NOTE TO USERS

NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CONSTRUCTIVIST TEACHING BEHAVIORS OF RECIPIENTS OF PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING by Hector Ibarra A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Science Education in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa May 2005 Thesis Supervisor: Professor Robert E. Yager Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3172406 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3172406 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Graduate College The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL PH.D. THESIS This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of Hector Ibarra has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Science Education at the May 2005 graduation. Thesis Committee: _______ )/7 Robert E. Yager, Tnesis Supervisor James Maxey McLure ilson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To my wife and best friend Vicki, who helped make this a reality. Her support and encouragement helped make my doctoral studies possible. She covered household and family responsibilities when I was busy with classes and this research. She helped navigate uncharted waters. She spent countless hours typing this thesis and still managed to smile at the end of it. To my sons, Bret and Derek, who have seen me taking classes for a long time. They, too, have covered additional responsibilities while I have been in graduate school and I am grateful for their efforts. ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. Albert Einstein Quote iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to all who supported, encouraged, and guided me during this study. A special appreciation to Robert E. Yager who, as committee chair, guided the study and continually encouraged me in my efforts. I am grateful for his time, patience, and willingness to review my thesis numerous times. I appreciate the time and willingness of James Maxey in assisting me with the statistics. His encouragement was uplifting. His availability, patience, and advice in data analysis were invaluable. A special thank you to Mark Saul, Program Director of the National Science Foundation. His support letters to the PAEMST awardees were much appreciated when I was seeking permission to view the videotapes that were a part of their application process. I appreciate the support of Jeffry Schabilion in writing letters on my behalf and for taking the time to provide guidance in researching my science question. I would also like to thank him for working with me on numerous occasions to complete this task. I am grateful to the teachers who agreed to participate in this study. Knowledge gained from expert teachers contributes to our profession. Too often we hear about what is wrong with education. By participating, these teachers helped provide information about the very positive side of teaching. ..the teachers who are responsible for what occurs in the classroom every day. A special thanks is extended to my loving family. I acknowledge all my family members who have encouraged me to reach my goals. My wife and sons have been invaluable sources of energy and assistance in my doctoral program. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT This study examined philosophies, beliefs, and teaching practices of teachers who were cited for excellence in science teaching through receipt of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) in 2003. Subgroups were compared based on educational preparation, professional development attendance, and teaching level, i.e., middle school or high school. Teaching strategies used by these PAEMST awardees were compared to another teacher group reported as using constructivist teaching practices. Four tools were used to gather information. These included A Survey of Classroom Practices, Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Survey, and Science Classroom Observation Rubric (SCOR) from the Expert Science Teacher Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM). The rubric was used to review videotapes that were submitted as part of the application process for the PAEMST. Major findings for these PAEMST awardees include: • They held constructivist beliefs. • They perceived their classroom learning environments to be constructivist. • Twelve teachers had composite scores on the SCOR that identified them as expert, nine as proficient, and four as competent. • The group was homogenous in terms of the impact of the variables examined for differences in beliefs, classroom environment, and teaching strategies. The only significant difference among the PAEMST group was found for the measure of “attitude toward class” on the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Teachers with a Masters in Science Education scored significantly higher than teachers without such a Masters degree. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • The PAEMST group differed significantly from a teacher group that had participated in staff development on use of constructivist teaching practices. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching is intended to recognize exemplary teachers. These teachers were exemplary in their beliefs, perceptions of classroom learning environments, and the teaching strategies they employed. The information can be used in planning professional development activities with the continued emphasis on changes in teaching recommended in the National Science Education Standards. This study provides definition for developing expertise and potential for mentoring programs. vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS...............1 Background........................................................................................................... 1 Effective Teaching........................................................................................ 1 Changes in Teaching Emphases.................................................................. 2 Developing Effective Teachers.................................................................... 4 Recognizing Effective Teachers.................................................................. 6 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions....................................................6 Significance of This Study................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER E REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE....................................................9 Introduction........................................................................................................... 9 The Importance of Effective Teaching........................................................9 Inquiry Teaching Approach............................................................................... 11 Teacher Use of Inquiry.......................................................................................18 Developing expertise through professional development........................ 19 Teacher B eliefs...................................................................................................30 Expertise in Teaching......................................................................................... 32 Facilitating the Learning Process From a Constructivist Perspective............................................................................................33 Content-Specific Pedagogy (Pedagogy Related to Student Understanding...................................................................................... 34 Context-Specific Pedagogy (Fluid Control with Teacher and Student Interaction).............................................................................34 Content-Knowledge (Teacher Demonstrates Excellent Knowledge of Subject Matter............................................................. 34 Past Research on Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching..........................................................................................35 Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project Research........................... 36 CHAPTER HI RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................. 38 Research Design.................................................................................................. 38 Participants...........................................................................................................38 Data Collection................................................................................................... 39 Research Questions and Instrumentation..........................................................40 Description of Instruments............. 40 Constructivist Learning Environment Survey.......................................... 40 Survey of Classroom Practices.................................................................. 42 Science Classroom Observation R ubric....................................................43 Philosophy of Teaching and Learning.......................................................45 Data Analysis...................................................................................................... 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Description of Study Group.............................................................................. 47 Research Question 1. What Are the PAEMST Science Awardees’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment That Characterizes Their Science Classrooms?.......................................................................................... 54 Research Question 2. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between the Middle and High School PAEMST Science Awardees?............................................................................................ 59 Research Question 3. How Do the Philosophies of Teaching Compare Between the Middle and High School 2003 PAEMST Awardees?................61 Research Question 4. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers with a Master’s Degree in Science Education and Teachers With Degrees in Other Fields?................................................................................................................. 63 Research Question 5. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers Who Had More Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in Methods of Teaching Science and Those Teachers Who Had Less Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in This Focus Area in the Past 12 Months? 65 Research Question 6. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers Who Said Their Teaching Practices Have Changed as a Result of Attendance at an Extended (More Than 40 Contact Hours) Science Institute or Science Professional Development Program and Those Teachers Who Attended the Same Type of Educational Program and Did Not Respond Indicating the Program Caused Them to Change Their Practices?................67 Research Question 7. How Do Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environments Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers Who Have Furthered Their Education by Earning a Master’s Degree in Science Education and Those Who Do Not Have Such a Master’s Degree?................................................................................................................69 Research Question 8. How Do Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environments Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers With More Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in Methods of Teaching Science in the Last 12 Months and Those Teachers Who Had Fewer Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in This Focus Area in the Last 12 Months?....................................................................................... 70 Research Question 9. How Do Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers and a Group of Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project Teachers Who Were Studiedin 1997?.................................................................................................. 71 CHAPTER V INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION..................................................81 Introduction..........................................................................................................81 General Findings................................................................................................. 81 Professional Development................................................................................. 83 Teacher B eliefs................................................................................................... 84 Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environment............................ 85 Teaching Strategies in the Classroom................................................................86 Expertise in Teaching..........................................................................................90 Summary..............................................................................................................92 viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND FURTHER RESEARCH.............................................93 Summary of the Study........................................................................................ 93 Purpose.........................................................................................................93 General Conclusions.......................................................................................... 94 Characteristics of Recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching..............................................................95 Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................96 Implications of the Study................................................................................... 97 Recommendations for Further Research...........................................................98 APPENDIX A 2003 APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING 100 APPENDIX B LETTERS TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS................................................113 APPENDIX C CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT SURVEY 126 APPENDIX D SURVEY OF CLASSROOM PRACTICES............................................ 129 APPENDIX E ESTEEM SCIENCE CLASSROOM OBSERVATION RUBRIC AND SCORING SHEET................................................................................. 134 APPENDIX F PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING SURVEY QUESTIONS........................................................................................... APPENDIX G SCORING GUIDES FOR PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (PTL) SURVEY......................................................................... 144 APPENDIX H INSTRUMENT RAW SCORES.............................................................. 156 REFERENCES................................................................................. ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Changes urged in the National Science Education Standards regarding teaching................................................................................................................ 10 Table 2. Science courses taken by science teachers in college..................................... 20 Table 3. Student activities as reported by science teacher............................................ 23 Table 4. Comparison of tradition and inquiry teaching approaches.............................26 Table 5. Research questions and instruments................................................................ 41 Table 6. Field of study..................................................................................................... 47 Table 7. Number of undergraduate level courses completed in science or science education..................................... 48 Table 8. Comparison of science courses completed by two groups of teachers..........48 Table 9. Professional development in the last twelve months...................................... 49 Table 10. Impact of professional development activities.................................................50 Table 11. Instructional influences on what was taught in the target class selected for the videotape session.................................................................................... 52 Table 12. Comparison of two presidential awardee groups.............................................53 Table 13. Percentage of instructional time students are engaged in various science classroom activities.............................................................................................54 Table 14. Percentage of laboratory time students do various activities.......................... 56 Table 15. Percentage of time students carry out different activities............................... 57 Table 16. Descriptive statistics of teacher perceptions as measured by teacher version of Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)..................58 Table 17. Criteria for defining level of teacher expertise in teacher perception of use of constructivist teaching practices.............................................................58 Table 18. Comparison of middle school and high school teachers’ ESTEEM SCOR composite scores.....................................................................................60 Table 19. Comparison of means for variables in the Science Classroom Observation Rubric by those PAEMST teachers who are middle school teachers (Group 1) and those who are high school teachers (Group2)........... 61 Table 20. Criteria for defining expertise level of teacher beliefs as measured by Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) survey.......................................62 x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 21. Descriptive statistics of Philosophy of Teaching and Learning survey results...................................................................................................................62 Table 22. Comparison of means for Philosophy of Teaching and Learning by those PAEMST who are middle school teachers (Group 1) versus those who are high school teachers (Group 2 ) ...........................................................63 Table 23. Comparison of means for Science Classroom Observation Rubric by those PAEMST teachers with a Master’s Degree in science education (Group 1) versus those without a Master’s Degree in science education (Group 2 )............................................................................................................. 64 Table 24. Comparison of means for Science Classroom Observation Rubric by those PAEMST teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last twelve months (Group 1) versus those with fewer than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last twelve months (Group 2)............................................................................................................. 66 Table 25. Comparison of means for teachers of teaching practices on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric who said their teaching practices changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program (Group 1) versus those teachers who attended the same type of educational program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their practices............................................................................68 Table 26. Comparison of means for Constructivist Learning Environment Survey six-sub-group categories by those PAEMST teachers with Master’s in science education (Group 1) and those PAEMST teachers without a Master’s in science education (Group 2 ) .......................................................... 69 Table 27. Comparison of means for Constructivist Learning Environment Survey six sub-group categories by those PAEMST Teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science the last twelve months (Group 1) and PAEMST Teachers with fewer than 35 hours of professional development in the last twelve months in methods of teaching science (Group 2)............................................................. 70 Table 28. Comparison of means for eight items on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric by the PAEMST teachers (Group 1) and a group of SS&C teachers (Group 2 ) .................................................................................. 71 Table 29. Comparison of expertise levels identified using the three tools in this research study for each teacher..........................................................................72 Table 30. Areas of difference from the Survey of Classroom Practices for teachers identified as expert on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric and teachers identified as competent..................................................... 73 Table 31. Comparison of mean scores for “expert” teachers as identified by the Science Classroom Observation Rubric (Group 1) and the “competent “ teachers identified by this rubric (Group 2 )...................................................... 75 xi Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table G l. Scoring guide for beliefs about what students should be doing in the classroom (Student Action, SA) that are aligned with National Science Education Standards..........................................................................................153 Table G2. Scoring guide for beliefs about what teachers should be doing in the classroom (Teacher Actions, TA) that are aligned with National Science Education Standards...........................................................................154 Table G3. Scoring guide for teacher understanding of process and content (Teacher and Content, T/C) that are aligned with National Science Education Standards..........................................................................................155 Table H I. Teacher sub-category scores from Science Classroom Observation Rubric................................................................................................................. 157 Table H2. Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) survey response codes.......... 158 Table H3. Teacher perceptions of classroom learning environment............................. 162 Table H4. Science Classroom Observation Rubric D ata.................................................164 xii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Teacher as Learner....................................... xiii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS Background The National Science Education Standards spell out a vision for science education. Achieving this vision will take time as dramatic changes are required throughout school systems (NRC, 1996). These changes emphasize inquiry as a way of teaching and learning science. The standards emphasize the need for changes in how teachers teach, what students are taught, how student performance is assessed, how teachers are educated and keep pace, and the relationship between the school and the community. Just as science is a central aspect of society, acquiring scientific knowledge, understanding, and abilities is a central aspect of science education (NRC, 1996). Effective Teaching Effective teaching is at the heart of science education. The National Science Education Standards describe what teachers of science at all grade levels should know and be able to do. Good teachers of science create environments for learning for their students and themselves. Good teachers: • Continually expand their theoretical and practical knowledge of science; • Use assessments of students and their own teaching to plan and conduct their teaching; • Build strong relationships that are grounded in their knowledge of students’ similarities and differences; and • Are active as members of science-learning communities (NRC, 1996) These teachers participate in professional development experiences. They work with master educators and reflect on their teaching practices. They study research focusing on science teaching and share what they learn with each other, parents, administrators, and the general public. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 Substantive changes in how science is taught require substantive changes in professional development both in preparatory programs and those designed for in-service teachers. Teachers must focus on their own growth and support and encourage the growth of others. Professional development activities that are connected to teachers’ work will be key to implementing the standards (NRC, 1996; NRC, 2000). Changes in Teaching Emphases The National Science Education Standards encompass changes in emphases. These changes include an emphasis on inquiry, facilitating student learning, developing classroom environments that foster learning, creating communities of science learners, assessing teaching and learning, and planning/developing the school science program. The need to change to an inquiry teaching approach has long been cited as a way to enhance student understanding (Abel, Pizzini and Shepardson, 1988; Dewey, 1938; Gagne 1965; Mayer and Greeno, 1972). However, research shows that science instruction has not changed substantially. Textbooks dominate the science learning experience (Harms, 1977; Harms & Yager, 1981; Nelson et al., 1989; Smith et al, 2002; Weiss, 1978; Weiss 1994). Whole class lecture and discussion is the dominant activity in the science classroom. This constrains student learning as the student is placed in a passive role, unable to listen effectively over a sustained period. Complex, detailed, or abstract material is not suited to lecture. Students do not learn how to search for new material or how to solve problems through directed content application (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). An inquiry teaching approach shifts from dependence on textbooks as the dominant learning experience to using texts and books as references. Hands-on activities become the dominant learning experience as students investigate the world through inquiry, i.e., by searching for answers to their own questions. Through these activities students encounter facts, concepts, and laws of science in much the same way the original Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 discoverers did. As students learn inquiry or the processes of science, their inquiry skills enable them to construct their own knowledge in ways that often do not reflect the stated or outlined curriculum (Lowery, 1997). Facilitating student learning and creating communities of science learners requires teachers to become proficient at: • Facilitating ideas as students investigate on an individual basis or in collaborative groups; • Budgeting time to allow students to explore, discuss and display levels of understanding; • Assessing progress by observing students, asking effective questions and evaluating written work; • Allowing students to inquire, explore, and experiment in depth, over a long period of time; • Providing and maintaining materials and equipment for students to use in collaborative inquiries; and • Integrating across science disciplines and other subject areas (Atkin, Black and Coffey, 2001; Rakow, 1978). Developing classroom environments that foster learning require teachers to allow student responses to drive lessons, shift instructional strategies, and alter content (Layman, 1996). Teachers must familiarize themselves with students’ understandings of concepts before sharing their own understandings of those concepts. Encouraging student dialogue with the teacher and one another is important in the development of a classroom environment that fosters learning. Students’ natural curiosity is nurtured when a teacher poses thoughtful, open ended questions, seeks elaboration of students’ initial responses, encourages experiences that pose contradictions to initial hypotheses and then encourages discussion, and provides time for students to construct relationships and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 create metaphors (Atkin, Black and Coffey, 2001; Layman et al., 1996; Llewellyn, 2002; ASCD, 1989; NRC, 2000). Assessing teaching and learning is a dynamic component of an inquiry teaching approach. The emphasis is on teachers continuously assessing student understanding and assessing reasoning. Students are engaged in assessment of their work as they evaluate how well their own explanations allow them to predict and develop new questions. The challenge is to record student learning by gathering evidence in a variety of ways and from many sources (Atkin, Black and Coffey, 2001; Rakow, 1998). Student themselves should learn the power of evidence to substantiate valid explanations. Planning and developing the school science program includes planning opportunities for students to discuss and display their levels of understanding. More importantly, planning entails a focus on working with other teachers to enhance what the science program offers. Long term projects that are cross-curricular and are spread out over weeks will help students see the relatedness of subjects. Big concepts can and should be the emphasis in these planning activities (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; NRC, 1996). Developing Effective Teachers Teachers who commit themselves to inquiry based instruction and the National Science Education Standards face hard work, long hours, surrender of some control in the classroom, and discomfort of moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar (Layman et al., 1996). Much of what aspiring and practicing teachers are taught is rooted in the stimulus/response theory. The theories and practices to which pre-service teachers are exposed have a lasting impact on their perception of the teaching role (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Teachers need a different preparatory program. Most newly prepared science teachers mimic their own experiences as students (Rhoton & Bowers, 1996). Some teachers are too deeply entrenched in their teaching careers to consider tearing down and rebuilding their instructional practices. Others see no reason to change because their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 current practices seem to work well. Empowering students to construct their own understanding is perceived to be a break from the widely understood hierarchical covenant that binds teachers and students (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Becoming a teacher who helps students search is challenging, even frightening. Teachers must become risk takers to move to an inquiry approach (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Layman et al., 1996). Professional development is a career long endeavor and an important step in helping teachers become inquirers themselves. Teacher competency in inquiry based instruction is a journey that starts with developing an inquiry-based mind set (Llewellyn, 2002). Teacher professional development research indicates the ineffectiveness of one-shot professional development experiences (Atkin, Black & Coffey, 2001). “Successful and lasting change takes time and deep examination” (Atkin, Black & Coffey, 2001, p. 79). A national survey of teachers found that professional development experiences were common but typically lasted one to eight hours. The survey found that teachers who spend more than eight hours in professional development were more likely to say learning improved their classroom teaching (NCES, 1999). Once teachers are exposed to inquiry teaching practices and have the opportunity to study and consider the role of inquiry in educational practice, they view these practices as natural. They experiment with constructivist pedagogy until it becomes an inherent component of their teaching and their classrooms. Teachers who have achieved this are life-long learners (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). These teachers continue to: 1. Learn essential science content through perspectives and methods of inquiry; 2. Integrate knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy and students; and 3. Apply knowledge to science learning (Rakow, 1998). