Reform-Based Urban Science Teaching: Identifying Necessary Resources and Impact

1. Reform-Based Urban Science Teaching: Identifying Necessary Resources and Impact Symposium organized by Gail Richmond and Christina Schwarz Michigan State University

2. This work was made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation (ESI #0138945 ). The opinions expressed are those of the presenters and not the funding agency

3. Welcome, Introductions and Overview • What are we? • Who are we? • Where are we going today?

4. What are we? • PI*CRUST = Professional Inquiry Communities for the Reform of Urban Science Teaching

5. Who are We? • Project Senior Staff (all presenting today) • Gail Richmond • Christina Schwarz • Deb Smith • Ed Smith • Tim Smith

6. Who are We? (Cont’d.) • Postdoctoral Fellow • Shinho Jang • Graduate Assistants (Past & Present) • Shih-pei Chang • In-Young Cho • Marc Collitti • Kelly Grindstaff • Brett Merritt • Steve Tuckey

7. Symposium “Roadmap” • Welcome, Introductions and Overview (Gail) • Project Background, Goals, & Launching (Deb) • The “Instructional Approach” (Ed) • Project Activities (Tim & Gail) • Project Impact (Christina & Gail) • Challenges (Gail & Tim) • Questions, Contributions, and Discussion (All)

8. History and evolution of the PI-CRUST grant “How long did it take you to make that pot?” someone asked the potter. “A lifetime,” the potter replied. (Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, and Hewson.2003)

9. Work with teachers: 1986-91 Curriculum Development Lab One unit/ teacher/ school Co-planning and teaching in lab class Curriculum development Underpinnings: Conceptual change and misconceptions research Shulman’s teacher knowledge work Sources and Roots

10. Work with teachers: Summer institute: 4 weeks Content immersion Demo lessons Small group teaching Coaching Reflection/discussion Curriculum development Classroom follow-up After school PLC Principals’ weekend Underpinnings: Content and PCK work Management issues Research on principals as essential to reform Assessment issues Summer Institute and follow-up

11. Work with teachers: After school meetings K-4 Common content focus Classroom work: co-planning and teaching, curriculum development Focus on students’ ideas and learning Coaching Teacher leadership: NSTA, NARST Underpinnings: Conceptual change Research on students’ ideas Research on effective teaching strategies School change -- Essential Schools CDL-West Park Place

12. Work with teachers: Five districts Across the state Monthly meetings at best School teams Assessments In-class co-planning and teaching Curriculum development Underpinnings: School change Teacher knowledge Demonstration sites Politics! Statewide Systemic Initiative Delaware

13. Work with teachers: One school After school meetings Co-planning and teaching Coaching Curriculum development Summer work: Common content K-5 Content immersion Children’s ideas research Teacher leadership: MSTA, NARST Underpinnings: National Science Education Standards Benchmarks for Science Literacy Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education Preservice teachers work: Content/nature of science PCK Work with Susan Loucks-Horsley et al. Michigan State University and Averill Elementary SSG

14. Work with teachers: Grades 2-5 June, 2001 Two weeks Teachers 2-5 MSU faculty Underpinnings: NSES BSL Michigan Curriculum Frameworks Rosalind Driver’s books Chapter 15, BSL Lansing School District: Pacing guides development

15. Work with teachers: Assessments development 8/01 Same teacher groups Grades 2-5 Underpinnings: Research on authentic assessments Research on student conceptions BSL NSES Key role of assistant superintendent Lansing School District:Assessments (2-5)

16. Work with teachers: Grade-level teams Review of many publishers, including NSF-funded projects Revised Project 2061 curriculum analysis guidelines Pilot testing Underpinnings: Project 2061 curriculum analysis procedures NSES BSL Atlas for Science Literacy MSU faculty and grad students Teachers as co-facilitators Lansing School District:Curriculum adoption process

17. Writing the PI-CRUST grant • “Another positive development has been a shift … to designing professional development around the essential knowledge teachers need to teach the mathematics and science embodied in the standards. We see more examples of professional development that engages teachers in understanding the content they teach, deepening their knowledge about how to teach this content in particular, and learning about ways that students think about and learn this content.” Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003

18. Curriculum alignment and instructional materials selection Curriculum implementation Curriculum replacement units Partnerships with universities Study groups Examining student work and thinking Immersion in inquiry in science Coaching Development of mentors Workshops, institutes, etc. Eighteen strategies for Professional Learning(Loucks-Horsley et al. 2003, p. 113)

19. Summer learning institute: Immersion in content learning through inquiry Nature of scientific work Curriculum analysis Students’ ideas Effective teaching strategies Teacher knowledge research PCK research Student ideas research NSES -- Inquiry book Research on teachers’ ideas about NOS Key features: K-8, five years

20. Personal classroom work: Videotaping Pre-lesson conference Post-lesson conference Viewing of tape Coaching Research on teacher knowledge and change Research on coaching and mentoring Key features (cont.)

