Transcript IISME Summer Fellowship Program
Quality Science Teacher Professional Development and Student Achievement
Jay Dubner
Columbia University Summer Research Program for Science Teachers
2007 AGU Fall Meeting December 11, 2007
Practice What You Teach
Columbia’s
Summer Research Program for Science Teachers
was established in 1990 to contribute to the improvement of science achievement of students by providing New York metropolitan area middle and high school teachers with experiences in the practice of science. Teachers become members of research teams for 2 consecutive summers.
Program Rationale
• Science literacy is crucial for participation in a global workforce, and to ensure the educated citizenry that is the foundation of democracy.
1 • National and international science assessments show that many fewer U.S. students score at “proficient” and above levels than students in other developed countries.
2 • Research shows that teacher expertise is one of the most important factors in raising student achievement.
3 • Effective professional development programs stimulate teachers to work with one another.
3 1
Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future
, National 2 Academy of Sciences Press, 2006.
Highlights from Trends in International Math & Science Study,
National Center for Education Statistics. 3 Ohme, P. & Rayford, J.,
Innovative Program Allows Georgia Teachers to Bring Real-World Work Experiences into the Classroom
, The Journal, October 2001
Program Background
-
Founded in 1990 by Samuel C. Silverstein, M.D.
-
Program participation open to New York metropolitan area public, private & parochial science teachers
-
Recruitment through poster mailings, science education publications (e.g.; NSTA Reports!) and word of mouth
-
Program receives 5 to 7 applications for each available Fellowship (90 applications received in 2007)
-
4 Review Committees composed of Columbia faculty (who have mentored teachers), staff and program alumni ~30 applicants are invited for an interview 12 new participants are accepted each summer, joined by 12 returning participants from previous summer (peer coaches)
Program Summary
The No Child Left Behind Act requires teachers to be ‘highly qualified.’ One criteria is subject matter competence. Their research laboratory experience more than satisfies this requirement. Two Summer Commitment - 8 Weeks immersion in each of two consecutive summers - 4 days per week in research lab - Weekly summer seminar series engages teachers in four different types of exercises acknowledged to be important in all types of professional development and especially crucial for science educators -Science Content: Informal seminars on broad topics of general interest -Science Communication: Teachers describe their research to one another at poster sessions and oral presentations -Science Pedagogy: Teachers lead hands-on demonstrations, engage in discusssions of common classroom problems and exchange ideas on solutions that work - Peer Coaching: Second-year participants provide guidance and encouragement for first-year participants - Graduate student monthly school visitations
Carrot at the End of the Stick
• •
Stipend
- $6,000 each summer
Classroom Enhancement Funds
- $1,000 following each • of the two summers
Research Group Funds
–Participating labs receive $1,000 • in each of the two summers
Travel to Professional Conference
– Science Education and/or Scientific Society conferences in each of the school • years following participation in the program
International Program
– Following completion of two summers, a minimum of four teachers are selected to participate in an exchange of science teachers with Singapore or a third summer of research in Australia
Summer Research Program
• 226 middle and high
1990-2007
school science teachers • 88% public schools • 60% women • 45% minorities
Partnerships
-
New York Hall of Science -
Two Collaborations - Microbiology and Biotechnology Portable Laboratories (NIH funded) - Rolling Exhibits (NSF funded) - Columbia University’s
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
- Columbia University’s
Materials Research Science and Engineering Center
(MRSEC) - Columbia University’s
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center
(NSEC) -
Singapore Ministry of Education
-
James Cook University
, Townsville, Australia -
Teacher Research Program Community
be revamped RETNetwork.org website – With the support of an NSF award, the Summer Research Program has assembled a database of teacher research experience programs throughout the United States. The database will be searchable on the soon-to-
Evaluation
- A unique aspect of Columbia University’s
Summer Research Program
is its emphasis on evaluation. Evaluation has informed and guided the Program’s evolution from its inception, and enabled it to respond successfully to the changing needs of teachers - The program’s research makes it the first, and to our knowledge, the only science work experience program for teachers to document a positive impact on student achievement and interest in science - Regular data collection since the program’s inception evidences its positive impact on student achievement and interest in science
Student Outcomes Studies
1.
– Columbia’s
Summer Research Program (1993 2007)
Collected data from the NYC public high schools, the Program’s largest cohort, with the assistance of the school assistant principals and the NYC Dept. of Ed.’s Division of Assessment & Accountability 2.