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 Recognizing Effective Teachers There are a number of awards that recognize excellence in teaching. The award of focus in this study is the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST). The program was established in 1983 by The White House and is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The program identifies outstanding kindergarten through 12th grade mathematics and science teachers in each state and four U.S. jurisdictions. More than 3,000 teachers have been selected as Presidential Awardees since 1983. These teachers have the opportunity to serve as models for their colleagues and to be leaders in improving science and mathematics education. They help improve teaching and learning as well as participate in curriculum materials selection, research and professional development (PAEMST 2003 application packet). Purpose of the Study and Research Questions This study is an examination of the perceptions of middle school and high school Presidential Awardee teachers concerning their classroom learning environment, their use of teaching strategies and philosophies. Subgroups are compared based on type of educational preparation and professional development attendance. A comparison is undertaken with another group of constructivist teachers. Specific research questions which will guide this dissertation include: 1. What are the 2003 PAEMST science awardees’ perceptions of the learning environments that characterize their science classrooms? 2. How do the teaching strategies used in the classrooms compare between the middle and high school 2003 PAEMST science awardees? 3. How do the philosophies of teaching science compare between the middle and high school 2003 PAEMST science awardees? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 4. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers with a Master’s Degree in science education and teachers with degrees in other fields? 5. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who had more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the past 12 months? 6. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who said their teaching practices have changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program and those teachers who attended the same type of education program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their teaching practices? 7. How do teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who have furthered their education through a Master’s Degree in science education and those who do not have such a Master’s Degree? 8. How do teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last 12 months and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the last 12 months? 9. How do teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers and a group of Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project teachers who were studied in 1997? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 Significance of This Study This study examines philosophies, beliefs, and teaching practices of teachers who have been cited for excellence in science teaching. The information can be used in planning professional development activities with the continued emphasis on changes in teaching recommended in the National Science Education Standards. Understanding the use of inquiry teaching in their classrooms, the creation of a learning environment in their classrooms, and the importance of their own professional continuing development will be useful as models for other teachers and pre-service educators. The examination of exemplary teacher beliefs and their philosophies and strategies could provide definition for developing expertise and potential for mentoring programs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 CHAPTER n REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Introduction This chapter provides a review of relevant literature on inquiry as a teaching approach. The concept of teaching proficiency is explored. Teacher preparation and professional development are presented as related to developing teaching proficiency. The research dealing with relationship between beliefs and action is presented. The chapter includes an overview of the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) and previous research involving a group of PAEMST awardees. The teachers in this study were recipients of the PAEMST. The Importance of Effective Teaching In 1989, Project 2061, Science for All Americans, reported that many students, including academically gifted ones, understand less than what we think they do. Students can clearly repeat what they have been told or what they have read. However, careful probing often shows their understanding is limited, distorted, or wrong (AAAS, 1989). Just because students are listening does not mean they are always making sense of the words (Llewellyn, 2002; NRC, 2001) Research shows reasons for concern. A 1978 National Assessment for Educational Progress study and a follow-up study conducted in 1983 by the Science Assessment and Research Project showed a decline in results on science achievement tests (Anderson and Smith, 1987). “Our education system has never worked very well for the majority of our students” (Anderson and Smith, 1987, p. 85). Meaningful learning in science is usually limited to a small minority of students. These students will “understand” while others memorize. For a number of years now, there have been studies and reports that have focused on the status of education in the United States. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared the United States a nation at risk. The report stated the Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 educational foundations of our society are being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). In 1989 President Bush and the nation’s governors attended a two-day summit to set a national educational agenda. In 1990, the National Governors’ Association endorsed six goals. The fifth goal was for United States students to lead the world in math and science achievement by the year 2000 (National Governors’ Association, 1990). In 1989, Project 2061, Science for All Americans, addressed reform of K-12 education and outlined what all students should know (AAAS, 1989). In recognition of the opportunity to focus on educational performance, in 1992 the National Council on Table 1. Changes urged in the National Science Education Standards regarding teaching Less emphasis on More emphasis on Treating all students alike and responding to the group as a whole Understanding and responding to individual student’s interests, strengths, experiences and needs Rigidly following curriculum Selecting and adapting curriculum Focusing on student acquisition of information Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes Presenting scientific knowledge through lecture, text, and demonstration Guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiry Asking for recitation of acquired knowledge Providing opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students Testing students for factual information at the end of the unit or chapter Continuously assessing student understanding Maintaining responsibility and authority Sharing responsibility for learning with students Supporting competition Supporting a classroom community with cooperation, shared responsibility, and respect Working alone Working with other teachers to enhance the science program Source: National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC, National Academy Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 Education Standards and Testing called for national standards and assessments that would become models for the states to follow. In 1994 an early draft was released for nationwide review (NRC, 1994). The national standards were envisioned as guiding teachers. By 1996, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) were completed and viewed as a call to action. Until this time, national science education standards were non-existent. The National Science Education Standards state that “Science teaching is a complex activity that lies at the heart of the vision of science education presented in the Standards (NRC, 1996, p. 27). Changing emphases for teaching described in the standards are depicted in Table 1. Inquiry Teaching Approach The national standards (NRC, 1996) support the use of inquiry in science classrooms. The ideas of Dewey, Piaget, Schwab, and Ausubel were largely responsible for the new era of enlightenment in science education that began in the early 1900’s (Llewellyn, 2002). John Dewey emphasized science inquiry. “We are told that our schools, old and new, are failing in the main task. They do not develop, it is said the capacity for critical discrimination and the ability to reason, the ability to think is smothered, we are told, by accumulation of miscellaneous ill-digested information and by the attempt to acquire forms of skill which will be immediately useful in the business and commercial world” (Dewey, 1938, p. 85). Dewey believed learning must have personal meaning. Learners need to make use of the knowledge for it to be meaningful and retained. Thinking arises when the learner confronts the problem. The mind actively engages in a struggle to find appropriate solutions to the problems by drawing on the problem and on the person’s prior knowledge and experience, formulating a strategy to solve the problem and finally weighing the consequences of that action. “A large part of the art of instruction lies in making the difficulty of new problems large enough to challenge thought, and small Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 enough so that, in addition to the confusion naturally attending novel elements, there shall be luminous familiar spots from which helpful suggestions may spring” (Dewey, 1944, p. 157). Piaget expanded upon this approach in the 1930’s. Piaget wrote that knowledge is acquired and constructed through a process of interaction between people and materials. He theorized that children construct their own understanding through investigations and interactions within their environments and come to know an object by acting with it (Piaget, 1964). His philosophy gained acceptance in the 1960’s (Llewellyn, 2002). David Ausubel built upon this in the I960’s. He believed the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Once this is determined, the student can be taught accordingly (Ausubel, 1968). Yet the curricula in science classrooms across the country were punctuated by reading textbooks and regurgitation of facts. The golden age of science education began when Sputnik I showed the U.S. space program was second best. Millions of dollars were made available for development of new science curricula. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 provided matching federal dollars for equipment purchased by schools. The new emphasis on science education gave scientists, psychologists, and educators the opportunity to combine efforts on the task of improving science education for all children. The emphasis in science education finally caught up with what Dewey and others had been saying since the early 1900’s. Dewey’s inquiry teaching approach emphasized the use of process skills to provide a working pattern of the way in which and the conditions under which experiences are used to lead over, onward, and outward (Dewey, 1938). That is, education must apply science to problems relevant to students through problem solving instructional strategies. Dewey believed education should stress stimulating classroom experiences and the establishment of miniature communities in which children could learn how to be intelligent participants Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 in social life. Students should be at the center of teaching any subject (Watson & Konicek, 1990). According to the constructivist perspective of learning, learning and the growth of understanding always involve a learner taking prior knowledge and using it to construct new knowledge. Constructivists see learners as mentally active agents struggling to make sense of their world. Knowledge is constructed by the child through interactions between the learner’s current understanding and the new information that is learned (Pines & West, 1986; Yager, 1991). Science concepts learned through problem solving are meaningfully learned. Students achieve greater problem solving skill development using a discovery inquiry teaching approach (Abel, Pizzini & Shepardson, 1988; Dewey, 1944; Gagne, 1965). Modem brain research offered much to sway the general acceptance of learning to support this constructivist or inquiry teaching approach (Llewellyn, 2002). Science process skills are the investigative tools for conducting inquiries. Students cannot simply add new knowledge to what they already know. They must abandon habits of thought that have been successful for them for many years in favor of more complex and often counterintuitive ways of thinking (Anderson and Smith, 1987). Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry is a multifaceted activity that involves: • Making observations; • Posing questions; • Examining books and other sources of information to see what already is known; • Planning investigations; • Reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; • Using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; • Proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 • Communicating the results. Inquiry requires identification of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking, and consideration of alternative explanations. Good teachers of science create environments in which they and their students work together as active learners. At all stages of inquiry teachers guide, focus, challenge, and encourage student learning (NRC, 1996). Relevance is increased when students can apply knowledge to real life situations and carry out problem solving that requires addressing content from different perspectives (Messick & Reynolds, 1992). The emphasis is on the student and the sort of question that must be asked of the materials used in the investigation under study and how to find answers. Passivity, docile learning, and dependence on teacher and textbook are relinquished in favor of active learning. Teachers and students become cooperative pursuers of a problem (Schwab, 1962). Schwab describes three levels of inquiry. The simplest level is one where problems are posed along with descriptions of ways and means by which students can discover relations not already known from books. The second level is one where problems are posed but methods and answers are left open. Finally, the third level is one where the problem as well as the answer and method are left open (Schwab, 1962). Schwab’s levels translate into the three examples of inquiry described today: open inquiry, structured inquiry, and guided inquiry or guided discovery. Descriptions of these approaches follow: Open inquiry: Students formulate their own problem to investigate; Teachers provide little, if any, direction to students. This methodology requires students to discover knowledge on their own. Science fair investigations are an example of open inquiry activities. Structured inquiry: This approach is similar to cookbook activities except less direction is provided. Teachers provide students with hands-on problems to investigate, along with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 the procedure and materials, but not the expected outcomes. With this approach students discover relationships (Colburn, 2000). Guided inquiry or guided discovery: This approach provides students with a problem to investigate, a list of materials that will be used, science definitions associated with the experiment, and a data table to record information. Students use the scientific method to solve problems presented by the teacher. They record observations and develop a conclusion that summarizes findings. They share their findings with the class and reflect on the content and process (Kraft, 1985; Wells, 1992). Inquiry helps students develop effective skills in hypothesis making and testing; desirable attitudes toward learning and inquiry, toward guessing and hunches; and the possibility of solving problems on one’s own. Students using an inquiry approach are more likely to transfer knowledge to novel situations (Catrambone, 1995). The goal is to create the possibilities for a child to invent and discover. Teaching means creating situations where structures can be discovered (Duckworth, 1964). Inquiry based learning helps students experience science and begin to understand it (NRC, 1996). Inquiry based teaching requires attention to learning environments and experiences where students confront new ideas, develop new understanding and learn to think logically and critically about their world (NRC, 2000). Uncovering misconceptions forms the foundation of a lesson. Teachers provide experiences in which students share their presently held theories with their peers. Students can then test their understanding in collaborative group work. The students search for meaning by linking prior knowledge with new ideas and information (Llewellyn, 2002). In the inquiry approach, teachers are facilitators for locating and finding information. Students are guided or led toward learning and are more likely to transfer knowledge to novel situations (Catrambone, 1995). This style of teaching involves flexibility of space, richness of learning materials, integration of curriculum areas, asking students comprehension and application type questions, small group instruction and interaction, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 and exploring the unknown (Ausubel & Robinson, 1969; Cronback & Snow, 1977). Teaching means creating situations where knowledge can gained for a reason (i.e.; a need); it does not mean transmitting information which may be assimilated at nothing other than a verbal level. Active means doing things in a social collaboration. This leads to a critical frame of mind where students communicate with each other. This is an essential factor in intellectual development. The teacher provides the equipment that is used to find solutions to the problems (Duckworth, 1964). Instead of teaching about scientific facts which are the result of scientific activity of others, it becomes an education through doing science. Instead of trying to remember descriptions of the results of science, it becomes learning how such results are obtained. Instead of hearing and forgetting, it becomes doing and understanding (Elstegeest, 1970). Instead of activities done as a culmination of presentation of content in class, they are done to initiate a unit. The activity is set up with few guidelines drawing mostly upon student imagination and creativity in forming hypotheses and plans of action. Students are actively engaged as inquiry-centered science brings the real world into the classroom and their lives. Teamwork and collaboration are promoted. The inquiry approach accommodates different learning styles and encourages learning in more than one area of the curriculum. Children’s grasp of new concepts and skills is reflected in what they do in the activity (Bredderman, 1982). A researcher, Ted Bredderman, summarized and analyzed the experiences of 13,000 students in 1,000 classrooms as reported in 60 studies of science learning. He reported that with the use of inquiry-centered science programs, students demonstrated substantially improved performance in science process and creativity; tests of perception, logic, language development, science content, and math; and somewhat improved attitudes toward learning science (Bredderman, 1982). Inquiry helps children view the world with an understanding of the importance of science in their everyday lives. Through science education, five attitudes can be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 acquired: 1) curiosity; 2) respect for evidence; 3) critical reflection; 4) flexibility, and 5) sensitivity to living things (Healy, 1990). Reflective thinking, the kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious consideration, is common in the classroom where guided inquiry is used. The teacher is guide and director; but the energy comes from the students who are learning. The more teachers are aware of students’ past experiences, their hopes, desires, interests, the better understanding there is of teaching methodologies that help form reflective habits (Dewey, 1933; Wells 1992). The main role of the teacher is to facilitate the learning process by guiding students in their problem solving. More importantly, teachers must develop a climate of openness between students and themselves and create an atmosphere where students are free to express their answers. Learning is more likely to occur when students are able to reveal freely what they know and believe (Hammes & Duryea, 1986). As classmates describe their metacognitive processes, they develop flexibility of thought and an appreciation for the variety of ways to solve the same problem (Costa & Marzano, 1987). Communication is vital in the process of inquiry. The natural impulse of someone who has discovered something of interest is to share that discovery with others. This serves the purpose of celebrating achievement and receiving feedback in the form of questions and constructive criticism. This communication helps the presenter clarify his or her own understanding so that it will be complete and intelligible to others (Wells, 1992). These discussions provide an opportunity for students to become more responsible for their own progress as learners as they engage in self-evaluation of what they have learned and an analysis of strategies they used. Reflective discussion at the end of units of activity distinguish the most effective learning environment from those that are less effective (Wells, 1992). Educators who believe in students learning problem solving skills find their biggest challenge is how to integrate problem solving into their instruction. Higher order Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 thinking skills are nurtured through experiences in problem solving (Pizzini, Shepardson & Abell, 1989; Woods, 1977). A greater emphasis must be placed on applying learning to real problems (Abel et al., 1988). A single guided inquiry session is capable of providing the same kind of learning produced by two or more separate didactic programs because the students are learning content at the same time they are learning problem solving. Product and process are interdependent. When students discover things on their own, they develop self-confidence and autonomy as a problem solver (Olton & Crutchfield, 1969). They proceed through uncertainty and possible failure to an eventual knowledge (Gray, 1979; Schwab, 1962). When presented with a problem, students attempt to identify the nature of the problem, generate hypotheses, and during the analytical process have the opportunity to share personal ideas, opinions, beliefs, and experiences relevant to the stated problem (Hammes & Duryea, 1989). In inquiry centered instmction teachers encourage and accept student autonomy; use raw data, locate and use primary sources, and manipulate and interact with materials; and use process skills such as classify, analyze, predict and create when framing tasks (Layman et al., 1996). Teachers assess the students continually, pacing their instmction based on their assessments (Lowery, 1997). The challenge is to gather evidence in a variety of ways and use information from many sources to decide on levels of achievement, effectiveness of a program, and plans for change (Rakow, 1998). They create situations for students to examine and discuss guidelines for high quality work. Students become involved in ongoing assessment of their work and that of others (Atkin, Black & Coffey, 2001). Teacher Use of Inquiry Research on the effectiveness of a variety of teaching approaches has demonstrated that small groups, discussions, and problem solving methods have been effective in developing critical thinking, achieving a delineation of one’s values, and promoting Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 behavior change (Anderson and Smith, 1987; Berliner, 1987)). Yet these methods have not received widespread acceptance. Teachers may lack confidence in using these methods (Hammes & Duryea, 1989). Teachers are viewed as important agents of change in current reforms. However, they are also considered major obstacles to change because they adhere to their current teaching approaches (Prawat, 1992). Developing Expertise Through Professional Development Professional development includes what teachers bring to the profession as well as what happens throughout their careers (Fullan, 1991). Teachers may not have been taught to teach using an inquiry approach. Teacher education programs must have an inquiry focus (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Rhoton & Bowers, 1996). Adults, as well as children, can learn better by doing things rather than by being told about them (Duckworth, 1964). Background and ongoing professional development are two separate components of teacher preparation. Field experiences in the process of becoming a teacher are important to role development. Practicum sites may approach knowledge as something students consume (Goodman, 1986). There may be little questioning of what is worth teaching and the complexity of learning. A research study done by Goodman (1986) discusses “roles” of relevance and liberalizing education in some methods courses. He writes that educators need to be more involved in early field experiences that correspond to methods courses. Criteria upon which methods courses are developed require careful consideration. Course objectives and teaching strategies can have a favorable impact on teacher practices. A model science teacher education program was studied by way of comparing two teacher groups (Krajcik and Penick, 1989). One group was composed of graduates from the program. The second group was composed of teachers who had received recognition as outstanding state science teachers, received Presidential Awards, were employed as department chairs or were actively involved in the development of science Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 curriculum. The model science teacher education program graduates with only three years of average experience compared favorably with the group that had received recognition for their teaching. Methods courses, field experiences, and taped critique sessions were a part of this model program. The sequence of classes helped graduates to obtain characteristics similar to a select national group of teachers recognized for their excellence in science teaching. This supports the importance of teacher preparation in developing teaching skills. A presentation and modeling approach is common to teacher education. Changing pedagogical knowledge requires teacher candidates to restructure their views of science teaching. A study involving teacher candidates who participated in a 10 week science methods course reported that before taking the course, the teacher candidates viewed science as a body of facts that needed to be presented and then proven. The methods course provided experienced based learning to help candidates understand the pedagogy. They voiced frustration with their ineffective search for the “right” answers (Stofflett, 1994). Pedagogical knowledge led them to value the constructivist framework. Teacher candidate ideas changed regarding use of textbooks, lectures, and worksheets as a result of the course. Teacher preparation includes the type of classes taken. According to a research on junior high science teacher course background preparation, almost 50% of teachers completed 0-7 science courses in college (Nelson et al., 1989). Table 2. Science courses taken by science teachers in college Number of science courses in college 0-3 courses 4-7 courses 8 or more courses Life/biology science teachers 13% 30% 56% Physical science teachers 15% 36% 47% Earth science teachers 63% 17% 19% Source: Nelson, B., Boyd, S., Hudson, S., and Weiss, I.R., 1989, Science and Mathematics Education Briefing Book, Chapel Hill, N.D., Horizon Research. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 In a 2002 report (Fulp, 2002) forty-five percent of middle school science teachers earned a Master’s Degree. Sixty-six percent received their undergraduate degrees in areas other than science or science education. Those who have a strong science background experienced it in very traditional ways. The college science teaching model is rarely one of inquiry! According to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 23% of all secondary school teachers do not have a college major in their main field of teaching. A National Center for Education Statistics analysis of public high school teachers found 17% of science teachers did not have an undergraduate or graduate degree in science. For high school subjects, 51% of physics teachers, 54% of chemistry teachers, and 65% of geology/earth and space science teachers did not have an undergraduate or graduate major in their field of assignment. These “out of field” assignments persist because many school districts, particularly urban ones, have difficulty attracting qualified teachers (Center on Educational Policy, 2003). A 1993 national survey of teachers found that high school science teachers were the most qualified group when looking at mathematics and science teachers. Sixty-three percent of science teachers had an undergraduate major in science and 72 percent had a major in either science or science education at the graduate or undergraduate level (Weiss, 1994). Beyond initial preparation, ongoing professional development can help prepare teachers to use an inquiry teaching approach. In a 1989 report (Nelson et al., 1989), twenty-four percent of the 7th-9th grade teachers reported they had not taken any course work in science in the past ten years. Twenty-five percent of the 10th-12th grade teachers reported not taking course work in science in the past ten years. Thirty percent of the 7th9th grade teachers reported having taken no in-service courses during the past year. Twenty-seven percent of the 10th-12th grade had taken no in-service courses during the past year (Nelson et al., 1989). In another report, (Smith et al., 2002) the amount of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 professional development for the average teacher remained strikingly low. Only 17-23% of grade 5-8 teachers and 31-45% of grade 9-12 teachers reported participating in more than 35 hours of professional development in the previous three years (Smith et al., 2002). A 2002 report found 57% of middle school science teachers had not taken a college or university science course since 1995. Twenty percent had no college course work in science education. Another 23% had not taken a course on how to teach science since 1990 (Fulp, 2002). A 1999 national survey of teachers found that nearly all teachers had participated in professional development in 1998. The problem was that most of these activities lasted 1-8 hours (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999). This study includes identification by the participants of the number of hours of professional development activities in which they participated in the last 12 months that were focused on in-depth study of science content and methods of teaching science Changing from a traditional teaching approach to inquiry requires years of practice, patience, and learning. Teachers who describe changes in their practices, beyond introducing a new lesson or activity here and there, usually point to a combination of experiences leading to those changes. Most reported attending a one week or longer summer institute (NRC, 2000). In a 1977 study (Weiss, 1978) fewer than half of the science teachers surveyed felt competent in using inquiry in their classroom without needing assistance. “Without professional development opportunities and the time and incentives to participate in them, teachers are not very likely to change their practices in ways envisioned by the reforms” (Smith et al., 2002, p. 68). In 1989, Nelson found that 82% of seventh graders reported never going on field trips, 50% never did experiments, 68% frequently read from the textbook, 14% did experiments in groups, and only 38% reported science as being fun. In a 2002 study of grades 5-8 (Smith et al., 2002) science teachers described their average percentage of class time spent on different types of student activities. A summary of that study is presented in Table 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 Table 3. Student activities as reported by science teacher Student activity as reported by science teachers 1993 2000 Whole class lecture/discussion 36% 31% Daily routines, interruptions, and other non instructional activities 11% 13% Individual students reading textbooks, completing worksheets, etc. 18% 19% Working with hands-on manipulative or laboratory materials 23% 25% Non-laboratory small group work 12% 11% Source: Smith, P., Banilower, E., McMahon, K., and Weiss, I.R., 2002, The National Survey o f Science and Mathematics Education: Trends from 1977-2000, Chapel Hill, N.D., Horizon Research, Inc. Science instruction had not changed substantially over that seven year period (Smith et al., 2002). In the same study, 73% of teachers reported covering more than 50% of the textbook, 43% reported covering more than 75% of the textbook. This shows some decline from a 1977 study of 12,000 teachers that found 90-95% of the teachers used textbooks 90% of the time (Harms, 1977). In a 1994 survey, most science teachers reported they believed students learn best when they study subjects in the context of personal or social applications. However, there was resistance to the notion of teaching science concepts first and only then having students learn terminology associated with those concepts. Almost half of all high school science teachers indicated it was important for students to learn basic scientific terms and formulas before learning underlying concepts and principles (Weiss, 1994). Many teachers believe they have been prevented from teaching using an inquiry approach by a combination of rigid curriculums, unsupportive administrators, and inadequate pre-service and in-service educational experiences. Even with exposure to inquiry theory, some teachers resist. Reasons include: • Commitment to their present instructional approach, • Concern about student learning, or • Concern about classroom control (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 Inquiry as a teaching approach may pose a dilemma in school districts that have come to rely on textbooks as the major vehicle for conveying information to students. The curriculum has typically overemphasized vocabulary and factual information. Because teachers must make sure students “get it”, they ask students to memorize words and facts. This neglects the most important parts of science as well as being boring and irrelevant to young learners (Bredderman, 1982). Some teachers see no reason to change because their current approach seems to work. Students take notes, pass tests, complete worksheets and other assignments, and receive good grades for their work. Other teachers are concerned about behavior management with less emphasis on student learning. They fear inquiry will erode some of their control (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Additionally, teachers report they must “drag” ideas out of students. Students require significant amounts of stimulation through hands-on concrete situations by way of guidance through the big jumps to abstract concepts (Caprio et al., 1989). A 1981 study found that fewer than half of the teachers in the study used an inquiry approach. Most believed that inquiry worked only with bright youngsters (Harms and Yager, 1981). Teachers need to participate in professional development in-services. But they also need group opportunities to receive and give help and to simply converse about the change. One-shot workshops are ineffective. Follow-up support for ideas and practices occurs in a small minority of cases (Fullan, 1991). Most teachers still use traditional didactic methods. In the traditional approach there is an academic teacher centered focus with: • Little student choice of activity, • Use of large group instruction, • Orderliness, • Drill and practice, • Memorization of facts, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 • Low expectations of overt student involvement, • Limited exploration of ideas, • Student as passive recipient, use of factual questions, and • Controlled practice in instruction. The task is to learn what is offered and to regurgitate on demand (Costa, 1985; Barrows & Tamdoyly, 1980; Rosenshine, 1976). Even when a laboratory instructional strategy is used, the intent is to verify what the student was taught during the lecture, not to solve the problems of science (Blum, 1979). This study explores teaching strategies used by a group of exemplary teachers. A facet of the traditional teaching approach is “drill and practice”. Students receive gold stars, verbal praise, and checkmarks on the board. Students follow directions, listen to and read about the right answers, rehearse the right answers, and provide the correct responses on tests. Too often students do not acquire, understand, remember, and apply passively acquired learning (Chism et al., 1992). Memorizing information may be viewed by the teacher as learning science but is simply recalling facts. These traditional teaching approaches fail to develop problem solving skills of students, relate the importance of problem solving to science, and not to enhance the development of higher order thinking skills (Blum, 1979). Traditional and inquiry teaching approaches are summarized in Table 4. Research suggests the kind and amount of professional development is inadequate to meet the needs of teachers. Research findings show that pedagogical content knowledge among beginning teachers is generally slow and incremental. This is “related to the time required for beginning teachers to plan, gather resources, teach, reflect, and re-teach specific topics with increased effectiveness and fluency. Growth of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge also appears to be dependent on the motivation, creativity, and pedagogical reasoning skills of the teacher” (Clermont, Borko, and Krajcik; 1994, p. 420). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 Table 4. Comparison of tradition and inquiry teaching approaches Traditional teaching approach Inquiry (Constructivist) teaching approach Curriculum presented part to whole, with emphasis on basic skills Curriculum presented whole to part with emphasis on big concepts Strict adherence to fixed curriculum is highly valued Pursuit of student questions is highly valued Curricular activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks Curricular activities rely heavily on primary sources of data and manipulative materials Students are viewed as “blank slates” onto which information is etched by the teacher Students are viewed as thinkers with emerging theories about the world Teachers generally behave in a didactic manner, disseminating information to students Teachers generally behave in an interactive manner, mediating the environment for students Teachers seek the correct answer to validate student learning Teachers seek the students’ points of view of order to understand students’ present conceptions for use in subsequent lessons Assessment of student learning is viewed as separate from teaching and occurs almost entirely through testing Assessment of student learning is interwoven with teaching and occurs through teacher observations of students’ work and through student exhibitions and portfolios Students primarily work alone Students primarily work in groups Source: Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G., 1999, The Case fo r Constructivist Classrooms, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. In a study undertaken to compare pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators, Clermont et al. examined pedagogical content knowledge with respect to demonstration teaching. Experienced chemical demonstrators and novice chemical demonstrators differed in the number of variations they discussed with experienced demonstrators discussing about 1.5 times as many critical incidents. Experienced demonstrators asked students to go beyond providing hypotheses by asking for supportive their hypotheses and then testing some of the students’ ideas. The findings of this study supported the researchers’ hypothesis that experienced teachers are likely to possess multiple mental representations for teaching specific subject matter concepts (Clermont, Borko, and Krajcik; 1994). The researchers reported that “to rely on individuals who possess the necessary science content knowledge but little Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 knowledge or preparation in pedagogy may prove counterproductive given that such individuals do not possess the necessary pedagogical content knowledge and reasoning skills to maximize student learning of abstract or difficult science concepts” (Clermont, Borko, and Krajcik; 1994, p. 438). Professional development was one element of a 1988 study (Yager, Hidayat, and Penick). The study explored features which separate least effective from most effective science teachers. Comparisons of age, gender, teaching field(s), number of preparations, amount of preparation, time, semester hours of undergraduate science preparation, quantity of graduate science preparation, type of teacher education programs, number of weeks of National Science Foundation workshop experience, and number of workshops elected for participation were made. Science supervisors identified the most effective and least effective teachers. Differences between least and most effective teachers of science were found only for gender, quantity of National Science Foundation institute experiences, and elected inservice experiences in excess of a single day’s duration. Sixty-four percent of the most effective teachers had attended five or more in-service opportunity in five years, while 62% of the least effective teachers had one or less in-service experiences (Yager, Hidayat, and Penick; 1988). The most effective teachers attended more elective inservice. These teachers may be looking for in-service offerings because they are looking for new ideas. Least effective teachers may deem in-service as extra work. This is in congruence with findings of another study that indicated science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge can be enhanced through intensive, short-term, skills-oriented workshops (Clermont, Krajcik, and Borko, 1993). As teachers become aware of new systems, they may make adjustments, but then performance hits a plateau. Instruction focused on higher order thinking and connections to the real world may be rare. In one study of 25 teachers in Michigan it was found that all teachers said state policy had affected their teaching. But an examination of their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 approaches found only 4 had fundamentally changed the kinds of tasks students carried out. In 11 classrooms there was no evidence their approaches had changed at all. A separate study of 22 classrooms found few went beyond imitation by adding open-ended questions to classroom assessments (Elmore & Rothman, 2000). The results of this reported study will be compared to results of the study undertaken for this dissertation. Sustained professional development for teachers is required if they are to improve their teaching. Changes in teaching will not come through occasional in-service days or special workshops. Inquiry is not an “add on” to current practice. Teachers cannot implement changes overnight. Collaboration with peers is one feature of improving practices. This can be at the same grade level or across grade levels (Atkin, Black & Coffey, 2001). Without mentoring and investigations, a teacher can struggle in learning and practicing inquiry. “The most valuable gift educators can give students is an environment which promotes and fosters critical thinking and problem solving skills” (Bruner, 1966, p.3). Questioning is one of the most important parts of the role of the teacher. This requires the willingness to withhold one’s answers so that students may discover answers for themselves and continue to explore new ideas. Students become the center stage. The teacher is mentor, building connections between what students observe and learn and the conclusions they derive (McLaughlin & Oberman, 1996). Exemplary teachers ask questions to stimulate thinking, probe student responses for clarification and elaboration, and offer explanations to provide more information. The teachers’ questions in small group and whole class activities are keys to students developing an understanding of science. These teachers help students develop an understanding of the methods of science, learn scientific concepts that can be used to interpret the environment, and acquire an attitude of scientific inquiry (Tobin, Tippins, and Gallard, 1994). The more teachers know about inquiry and science content matter, the more they themselves can be effective inquirers. They can engage their students in inquiries that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 help students understand scientific concepts and inquiry. Teachers must view themselves as learners. Teaching through inquiry requires teachers to take on new skills, behaviors, instructional activities, and assessment procedures (Duckworth, 1964). Changing from a teacher centered, traditional teaching style requires teachers to immerse themselves in inquiry. This begins with reading the literature and familiarizing themselves with the National Science Education Standards. However, gaining knowledge through books about inquiry teaching does not translate into what teachers actually do to carry out inquiry in the classroom. For this to occur, the teacher must become an inquirer. Figure 1 presents the concept of teacher as learner that ties together the aspects of learning, e.g., meaning, training, time, support, and resources, with the vision, collaboration, and skills required to be a lifelong learner as a teacher. The teacher as lifelong learner is central to developing inquiry skills and bring those skills to the classroom. Whether or not this is an easy or hard change for teachers to make depends on one’s perspective. The change is needed. It offers promise for improvement of education in America. Teachers must attend to their own conceptual change as must as they do to the conceptual change for their students (Prawat, 1992). Inquiry is a framework that will assist teachers in planning thematic topics for study and in thinking about the sorts of activities that will enable them to achieve the overall goals of inquiry. Helping students develop questions that are real and significant and amenable to investigation in a worthwhile manner with the resources available is one of the most challenging aspects of teaching using the inquiry approach. Even a mandated curriculum can be circumscribed by presentation of topics in such a way as to encourage students to find their own ways of approaching it. When students are challenged and their learning is driven by real questions, and teachers provide them with the tools they need, along with support and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 Figure 1. Teacher as Learner Support Vision Improvement IAfe-Ijong Learning Source: Fullan, M.G., 1991, The Meaning o f Educational Change, New York: Teachers College Press. guidance, students will be empowered by their problem solving skills and experiences (Wells, 1992). “When teacher use of an innovation leads to more student learning, the teacher will enlarge the use of the innovation” (Sprinthall, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall, 1996, p. 685). Teacher Beliefs Teacher beliefs influence classroom organization and behavior. There has been considerable research done in this area (Norwood, 1997; Nespor, 1987; Ennis, Cothran, and Loftus, 1997; Hollingsworth, 1989; Alexander and Dochy, 2005; Crawley and Salyer, 1995). Belief systems and knowledge systems have many points in common (Abelson, 1979). Three categories of experience influence the development of beliefs and knowledge about teaching. These are personal experience, experience with schooling and instruction, and experience with formal knowledge (Richardson, 1996). Belief systems rely on evaluative and affective components. That is, they have categories of concepts that are defined as good or bad or as leading to good or bad. These good and bad entities may have motivational force. In addition, belief systems include episodic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 material from personal experience or cultural belief systems. Knowledge systems have no such need for episodes. Knowledge systems rely on facts (Abelson, 1979; Nespor, 1987). Beliefs underlie knowledge systems. They guide behavior. The earlier a belief is incorporated in a person’s belief structure, the more difficult it is to alter. Beliefs frame or define tasks. They are interwoven with knowledge, but the affective, evaluative, and episodic nature of beliefs makes them a filter through which new phenomena are interpreted. Beliefs are prioritized according to their relationship to other beliefs (Pajares, 1992). Beliefs influence what is taught and how it is taught. It may be difficult for teachers to articulate their beliefs, yet these beliefs influence curriculum development, communication, and action to participate in curriculum reform (Crawley and Salyer; 1995). Knowledge is often perceived as arising from experiences that were formally constructed, as in the case of schooling, while beliefs are outcomes of one’s everyday encounters (Alexander and Dochy, 1995, p. 424). Beliefs are changeable, but it is difficult to bring about such change. Hollingsworth (1989) reports prior beliefs play a critical role in learning to teach. In a research study, changes in pre-service teachers’ thinking could be traced in predictable patterns. Inappropriate beliefs may need to be confronted in order to acquire usable knowledge. The relationships between beliefs and knowledge influence decision making. Teachers make more consistent decisions when their beliefs are organized as a value orientation (Ennis, Cothran, and Loftus; 1997). Teachers’ ways of thinking and understanding are vital to their practice (Nespor, 1987) Belief systems influence the manner in which individuals organize the world into task environments and define tasks and problems. “To understand teaching from teachers’ perspectives we have to understand the beliefs with which they define their work” (Nespor, 1987, p. 323). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 “If we are interested in why teachers organize and run classrooms as they do we must pay much more attention to the goals they pursue (which may be multiple, conflicting, and not at all related to optimizing student learning) and to their subjective interpretations of classroom processes” (Nespor, 1987, p. 325). Teachers may move through all their years of schooling without ever being induced to think about their own beliefs about the nature of science and scientific knowledge. Understanding teacher beliefs can lead to re-defining images of science and the way it is taught (Tobin, Tippins, and Gallard, 1994). Expertise in Teaching Five stages of teacher development, from novice to expert, have been described (Barone, Berliner, Blanchard, Casanova, and McGowan, 1996; Burry-Stock, 1995). The novice teacher is in skill development. Teachers at this level are learning to recognize many things, including features and facts, as they determine rules. These rules are needed to begin to teach. This teacher will judge their own performance by how well they follow learned rules. In the case of discipline problems, the novice teachers do not have experience to draw upon to be flexible with the mles. The advanced beginner has developed a context of “situations” from which they draw. They can detect similarities to prior situations. They have learned from previous situations. Discipline rules are applied according to the situation. This teacher has a developing set of broad skills, but still may not know what is important. The novice and advanced beginner often fail to take full responsibility for their actions. The competent teacher copes with problems and students in a hierarchical process of decision-making. This teacher is differentiated from the advanced beginner by virtue of the fact that they make conscious choices about what they are going to do. This teacher sets priorities and chooses a plan to organize a situation and factors to help improve the situation. This teacher can generally determine what is and what is not important. The competent teacher generally has sufficient experience to know when classroom rules will work and when a situation requires something not covered by the rules. This teacher will Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 approach a discipline problem by choosing rules and goals based on the situation, feeling a personal responsibility for the outcome. The proficient teacher thinks analytically, but intuitively organizes and understands the task. These teachers draw upon their experience for determining how to manipulate the environment. This teacher recognizes a large repertoire of patterns. When experiencing a discipline problem, the proficient teacher does not make decisions based upon rules. The proficient teacher examines experiences, considers alternatives, and feels a sense of responsibility for the outcome. The expert teacher performs automatically and fluently. They are intuitive and seem to sense in non-analytic ways the appropriate response to be made. These teachers are deeply involved in coping with their environment and do not see problems in a detached way. Day to day routines are well established so as to be automatic. Expert teachers are fluid in their performance. They know intuitively what to do with discipline problems. Expert teaching is multifaceted. Four subgroups have been used to categorize teaching practices (Burry-Stock, 1995). These subgroups include: 1) facilitating the learning process from a constructivist perspective; 2) content-specific pedagogy (pedagogy related to student understanding); 3) context-specific pedagogy (fluid control with teacher and student interaction); and 4) content-knowledge (teacher demonstrates excellent knowledge of subject matter). Facilitating the Learning Process From a Constructivist Perspective Expert teachers serve as facilitators in their classrooms. Students are responsible for their own learning experiences with the teacher facilitating that process. Teacher-student learning is a partnership. In an expert teacher’s classroom students are actively engaged in initiating examples, asking questions, and suggesting and implementing activities throughout the lesson. The students are actively engaged in experiences. The teacher Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 motivates through the use of novelty, newness, discrepancy, or curiosity. The teacher does not depend on the text to present the lesson as adaptation of content materials is a part of teaching practice. Content-Specific Pedagogy (Pedagogy Related to Student Understanding The expert teacher develops lessons that focus on activities which relate to student understanding of concepts and student relevance is the focus. The teacher facilitates student conceptual understanding through a variety of methods, moving students through different cognitive levels to reach higher order thinking skills. Content and process skills are integrated and concepts are connected to evidence. Context-Specific Pedagogy (Fluid Control with Teacher and Student Interaction) As student misperceptions become apparent, the expert teacher facilitates student efforts to resolve them. Evidence gathering and discussion are important to this process. Good personal relations are the foundation of teacher-student relationships. The teacher makes modifications for student understanding when necessary. Content-Knowledge (Teacher Demonstrates Excellent Knowledge of Subject Matter Expert teachers frequently use examples and metaphors in their classroom practice. These examples are relevant to the lesson. The science experience is one that is coherent throughout the entire lesson. Content is balanced between in-depth and comprehensive coverage. Finally, content is accurate. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Past Research on Presidential Awardees for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching A 2000 national study of science and mathematics education included awardees from 1983 through 1993. The report compared the awardees to a national sample in terms of preparation and teaching practices. It also described the professional development activities of this group of teachers. Eighty percent of the awardees in science had undergraduate majors in their field as compared to 65 percent nationally. Ninety-one percent of awardees compared to 79 percent of science teachers nationally had completed courses on methods of teaching science. Eighty percent of the science Presidential Awardees in grades 7-12 reported spending more than 35 hours on in-service education in the previous three year period, compared to 45 percent of the national group of science teachers at those grade levels (Weiss et al., 2001). Science process and inquiry skills were a part of this same study. Eighty-nine percent of the science teachers in grades 7-12 reported they felt well qualified to teach formulation of hypotheses, drawing conclusions, and making generalizations compared to 69 percent of the national group of science teachers. Eighty-three percent felt well qualified to teach experimental design as compared to 57 percent of the national group of science teachers. Finally, 90 percent of the awardees felt well qualified to teach description, graphing, and interpretation of data as compared to 67 percent of the national group of science teachers. The report went on to state that the general population of science teachers is more likely than the awardees to emphasize learning science terms and facts and preparing students for standardized tests. Additionally, the national science teachers reported being more likely to implement lessons that involved students completing textbook/worksheet problems (Weiss et al., 2001). In the same report, science Presidential Awardees reported working with hands-on manipulatives or laboratory materials 66 percent of the time as compared to 49 percent of the national group of science teachers. Thirty-five percent of science teachers in grades Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 7-12 reported they had implemented the NRC Standards to a great extent as compared to 13 percent of the national group of 7-12 grade science teachers (Weiss et al, 2001). Iowa Scope. Sequence, and Coordination Project Research The Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination project was introduced in 1989 with the National Science Foundation as the funding source. The SS&C project focuses on: integrated science; important concepts and skills used multiple times at a given grade level and spaced across grade levels; hands-on/minds-on activities; and problem-centered materials where the problems are personally and locally relevant (Yager and Weld, 1999). The emphasis is on ideas and thinking skills (Varella, 1997). Several studies have been done with this group. Videotapes of the teachers were analyzed in two studies. One study compared teaching practices in a textbook classroom format and an STS format taught by the same teacher. Teachers using the STS format asked more questions, spent less time lecturing, and spent more time interacting with students. The second study compared Iowa SS&C teachers with teachers from a previous national study on expert science teaching. The Iowa SS&C teachers exhibited significant more constructivist teaching practices than the expert nominated science teachers studied by Burry-Stock and Oxford in 1994 (Kimble, 1999). In a second study, teachers were videotaped at select times through the school year and surveys were completed to assess teacher confidence to teach science as well as understanding and use of the nature of science and technology. The teachers involved with Iowa SS&C used techniques which led to improved confidence in teaching science as well as using features of basic science in their teaching. The teachers made changes to specific observable behaviors which impacted student learning in terms of process skills and creativity skills. They used teaching strategies that reflected the constructivist approach. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 In another doctoral study, relationships among constructivist beliefs, observed practices, and self-reported teaching habits were substantiated for this group of teachers (Varella, 1997). The Varella study was able to rank order teachers successfully via their constructivist beliefs and teaching practices. The Varella study provides the data for the comparison group in this study. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 CHAPTER m RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Design The focus of this study was to examine and compare teacher perceptions of their classroom learning environments, use of recommended teaching strategies, and philosophies of science teaching. Comparisons are undertaken between middle school and high school teachers for teaching strategies and philosophies. Comparisons are undertaken between teachers with graduate degrees in science education and those who do not have graduate degrees in science education for strategies used in the classroom and perceptions of classroom learning environment. This study seeks to build upon the work by Weiss et al as well as explore additional research questions. The importance of professional development in developing inquiry teaching skills was reviewed in Chapter II. Additional comparisons are undertaken between teachers with two types of professional development and the teachers who do not have these types of professional development. Specifically, teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science are compared to the teachers who have fewer than 35 hours. Teachers who have attended an extended (more than 40 hours) science professional development program are compared to teachers who have not attended this type of program. For these comparisons, differences in teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments as well as teaching strategies are explored. This chapter is a report of the procedures used in this investigation. The participants were teachers who, by receipt of an award for exemplary teaching, are deemed effective teachers. The award they received was the 2003 Presidential Awards for Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST). The instruments used in this study include: 1) CLES survey; 2) PTL survey; and 3) Science Classroom Observation Rubric. These tools are described fully later in this chapter and in Appendices C through Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 F. A Survey of Classroom Practices was also used to gather demographic data about the teachers. All data analyses were done using Microsoft Excel version 2002 and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Participants There are a possible fifty-three Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) given each year. There were forty-seven PAEMST awardees in 2003. A component of their submission for the award was a video of a lesson of their selection that was 30-90 minutes in instruction. As part of the application packet for the award, the teachers were directed to provide a tape of the quality that would allow reviewers to see clearly and hear what was happening in the classroom. They were informed that it was important to be able to hear the teacher as well as the students interacting with the teacher and with one another (Appendix A). This video was submitted along with written materials and used in the selection process that resulted in the 2003 PAEMST awardees. Thirty-four teachers (72%) granted permission to review the videos. Of these 34 teachers granting permission to review their videos, twenty-five (73.5%) completed the CLES, PTL, and Survey of Classroom Practices. Ten of these twenty-five teachers were middle school teachers and fifteen were high school teachers. Data Collection Each of these awardees was contacted by e-mail by the investigator, asking for permission to review their video. E-mail responses granting permission were forwarded to the National Science Foundation who released those videos to this investigator. Thirty-four awardees granted permission to review the video. These individuals were contacted regarding the additional written tools used in this study - the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, Survey of Classroom Practices, and Philosophy of Teaching and Learning. The teachers’ responses to these tools were collected by the investigator either by e-mail or regular mail. Non-responders were contacted at the start Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 of their next academic year with a follow-up request. Letters from the researcher and teachers are presented in Appendix B. All these teachers taught at the 7-12 grade level. Of the thirty-four awardees who granted permission to review their videos, eleven were middle school (grades 7 to 8 or grades 7-9) and twenty-three were high school teachers (grades 9-12). Of the thirty-four awardees who granted permission to review their videos, twenty-five completed the additional written tools. Ten of the teachers completing the written surveys were middle school teachers and fifteen were high school teachers. Research Questions and Instrumentation Four instruments were used to answer the research questions. Each research question and the tool(s) used is shown in Table 5. The instruments are presented in the appendices. Appendix C presents the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. The Survey of Classroom Practices is included in Appendix D. The Expert Science Teaching Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM) Science Classroom Observation Rubric and Scoring Guide are presented in E. The Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) survey is included in Appendix F. The Validated Scoring Guide for the PTL survey is presented in Appendix G. Description of Instruments Constructivist Learning Environment Survey The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) is composed of 42 statements about a classroom learning environment. The survey measures six sub­ categories: personal relevance, scientific uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 Table 5. Research questions and instruments Research questions Instruments 1. What are the 2003 PAEMST science awardees’ perceptions of the learning environment that characterizes their science classrooms? Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES); Survey of Classroom Practices 2. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between the middle and high school PAEMST science awardees? ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric (SCOR) used with videotape 3. How do the philosophies of teaching compare between the middle and high school 2003 PAEMST science awardees? Philosophies of Teaching and Learning Survey 4. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers with a Master’s Degree in science education and teachers with Degrees in other fields? ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric used with videotape 5. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who had more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the past 12 months? ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric used with videotape 6. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who said their teaching practices have changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program and those teachers who attended the same type of educational program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their practices? ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric used with videotape 7. How do teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who have furthered their education through a Master’s Degree in science education and those who do not have this type of Master’s Degree? Constructivist Learning Environment Survey 8. How do teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last 12 months and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the last 12 months? Constructivist Learning Environment Survey 9.How do teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers and a group of Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project teachers who were studied in 1997? 8 items on the ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 student negotiation, and attitude towards class (Taylor, Dawson, and Fraser, 1995). There is both a teacher and student version. The teacher version was the only version used in this study. The personal relevance sub-category explores the extent teachers believe students perceive relevance of school science to out of school life. The scientific uncertainty sub-category explores the extent to which teachers believe students perceive science to be uncertain and evolving. This sub-category looks at students learning to question and be skeptical about the nature and value of science, acknowledging that human values and interests impact science. The critical voice sub-category looks at teacher assessment of student perceptions of the extent to which they are able to exercise a critical voice about the quality of their learning activities. The focus is the extent to which teachers perceive they encourage students to question the teacher’s pedagogical plans and methods and express impediments to learning. The shared control sub­ category explores the extent to which the teacher involves students in the management of the classroom learning environment, i.e., the learning goals, activities, and assessment criteria. The student negotiation sub-category measures teacher perceptions of the extent to which students verbally interact with other students in the process of building scientific knowledge. Finally, the attitude toward class sub-category explores teacher interpretation of student attitudes related to aspects of the classroom environment. This teacher version was modified, so that only the first 30 statements of the CLES were used for this survey. Using a five point Likert scale, the teachers were asked to rate how each statement applied to their classroom. Survey of Classroom Practices The Survey of Classroom Practices was abbreviated for this study to include only 69 questions. The categories of questions include: teacher characteristics, professional development, formal course preparation, classroom instructional preparation, instructional influences, and instructional activities in science. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 The teacher characteristics category focuses on number of years teaching science, years at current school and educational major/certification. The professional development category includes items about time spent in professional development activities and the impact of those professional development activities on their teaching. The formal course preparation category requests information about specific undergraduate level science courses. The classroom instructional preparation category focuses on how well prepared the teacher feels to carry out a variety of activities. The instructional influences category focuses on the type and degree of instructional influences on what is taught. The instructional activities in science has four subsets, including percentage of time students spend in various activities, percent of laboratory time spent in various activities, percent of group work time spent in various activities, and a description of the target class used in the videotape. Science Classroom Observation Rubric The videos were reviewed using the Science Classroom Observation Rubric (SCOR) developed as one of five tools in the Expert Science Teaching Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM) over a period of three years. These tools were developed to evaluate teaching, to measure observable differences in use of constructivist practices, as an impetus for professional development, and to measure observable differences in use of constructivist practices (Burry-Stock, 1995). Nearly 200 fourth through eighth grade teachers in seven states were involved in the development of these tools. The tool has construct validity. This rubric was developed by a panel composed of experienced science educators and researchers. The panel placed 18 observable practices in categories: 1. Facilitating the learning process (5 behaviors) 2. Content specific pedagogy (6 behaviors) 3. Contextual knowledge (3 behaviors) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 4. Content knowledge (4 behaviors) (Burry-Stock, 1995). Overall reliability for factors has been reported as 0.91. This investigator learned how to use the tool at a seminar conducted by Gary F. Varrella at the University of Iowa. A Classroom Observation Scoring Sheet was used to record results of analysis (Appendix E). The SCOR uses a rating system of 1-5 with a maximum possible score of 90 for the 18 teaching practices for each teacher. These 18 teaching practices are grouped into five categories. Ratings are indicative of teacher proficiencies as follows: “5” indicates an expert constructivist; “4” indicates a teacher proficient in constructivist practices; “3” indicates a capable, experienced teacher; “2” indicates an advanced beginner teacher; and “ 1” indicates a teacher who is a novice in constructivist practices. There is a maximum of 25 points for five practices in the Category (I) Facilitating the Learning Process; 30 points for six practices for Category (II) Content Specific Pedagogy; 15 points for three practices in Category (IE) Contextual Knowledge; and 20 points for four practices in Category (IV) Content Knowledge. Category totals are divided by the maximum total and a percentage recorded. An overall total or composite was determined for each teacher. The scale developed for the Expert Science Teaching Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM) was used to group the composite scores (Burry-Stock, 1995). The scale is: 85%-100% Expert 70%-84% Proficient 35%-69% Competent 15%-34% Advanced Beginner 01%-14% Novice Descriptions of the teacher developmental levels were provided by Burry-Stock (1995) in conjunction with the development of the Expert Science Teaching Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM) and were discussed in Chapter n. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Teacher beliefs are often assessed using a Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Interview. In this study, eight questions were selected from the interview. These questions were administered as a survey instrument of 8 open-ended questions. A scoring guide to quantify teacher responses was developed by Lew (2001). Answers to questions may be brief or extensive with multiple ideas or concepts. The scoring guide breaks each question into categories of possible responses, with associated scores for the categories. Validity of these categories was established in Lew’s work through evaluation and consensus by a panel of six science educators (Lew, 2001). Data Analysis Videotapes of teacher lessons were reviewed using the ESTEEM Classroom Observation Rubric (SCOR). The investigator had attended an educational offering on the use of the ESTEEM SCOR. A second reviewer, an individual recently completing a PhD program, with experience in observing and scoring teachers’ classroom performance using the ESTEEM SCOR served to establish inter-rater agreement. The steps taken to assure reliability on the part of the investigator to appropriately score the rubric were: 1. Investigator and second reviewer used Criteria for Using the Esteem (derived from collaboration with second reviewer) instrument. 2. A video was observed and findings were discussed by the investigator and second reviewer. 3. Four videotapes from the study group were reviewed by the investigator using ESTEEM Classroom Observation Rubric—Scoring Summary. These tapes were carefully selected to represent a range of examples of teaching strategies (constructivist abilities) used in the science classroom. 4. The same four videotapes were reviewed by the second reviewer. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 5. The investigator and second individual reviewer compared scoring for total scores, with inter-rater reliability found to be 0.825665. Research questions 2 through 9 were answered using the Independent Group t-test. This statistical technique is used for comparing two groups where measurements of the groups are normally distributed. Means were determined for the results. The statistical program SPSS was used to perform the analysis. Eight items from the Science Classroom Observation Rubric were used with a teacher comparison group to answer question 9. The comparison group was a group of Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination (SS&C) teachers who were part of a study in 1997 by Varella. The SS&C teachers were participants in an ongoing National Science Foundation funded teacher enhancement effort conducted at the Science Education Center of The University of Iowa. A major element of the project was teacher enhancement based on constructivist learning theory. Instructional strategies were based on the constructivist learning model. Documentation of teachers’ practices in classrooms, particularly those that demonstrated constructivist teaching habits, was a priority in the project. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The characteristics of the study group are described in this chapter, along with the data collected from the various research instruments. The raw data sets used in this study can be found in Appendix H. The remainder of this chapter is organized according to the research questions. Description of Study Group Twenty-two teachers completed the highest Degree held portion of the Survey of Classroom Practices. All had graduate Degrees, with twenty (80%) holding an MA or MS and two (8%) having a PhD or EdD. The most common fields of study for these participants were science and science education. Twenty-two (88%) of the participants’ reported science or science education as their field of study during their undergraduate program and 19 (76%) of these individuals reported this focus in their graduate program (Table 6). This compares favorably to the 80% of PAEMST awardees in a 2000 National Table 6. Field of study Field of Study Bachelor’s Degree Highest Degree Beyond Bachelors 0 Elementary education Middle school certification 2 Science education 0 A field of science (includes biology, chemistry, physics, and geology) 16 10 5 Science education and a field of science 6 4 Other disciplines (includes other education fields, mathematics, history, English, etc) 3 3 2 Middle school education 1 * Two teachers reported two fields of study during their undergraduate programs. One teacher reported studies in both elementary education and middle school certification. Another teacher reported study in a field of science as well as other disciplines. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Study that reported science or science education as their field of study in their undergraduate program (Weiss, 2001). The study participants reported the number of undergraduate level courses taken in science or science education (See Table 7). Table 7. Number of undergraduate level courses completed in science or science education Number of quarter or semester course taken at the undergraduate level Biology, life science Physics, chemistry, physical science Geology, astronomy, earth science Science education 0 1 (4%) 0 7 (28%) 7 (28%) 1-2 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 3-4 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 4 (16%) 1 (4%) 5-6 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 7-8 2 (8%) 7 (28%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 9-10 1 (4%) 0 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 11-12 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 0 4 (16%) 13-14 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 15-16 1 (4%) 0 0 0 17 or more 13 (52%) 9 (36%) 4 (16%) 5 (20%) In 1989 Nelson et al reported on type/number of science courses taken in college. A comparison of findings of two groups of life/biology science teachers is presented in Table 8. Table 8. Comparison of science courses completed by two groups of teachers Number of science courses in college Life/biology science teachers in this study Life/biology science teachers in the Nelson et al 1989 study 8 or more courses 72% (9 or more courses) 56% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 As stated in Chapter II of this study, professional development is important to the development of inquiry teaching skills. Focus area and hours spent in professional development for the study sample are presented in Table 9. Forty-four percent of the study group reported spending more than 35 hours on an in-depth study of science content in the previous 12 months. Fifty-two percent reported spending more than 35 hours in study of methods of science in the previous 12 months. Table 9. Professional development in the last twelve months Focus None <6 hours 16-35 hours >35 hours In-depth study of science content 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 10 (40%) 11 (44%) Methods of teaching science 0 4 (16%) 8 (32%) 13 (52%) This compares favorably to Nelson’s 1989 report of participation in professional development. In that report, 30% of 7-9* grade teachers and 24% of 10-12th grade teachers attended a professional development activity in the previous year. The 2000 report by Weiss found that 91% of awardees had completed courses on methods of teaching science. In this study group 100 % had completed courses concerned with methods of teaching science. In the Survey of Classroom Practices, the study group was asked to identify the impact of the professional development activities in which they had participated. They responded to specific professional development activities (Table 10). Of the teachers who attended professional development on how to implement state or national science content standards, 44% reported that they were trying to use the information they learned and 44% reported the professional development activity had caused them to change their teaching practices. Sixty percent were trying to implement new curriculum or instructional materials that had been a focus of the professional development activity and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 32% reported the professional development activity had caused them to change their teaching practices. Fifty-six percent of these teachers reported they were trying to use information concerning new methods of teaching science and sixteen percent indicated they had changed their teaching practices as a result of the professional development activity. Sixty-four percent of the teachers reported that they were trying to use information from in-depth study of science content, while 8% indicated they had changed their teaching practices as a result of information from this type of professional development activity. Forty-four percent of these teaching were trying to use multiple strategies for student assessment as a result of professional development activities and 24% had changed their teaching practices related to content from this type of educational offering. Table 10. Impact of professional development activities Focus of Professional Development Activity Did not participate Had little or no impact on my teaching Trying to use Caused me to change my teaching practices How to implement state or national science content standards 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 11 (44%) 11 (44%) How to implement new curriculum or instructional materials 0 2 (8%) 15 (60%) 8 (32%) New methods o f teaching science 2(8%) 4 (16%) 14 (56%) 4 (16%) In-depth study of science content 4 (16%) 3 (12%) 16 (64%) 2 (8%) Multiple strategies for student assessment 2 (8%) 5 (20%) 11 (44%) 6 (24%) Observed other teachers teaching science in the school, district, or another district 12 (48%) 5 (20%) 5 (20%) 3 (12%) Attended an extended science institute or science professional development program for teachers (cumulative 40 contact hours or more) 8 (32%) 1 (4%) 6 (24%) 10 (40%) Read or contributed to professional science journals 2 (8%) 0 12 (48%) 11 (44%) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 Most of these teachers (48%) had not observed other teachers teaching science in the school, district, or another district. Of those who had done this type of observation, 25% reported they were trying to use information from this observation experience in their classrooms and 12% indicated the observation experience had caused them to change their teaching practices. Seventeen teachers had attended an extended science institute or science professional development program for teachers with a cumulative forty contact hours or more. Of these teachers, only one (4%) reported this had little or no impact on their teaching. The majority (40%) reported this type of learning experience had caused them to change their teaching practices. Finally, 48% of these teachers reported that reading or contribution to professional science journals resulted in their attempts to try to use information from this experience. Forty-four percent indicated that reading or contributing to professional science journals had caused them to change their teaching practices. Instructional influences on what was taught in the class that was videotaped for the award application were explored using the Survey of Classroom Practices. Eighty-eight percent of the teachers reported their state’s curriculum or content standards as a somewhat or strong positive influence on their instruction (Table 11). Sixty-eight percent reported their district’s curriculum framework or guidelines as a somewhat or strong positive influence on their instruction. Textbooks/instructional materials were reported as having little or no influence on instruction by 32% of the teachers, while 44% of teachers reported they had a somewhat positive influence and 8% found them to be a strong positive influence. State tests were reported as having little or no influence by 36% of teachers and as having a somewhat positive or strong positive influence on instruction by 36% of teachers. District tests held less influence on instruction, with only 16% of teachers reporting these as a somewhat or strong positive influence on instruction. Thirteen Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 teachers indicated that district tests were not applicable as possible instructional influences. Table 11. Instructional influences on what was taught in the target class selected for the videotape session Instructional Influence N/A Strong negative influence Somewhat negative influence Little or no influence Somewhat positive influence Strong positive influence Your state’s curriculum framework or content standards 1 (4%) 0 0 2 (8%) 11 (44%) 11 (44%) Your district’s curriculum framework or guidelines 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 12 (48%) 5 (20% Textbook, instructional materials 0 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 8 (32%) 11 (44A) 2 (8%) State test 6 (24%) 1 (4%) 0 9 (36%) 4 (16%) 5 (20%) District test 13 (52%) 1 (4%) 0 7 (28%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) National science education standards 0 1 (4%) 0 1 (4%) 9 (36%) 8 (32%) Experience in pre­ service preparation 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 0 3 (12%) 9 (36%) 8 (32%) Students’ special needs 0 1 (4%) 0 3 (12%) 17 (68%) 4(16%) Parents, community 0 1 (4%) 0 9 (36%) 10 (40%) 6 (24%) Preparing students for next grade or level 0 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 6 (24%) 10 (40%) 7 (28%) Sixty-eight percent of the study group reported that the national science education standards provided a somewhat or strong positive influence on their instruction. Experience in pre-service preparation provided a somewhat or strong positive influence on instruction for 68% of these teachers. Students’ special needs influenced instruction positively for 84%t of the teachers. Sixty-four percent of the teachers reported parents Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 and/or the community as having a somewhat or strong positive influence on instruction. Finally, 68% of teachers indicated that preparing students for the next grade or level had a strong positive influence on their instruction. Some of these same data elements were used in a 1993 study of PAEMST awardees (Weiss and Raphael, 1996). A comparison of this 2003 awardee group and the Presidential awardee group in the 1993 study for these common data elements is presented in Table 12. Only 20% of the current study group indicated a positive influence from the district curriculum framework or guidelines as compared to the 1993 PAEMST group. Of particular note is the fact that only 8% of the 2003 PAEMST group reported the textbook and instructional materials as a strong positive instmctional influence. This contrasts sharply with the 43% reported by the 1993 group. Tests are reported as a strong positive instructional influence at a higher incidence for the teachers in this study group. The No Child Left Behind Act may have a role in this. There is a decline in the influence of parent/community seen between the two PAEMST groups. Table 12. Comparison of two presidential awardee groups Major or Strong Positive Instructional Influence Current study group of middle/high school 2003 PAEMST Awardees 1993 group of 7-12‘h grade PAEMST Awardees 1993 National group of 7-12th grade teachers District curriculum framework or guidelines 20% 30% 50% Textbook, instmctional materials 8% 43% 72% State test 20% 15% 26% District test 8% 1% 17% Parents, community 24% 48% 38% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 Research Question 1. What Are the PAEMST Science Awardees’ Perceptions of the Learning Environment That Characterizes Their Science Classrooms? The Survey of Classroom Practices asks a number of questions related to science classroom activities. The responses reflect teacher perceptions of instructional time as related to student classroom activities, percentage of laboratory time students do various activities, and percentage of time students carry out different activities. Data on percentage of instructional time students are engaged in various science classroom activities are presented in Table 13. These data must be reviewed with the understanding that only 13 of the 25 teachers completing the Survey of Classroom Practices followed Table 13. Percentage of instructional time students are engaged in various science classroom activities Activity None Less than 25% 25% to 33% More than 33% Listen to the teacher explain something about science 0 17 (68%) 8 (32%) 0 Read about science in books, magazines, articles 0 12 (88%) 2 (8%) 0 Collect information about science 0 13 (52%) 3 (12%) 5 (25%) Maintain and reflect on a science portfolio of their own work 7 (28%) 11 (44%) 6 (24%) 0 Write about science 0 16 (64%) 7 (28%) 0 Do laboratory activity, investigation, or experiment in class 0 1(4%) 9 (36%) 15 (60%) Watch the teacher give a demonstration of an experiment 3 (12%) 17 (68%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) Work in pairs or small groups (non-laboratory) 0 7 (28%) 8 (32%) 9 (36%) Do a science activity with the class outside the classroom or science laboratory 0 20 (80%) 3 (12%) 1 (4%) Use computers, calculators or other educational technology to learn science 1 (4%) 11 (44%) 8 (32%) 5 (20%) Work individually on assignments 1 (4%) 14 (64%) 9 (36%) 0 Take a quiz or test 0 21 (84%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 directions in completing this portion of the survey. The directions state “no more than two 33% or four at the 25-33% should be recorded for answers to numbers 38-49”. Twelve teachers exceeded those numbers in completing this section of the survey. Students collecting information about science, doing laboratory activities or investigations, working in pairs or groups, and using technology to leam science were reported by these teachers as occurring more than 33% of the time in their classrooms for 20% or more of these teachers. Doing laboratory activities, investigations, or experiments was the most frequently occurring student classroom activity with 60% of teachers reporting that this occurred more than a third of the time in their classrooms. In terms of laboratory time, the teachers in this study reported that less than a third of the time the students follow step by step directions (Table 14). About three-fourths of the teachers reported their students use science equipment or measuring tools at least 25% of the laboratory time. Thirty-two percent reported their students use science equipment or measuring tools more than a third of the time. Forty-four percent of the teachers reported their students collect data during laboratory activities at least 33% of the time. Sixty percent of the teachers reported their students changed something in an experiment to see what would happen less than 25% of the time. Development of tables, graphs, or charts is a common laboratory activity, with 20% of teachers indicating that their students do this at least a third of their lab time. Drawing conclusions from science data was a part of student lab time less than 25% of the time in five teachers’ classrooms; 25 to 33% of the time in eleven teachers’ classrooms; and more than a third of the time in nine teachers’ classrooms. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 Table 14. Percentage of laboratory time students do various activities Activity None <25% 25-33% >33% Follow step-by-step directions 0 15 (60%) 10 (40%) 0 Use science equipment or measuring tools 0 6 (24%) 11 (44%) 8 (32%) Collect data 0 3 (12%) 1 (44%) 11 (44%) Change something in an experiment to see what will happen 1 (4%) 14 (56%) 6 (24%) 3 (12%) Design ways to solve a problem 0 14 (56%) 6 (24%) 3 (12%) Make tables, graphs, or charts 0 6 (24%) 14 (56%) 5 (20%) Draw conclusions from science data 0 5 (20%) 11 (44%) 9 (36%) Classroom activities other than lab activities were explored (Table 15). Discussion on ways to solve science problems is reported to be occurring less than a third of the time in the majority of these teachers’ classrooms. Students spend less than a quarter of their classroom time completing written assignments from the textbook or workbook. Six teachers indicated students do not complete written assignments from the textbook or workbook as a classroom activity. All teachers indicated that students spend a percentage of their time writing results or conclusions of a laboratory activity, with the majority reporting students do this less than 25% of the time. The majority of the teachers reported that students worked on long term projects less than a quarter of the time. Twenty-four percent of teachers reported their students did not spend classroom time on writing projects or portfolios where group members help to improve each others’ or the group’s work. Sixty percent of teachers indicated students spent some classroom time on this type of activity. The majority of teachers reported their students spend less than a third of their classroom time asking questions to improve understanding, organizing and displaying information in tables or graphs, making predictions based on information, discussing different conclusions from information or data, listing positive/negative reactions to information, and reaching conclusions based on information or data. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 Table 15. Percentage of time students carry out different activities Activity None <25% 25-33% >33% Talk about ways to solve science problems 0 14 (56%) 8 (32%) 2 (8%) Complete written assignments from the textbook or workbook 6 (24%) 16 (64%) 1 (4%) 0 Write results or conclusions of a laboratory activity 0 14 (56%) 8 (32%) 3 (12%) Work on an assignment, report, or project that takes longer than one week to complete 2 (8%) 15 (60%) 5 (20%) 2 (8%) Write on a writing project or portfolio where group members help to improve each others’ (or the group’s) work 6 (24%) 15 (60%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) Review assignments or prepare for a quiz or test 4 (16%) 16 (64%) 3 (12%) 0 Ask questions to improve understanding 0 10 (40%) 14 (56%) 0 Organize and display information in tables or graphs 0 9 (36%) 13 (52%) 3 (12%) Make a prediction based on information 0 14 (56%) 9 (36%) 2 (8%) Discuss different conclusions from information or data 1 (4%) 11 (44%) 8 (32%) 3 (12%) List positive (pro) and negative (con) reactions to information 3 (12%) 16 (64%) 3 (12%) 1 (4%) Reach conclusions or decisions based upon the information or data 0 9 (36%) 3 (12%) 4 (16%) Additional teacher perceptions of the classroom learning environment were derived from the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). Results are reported as mean scores for the sub-categories of personal relevance, scientific uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, student negotiations, and attitude toward class in Table 16. Criteria for describing level of expertise in teacher perceptions of their use of constructivist teaching practices are presented in Table 17. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Table 16. Descriptive statistics of teacher perceptions as measured by teacher version of Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) Teacher Personal Relevance Scientific Uncertainty Critical Voice Shared Control Student Negotiation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Overall 3.6 3.8 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.6 4.4 4.6 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.8 3.97 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.2 3.6 4.6 4.6 3.8 4.2 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.0 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.8 4.03 3.6 4.4 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.6 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.6 3.95 3.8 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.8 3.0 3.8 4.4 4.6 3.64 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 3.4 3.6 4.2 3.6 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.0 4.6 3.96 Attitude Towards Class 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.2 2.4 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.2 3.2 3.0 2.4 2.6 3.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.91 Table 17. Criteria for defining level of teacher expertise in teacher perception of use of constructivist teaching practices Teacher Perception Mean Scores Teacher Centered Transitional Student Centered Novice Beginner Transitional Early Constructivist Expert Constructivist 1.00-1.49 1.50-2.49 2.50-3.49 3.50-4.49 4.50-5.00 Source: Lew, L.Y., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 2001. Using these criteria, this group of teachers can be assigned to the early constructivist group in five of the six sub-categories of the CLES. These sub-categories include: personal relevance, scientific uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, and student Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 negotiation. For the sub-category of attitude towards class, this group of teachers was found to be at Lew’s stage of transitional. Research Question 2. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between the Middle and High School PAEMST Science Awardees? The ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric (SCOR) results from viewing 34 videotapes of actual classroom lessons are presented in Table 18. The mean composite score for the middle school teachers was 72.4 with a mean percentage of 80.4%. The mean composite score for the high school teachers was 71.7 with a mean percentage of 79.7%. Using the proficiency levels developed for this tool (Burry-Stock, 1995) there were 15 expert teachers, 12 proficient teachers, and 7 competent teachers. Examining the group who completed surveys, in the middle school group there were 4 teachers who are categorized as expert, 5 as proficient, and 1 as competent. For the high school teachers who completed surveys, the proficiency levels are 8 categorized as expert, 4 as proficient, and 3 as competent. Analysis was undertaken to compare the middle school and high school teachers and their use of constructivist teaching strategies in the classroom. The results are displayed in Table 19. A comparison for degree lessons were coherent was not done as variance between the two groups was not similar. These results indicate teaching strategies used in classrooms are comparable between the middle and high school PAEMST awardees. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 Table 18. Comparison of middle school and high school teachers’ ESTEEM SCOR composite scores Middle School Teachers High School Teachers Composite score Composite % Composite score Composite % 66 73% 82 91% 72 80% 70 78% 53 59% 79 88% 75 83% 80 89% 83 92% 46 51% 80 89% 62 69% 66 73% 80 89% 81 90% 73 81% 68 76% 43 48% 79 88% 65 72% 81* 90%* 81 90% 80 89% 82 91% 81 90% 72 80% 62* 69%* 61* 68%* 61* 68%* 81* 90%* 66* 73%* 75* 83%* 80* 89%* 75* 83%* * indicates the teachers who gave permission to view their videotapes but did not complete the surveys Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Table 19. Comparison of means for variables in the Science Classroom Observation Rubric by those PAEMST teachers who are middle school teachers (Group 1) and those who are high school teachers (Group2). Variable N Group 1 Mean SD N Group 2 Mean SD t Signif. Teacher as Facilitator 10 3.90 .568 15 3.60 .910 .926 .364 Student Engagement - Activities Student Engagement - Experiences Novelty Textbook Dependency Category 1 Total Student Conceptual Understanding 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.70 3.90 3.90 4.50 20.00 4.30 .949 .738 .876 .850 3.055 .823 15 15 15 15 15 15 3.60 3.80 4.07 4.33 19.33 4.20 .828 .561 1.163 .976 4.100 .941 .279 .385 -.385 .440 .438 .273 .783 .704 .704 .664 .665 .787 Student Relevance Variation of Teaching Methods 10 10 3.90 3.90 15 15 3.73 3.87 .594 .834 .811 .110 Higher Order Thinking Skills Integration of Content and Process Skills Connection of Concepts and Evidence Category 2 Total Resolution of Misperceptions Teacher-Student Relationship 10 3.70 4.30 4.30 24.40 3.00 4.80 15 15 15 15 15 15 3.87 4.13 4.33 24.27 3.53 4.73 1.060 1.060 .900 4.978 .743 .594 -.385 10 10 10 10 10 .316 .568 1.059 .675 .823 3.658 .816 .422 .550 -.094 .072 -1.691 .306 .426 .913 .704 .664 .926 .943 .104 .762 Modifications of Teaching Strategies to Facilitate Student Understanding Category 3 Total 10 4.00 .816 15 4.07 .884 -.190 .851 10 11.90 1.729 15 12.27 1.751 -.515 .611 Use of Exemplars 10 3.80 .422 15 3.67 .724 .524 .605 Balance Between Depth and Comprehensiveness 10 4.40 .516 15 4.27 .884 .429 .672 Accurate Content 10 4.10 .316 15 3.93 .458 1.000 .328 10 10 16.20 72.40 1.135 9.192 15 15 15.80 71.73 2.731 12.742 .436 .142 .667 .888 Category 4 Total Grand Total Research Question 3. How Do the Philosophies of Teaching Compare Between the Middle and High School 2003 PAEMST Awardees? Analysis of teacher beliefs was performed using the Scoring Guide from Lew (2001). Criteria for defining expertise level are indicated in Table 20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 Table 20. Criteria for defining expertise level of teacher beliefs as measured by Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) survey Teacher Perception Mean Scores Teacher Centered Transitional Student Centered Novice Beginner Transitional Early Constructivist Expert Constructivist 1.00-1.49 1.50-2.49 2.50-3.49 3.50-4.49 4.50-5.00 Source: Lew, L.Y., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 2001. Mean scores for each teacher were determined using the score weight multiplied by the number of items in each score category. These mean scores are presented in Table 21. Table 21. Descriptive statistics of Philosophy of Teaching and Learning survey results Teacher Ml M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M il HI H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H ll H12 H13 H14 H15 Mean Score 3.23 3.95 4.06 3.67 3.67 4.60 4.08 3.76 3.93 4.69 4.50 3.88 3.90 3.63 3.56 3.13 4.11 3.67 2.70 3.87 4.64 4.13 4.90 4.88 4.06 Expertise Level Transitional Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Expert constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Transitional Early constructivist Early constructivist Transitional Early constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Expert constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 A comparison of middle school and high school teacher beliefs was undertaken to answer research question 3. Those data are presented in Table 22. Table 22. Comparison of means for Philosophy of Teaching and Learning by those PAEMST who are middle school teachers (Group 1) versus those who are high school teachers (Group 2) Group 1 Group 2 Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD t Signif. Mean scores 10 3.96 .436 15 3.97 6.09 -.030 .976 Teacher Content 10 12.80 7.913 15 10.27 4.891 .993 .331 Student Action 10 24.90 8.660 15 27.40 10.855 -.609 .548 Teacher Action 10 16.10 8.006 15 13.80 6.097 .816 .423 The data show no significant differences in philosophies of teaching and learning between middle and high school teachers. Research Question 4. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers with a Master’s Degree in Science Education and Teachers With Degrees in Other Fields? A comparison of means for Science Classroom Observation Rubric was undertaken to compare these two subgroups. Results are presented in Table 23. Independent t-tests could not be run for textbook dependency and teacher-student relationship because there was not common variance in the groups. These results show no statistically significant difference between the group of teachers having a Master’s Degree in Science Education Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 and the group without this same Master’s Degree for the variables of teaching practices measured by the Science Classroom Observation Rubric. Table 23. Comparison of means for Science Classroom Observation Rubric by those PAEMST teachers with a Master’s Degree in science education (Group 1) versus those without a Master’s Degree in science education (Group 2) Group 1 Group 2 Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD t Signif. Teacher as facilitator 13 3.77 .832 12 3.67 .778 .318 .754 Student engagement - activities 13 3.62 .650 12 3.67 1.073 -.146 .885 Student engagement - experiences 13 3.77 .599 12 3.92 .669 -.582 .567 Novelty 13 4.31 1.032 12 3.67 .985 1.586 .126 13 20.00 3.391 12 19.17 4.041 .560 .581 Student conceptual understanding 13 4.15 .987 12 4.33 .778 -.502 .621 Student relevance 13 3.85 .555 12 3.75 .452 .473 .641 Variation of teaching methods 13 4.00 .707 12 3.75 .754 .856 .401 Higher order thinking skills 13 3.92 .954 12 3.67 1.155 .607 .550 Integration of content and process skills 13 4.23 .927 12 4.17 .937 .172 .865 Connection of concepts and evidence 13 4.38 .961 12 4.25 .754 .387 .702 13 24.69 4.590 12 23.92 4.379 .432 .670 Resolution of misperceptions 13 3.62 .650 12 3.00 .853 2.039 .053 Modifications of teaching strategies to facilitate student understanding 13 4.15 .899 12 3.92 .793 .697 .493 13 12.69 1.377 12 11.50 1.883 1.817 .082 Use of exemplars 13 3.85 .555 12 3.58 .669 1.073 .294 Coherent lesson 13 4.15 .801 12 4.08 .669 .238 .814 Balance between depth and comprehensive-ness 13 4.31 .855 12 4.33 .651 -.084 .934 Accurate content 13 4.00 .408 12 4.00 .426 .000 1.000 Category 4 subtotal 13 15.92 2.431 12 16.00 2.045 -.085 .933 Composite 13 73.38 11.012 12 70.50 11.790 .633 .533 Category 1 subtotal Category 2 subtotal Category 3 subtotal Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 Research Question 5. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers Who Had More Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in Methods of Teaching Science and Those Teachers Who Had fewer Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in This Focus Area in the Past 12 Months? A comparison was undertaken between teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours. These results are displayed in Table 24. The variables of textbook dependency and student relevance were not included in this independent t-test analysis because there was not common variance between the two groups for these variables. These analyses show that there is not a significance difference in teaching strategies used in the classroom by teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and those teachers with less than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last twelve months. Given the impact of professional development as described in Chapter II, this is surprising. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 Table 24. Comparison of means for Science Classroom Observation Rubric by those PAEMST teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last twelve months (Group 1) versus those with fewer than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last twelve months (Group 2) Group 1 Group 2 Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD t Signif. Teacher as facilitator 13 3.85 .689 12 3.58 .900 .824 .419 Student engagement - activities 13 3.62 .870 12 3.67 .888 -.146 .885 Student engagement - experiences 13 3.92 .760 12 3.75 .452 .685 .500 Novelty 13 4.15 1.068 12 3.83 1.030 .762 .454 13 20.15 3.602 12 19.00 3.790 .780 .443 Student conceptual understanding 13 4.15 .987 12 4.33 .778 -.502 .621 Variation of teaching methods 13 3.85 .689 12 3.92 .793 -.238 .814 Higher order thinking skills 13 3.92 1.115 12 3.67 .985 .607 .550 Integration of content and process skills 13 4.23 .927 12 4.17 .937 .172 .865 Connection of concepts and evidence 13 4.23 1.013 12 4.42 .669 -.537 .597 Category 2 total 13 24.23 5.052 12 24.42 3.825 -.103 .919 Resolution of misperceptions 13 3.38 .870 12 3.25 .754 .412 .684 Teacher student relationship 13 4.77 .599 12 4.75 .452 .090 .929 Modifications of teaching strategies to facilitate student understanding 13 4.00 .913 12 4.08 .793 -.243 .810 13 12.15 1.864 12 12.08 1.621 .101 .921 Use of exemplars 13 3.69 .630 12 3.75 .622 -.230 .820 Coherent lesson 13 3.92 .760 12 4.33 .651 -1.444 .162 Balance between depth and comprehensive-ness 13 4.38 .870 12 4.25 .622 .442 .663 Accurate content 13 3.92 .277 12 4.08 .515 -.980 .337 Category 4 total 13 15.92 2.362 12 16.00 2.132 -.085 .933 Grand total 13 72.46 12.340 12 71.50 10.458 .209 .836 Category 1 total Category 3 total Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 Research Question 6. How Do the Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers Who Said Their Teaching Practices Have Changed as a Result of Attendance at an Extended (More Than 40 Contact Hours) Science Institute or Science Professional Development Program and Those Teachers Who Attended the Same Type of Educational Program and Did Not Respond Indicating the Program Caused Them to Change Their Practices? An analysis was undertaken to determine if there were differences in use of teaching strategies in the classroom between teachers with extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or professional development program who said the program changed their teaching practices and those teachers who had attended the same type of program but said the program had not caused them to change their practices. These data are displayed in Table 25. Comparisons were not made for textbook dependency and teacher-student relationships as there was not common variance between the two groups. This analysis shows there is not a significant difference in teaching used in the classroom for these two groups: those who said their teaching practices have changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program and those teachers who attended the same type of educational program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their practices. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 Table 25. Comparison of means for teachers of teaching practices on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric who said their teaching practices changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program (Group 1) versus those teachers who attended the same type of educational program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their practices Variable N Group 1 Mean SD N Group 2 Mean SD t Signif. Teacher as Facilitator 10 3.90 .738 7 3.57 .976 .793 .440 Student Engagement - Activities 10 3.90 .876 7 3.29 .756 1.502 .154 Student Engagement - Experiences 10 4.00 .667 7 3.71 .756 .824 .423 Novelty 10 4.20 1.033 7 4.14 1.069 .111 .913 10 20.60 3.438 7 18.86 4.100 .951 .356 Student Conceptual Understanding 10 4.30 1.059 7 3.86 .690 .967 .349 Student Relevance 10 3.80 .632 7 3.86 .378 -.213 .834 Variation of Teaching Methods 10 3.90 .738 7 3.86 .378 .140 .890 Higher Order Thinking Skills 10 4.10 .994 7 3.57 1.134 1.019 .324 Integration of Content and Process Skills 10 4.40 .966 7 4.00 .816 .893 .386 Connection of Concepts and Evidence 10 4.30 1.059 7 4.43 .787 -.272 .789 Category 2 Total 10 24.90 5.131 7 23.57 3.599 .589 .565 Resolution of Misperceptions 10 3.60 .699 7 3.00 .816 1.627 .125 Modifications of Teaching Strategies to Facilitate Student Understanding Category 3 Total 10 3.90 .876 7 4.43 .787 -1.275 .222 10 12.40 1.430 7 12.43 1.718 -.037 .971 Use of Exemplars 10 3.80 .632 7 3.86 .378 -.213 .834 Coherent Lesson 10 4.00 .816 7 4.29 .756 -.731 .476 Balance Between Depth and Comprehensiveness 10 4.30 .949 7 4.29 .488 .036 .971 Accurate Control 10 3.90 .316 7 4.14 .378 -1.440 .170 Category 4 Total 10 16.00 2.539 7 16.00 1.915 .000 1.00 Grand Total 10 74.00 11.907 7 70.71 10.356 .589 .564 Category 1 Total Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 Research Question 7. How Do Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environments Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers Who Have Furthered Their Education bv Earning a Master’s Degree in Science Education and Those Who Do Not Have Such a Master’s Degree? Comparison of two sub-groups (teachers with Master’s Degrees in science education and those without Master’s Degrees in science education) was undertaken using the information obtained from the CLES. These data are presented in Table 26. Table 26. Comparison of means for Constructivist Learning Environment Survey sixsub-group categories by those PAEMST teachers with Master’s in science education (Group 1) and those PAEMST teachers without a Master’s in science education (Group 2) Group 2 Group 1 Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD t Signif. PR 12 4.00 .443 12 3.93 .299 .432 .670 SU 12 3.95 .491 12 4.10 .325 -.883 .387 cv 12 3.98 .335 12 3.92 .233 .566 .577 sc 12 3.63 .481 12 3.65 .342 -.098 .923 SN 12 3.88 .356 12 4.03 .317 -1.089 .288 AT 12 2.77 .380 12 3.06 .264 -2.183 .040* These results indicate that there are no significant differences in perceptions of classroom learning environments between the two groups, those with a Master’s Degree in Science Education and those without such a degree except for attitude toward class where there is a statistically significant difference at the .05 level. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Research Question 8. How Do Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environments Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers With More Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in Methods of Teaching Science in the Last 12 Months and Those Teachers Who Had Fewer Than 35 Hours of Professional Development in This Focus Area in the Last 12 Months? Comparison of two sub-groups (those teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in the last 12 months and those fewer less than 35 hours in the same time period) in methods of teaching science was undertaken using the information obtained from the CLES. These data are presented in Table 27. Table 27. Comparison of means for Constructivist Learning Environment Survey six sub-group categories by those PAEMST Teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science the last twelve months (Group 1) and PAEMST Teachers with fewer than 35 hours of professional development in the last twelve months in methods of teaching science (Group 2) Group 1 Group 2 Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD t Signif. Personal Relevance 12 4.10 .386 12 3.83 .317 1.849 .078 Scientific Uncertainty 12 4.05 .452 12 4.00 .391 .290 .775 Critical Voice 12 3.97 .317 12 3.93 .261 .281 .781 Shared Control 12 3.63 .450 12 3.65 .383 -.098 .923 Student Negotiation 12 3.93 .412 12 3.98 .262 -.355 .726 Attitude Towards Class 12 2.98 .395 12 2.85 .306 .982 .337 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 These results indicate that there are no significant differences between the groups. Responses on the CLES were similar between teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last 12 months and teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the last 12 months. Research Question 9. How Do Teaching Strategies Used in the Classroom Compare Between 2003 PAEMST Teachers and a Group of Iowa Scope. Sequence, and Coordination Project Teachers Who Were Studied in 1997? Eight items from the Science Classroom Observation Rubric were used to answer Research Question 9. These 8 items were: teacher as facilitator; student engagement in Table 28. Comparison of means for eight items on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric by the PAEMST teachers (Group 1) and a group of SS&C teachers (Group 2) Group 1 Group 2 Variable N Mean SD N Teacher as Facilitator 25 3.72 .792 Student Engagement - Activities 25 3.64 Student Engagement Experiences 25 Student Conceptual Understanding Mean SD t Signif. 