21. After school Professional learning communities: Grade level specific Unit focus specific Content specific Collegial, safe PCK focus Personal stories, dilemmas Urban context focus Research on under-represented groups Research on teacher knowledge and change Research on expertise Research on student ideas and learning Teachers as Learners series and discussions Key features (cont.)

22. Principals included in design -- SLI, PCK Human and social resources: Teacher leaders Professional culture Material resources: videotapes revised lessons/ units Research on policy change and implementation Key features (cont.)

23. Immediate issues • Funded in August -- no time for recruitment, staff professional development, or Summer Learning Institute • Middle school issues and context very different from elementary • Decision to get teacher groups up and running in fall • No time to do school team and site selection

24. “Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip” • “In every case, programs looked very different two to five years … into their implementation than they did on the drawing board.” Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003

25. The Instructional Approach

26. Process Summary • Develop content understanding/demonstration teaching • Goal clarification (3 dimensional model) • Review research on student ideas • Assessment revision/development • Analysis & evaluation of instructional approach of adopted materials (Modified Project 2061 criteria) • Adaptation, revision & gap filling • Review & interpretation of student work • Teacher feedback, video review

28. Applications of the Model • Analysis of adopted and other curriculum materials (e.g., Balls and Ramps) • Interpretation and evaluation (Project 2061 criteria also) • Documentation of use and feedback • Design of modified and/or additional activities • Documentation of use and feedback

33. Account of Activities • Professional Learning Communities • Summer Learning Institutes • Observations and Coaching

34. Impact of Project • On Teacher Participants • On Students • On Project Staff • On District Administrators

35. Impact on Teacher Participants • Data Sources • Content knowledge assessments • Inquiry scenarios • Developed curricula/assessments • Videotapes of classroom teaching at entry into project • Videotapes/field notes of focus unit teaching* • Pre/post-observation interviews* • Audiotaped PLC meetings* • Audiotaped & videotaped SLI meetings • Year 2 Interviews*

36. Impact on PI*CRUST Participants • Collaboration & Community • Understanding of Content & Inquiry • Classroom Practice

37. Results: Changes in Priorities • Inquiry • increasingly the focus of PLC sessions • value in deepening participants’ understanding and directing students’ learning • Increased emphasis on student assessments to inform design of instruction I see how helpful it is to know what ideas my students are bringing to the topic we are learning about.. It helps me to design my lessons in ways that can address these ideas and help my students learn • Increased focus on benchmarks & standards to guide instruction • Increased value placed on student ideas “PI*CRUST has made me think about the kids & how they learn…trying to focus more on, not necessarily what I know & what I think about it, but where they’re coming from--what knowledge they have when they come…those preconceptions & misconceptions…that to me has been very interesting.”

38. Results: Impact on Collaboration & Community • “Establishing a community of professionals to support your teaching” that’s really been helpful.”(Interview) • “It was nice to collaborate with others and get their ideas, not only on science but other issues as well.”(Reflection for SLI6) • If I did not have this group, I don’t think I would have tried the things I have.” (PLC 7 participant) • “I love this stuff! I’m absolutely having a blast….(Recently) I haven’t been able to be on schedule…and I miss it! Because I miss that learning community. We’re all about the same thing, We all want to share our ideas, whether they’re successful, what fell through, trying to help each other with what we could do differently…. It’s good, and it makes you feel ok if you don’t get it exactly right. And you don’t get that anywhere else.” (Gr. 7, 8 Special Education teacher, Interview)

39. Results: Impact on Content Understanding • Self-reports in interviews • Written assessments (SLI) • Artifacts from SLIs • Observations of focus unit teaching

40. Impact on Content as Reported From Interviews “In the past year I have definitely learned more about rocks and minerals, I’ve also learned about which - in the last unit anyway – what rocks the students should learn about and why in terms of the rock cycle since my content knowledge I feel is stronger - because of that, I can now tie those into the learning objectives or the pacing guide statements that are listed … and that follows that I can now teach in more an inquiry based way.” “[My content knowledge is] deeper, and I think that’s helped me be a better teacher with the knowledge of what the kids bring with them.”