– NSF-supported Multi-site Study (1998-2002) 8 science teacher research programs from around the United States – New York, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Idaho, Washington State, Oregon & California
Instruments Administered
Summer Research Program
1993 – 2007 • Pre-program survey • Post-program survey • Mentor survey • Spring implementation survey
Instruments Administered Multi-site Study 1999-2000 • Pre-program survey* • Post-program survey* • Mentor survey* • Student Attitudinal Survey* • Student Cognitive Tests – Biology & Chemistry
*Surveys available at www.SweptStudy.org
•
Revised versions of program and mentor surveys available at www.RETNetwork.org
Comparison of Study and Control Science Teachers (1) Study Teachers Comparison Teachers
Undergraduate or graduate major or minor in biology, chemistry physics, earth science or math Advanced degree
Hours course credit beyond highest degree Years of teaching experience Years of science teaching experience
Hours/week spent outside of class preparing for teaching Assigned textbook covered in science course Used textbook publisher’s tests rarely or never Used textbook publisher’s tests sometimes Used textbook publisher’s tests frequently 94% 63% 34 hours 7.5
6.5
9.7 hours 60% 68% 18% 14% 87% 62.5%
54 hours 13.2
11.8
9.25 hours 59% 68% 26% 6% (1) Data for 32 Study teachers and 32 Control teachers participating in NSF-sponsored Multi-site Study 1998 – 2002
Self-reported Changes in Attitudes and Classroom Practices of Study and Control Teachers (Academic Year Following Program Participation) Scale
At time of entry into a SWEPT
Study Teachers
At the end of the following academic year Change
Comparison Teachers
At the beginning of the academic year At the end of the following academic year Change
Inquiry Goals & Objectives Inquiry Student Activities
Traditional Goals & Objectives
244 247
247
250 257
256
6 10
7
258 249
254
232 235
254
-26 * -14*
0 Traditional Student Activities 245 251 6 258 256 -2 Teacher Efficacy 240 255 15 247 252 5 Number of teachers 58 58 Data obtained from 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Pre- and Post-teaching Attitudinal Surveys of Study and Comparison Teachers participating in NSF-sponsored Multi-site Study 1998-2002.
*
Difference in the two change scores is significant at the p<0.05 level.
•
2007 Teacher Survey Data
95% reported increasing hands-on activities in their classrooms and/or new laboratory exercises in response to their experiences at Columbia • 95% reported developing new or revised content to lessons and/or labs since participating in Columbia’s Program* *309 lesson plans referencing science standards are on the program’s website:
www.ScienceTeacherProgram.org
• 74% reported introducing new technologies in their classroom instruction (e.g.; chromatography, pipetting, PowerPoint) • • • 68% reported increased requirements for formal written reports and/or oral presentation requirements 67% reported reading scientific journals more frequently 61% reported assuming new leadership roles/responsibilities in their school/district/region • 47% reported including lessons on science careers and related job requirements with their students
Teacher Retention Study
Study conducted with IISME program participants 1
Category of Teacher
IISME Fellows Leaving Education IISME Fellows Leaving Classroom Teaching California and U.S. Teachers Leaving Classroom Teaching (1999)
Average Annual Attrition Rate
2% 4% 1 Weisbaum, K. and Huang, D.,
IISME Teacher Retention and Program Impact Evaluation 1985-2000.
Cupertino, CA: Industry Initiatives for Science and Math Education, 2001 8%
• Columbia’s student data from NYC public high schools (1993 was first data set)
Summer Research Program
collects quantitative
Study Group
teachers -- Students in science classes of Program
Control Group
-- Students in science classes of non participating teachers from the same schools
Intel Science Talent Projects 0,58% 0,60% 0,50% 0,40% 0,30% 0,26% 0,20% 0,10% 0,00% Prior 0,41% 0,26% After 2nd Year Teachers Control Group
New York State Science Regents Exams
Prior to Program Participation
55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30%
45 % 51.4% Teachers Control
NYC Average Pass Rate = 55% 32 Complete Data Sets
60% 50% 40% Percentage Passing 30% 20% 10% 0% P<.01
45.0% NYS Science Regents Exam Pass Rate 32 Complete Datasets 51.4% 53.5% 48.5% 57.0% * 48.5% * ~27% gain Prior After 1 year Year of Program Participation SRP Students: 5,701 Comparison Students: 28,426 After 2 years
Teachers Control
NYS Science Regents Exams Pass Rate 30% 20% 10% 0% 70% 60% 50% 40% 45,0% 51,4% 53,5% 48,5% 57,0% 48,5% 60.6% * 50,1% * ~33% gain Teachers Control Prior After 1 year After 2 years Year of Program Participation SRP Students - 6,915 Comparison Students - 34,544 32 Complete Data Sets 1st Year Out
NYC Economic Impact
• Regents Diploma – Must pass 5 Regents including 1 Science Exam 1 • NYC spends $12,930 per public school student 2 • Student takes 5 courses/year = $2,586 per course • On average, each teacher will teach for 10 more years after participating in the Program • 15 more students passing Regents = ~150 students • 150 students X $2,586 = $387,900 1 New York State Education Department,
New York State Total Public Report Card
, 2005 2 The New York Sun,
New York Outpacing Other States in School Spending
, April 4, 2006
National Economic Impacts
• High School dropouts earn $273,000 less over a lifetime than a high school graduate thereby paying less taxes 1 . At a tax rate of 20%, loss of $54,600 in local and federal revenues.
• High School graduates are less likely to commit crimes. Increasing HS completion by just 1% of the males would reduce criminal justice system costs by as much as $1.4 billion per year • High School graduates receive higher salaries thereby not needing food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Estimated annual savings are $8 billion per year 1 Cantu, R.,
Texas Labor Market Review
, Labor Market Information Department, Texas Workforce Commission, December 2003