visitors.
19
Differences Between Gain Groups
• Science classes in schools that demonstrated an
increase in student achievement were more likely to:
–
–
–
–
Have clear lesson objectives
Involve activities that clearly address the learning objective
Have students who understand the purpose of the lesson
Have students that are more intellectually engaged in the
science content
– Have students applying science content to new contexts
– Have students engaged in science discourse
– Motivate students intrinsically
20
Analysis by Achievement Ranking
• Divided the schools into 2 groups
– Based on percent of students who met the science standard
the year of the site visit
– Group definition
• Schools at or above the state average
• Schools below the state average
• Methods
– Regression analysis to determine which variables were
significant predictors of the achievement ranking
– Controlling for
• Student achievement the previous year
• Percent of students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch
21
Finding 3
• Although schools that demonstrated
above average student science
achievement were significantly
different demographically from those
that were below average, there were
also significant differences in the
characteristics of the schools.
22
Characteristics of Above Average
Performing Schools
•
Instructional Time Allocated
– The elementary school has a designated amount of instructional time
allocated for science.
•
Integration of Literacy
– Many teachers integrated science and literacy through the use of
supplementary reading materials and science notebooks.
•
Professional Development Time for Teachers
– Teachers occasionally had scheduled time during normal work hours to
participate in school-based professional development in science.
•
District Support
– Evidence indicated that the district administrators were somewhat
supportive of inquiry-based science instruction.
•
Parent and Community Support
– Evidence indicated that the parents/community were somewhat supportive
of inquiry-based science instruction.
23
Principal Survey
• Online survey that closely paralleled data collected
during sentinel site visits
• Selected schools with 15 hours or more of science
professional development per teacher over a 5-year
period prior to March 31, 2009
• 319 schools invited
• Survey administered between May 22 and July 31,
2009
• 62 principals completed the survey (19.4% return rate)
24
Principal Survey Analysis
• Regression analysis to determine which
survey items were significant predictors
of student achievement on the 2009
science WASL
• Controlling for the percent of students
who qualified for free or reduced price
lunch (FRL)
25
Finding 4
• There were several items on the
principal survey that were
significant predictors of student
performance on the science
WASL above and beyond what
could be attributed to FRL.
26
Predictors of Student Performance
• Schools that made an organized effort to identify
instructional materials to fill the gaps
• Schools where the principals observe student using
evidence to engage in discourse about science.
• Schools that provide time during the normal work day
for and how often teachers participate in schoolbased science professional development.
• Schools that support professional learning
communities that focus on improving science
teaching and learning.
27
Regression Analysis Results
Grade
Tested
Adjuste
d R2
Change
in R2
p
Beta
Has your school or district made an organized effort to
identify instructional materials to fill the gaps?
5
.459
.114
<.001 *
.352
Principal observation of classes: Students had
opportunities to make claims, and/or use evidence to
back up their claims or critique claims made by others.
The lesson reinforced the notion that science is a process
by which knowledge is constructed.
5
.563
.122
<.001 *
.350
Is time scheduled during normal work hours for teachers
in this school to participate in organized, school-based
professional development specifically for science?
5
.338
.002
.003 *
.048
How often do teachers participate in school-based
professional development specifically for science?
5
.213
.017
<.001 *
.153
Has any of the PLC activities focused on improving
science teaching and learning?
5
.476
.031
<.001 *
.211
Approximately what percentage of the PLC is devoted to
science teaching and learning?
5
.434
.002
.013 *
.047
Survey Item
28
Finding 5
• There are themes among the various
findings that further confirm and
support recommendations and
conclusion from last year and the
planned shifts in Washington State
LASER.
29
Significant School-Level Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
PD time for teachers during the school day
Allocated science instructional time
Professional learning communities
Filling curriculum gaps
Integration of literacy
District, parent, and community support
30
Significant Instructional Factors
•
•
•
•
•
Science discourse using evidence
Purposeful instruction
Intellectual engagement
Intrinsic motivation
Application of science skills
31
Conclusion
• The infrastructure to support the use of a core
curriculum of inquiry-based science instructional
modules is in place and is functioning
adequately in the schools visited.
• Although these conditions are necessary for
the implementation of inquiry-based science
instruction, they are not sufficient to raise
student achievement as measured by the
science WASL.
32
Recommendation 1
• Ensure that the professional development on
research-based instructional practices is
consistent and explicit across all of the
LASER Alliances
– Help teachers understand the elements of effective
science instruction and use the modules as a
means of carrying out the element with their
students.
33
Recommendation 2
• Increase support for school-based
professional development that helps
teachers:
– Assume accountability for student learning
that results from the use of the modules,
and
– Collaboratively implement the elements of
effective science instruction.
– Ample structure and leadership for success
34