1 / 52

Evaluating Inquiry-oriented Science Teaching and Learning with SEC

Evaluating Inquiry-oriented Science Teaching and Learning with SEC. Eric Osthoff and Hedi Baxter Lauffer University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin Center for Educational Research September 9, 2008. Overarching Question .

tass
Download Presentation

Evaluating Inquiry-oriented Science Teaching and Learning with SEC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Inquiry-oriented Science Teaching and Learningwith SEC Eric Osthoff and Hedi Baxter Lauffer University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin Center for Educational Research September 9, 2008

  2. Overarching Question • How can SEC tools and data support and inform the evolution of a coherent systemic approach to science education improvement?

  3. System-wide Change for All Learners and Educators (SCALE) • A national network of more than 50 working groups of educators and researchers focused on improving mathematics and science teaching and learning at all levels. • Funded in the 2002 Math and Science Partnership (MSP) competition. • Science immersion—one small piece of the project

  4. SCALE Vision and Goals (science) • Vision –– Students develop deep conceptual understanding of both overarching science concepts and the nature of science as a human endeavor to become scientifically literate citizens • Goals –– Systemic improvement (K–16) in science teaching and learning • Our vehicle for change –– Science Immersion

  5. Immersion Profound defined by The American Heritage Dictionary: “Thorough going; far reaching” “Penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious” Immersion defined by The American Heritage Dictionary: “To involve profoundly; absorb”

  6. How did we get here?

  7. Science Immersion in the LA Basin • Began with “throw it over the wall” vision • Shifted to be a more participatory instructional materials development project • Developed into a middle --> out reform effort, including professional development • Evolved into a K-16 collaboration with a common vision

  8. System-wide Coherence: How do educators’ conceptual understandings of science teaching and learning affect the educational system?

  9. Our Knowledge and Beliefs • Determines our intended learning for students and the experiences we feel that students need to have to effectively learn

  10. Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs • What teachers know and believe about teaching and learning determines the expectations they have for their students and the types of learning experiences they will implement in their classrooms.

  11. Science Immersion Vision for the Classroom • Video example from a Los Angeles Unified School District elementary classroom, teaching the Grade 4 Immersion Unit

  12. Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs • What we want all teachers to know and be able to do has direct implications for the professional development we design and facilitate.

  13. Science Immersion Vision for Teacher Professional Development • Video examples from a SCALE summer Science Immersion Institute for the Grade 6, Plate Tectonics Immersion Unit

  14. Knowledge and Beliefs Alignment • What PD facilitators know and believe about teaching and learning determines the expectations we have for our participants and the types of learning experiences we design and facilitate.

  15. Science Immersion Vision for Professional Developer Learning • The PD Studygroup

  16. The PD Studgroup: A Professional Learning Community comprised of LAUSD science teachers and leaders, STEM faculty, STEM education faculty, SCALE facilitators

  17. What affects educators’ Knowledge & Beliefs and conceptual understanding of effective teaching and learning? Knowledge and Beliefs Research-based knowledge and existing beliefs that influence PD design Beliefs: “What we think we know or may be coming to know [about teaching and learning] . . . supported by experience (p. 31).” Knowledge and Beliefs

  18. Think–Pair–Share: Brainstorm a list of ideas about what SEC tools and data might support and inform the evolution of systemic coherence like we were seeking.

  19. Exploring Samples from SCALE’s SEC Data • Keep in mind the overarching question: • How can SEC tools and data support and inform work in science education improvement? • Consider, who (in addition to the researchers) could benefit from analyzing the various data collected?