41. Impact on Content from SLI Written Assessments • Question from 6th grade pre/post from the SLI: “How does an electromagnet work? Inside what kinds of tools/machines can they be found?” [Electromagnets are one of the content areas that 6th grade teachers are supposed to address.” • Pre-response: Nothing • Post-response: “I know this one! Let’s see. A wire is coiled around a metal post. When a current passes through the wire, a magnetic field is created. How does this happen? I’m not quite sure. [They can be found in] doorbells and telegraphs.” • All 6 teachers increase their comfort with the content (sound and electricity) by at least one level rating after 6th grade SLI (e.g. from OK to “good”)

42. Results: Impact on Understanding of Inquiry • Trina: Today I was so tired because the kids were chatting. They do love this (moon phases project). They really knew the answers and they were arguing with each others. They wanted to disprove what others said. • Meg: This is the 4th year that we have done the moon chart. In the past, I always encouraged them. I gave them a few answers about what the moon like yesterday. We hadn’t remind them to collect data. When we turn around, we had to say: “All right, we will give you a second chance to do the moon chart.” But the truth is that it needs thirty days to have them gather data. I do not want to give them the data. • Trina: Is that inquiry? I mean I do not care about giving them the answers. They continue to get the patterns and eventually I…help them understand what pattern is. (PLC7)

43. Impact on Understanding of Inquiry (cont’d) • “After learning a little more understanding about scientific inquiry and having better picture of how to incorporate this idea more in my class … I … have a clearer view of why it is so important to have students use scientific inquiry in their scientific investigations.” (Spontaneously-written comment on SLI6 post-assessment) • This (inquiry) is what scientists do. It’s how scientists solve problems, how they make sense of the world--our students can do this! (Comment from PLC7 participant) • “I interpret PI-CRUST to be moving toward an inquiry approach to science where the students are ideally solving – problem-solving and using science to answer questions about the real world and engaging the students with hands-on activities and experiments that would lead them to science answers.”(Interview)

44. Results: Impact on Practice • Observations of focus unit teaching • Evidence of attempts to enact unit as developed • Evidence of struggles to work with inquiry framework • Evidence of efforts to employ reform-based teaching strategies in non-focus units • Debriefing after observations • Conversations in PLC meetings • Learning to take risks • “This project has helped me develop as a teacher because I feel a bit stronger in the background knowledge of what I’m teaching & also I’m learning to take some risks with things that maybe I would never have taken before.” (Interview, Grade 3 teacher)

45. Impact on Others • Students • Increases in reported and observed engagement • Struggles with model-building and testing because of lack of continuity • Increased understanding through use of models within a unit • Significant decrease in writing-associated anxiety (POMs, standardized tests) P: Before, when I gave the MEAP, almost all of my students would see a constructed response item, throw up their hands, say “I can’t do this” and just give up. When I gave the MEAP last week, not one of my students said they couldn’t do it. “ E: Yes, some only wrote a sentence or two, but they all tried. They thought they could do it.” (Comments at PLC7 mtg, 3/05)

46. Impact on Others (cont’d.) • Project Staff • Use of instructional model from teacher preparation courses in project • Use of instructional model from project in teacher preparation courses • Use of focus units in project in teacher preparation courses • Reassessment of our role with respect to project participants • Strategic reassessment of goals and processes • Teacher Candidates • Project as model for lifelong professional development • Additional support for lesson, unit development • District Administrators • Building partnership • Requests for district-wide PD • Support for additional PI*CRUST PD time and materials

47. Challenges: District Side • External pressures • School-based • District-based • Quarterly assessments • Focus on numeracy, literacy • Teacher displacements • University-based • Developing appreciation &support of long-term nature of such work • Understanding, comfort level with reform-based instruction • Content knowledge

48. A few last words of advice… • Developing common understandings w/district administrators up-front • Be prepared to be flexible, adaptable to needs and context • A focus on construction of content-specific, grade-specific professional knowledge is critical! • Development of common understandings, language across staff & participants (professional knowledge within communities)