24 2.92 .717 3.718 .001* .860 24 3.00 .780 2.724 .009* 3.84 .624 24 3.71 .859 .616 .541 25 4.24 .879 24 3.29 .955 3.619 .001* Integration of Content and Process Skills 25 4.20 .913 24 3.54 1.103 2.281 .027* Resolution of Misperceptions 25 4.32 .852 24 2.88 .850 5.939 .000* Composite score 25 72.00 11.247 24 63.29 9.229 2.956 .005* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 activities; student engagement in experiences; student conceptual understanding; higher order thinking skills; integration of content and process skills; resolution of misperceptions; and total composite score. These comparisons are presented in Table 28. Comparison of means was not done for higher order thinking skills as there was not a common variance between the two groups. There is a statistically significant difference for all but the item of “student engagement in experiences”, indicating the PAEMST group is more constructivist in teaching strategies than the SS&C group. The researcher examined the degree of congruence between the expertise levels as identified by the individual research instruments. This summary is presented in Table 29. Table 29. Comparison of expertise levels identified using the three tools in this research study for each teacher Teacher CLES Expertise Level PTL Expertise Level Ml M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M il HI H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H ll H12 H13 H14 H15 Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Transitional Transitional Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Transitional Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Expert constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Early constructivist Transitional Early constructivist Early constructivist Transitional Early constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist Expert constructivist Expert constructivist Early constructivist SCOR Observed Expertise Level Proficient Proficient Competent Proficient Expert Expert Proficient Expert Proficient Expert Expert Proficient Expert Expert Competent Competent Expert Proficient Competent Proficient Expert Expert Expert Expert Proficient Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 This study indicates these teachers perceive their teaching accurately. Their perceptions of the classroom learning environment were early constructivist and their practices were proficient or expert for 21 of the 25 teachers who participated in all elements of this study. Their beliefs were early or expert constructivist for all but two teachers who held transitional beliefs. In an effort to develop an understanding of differences between the “competent” teachers (N = 4) and the “expert” teachers (N = 12) as identified with the SCOR, a review of responses to the survey tools was undertaken for just these 16 teachers. Review of the Survey of Classroom Practices revealed differences that are presented in Table 30. Table 30. Areas of difference from the Survey of Classroom Practices for teachers identified as expert on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric and teachers identified as competent Variable SCOR Expert Teachers SCOR Competent Teachers Impact of professional development activities re: in-depth study of science content 100% had participated and 92% were trying to use 75% participated and all of these indicated they were trying to use Impact of reading or contributing to professional science journals 42% had changed their teaching practice 25% had changed their teaching practice Prepared to use/manage cooperative learning groups 100% felt well or very well prepared 75% felt well or very well prepared Prepared to help students document and evaluate their own science work 83% felt well or very well prepared 50% felt well or very well prepared Percent of instructional time students maintain and reflect on a science portfolio of their own work 37% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this 0% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this Percent of instructional time students work in pairs or small groups (non­ laboratory) 75% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this 50% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this Percent of instructional time students make predictions based on information or data 50% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this 0% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this Percent of instructional time students discuss different conclusions from the information or data 50% of teachers reported students spending more than 25 of time doing this 0% of teachers reported students spending more than 25% of time doing this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 It appears the “expert” teachers more often attempted to use what they had learned in professional development activities related to science content as well as from science journals. Based on other research reported in Chapter II, these teachers were taking the “risks” associated with moving to something new. This expert group felt better prepared than the “competent” group to use/manage cooperative learning groups and to help students document and evaluate their own work. The expert teachers reported more use of class time for students to: maintain and reflect on a science portfolio of their own work; work in student pairs or small groups; make predictions based on information or data; and discuss different conclusions from information or data. Means were determined for these two groups of teachers for each of the 18 items on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric. For 17 of the 18 items there was an interesting difference in mean scores (Table 31). The expert teachers used teaching strategies with more of a student focus, with students having responsibility for their own learning, and being actively engaged in activities. These expert teachers consistently incorporated novelty to motivate learning. The competent teachers used novelty only sometimes to motivate learning. The competent teachers still depended on the text somewhat to conduct the lesson, whereas the expert teachers did not have this same dependency. The expert teachers consistently focused lessons on activities that related to student understanding of concepts, with competent teachers having less of a relationship between activities and student understanding of concepts. Competent teachers would sometimes drift away from student relevance, but bring the lesson into focus quickly, while expert teachers always kept student relevance as a focus. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 Table 31. Comparison of mean scores for “expert” teachers as identified by the Science Classroom Observation Rubric (Group 1) and the “competent “ teachers identified by this rubric (Group 2) Variable SCOR Expert Teachers Mean SCOR Competent Teachers Mean Teacher as facilitator 4.17 2.25 Student engagement in activities 4.17 2.25 Student engagement in experiences 4.08 3 Novelty 4.67 2.5 Textbook dependency 5 3 22.17 12.75 Student conceptual understanding 4.92 3 Student relevance 4 3 Variation of teaching methods 4.25 2.75 Higher order thinking skills 4.67 2.25 Integration of content and process skills 4.92 2.5 Connection of concepts and evidence 4.92 3 Category 2 subtotal 27.83 16.5 Resolution of misperceptions 3.92 2.25 Teacher-student relationship 4.92 4 Modifications of teaching strategies to facilitate student-understanding 4.5 3.25 13.3 10 Use of exemplars 4 2.75 Coherent lesson 4.42 3.25 Balance between depth and comprehensiveness 4.83 3.25 Accurate content 4.08 3.5 17.33 9.25 Category 1 subtotal Category 3 subtotal Category 4 subtotal The expert teachers used a variety of methods to facilitate student conceptual understanding, while the competent teachers sometimes varied methods to demonstrate the content. Higher order thinking skills were achieved in expert teacher classrooms as teachers consistently moved students through different cognitive levels. The competent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 teachers seldom moved students through different cognitive levels. The competent teachers did not clearly integrate content and process skills while the expert teachers did so. A large disparity exists for mean scores between the expert and competent groups for connection between concepts and evidence. The expert teachers tied concepts to evidence while the competent teachers only partially tied concepts and evidence together. Resolution of misperceptions is a focus in the expert teachers’ classrooms almost all the time, while the competent teachers only occasionally focused on resolving misperceptions. Teacher-student relationships were comparable in both groups. Expert teachers modified lessons as necessary based on their awareness of student understanding. The competent teachers made modifications, though only occasionally. Exemplars were used frequently and accurately in the expert teacher classrooms, less frequently and accurately in the classrooms of competent teachers. Coherent lessons occurred in both groups’ classrooms, with the expert teachers more consistently integrating concepts throughout the lesson. The competent teachers’ lessons achieved an appropriate balance between depth and comprehensiveness most of the time, while expert teachers achieved this nearly all the time. Accuracy of content was similar for both groups, with the expert group having a slightly higher mean score. The Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Surveys were explored to gain a greater understanding of the differences between competent and expert teachers. The ideas had been scored on a 1-5 scale, with a 1 indicating a more teacher centered focus and a 5 indicating a student centered focus. The competent teachers had 50% of their responses scored as a 4 or 5 (student centered). The combined expert and proficient teacher group had 71% of their responses scored as a 4 or 5. The expert teachers by themselves had 76% of their responses scored as a 4 or 5 (student centered). Of interest was the fact that one competent teacher had a high mean score on the PTL, along with a high score total for the teacher content and student action categories. This teacher obviously had beliefs Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 that differed from what was actually occurring in the classroom. Another competent teacher had a high score total for student action category, again not enacted in the classroom. Given that an individual can hold beliefs about their teaching that are not seen in the classroom, responses of only the teachers found to be experts were reviewed and a selection included below: Question 1: What learning in your classroom do you think will be valuable to your students outside the class? Experiences that help to show real life connections to the concepts to be explored in classes. All of us can tell stories of parents, former students, or even ourselves who can remember little about the content from a course in our 7-12 student days, but can remember vividly the interpersonal and nonacademic experiences from the course. For me, the most valuable aspect of my classroom is practice and experiences with problem-solving and connecting the course content to real world situation. The ability to look at issues critically and the necessity of teamwork to accomplish some goals. Question 2: Describe the best teaching or learning situation that you have ever experienced (either as a teacher or as a student). Seeing the light bulbs go on during several lesson on electricity, circuits, switches, etc. Really fun to see their faces just light up with the wonder!! My best situations are when students are in front of the room presenting the results of their investigation and their peers are critiquing the strength and “extrapolatability” of their data and show that they perceive patterns and are capable of evaluating good and bad aspects of the data and analysis. Question 3: In what ways do you try to model the best teaching or learning situation in your classroom? I try to give my students experiences where they have to wrestle with their own understanding, pose questions, and puzzle some Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 more. I try to be a support structure for their exploration, not a quick fix resource of the answers. I structure my classes to provide experiences for students to build upon at a later time. For example, students may or may not have experienced baking homemade bread. I provide various experiences for students to see, feel, and smell the process of making bread. I provide opportunities to investigate the role of each ingredient and the chemistry behind it. I allow students to have a voice in what direction they want to investigate. Question 4: How do you believe your students learn best? They learn by doing things themselves. I try to involve them in complex situations that challenge their thinking. I encourage them to be as much a part of the scientific process as possible, and I encourage them to read and be aware of how what they are learning applies to current events... I believe they learn best by doing - whether it is by hands on lab experiences, interactive computer simulations, or individual research on subjects of interest. I also think however, that it is crucial to have a teacher nearby to help facilitate their learning and guide them in directions that will lead to enhanced understanding of the concept that they are investigating. Students learn almost nothing from what I say and do - and almost everything from what they say and do. They learn a lot by teaching each other and they leam a lot from being in a situation where they must do a task and realize that they don’t have the tools or skills or background knowledge to do it. Every student has their own way to leam. One student’s best way of learning most likely differs from another student’s and from my way of learning. By providing multiple opportunities to leam concepts, and connecting the concept to other concepts and experiences, I hope that I can find a way of teaching where every student at one time or another says “Ahhh, now I understand. So if this...” And finishes by asking a question that demonstrates their new thoughts. Question 5: How do you know when your students understand a concept? When they are able to explain to their neighbor what I just taught/ modeled or did with them. Also when they can explain things in their own words connecting the concepts to real things in their life. I know they understand when they can apply their knowledge and explain concepts to each other in their own words. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing between students with good memory who can parrot anything I’ve told them and students who possess an authentic understanding. My best test is to see if they have transferable knowledge. If I put them in a situation that they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 have never been in before, but it requires them to use their skills and knowledge, I believe that I get a good idea of whether they own their understanding or if they are just able to effectively product the correct Skinnerian response to a stimulus. Question 6: In what ways do you manipulate the educational environment to maximize student understanding? I present them with data that will drive them to make connections. I prove their thinking for places where I know there will be misconceptions that they need to be aware of. I intersperse the class with anecdotes and philosophy that make what we are doing seem significant (I believe it is, but I have to get students to believe it too - image is often everything after all) and so that they understand the reasons for performing experiments, analyzing data, being sensitive to what the universe is really saying to them through their investigations (including the strength or uncertainty of the message), and seeing the power to use these skills all over the place, not just in the classroom through independent investigations on variables of their choosing outside of the class as projects. Question 7: What concepts do you believe are most important for your students to understand by the end of the year? So much, BUT especially the idea that in science we ask questions, probe data and make sense of nature based on data. I really want them to leam how best to leam. I want them to understand that they can be in control of learning rather than be swept along by the educational system. That science is a way of finding out about the world, and that a key part of that is to gather data, and analyze the data, and that we do not have all the answers. I hope they come to understand that science is an ever changing body of knowledge that is based on keen observation and inventive experimentation. Question 8: What values do you want to develop in your students? I want them to look at the world around them with wonder and to know that science is a tool that can help them to understand that world more clearly. I want them to value the investigative process and to understand that although science does not have all the answers, it does have a method for investigating problems. I want them to value the natural world, and understand how interconnected the environments are. I hope they will realize that even their mall- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 based existence is indeed built upon a close relationship with the natural world. I hope they come to understand that science is an ever changing body of knowledge that is based on keen observation and inventive experimentation. I want them to think and to value thinking. I want them to see the applicability of the physics laws and principles (I don’t want them spinning their tires on the ice, I don’t want them pulling their bandaids off fast - why is that even still a question? I don’t want them keeping their air conditioner on all day when they are out of the house, but more than that, I want them to value the way we use science to discover and debate new ideas. I don’t expect all of my students to love science or my class. However, I would like to see all students ask good questions and to be able to look at several perspectives to make their own decision. I want my students to recognize that the classroom is a community and that each individual has talents that contribute to the success of the classroom community as well as the larger community. These teachers have a passion for teaching and an understanding of the National Science Education Standards that is evident in what they have written on their Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Surveys. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 CHAPTER V INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION Introduction Teaching through inquiry requires teachers to think and act in different ways (NRC, 2000). Transforming from a traditional approach to an inquiry teaching approach may not be an easy task. This study focused on teachers identified as “expert” through receipt of a Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching considered inquiry to be. The major finding of this study is that the recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching are teachers whose beliefs, perceptions of classroom learning environments, and teaching strategies are largely constructivist, i.e., examples of inquiry. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching program has been successful in identifying exemplary teachers who understand and used inquiry techniques. General Findings The significant findings reported in Chapter IV indicate that constructivist/inquiry teaching approaches can be successfully implemented in middle and high school classrooms. Previous studies for PAEMST teachers have been limited, especially in relation to teaching performance and use of constructivist practices. This study offers insights related to nine research questions. These are: 1. What are the 2003 PAEMST science awardees’ perceptions of the learning environment that characterizes their science classrooms? 2. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between the middle and high school 2003 PAEMST science awardees? 3. How do the philosophies of teaching science compare between the middle and high school 2003 PAEMST science awardees? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 4. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers with a Master’s Degree in science education and teachers with Degrees in other fields? 5. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who had more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the past 12 months? 6. How do the teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who said their teaching practices have changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program and those teachers who attended the same type of education program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their teaching practices? 7. How do teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers who have furthered their education through a Master’s Degree in science education and those who do not have this type of Master’s Degree? 8. How do teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science in the last 12 months and those teachers who had fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the last 12 months? 9. How do teaching strategies used in the classroom compare between 2003 PAEMST teachers and a group of Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project teachers who were studied in 1997? The study of teacher beliefs, perceptions of class learning environments, and teaching strategies is important for understanding this group of teachers who have received Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 recognition for their exemplary practices. The results indicate these teachers perceive their teaching accurately. Although there were nine research questions, for purposes of discussion they will be addressed in five general categories. These categories are professional development, teacher beliefs, teacher perceptions, teaching strategies, and expertise in teaching. Professional Development These teachers have a solid background of undergraduate class work in the sciences. Additionally, many have graduate degrees in the field of science or science education and extensive involvement with professional development programs. They identify a number of influences on their teaching practices, minimizing those that are externally proposed or enforced, looking at the students in the classroom as their measure of success. The sole professional development activity identified on the Survey of Classroom Practices these teachers either did not participate in or provided little or no impact on teaching was observation of other teachers teaching science in the school, district, or another district. This may point out the isolation in which teachers work. This group of PAEMST teachers compares favorably to another group of PAEMST awardees included in a 2000 National Study. In that study 80% of the PAEMST teachers reported science or science education as their field of study. In this study 88% of PAEMST awardees reported science or science education as their field of study. The science knowledge base of this group of awardees continues to be strong. The teachers in this study are active in attending professional development offerings, in both in-depth study of science content as well as methods of teaching science. As stated in Chapter II, effective teachers attend more elective in-services because they are looking for new ideas. Changing practice is hard to accomplish. Exemplary science teaching requires use of knowledge concerning both content and pedagogy. These Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 PAEMST teachers studied have developed knowledge of pedagogy and fine tuned that knowledge through their attendance at professional development offerings. Knowledge gained has been translated to the classroom by the majority of the teachers in the sample. They do not see in-service as a task, but rather as an opportunity. Use of content from professional development is demonstrated by these teachers in the strategies used in the classroom. They report trying new science curriculum materials as well as teaching practices. With assessment a component of many current reform efforts, these teachers report they are taking steps to learn about multiple strategies for accessing student learning and actually trying them out in the classroom. Changes in practice usually occur because of a combination of experiences, including professional development. These teachers have taken the time to attend professional development activities. They are learning about new methods of teaching science and trying to use what they have learned. They report “trying to use” new inquiry strategies on the Survey of Classroom Practices. Unlike the study described in Chapter II where teachers in Michigan said state policy had affected their teaching, only to find upon examination that just 4 of the 25 teachers had fundamentally changed tasks students carried out, these PAEMST teachers SCOR results indicate they have incorporated what they have learned into their practices. Teacher Beliefs Teacher beliefs were examined using the Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Survey. The survey provided extensive information about these teachers’ beliefs. Six teachers were categorized as expert constructivist using this scoring guide while three were categorized as transitional. The remaining teachers were all categorized as early constructivist. The teacher quotes presented in Chapter IV provide examples of their student centered beliefs of the expert teachers. The researcher anticipated differences would be found when means were compared in terms of mean score, teacher content, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 student action, and teacher action on the Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Survey. However, there were no significant differences in these means. Exemplary teachers, regardless of level of teaching assignment, have sought professional development experiences that in turn may influence their beliefs. Three categories of beliefs were described in Chapter II. All three categories of beliefs, including personal experience, experience with schooling and instruction, and experience with formal knowledge, can be influenced by professional development. This is especially true for the latter two categories of influence. Beliefs influenced by professional development will guide behavior. These beliefs influence what is taught and how it is taught. These teachers have a rich background in undergraduate, graduate, and in-service/summer program experiences that shaped and continue to shape their beliefs, and ultimately their practices. The educational experiences of these teachers has led them to think about their own beliefs about the nature of science, scientific content knowledge, and the way to teach science. Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environment Looking at the data from the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey concerning teacher perceptions of their classroom environments, this group can be assigned to the early constructivist group for the CLES subcategories of personal relevance, scientific uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, and student negotiation. What does this mean? These teachers believe students perceive relevance of school science to out of school life. They believe students perceive science to be uncertain and evolving. They perceive that students are learning to question and to be skeptical about the nature and value of science. Teachers perceive that they encourage students to question their pedagogical plans and methods and let the teacher know what impedes their learning. Student involvement in determining learning goals, activities, and assessment criteria is perceived by these teachers to be occurring in their classrooms. Finally, these teachers perceive that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 students verbally interact with other students in the process of building scientific knowledge. These perceptions can be considered accurate, based on observations of the teachers’ videotaped lessons. The attitude toward class sub-category of the CLES yielded responses that assign these teachers as a group to the transitional stage. This sub-category explored interpretation of student attitudes to aspects of the classroom environment. A statistically significant difference was found when means were compared in this sub-category for teachers with Master’s Degrees in Science Education and those without such a Master’s Degree. Significance was 0.40. Teachers with a Master’s Degree in Science Education had mean scores higher than those teachers without such a degree. Perhaps the very focus of “science education” with its pedagogy leads these teachers to focus more on “reading” and interpreting student attitudes to the classroom environment. The comparison of teacher perceptions of classroom learning environments between teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and teachers with fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area yielded no significant differences for any of the variables. This may be explained by the fact that several teachers have Master’s Degrees in Science Education where methods of teaching science are included. In addition, the number of professional development activities attended by these teachers indicates that the teachers are active, or willing, learners. This is a key step to reflection of teaching practices and learning environments. Teaching Strategies in the Classroom Using the ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric and videotapes submitted by the teachers for their award, fifteen teachers were categorized as expert teachers (12 of the teachers who completed surveys), twelve as proficient (9 of the teachers who completed surveys), and seven as competent (4 of the teachers who completed surveys). Only 8% of the study group reported the textbook and instructional materials as a major Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 or strong positive influence. A study of PAEMST awardees in 1993 found 43% of the awardees identified the textbook/instructional materials to be a major or strong positive instructional influence. In the inquiry classroom the text is a resource. It is apparent the teachers in this study do not use the text to drive learning. State and district tests have gained influence on instruction when looking at this study and the study of 1993 PAEMST teachers. The influence of these types of tests is somewhat greater than for the 1993 awardees. This researcher believes the No Child Left Behind Act may have a role in this. The National Science Education Standards have been a source of influence on what is taught in these teachers’ classrooms. The national standards support use of inquiry in science classrooms. Additional emphases in the standards include facilitating student learning, developing classroom environments that foster learning, creating communities of science learners, assessing teaching and learning, and planning/developing the school science program. The observations of these teachers in their classrooms by way of videotape indicate these teachers are making significant progress in implementing these emphases. Hands-on activities are the dominant learning experience in these classrooms. However, only occasionally do students change something in an experiment to see what would happen. Developing inquiry skills in students remains a need. Portfolios, a type of assessment strategy, are not commonly used in these teachers’ classrooms. Long term projects (longer than one week) are also not common in these classrooms. There is still room for continued growth and change in practices. Several comparisons between subgroups was undertaken using mean scores from the Science Classroom Observation Rubric. The researcher anticipated the middle school teachers would score higher than high school teachers. In a 1986 study, more middle school age students (40%) than high school students (25%) reported science as fun. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 More seventh graders (40%) reported their science classes made them feel successful than eleventh graders (30%) (Yager and Penick, 1985). Additionally, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) reported the U. S. students’ international standing was stronger at eighth grade than at twelfth grade in science. In the eighth grade, students scored above the international average in science while in the twelfth grade the U.S. students’ performance was among the lowest in science, including among the most advanced students (TIMSS, 1999). The researcher wanted to explore the use of specific teaching strategies to see if there were differences between middle school and high school teachers’ use of strategies that could be supported by the TIMSS results. No significant differences were found in mean scores for variables on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric for middle school and high school teachers. This surprised the researcher. However, given the fact the PAEMST awardees in this study were recognized for exemplary teaching, it may not be surprising that all teachers at all grade levels were exemplary. Similarly, a second comparison, that of teachers with Master’s Degrees in Science Education and those without such degrees, found no statistically significant difference for any of the 18 items or the three totals and one composite. Resolution of misperceptions neared significance at 0.053. Pedagogical studies in Master’s programs in science education may influence these teachers to seek out student misperceptions and facilitate student efforts to resolve them by gathering evidence, participating in discussion with students, or fostering discussion among students more consistently than teachers without this type of Master’s Degree. A third comparison of teaching strategies revealed no difference in mean scores for the items on SCOR between teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and those with fewer than 35 hours of professional development in this focus area in the past 12 months. The researcher expected a difference, especially in light of the information in Chapter II regarding Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 developing expertise through professional development. The researcher anticipated methods of teaching science would favorably impact teacher practices. Changing pedagogical knowledge requires teachers to restructure their views of science teaching. Pedagogical knowledge leads teachers to value a constructivist framework (Stofflett, 1994). Again, the strong educational backgrounds of this exemplary group of teachers may be the reason behind an insignificant difference in mean scores on the SCOR. The same can be said for the results of comparison undertaken to examine differences in mean scores between teachers who said their teaching practices had changed as a result of attendance at an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or science professional development program and those teachers who attended the same type of educational program and did not respond indicating the program caused them to change their practices. No significant difference was found for any of the items on SCOR. These teachers’ educational backgrounds and continued professional development may have contributed to these results. The comparison of seven items on the SCOR between the PAEMST teachers and a group of Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination teachers showed a significant difference for six of the seven items. These include: teacher as facilitator, student engagement in activities, student conceptual understanding, integration of content and process skills, resolution of misperceptions, and composite score. The PAEMST teachers scored significantly higher in their use of these strategies than the SS&C teachers. The one item for which no significant difference was found was student engagement in experiences. This item measures if students physically and/or mentally engaged in experiences. Given the SS&C program has as one of its focus areas “hands-on/minds-on activities” it is reasonable to believe both teacher groups use this type of activity in their classrooms. Additional influencing factors for this significant difference could be the fact that it is now seven years after the SS&C study was conducted. The National Science Education Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 Standards have received additional focus in those years with professional development programs developed around the standards. There has been a proliferation of books, science education journal articles, and conferences on the topic of inquiry teaching in science. The PAEMST teachers may have read and/or participated in these activities. Expertise in Teaching Given the limited number of variables for which significant differences were found in this study, the researcher made an effort to develop understanding of differences between the four “competent” and twelve “expert” teachers identified as such from the scoring using the Science Classroom Observation Rubric. In Chapter II, competent teachers were described as teachers who cope with problems and students in a hierarchical process of decision making. They make conscious choices about what they are going to do. This teacher sets priorities and plans for the situation. The competent teacher can generally determine what is important and what is not. This teacher has sufficient experience to know when classroom rules will work and when a situation requires something not covered by the rules. These teachers usually facilitate the learning process from a constructivist perspective, generally choosing teaching methods to develop student understanding. These teachers are somewhat to mostly fluid in adjusting strategies based on interactions with students. Finally, they have knowledge of the subject matter. The expert teacher performs fluidly and intuitively. This teacher does not see problems in a detached manner and is deeply involved in coping with the environment. On the SCOR these teachers “always” facilitate the learning process from a constructivist perspective, choose teaching methods to develop student understanding, are fluid in adjusting strategies based on interactions with students, and have considerable knowledge of the subject matter. Examination of differences between “competent” and “expert” teachers was undertaken and reported in Chapter IV. In general the expert teachers made changes in teaching practices as a result of educational activities more often than the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 competent teachers. They felt better prepared to carry out activities aligned with the National Science Education Standards, e.g., cooperative learning, science portfolios, and student inquiry practices. There was not a difference in professional development activities between these two groups. Practice, patience, and learning are required to change from a traditional teaching approach to inquiry. Both teacher groups are learning as evidenced by their graduate degrees and ongoing professional development. The expert teachers report more change in practice. Patience may be the other key factor here, but cannot be discerned from the instruments used in this study. The SCOR results were reviewed for the competent and expert teacher groups in Chapter IV and although a statistical comparison was not undertaken, it appears as though each subcategory total is significantly different between expert and competent teachers. Category II scores (pedagogy related to student understanding) had an 11.33 difference in mean scores between the two groups. The remaining categories had mean score differences ranging from 3.3 to 9.42. The expert teachers used more variety in teaching methods, more consistently focused on relevance and student understanding of concepts, and worked to tie concepts to evidence while helping students develop higher order thinking skills as content and process skills were integrated. Finally, the researcher explored “competent” and “expert” teacher responses on the PTL survey. A greater percentage of expert teacher responses evidenced student centered beliefs than the competent teachers. Again, as stated in Chapter II, beliefs influence what is taught and how it is taught. The expert teachers hold more constructivist beliefs and this effects their actual teaching practices, that is, they become more constructivist. All these teachers display constructivist teaching strategies in their classrooms; they hold constructivist beliefs and perceptions of their classroom learning environments except for a small minority. The expert teachers hold more constructive beliefs and fewer teacher centered or traditional beliefs. They are inquirers themselves, adapting or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 developing their own content materials. The quotes in Chapter IV provide an insightful look at constructivist beliefs. Summary These findings expand upon previously reported studies by Weiss involving the PAEMST group. The teachers in this study hold beliefs and perceptions about their classroom environments that are reflected in their teaching strategies. Beliefs, perceptions, and strategies are largely constructivist. Their perceptions of classroom learning were early constructivist and their practices were proficient or expert for 21 of the 25 teachers who participated in all elements of this study. Their beliefs were early or expert constructivist for all but two teachers who held transitional beliefs. The outcomes of this study contribute to knowledge about this group of teachers as well as the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching program. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND FURTHER RESEARCH This chapter provides a summary of the study including the purpose, procedures, and major results. General conclusions are presented, along with limitations of the study, implications and recommendations for future research. Summary of the Study Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of middle school and high school Presidential Awardee teachers concerning their classroom learning environment, their use of teaching strategies, and philosophies. Subgroups were compared based on type of educational preparation and professional development attendance. Thirty-four teacher recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching granted permission for review of the videotape of a classroom activity submitted as part of the application process for the award. Twentyfive of these teachers completed three surveys: Survey of Classroom Practices, Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, and Philosophy of Teaching and Learning Survey. The videotapes were reviewed using a Science Classroom Observation Rubric from the Expert Science Teacher Educational Evaluation Model (ESTEEM). This rubric measures teaching practices in four subgroups with a total of 18 items in the four subgroups. The Survey of Classroom Practices categories of questions include: teacher characteristics, professional development, formal course preparation, classroom instructional preparation, instructional influences, and instructional activities in science. The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey includes six categories of questions including personal relevance, scientific uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, student Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 negotiation, and attitude towards class. The Philosophy of Teaching and Learning survey consisted of eight open-ended questions. The qualitative data were scored using a scoring guide developed for a 2001 study and reviewed by a panel of six science experts. Statistical analysis was undertaken using t-tests to assess differences between subgroups in the sample. Comparison between sources of data was undertaken to assess if teacher perceptions of constructivist behavior actually occurred in their teaching practice. General Conclusions General conclusions arising from this study are listed below: 1. This group of PAEMST teachers can be classified as early constructivist in their beliefs, perceptions of classroom learning environment, and teaching strategies. 2. The only significant difference in teacher perceptions of the learning environment was found for the “attitude toward class” category on the CLES when the teacher responses were examined in two groups. Teachers with Master’s Degrees in Science Education scored significantly higher for this variable than teachers without such a Master’s Degree. 3. Six teachers held beliefs that placed them in an expert constructivist group. Sixteen teachers can be grouped as early constructivists and three teachers as transitional in terms of beliefs. 4. There were no significant differences in philosophies of teaching between middle and high school PAEMST awardees. 5. There was not a significant difference in teaching practices between middle and high school teachers. 6 . There was not a significant difference in teaching practices between teachers with more than 35 hours of professional development in methods of teaching science and teachers with fewer than 35 hours in this focus area in the last 12 months. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 The same held true for teachers who said they had changed teaching practices as a result of attending an extended (more than 40 contact hours) science institute or program and those teachers who had attended this type of program and indicated the program had not caused them to change their practices. 7. PAEMST teachers scored significantly higher on 6 of 7 items on the Science Classroom Observation Rubric. 8. Differences between competent and expert teachers can be identified. 9. The PAEMST teachers are an exemplary group of teachers, substantiated by the relationship among beliefs, perceptions, and strategies learned in this study. 10. These teachers are life long learners as evidenced by their graduate degrees, hours of professional development, and completed their extended science institute/program attendance. 11. The study adds to the knowledge about PAEMST teachers. Characteristics of Recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching A number of characteristics about these PAEMST teachers can be identified. These teachers: 1. Serve as facilitators of the learning process rather than directing the learning process. 2. Use novelty, newness, discrepancy, or curiosity to motivate learning. 3. Use the text as resource rather than the focus of the science class and activities. 4. Focus lessons on activities that relate to student understanding of concepts. 5. Focus on student relevance. 6. Use a variety of methods to facilitate conceptual understanding. 7. Move students through different cognitive levels to reach higher order thinking skills. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 8. Integrate content and process skills, tying concepts to evidence. 9. Facilitate student efforts to resolve misperceptions. 10. Maintain awareness of student understanding and modify lessons when necessary. 11. Use relevant exemplars and metaphors to enhance student understanding. 12. Present accurate content with a balance between in-depth and comprehensiveness. Limitations of the Study There are limitations to the design and implementation of this study. These limitations must be considered when interpreting the findings. Limitations include: 1. There was only one videotape for each teacher that was used for the observation of teaching practice component of the study. This restricts the ability to see both consistency and range in teaching practices. The teachers could select their “best” topic/concept and best teaching effort to submit as the classroom videotape that was part of the award application which identified the individuals included in this study. 2. Obtaining information about philosophies of teaching and learning from a survey rather than interview may have limited responses. The study participants may have written less than they would have shared verbally in a live interview. In a live interview there would have been an opportunity for the researcher to ask the participants to expand upon answers. 3. The researcher inadvertently left out one possible response category on the Survey of Classroom Practices questions about professional development in the last 12 months. There was not a response category included for 7-15 hours on the surveys the participants completed. The researcher realized this when the surveys were returned. This may have caused some participants to choose between the two response categories of “less than 6 hours” or “sixteen to less than 35 hours” that were not truly indicative of the hours spent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 4. The inter-rater reliability check of the scoring of the ESTEEM Science Classroom Observation Rubric was undertaken with an individual with a doctor in science education who had training in use of the tool. Although this individual and the researcher did have training in use of the tool, their experience with use of the tool was not extensive. 5. Only the teacher version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey was used in this study as the students who were in the class that was videotaped had moved on to other classes or potentially even out of the teachers’ school districts by the time this study was undertaken. A more robust picture of constructivist behaviors of this teacher group would have been provided if the student version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey had been used and comparisons made between the student responses and the teacher responses. Despite these limitations, the findings of the study pertaining to the constructivist behaviors of recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching add to the current knowledge base of expert teaching practices. Implications of the Study This study builds upon past studies (Nelson et al, 1989; Weiss et al, 2001) which reported professional development of teachers and/or specific information about recipients of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. It suggests these teachers are skilled in using constructivist teaching strategies. Their beliefs are congruent with their teaching strategies as are their perceptions of their classroom learning environment. 1. These teachers hold constructivist beliefs. New teachers and developing teachers would benefit from mentoring relationships with these exemplary teachers. This could help assure experience and success with teaching in a constructivist manner. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 2. These teachers had strong science course backgrounds and continuing education, both formal and in-service. These are important to the development and implementation of the inquiry teaching approach. 3. The specific constructivist practices of the teachers and extent of their use can drive additional studies. The National Science Foundation could use this information and future studies to support the value of acknowledging exemplary teachers because of what they bring to the classroom and what other teachers can learn from them. 4. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching does recognize exemplary teachers. Reasons for a teacher not being selected from every state and jurisdiction for this award each year should be explored. Recommendations for Further Research This study provides knowledge about constructivist behaviors of an exemplary teaching group. Specific recommendations for further research include: 1. The findings of this study were based on teacher report (CLES, PTL, and Survey of Classroom Practices) as well as observation of a videotape of a lesson. Additional research with this teacher group could incorporate student perceptions of classroom learning environments to provide an expanded view of teaching practices. Student perceptions would provide a richer understanding of teacher practices. 2. The comparison of this group of exemplary teachers to other teacher leader groups should be investigated. Currently, there are studies on other teacher leader groups, but the data elements/survey tools were not common to those used in this study, so comparisons were difficult to undertake except for very limited instances. Such comparisons could identify additional facets of professional development which may lead to more constructivist teaching behaviors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 3. Additional research is needed where either more than one videotape of each exemplary teacher’s practice is reviewed or repeated live observations occur. This would enable more complete information concerning teaching practices over time. The ability to capture more teacher-student interactions would be valuable. Additionally, understanding teacher practices that successfully develop inquiry skills in students would be beneficial. 4. Research on the types of interactions of exemplary teachers with other teachers to enhance science programs would develop understanding of whether or not these teachers work in isolation or as a community of teachers within a school. The nature and number of cross-curricula activities undertaken by these teachers would be useful in understanding how to move from “working alone” to “working with other teachers to enhance the science program” as described in the National Science Education Standards “more emphasis” changes. 5. Research related to the National Science Education Standards “more emphasis” changes and assessment of behaviors that show evidence of greater understanding of the vision of these standards as identified by observable practices would be useful. Currently, there are a number of instruments used to measure constructivist behavior. Development of a scoring guide that enables researchers to understand what element(s) from an instrument corresponds to a “more emphasis” change would help in assessing progress in meeting the standards. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A 2003 APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 2003 APPLICATION PACKET - PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING Teachers of Grades 7-12 Application Deadline: May 3. 2003 The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST) Program was established in 1983 by The White House and is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The program identifies outstanding mathematics and science teachers, kindergarten through 12th grade, in each state and the four U.S. jurisdictions. These teachers will serve as models for their colleagues and will be leaders in the improvement of science and mathematics education. Since 1983 more than 3,000 teachers have been selected as Presidential Awardees. They represent a premier group of mathematics and science teachers who bring national and state standards to life in their classrooms. They provide the Nation with an impressive array of expertise to help improve teaching and learning while becoming more deeply involved in activities such as curriculum materials selection, research, and professional development. While most teachers remain in the classroom, some have become school principals, supervisors, superintendents and college faculty. In 2003, teachers of grades 7-12 mathematics and science in each state and the four U.S. jurisdictions will be eligible to apply. Teachers of grades K-6 will be eligible for Presidential Awards in 2004. Teachers applying for the 2003 PAEMST must be nominated. Anyone (e.g. principals, teachers, students, and other members of the general public) may nominate a teacher. Self-nominations will not be accepted. Each Presidential Awardee will receive a $10,000 award from the National Science Foundation and gifts from donors. Each Awardee will also be invited to attend, along with a guest, recognition events in Washington, D.C., in March 2004, which will include: an award ceremony; a Presidential Citation; meetings with leaders in government and education; sessions to share ideas and teaching experiences; and receptions and banquets to honor recipients. Administered by the National Science Foundation for The White House, the PAEMST Program is an activity of the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 2003 Presidential Award Program Information Eligibility The following are the eligibility criteria for the 2003 applicants: • Teachers who are assigned to grades 7-12 classrooms in a public or private school in a state or eligible jurisdiction; • Teachers who are full-time employees of their school districts; • Grades 7-12 teachers with at least five years teaching experience prior to application who are assigned, at least half time during the school year, to classroom teaching and who teach mathematics and/or science in a classroom setting; and, • Teachers who are employed in any of the 50 states or four U.S. jurisdictions. The jurisdictions are Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Department of Defense Schools, and the U.S. Territories as a group—American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Please note that past Presidential Awardees are not eligible. Categories Teachers compete in either the mathematics or science category. Selection Process • • • Teachers must be nominated for the award. Anyone (e.g. principals, teachers, students, and other members of the general public) may nominate a teacher for the award by filling out the nomination form available on the PAEMST website, www.nsf .g o v /p a. The form will be submitted to the state coordinator and a copy sent to the nominee. State and jurisdiction selection committees choose at most three finalists from each of the award groups for recognition at the state level. Each of the state-level finalists receives the National Science Foundation State Certificate for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics and Science. To ensure consistency across states, the state selection committees will use the criteria in this application to score submissions. A national selection committee comprised of prominent mathematicians, scientists, mathematics/science educators and past awardees, reviews the application packets of the state-level finalists and makes recommendations to the National Science Foundation. These recommendations are sent forward to the President of the United States. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Application P acket C om ponents All applicants to the PAEMST Program must provide the following components in their application packet. Nomination Form Evidence o f Talent in Teachins A. Video o f Lesson B. Written Responses on the Videotaped Lesson 1. Context of the Featured Lesson 2. Synopsis of the Lesson 3. Reflections on Y our Instruction in the Featured Lesson 4. Reflections on Student W ork Sample o f Student Work Backsround and Experience Letter o f Employment Confirmation Application P acket Requirements All narrative material must be word processed or typewritten. I. Nomination Form A copy of the nomination form from the state coordinator should be included in this packet. II. Evidence of Talent in Teaching Purpose: To demonstrate what the applicant considers excellent teaching and how he/she attempts to exemplify it. A. Video o f Lesson 1. Selecting the Lesson Applicants are asked to provide an unedited VHS video of a single lesson, from 20 to 60 minutes of instruction, aimed at developing student understanding of an important mathematics or science concept. While lessons aimed at developing student understanding of the mathematics and science concept(s) often have other goals (e.g., understanding scientific inquiry, learning mathematics problem solving strategies) or may be interdisciplinary in nature, the videotaped lesson should focus primarily on the development of the important mathematics or science concept(s). The video should be of the applicant teaching in the 2003-2004 school year. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 2. Adhering to School and District Videotaping Policies Some districts/schools may require that signed releases be obtained from parents. Please check with the appropriate district/school personnel for local requirements. 3. Videotaping the Lesson Although applicants are not expected to submit professional-quality videotapes, it is important that the quality of the videotape allow state and national selection committee members to clearly see and hear what is happening in the lesson. Not only will they want to hear the teacher, they will also want to hear the students interacting with the teacher and with one another. The video should not be edited; the camera should be started at the beginning of the lesson and not stopped until the end of the lesson. You may have someone else shoot the video (e.g., another teacher, a student, a district employee) but no more than one camera should be used to videotape the lesson. Applicants may want to videotape other lessons prior to the “featured lesson” to put students at ease with the presence of the camera in the room. Applicants should keep the master tape and submit two copies with the application. The videotape should be submitted in standard VHS format and labeled with the following information: Your Name, School, State, Date of Lesson, Grade Level of Students, and Topic of the Lesson. Videotapes submitted as part of the application process will not be duplicated or used for any purpose other than PAEMST selection. A. Written Responses to the Videotaped Lesson The applicant must provide the information requested in section IIB, referencing the item and/or sub-item being addressed. In preparing Section IIB please address and identify items and sub-items in the order in which they are listed in the application. All text must be double-spaced and should be on 8 V2 x 11-inch plain paper (one side only, portrait orientation) with at least a one-half-inch margin around the entire sheet of paper. Type size should be 12 point and should not exceed 14 characters per inch of text. Written responses to section IIB should not exceed eight pages. Pages should be numbered. 1. Context of the Featured Lesson The featured lesson refers to the lesson captured on the video clip. The instructional sequence is not limited to the featured lesson but may include what preceded and followed the lesson. a. Indicate the number of students enrolled in this class and their grade level(s). b. Indicate the targeted mathematics or science concept(s), explicitly stating the National Standard or Benchmark addressed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 c. Describe how this particular lesson contributes to students’ attainment of the Standard or Benchmark.1 d. Describe your plan for instruction related to the targeted concept(s). • What instruction, related to the targeted concept(s), had the students experienced prior to this lesson? • What had the students understood and not understood about the targeted concept(s) as a result of these prior experiences? • What instruction, related to the targeted concept(s), did you intend the students to experience during the featured lesson? • What instruction, related to the targeted concept(s), did you intend the students to experience after the featured lesson? • How does this instructional sequence address the individual learning needs of your students? e. Describe your plan for assessment related to the targeted concept(s). • How did you plan to assess students’ thinking and understanding of the targeted concept throughout this instructional sequence? • 2. 