  20. Design Features of the SCALE Study of Middle School Science Immersion in LAUSD Multiple instruments focused on 3 spheres: • Professional Development Institutes • Classroom Implementation • Student Learning Outcomes With SEC-based measures in at least one instrument in each sphere to facilitate analysis across spheres

  21. Study Design Sphere 1: PD Institute Delivery and Participants

  22. Study Design Sphere 2: Classroom Implementation

  23. Mini-SEC Created for SCALE Science Immersion Study

  24. Immersion Unit Classroom Implementation Rates: 21 Lessons Across 7 Unit Steps Percentage of teachers reporting they used units lessons “A Lot” (rather than “Some,” or “Little or None”) N = 32

  25. Observation Data for Grade 6 Plate Tectonics Immersion Classrooms: Level of Student Engagement as a Proportion of Instructional Time N= 70 classroom lessons

  26. Observation Data for Grade 6 Plate Tectonics Immersion Classrooms: Teacher Expectations for Student Learning as a Proportion of Instructional Time RM (Receive, Memorize Information) CI (Conduct Investigations/Perform Procedures) CU (Communicate Understanding) AI (Analyze Information) MC (Make Connections or Apply Concepts)

  27. Grade 6, Component 1 Science Instruction of Plate Tectonics Institute Participants All Content Areas Pre Post Pre

  28. Grade 6, Component 1 Science Instruction of Plate Tectonics Institute Participants Nature of Science Post Pre Scientific Questions Evidence in Sci Inquiry Scientific Explanations Diversity in Science History of Innovations Ethical Issues

  29. Grade 6, Component 1 Science Instruction of Plate Tectonics Institute Participants Earth Systems Pre Post

  30. Study Design Sphere 2: Classroom Implementation

  31. Study Design Sphere 3: Student Learning Outcomes

  32. What are the implications? ?

  33. Proportion of Instructional Time Associated With Cognitive Demand Categories by Curricular Instantiation

  34. Variation in Content Emphasis for 3 Curricular Instantiations In the LAUSD Science Instructional Environment

  35. Content Alignment in a Complex System: The Potential for Conflicting Curricular Subsystems

  36. Exploring Samples from SCALE’s SEC Data • Keep in mind the overarching question: • How can SEC tools and data support and inform work in science education improvement? • Consider, who (in addition to the researchers) could benefit from analyzing the various data collected?

  37. Design Features of the SCALE Study of Middle School Science Immersion in LAUSD Multiple instruments focused on 3 spheres: • Professional Development Institutes • Classroom Implementation • Student Learning Outcomes With SEC-based measures in at least one instrument in each sphere to facilitate analysis across spheres

  38. Study Design Sphere 1: PD Institute Delivery and Participants

  39. Study Design Sphere 2: Classroom Implementation

  40. Mini-SEC Created for SCALE Science Immersion Study

  41. Immersion Unit Classroom Implementation Rates: 21 Lessons Across 7 Unit Steps Percentage of teachers reporting they used units lessons “A Lot” (rather than “Some,” or “Little or None”) N = 32

  42. Observation Data for Grade 6 Plate Tectonics Immersion Classrooms: Level of Student Engagement as a Proportion of Instructional Time N= 70 classroom lessons

  43. Observation Data for Grade 6 Plate Tectonics Immersion Classrooms: Teacher Expectations for Student Learning as a Proportion of Instructional Time RM (Receive, Memorize Information) CI (Conduct Investigations/Perform Procedures) CU (Communicate Understanding) AI (Analyze Information) MC (Make Connections or Apply Concepts)

  44. Grade 6, Component 1 Science Instruction of Plate Tectonics Institute Participants All Content Areas Pre Post Pre

  45. Grade 6, Component 1 Science Instruction of Plate Tectonics Institute Participants Nature of Science Post Pre Scientific Questions Evidence in Sci Inquiry Scientific Explanations Diversity in Science History of Innovations Ethical Issues

  46. Grade 6, Component 1 Science Instruction of Plate Tectonics Institute Participants Earth Systems Pre Post

  47. Study Design Sphere 2: Classroom Implementation

  48. Study Design Sphere 3: Student Learning Outcomes

  49. What are the implications? ?

  50. Proportion of Instructional Time Associated With Cognitive Demand Categories by Curricular Instantiation

More Related