3. How did you plan to assess students’ thinking and understanding of the targeted concept at the conclusion of this instructional sequence? Synopsis of the Lesson Briefly describe each of the following segments of the featured lesson, including where each one can be found on the videotape, using standard time format 00:00 (minutes:seconds): a. How was the lesson introduced (00:00-00:00)? b. How were the concept(s) developed during the lesson (00:00-00:00)? c. How was the lesson concluded (00:00-00:00)? Reflections on Your Instruction in the Featured Lesson National teaching standards emphasize the importance of teachers being reflective practitioners, examining their current practice and looking for ways to improve student learning and their own knowledge and skills. The videotaped lesson serves both as evidence of your current practice and as a tool for reflection. Please view your videotaped lesson, recognizing that there is no such thing as a “perfect” lesson, and then respond to the following. 1 Lessons aimed at developing student understanding of disciplinary content may have other goals as well, e.g., understanding scientific inquiry or learning mathematics problem solving strategies. If so, please describe. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 a. 4. What aspects of your instruction in the featured lesson worked particularly well? b. Choose a single 5-8 minute segment that shows you interacting effectively with students to help them develop conceptual understanding. Describe how you help students move their thinking forward. Use standard time format 00:00-00:00. Students’ voices should be audible. Please note that due to time constraints, the selection committee may not always be able to view the entire lesson on the videotape but in all cases will view the 5-8 minute segment that you selected. c. Describe what changes, if any, you would make if you were to teach this lesson again and the reasons for these changes. d. Describe the ways in which this segment exemplifies your skill in the art of teaching. Reflections on Student Work Reflecting on the student sample you have chosen to include (section III below), describe your appraisal of the student’s mastery of the targeted concept(s). Address any features of student’s misunderstanding/understanding as evidence of your appraisal. III. Sample of Student Work Provide a single example of student work (individual or small group) generated during or as a result of this lesson. If the student work is displayed on 8V2 x 11-inch paper include a copy. Other forms of student work should be displayed separately at the end of the videotape. If such student work is captured on the videotape, the time markers (minutes:seconds) where the student work itself can be viewed should be provided. IV. Background and Experience The information requested in section IV must be provided in a single-spaced resume format, and must not exceed two pages. Purpose: To demonstrate that the applicant has a strong and sustained commitment to teaching mathematics and/or science content, an educational foundation in the methods of teaching, and a five year minimum of fulltime teaching in the classroom (prior to the 2002-2003 academic year). A. Formal Education: Include institutions, dates, and Degrees. If your Degrees are not in mathematics or science, list the mathematics/science courses you have taken. B. Teaching Experience: List school(s), teaching assignments, dates, and any other information that provides an accurate description of your teaching career. C. Professional Development: Provide examples of professional development experiences in which you have participated over the last/i've years. D. Professional Service: Include any leadership roles you have held, publications you have authored, or research you have conducted. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 E. Awards, Grants, Professional Organizations: List any awards or grants you have received and professional organizations with which you are affiliated. List only those that you consider to be relevant to mathematics or science education. V. Employment Confirmation Provide a letter from your school principal confirming your fulltime employment. The letter, comprised of a few sentences, should be submitted on school stationery, signed and dated. It should indicate that you are in good standing and confirm that your teaching assignment makes you eligible for this award. Please refer to the eligibility criteria. Criteria for Evidence of Quality Teaching The following criteria will be used to evaluate your application. Please note that in cases where the content of the featured lesson is deemed unimportant or inaccurate, or where there is evidence of lack of respect for students, the application will not be considered further. Please do not return this section with vour application packet. Curriculum 1. Based on national standards, the mathematics/science content being addressed in the instructional sequence is important and accurate. 2. The mathematics/science content addressed in the instructional sequence is developmentally appropriate for the students in this class. 3. The instructional sequence, including the featured lesson, is coherent and appropriate for development of the targeted concept. 4. The instructional sequence provides appropriate learning opportunities for all students. Instruction 5. The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the mathematics/science content addressed in the featured lesson. 6. The instructional strategies used are safe, appropriate for purposes of the lesson and provide access for all students. 7. The teacher demonstrates enthusiasm for teaching science/mathematics. 8. The teacher provides a welcoming and supportive environment in eliciting contributions from students. 9. The students are intellectually engaged with important mathematical/scientific ideas. 10. The teacher’s communication skills and questioning strategies are likely to engage student thinking and enhance the development of student conceptual understanding/problem solving. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Assessment 11. The teacher demonstrates an awareness of student understanding of the targeted concept(s) in planning and implementing the lesson. 12. The teacher effectively uses multiple assessment methods and systematically gathers data about student understanding. 13. The teacher’s comments on the student work sample demonstrate an awareness of the extent of student understanding exhibited by that student or small group. Reflective Practitioner 14. The teacher’s reflections demonstrate an awareness of the extent of student understanding developed in the lesson. 15. The teacher has a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the instruction in the featured lesson. 16. The planned revisions to the featured lesson are likely to retain the key strengths and improve the weaknesses. Professionalism and Leadership 17. The teacher possesses a strong academic background in mathematics/science appropriate to the students’ grade level. 18. Participation in workshops, courses, and other educational opportunities, concerning both content and pedagogy specific to mathematics/science, has occurred during the past five years. 19. The teacher is engaged in planning, developing, and delivering activities at the building, local, or state level that affect the mathematics/science teaching strategies of his/her colleagues. 20. The teacher is professionally active. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Form Approved OM B NO: 3145-0058 PAEMST APPLICATION Teacher’s Information Form Check One: Grades 7-12 Mathematics _____ Grades 7-12 Science Elementary teachers frequently teach both mathematic and science. However, fo r this program you must choose between the two subjects. Do not check both categories. First Nam e:_________________Middle Name(s):_____________ Last Name:_____________________ E-mail Address (all official correspondence will be sent to you via this address):____________________ Home Address:___________________________________________________________________________ C ity:_______________________________ State:___________Zip:________________ Home Telephone:_______ -_______ -_________________ SCHOOL NAME: School Address:__________________________________________________________ C ity:_______________________________ State:___________ Zip: School Telephone:_______ -_______ -_________________ School F ax:_______ -_______ -________________ School Name:_______________________________________________ Number of years teaching experience prior to the 2003-2004 school year Number of years at current position___________ Area(s) of Certification:_______________________________________ Describe current teaching assignment; include grade level, courses taught, and weekly teaching schedule: N S F Form 1381 (9/02, Revised) School Data: Total Enrollment:_________ Check One: Public Check One:________Urban Grades:__________ _______ Private Suburban Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rural 110 Indicate student population percentage: _______ American Indian or Alaskan Native _______ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander _______ Asian _______ White _______ Black or African American _______ More than One Race Reported _______ Hispanic or Latin American______________ _______ Do Not Know Provide the following information about your principal/administrator: Name:_____________________________ Title:_____________________ Institution Name:________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________ City:_______________________________ State:___________ Zip: E-Mail Address:___________________________________ Provide the following information about your local superintendent or head of schools: Name:_____________________________ Title:___________________________________ School District:. Address:______ City:_______________________________ State:___________Zip:. Applicant’s Signature______________________________________________ Date_ Completed applications, postmarked by May 3, 2004, must be submitted to your State Coordinator. For information on how to contact your State Coordinator, please visit the PAEMST web site at w w w . n s f . g o v / p a . Suggestions from State Coordinators To assist you in completing the application, the state coordinators have provided some helpful suggestions. Practical Suggestions: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill Record your featured lesson on a new videotape. Practice videotaping your classroom several times to help identify the technical problems involved in capturing a lesson on video. (For example, pull shades or close blinds to reduce glare and avoid backlighting.) • Use a tripod whenever possible to help steady the camera. • Pan the room slowly to show classroom environment. • Capture teacher-student and student-student interactions, ensuring voices are audible. • Make careful choices about your videotaped lesson—the setting and the activities should reflect your success in the classroom. • • Things to Think About: • How would you show your ability to spark your students’ imaginations? • How would you show your personality, passion and flair for teaching and learning? • How would you show your belief that all students can learn? • How would you show students engaged with important mathematics/science content? • How would you incorporate some assessment in your featured lesson? All questions regarding the application process must be directed to your State Coordinator and not to NSF program staff. For information on how to contact your State Coordinator, please visit the PAEMST website at www. n s f . g o v /p a . Instructions for Submission In addition to your original application packet, please include six photocopies of the written portions of your application and two copies of the videotape. Staples and paper clips are acceptable. Please do not use folders, notebooks and report covers. Completed applications, postmarked by May 3, 2003, must be submitted to your State Coordinator. For information on how to contact your State Coordinator, please visit the PAEMST website at www. n s f . g o v / p a . Please follow all instructions carefully, as deviations will result in disqualification. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to applicant institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, ward decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies needing information as part of the review process or in order to coordinate programs; and to another Federal agency, court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998), and NSF51, “Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Information Dissemination Branch, Division of Administrative Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230, or to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation (3145-0058), 725 17th Street, N.W. Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B LETTERS TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 B 1. INITIAL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS REQUESTING PERMISSION TO VIEW VIDEOS April 16, 2004 Fellow Presidential Awardee recipients, Congratulations on being selected as a 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching! I remember how I felt when I was an awardee in 1993! You represent a premier group of science teachers who bring national and state standards to life in your classrooms. You provide the Nation with an impressive array of expertise to help improve teaching and learning while becoming more deeply involved in activities such as curriculum materials selection, research, and professional development. I am writing to you as a PhD candidate working on my dissertation. I am interested in identifying the teaching strategies the 2003-04 Presidential Awardees use successfully in their classrooms. I have been granted permission by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to review the videotapes each of the 2003-04 awardees made as part of the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching application process. I will describe the teaching strategies as a summary or aggregate findings. I will not identify strategies used by individual teachers, that is, no teacher, students, nor school will be identifiable in my dissertation. Strict guidelines established by the University of Iowa Human Subjects Office and Information Technology Services for human subject researchers will be followed. I recognize each of you put considerable effort into the videotaping of a lesson. I am writing to ask if it is acceptable to you for me to review this videotape. It is acceptable to me for you to review the videotape of my lesson. ______ Yes _____ No I look forward to the opportunity to learn from each of you as I review the tapes. The tapes will be on loan from NSF and will not be copied. If you have questions, please let me know. Dr. Mark Saul, Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Program Director, has endorsed this research study. Study participants who would like a summation of the results of this study can let me know of this via e-mail. Again, congratulations on your selection for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching! Sincerely, Hector Ibarra cc: Dr. Mark Saul, Program Director cc: Dr. Robert Yager, University of Iowa Professor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 B2. LETTER TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS REGARDING SURVEY TOOLS April 16, 2004 Fellow Presidential Awardee recipients, Congratulations on being selected as a 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching! I remember how I felt when I was an awardee in 1993! You represent a premier group of science teachers who bring national and state standards to life in your classrooms. You provide the Nation with an impressive array of expertise to help improve teaching and learning while becoming more deeply involved in activities such as curriculum materials selection, research, and professional development. I am writing to you as a PhD candidate working on my dissertation. I am interested in identifying the teaching strategies the 2003-04 Presidential Awardees use successfully in their classrooms. I have been granted permission by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to review the videotapes each of the 2003-04 awardees made as part of the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching application process. I will describe the teaching strategies as a summary or aggregate findings. I will not identify strategies used by individual teachers, that is, no teacher, students, nor school will be identifiable in my dissertation. Strict guidelines established by the University of Iowa Human Subjects Office and Information Technology Services for human subject researchers will be followed. I am also asking you to participate in completing three surveys (Constructivist Learning Environment Survey Science Teacher Form, Survey of Classroom Practices, and The Philosophy of Teaching and Learning) that will take about 15 minutes to complete. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from each of you as I review the tapes. The tapes will be on loan from NSF and will not be copied. If you have questions, please let me know. Dr. Mark Saul, Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Program Director, has endorsed this research study. Study participants who would like a summation of the results of this study can let me know of this when they return the surveys. Again, congratulations on your selection for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching! Sincerely, Hector Ibarra cc: Dr. Mark Saul, Program Director cc: Dr. Robert Yager, University of Iowa Professor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 B3. LETTER FROM NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS REGARDING SUPPORT OF THE RESEARCH Date: April 17, 2004 To: 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching From: Mark Saul, Ph.D., Program Director Re: A study of 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching recipients A fellow 1992-93 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching recipient, Mr. Hector Ibarra, is conducting research for his doctoral studies on the teaching approaches of successful teachers, specifically the 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching grant recipients. When Mr. Ibarra first spoke to me about the possibility of this study, I realized that what he could learn about your successful teaching approaches would benefit not only him in his studies, but would add to the body of knowledge about successful teaching strategies. Mr. Ibarra will be sending an invitation to participate in his study, which includes surveys and analysis of the videotape you submitted with your Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching proposal. Together these tools will help him explore what it is that makes the 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching recipients successful in their classrooms. I encourage you to participate in this study. The videotaping portion will provide significant support for what you are doing in your classroom. Sincerely, Mark Saul, Ph.D, Program Director National Science Foundation Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching 4201 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22230 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 B4 D4. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS AT THE START OF THEIR ACADEMIC YEAR Sept. 19, 2004 Fellow Presidential Awardee recipients, Congratulations on being selected as a 2003-04 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching! I remember how I felt when I was an awardee in 1993! You represent a premier group of science teachers who bring national and state standards to life in your classrooms. You provide the Nation with an impressive array of expertise to help improve teaching and learning while becoming more deeply involved in activities such as curriculum materials selection, research, and professional development. I am writing to you as a PhD candidate at the University of Iowa working on my dissertation. I am interested in identifying the teaching strategies the 2003-04 Presidential Awardees use successfully in their classrooms. I am also asking you to participate in completing three surveys (Constructivist Learning Environment Survey Science Teacher Form, Survey of Classroom Practices, and The Philosophy of Teaching and Learning) that will take about 30 minutes to complete. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from each. Dr. Mark Saul, Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Program Director, has endorsed this research study. Study participants who would like a summation of the results of this study can let me know of this when they return the surveys. Please return these surveys by October 1. I have enclosed a stamped, self addressed envelope for your convenience. Again, congratulations on your selection for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching! Sincerely, Hector Ibarra cc: Dr. Mark Saul, Program Director cc: Dr. Robert Yager, University of Iowa Professor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 B5. SECOND LETTER FROM NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS REGARDING SUPPORT OF THE RESEARCH Subject: Research for PAEMST September 15, 2004 Dear 2003 Awardees: I am writing to clear up certain misconceptions about the work of Mr. Hector Ibarra, a former PAEMST winner, who has written to ask permission to review some of your application videotapes. The goals of the PAEMST program include more than the identification of 108 outstanding teachers, and the week of recognition events. Unfortunately, the teaching profession suffers from bad press. In the general public, but also in the education research community, teachers are often seen as people who enact the decisions of others, and who are in need of the assistance of others to improve their performance. It is rare that teachers are seen as experts in their field, as sources of very specific knowledge about students, content, teaching, or learning. The PAEMST program is in a unique position to influence and change this situation. The nation has devoted considerable time, effort, and funds into the identification of these outstanding expert teachers. And so we have an obligation, not just to invite these teachers to Washington and to make them feel valued, but also to use their knowledge to help us to understand what good teaching consists in. This is why we anticipate in future a variety of studies of the PAEMST applications being done, in the service of the professionalization of teaching. I do not see any ethical issue in this. On the contrary, I feel that it is incumbent on us, as expert teachers, to find ways to make the public aware of the nature of our expertise. Researchers can play a key role in this process. Concern was raised about possible legal issues. Researchers in education, including Mr. Ibarra, are constrained by a very formal system of Human Subjects Protocols, to which they are held by their university. Giving them access to PAEMST records is not the same as making those records public. If you would like to know more about these Protocols, you can contact the researcher directly. We have also had extensive discussion with the Office of General Counsel here at NSF, and would not have allowed mention of NSF without their consent. School district policies on this point vary, which is why the PAEMST application asks teachers to adhere to their local policy. However, none of the legal authorities I have consulted have mentioned legal ramifications that would be detrimental either to the district or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to the individual teacher. I would urge you to let me know if you have received contradictory legal advice. You may have noted, during awards week, that sections of the application video for one of our awardees was shown at the National Science Summit. This public showing is much more exposure than a research investigation would entail, yet the teacher concerned was comfortable in consenting to this public showing. That was one teacher's decision. Each awardee is of course free to make his or her own decision, which NSF will honor. It is in the best interests of the PAEMST program, and therefore of the profession, that applicants feel comfortable with the application process. For the record, this letter constitutes direct notification that Mr. Ibarra has been granted permission by NSF to look at application materials of teachers who have agreed to this. I hope this note clears up some of the issues involved in doing research on Presidential Awardees. It is vital, for the sake of the program and of the profession, that we undertake such research. If you would like to discuss these issues with me further, do not hesitate to write or call. Sincerely, Mark Saul, Ph.D. PAEMST Awardee, New York, 1984, Mathematics Program Director Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 885 Arlington, VA 22230 NSF Home Page: http://www.nsf.gov ESIE Home Page: http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/esie Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 B6. LETTERS FROM TEACHERS WHO DID NOT GIVE PERMISSION TO VIEW VIDEOTAPES Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:51:59 Dear Hector, Unfortunately I cannot give you permission to view my videotape. I too had to comply with guidelines and when I obtained permission from my students' parents, I indicated the tape would not be viewed by anyone outside the application process. I regret the limitation and hope you can view enough tapes to complete your dissertation. Sincerely, Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:57 Dear Hector, My e-mail was to inform you that I cannot [not, I do not wish to] grant permission to view my video. After discussing this issue with my immediate superiors in the district, I cannot grant permission due to district policies. I have attached an excerpt from the 2003 PAEMST video taping policies which, in my estimation, makes the issue quite clear. I see no room for alternate interpretations. Again Hector, I take no pleasure in this decision, yet my hands are tied as I made a promise to my students' parents about how the video would be used. Still, please accept my best wishes as you enter the final stages of your doctoral studies. (See attached file: 2003 PAEMST Video Tape Guidelines.doc) Sincerely, D6. CONTINUED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:38:25 I cannot grant you permission to view my tape or read my entry. I worked very hard on the entry and I consider it to be private and personal. I am happy to discuss any “expertise” that I might have with other educators, mentor new teachers and hopefully enhance science education in my state, but I did not write the entry in order to help someone whom I do not know complete a doctoral dissertation. In addition, the student videotape permission slips did not give anyone outside of the NSF Award process permission to view or use the tape of the students in any way. My district, and most other districts, are very strict about the way that student images can be utilized because of the legal ramifications. I also did not receive any direct notification from NSF that you have been granted permission. I think that the Awardees do have excellent teaching strategies, but I do not believe that viewing our entries is appropriate. Sincerely, Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:31:23 No, Mr. Ibarra. I cannot allow you to use the tapes due to privacy concerns of the students on the tapes. Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:02:46 Dear Mr. Ibarra, I am writing in response to your question regarding the use of my classroom tape. I must disappoint you by emphatically saying that you can not use my tape for your research. I can not give you permission to use my tape because the parents of the students in my class signed a permission form specifically for the paemst application process and for no other use of the images of their children. This would be a breach of their rights. There are very strict rules regarding the use of children's images. I was fortunate that so many parents allowed their children to be filmed. I had no other thoughts in mind other than the paemst application when I filmed the children and I do not want my tape to be used in any other way. I wish you the best of luck in your education. D6. CONTINUED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:40:30 Hector, I am going to have to decline giving you permission to use the video tape of my teaching. The students and parents in my classes were told that the tape would be used only in conjunction with my PAEMST application, not with someone’s research. I’m sorry. But I am working with a Purdue Ph.D. student who is coming to my classes and those of my colleagues to observe our classes and discuss with us how we incorporate the state science standards into our teaching styles. Sorry I can’t help you in the way you requested. PAEMST 2003 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:28:01 I am writing to ask if it is acceptable to you for me to review this videotape. It is acceptable to me for you to review the videotape of my lesson. X No Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:18:11 Hector, Please do not use my tape. Thank you Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:59:37 Dear Mr. Ibarra, Thank you for your kind words of congratulations on the Presidential Award. It is certainly an honor to have been selected. While I would like to help out and offer my videotape for your use, our district has a strict policy prohibiting any use of materials in which students appear or are named. Therefore, I must decline your request. I wish you luck in your pursuit of your PhD. I regret that I will not be able to be a part of your research. Sincerely, PAEMST Awardee / Science Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 B7. LETTER OF RECONSIDERATION FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION To: "Saul,Mark" <msaul@nsf.gov> Cc: hibarra@mcleodusa.net Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:36:23 Regarding your comment about serving as a representative for the 2003 Awardees, I cannot say that I do. A number of colleagues seemed to have turned to me for comment. I can only really speak for myself, though I know there are some that are very uncertain about the video issue. Your e-mail regarding the issue is certainly appreciated and it was well-written, concise and to the point. You present a very logical and persuasive perspective and I will admit that I am reconsidering my position which was, quite frankly, based upon my district's viewpoint, yet, I will pass your perspective on to them and subsequently ask for further discourse. I can certainly relate to Hector's situation, which compels me to reconsider along with your comments. I for one, agree with your assessment of the general public's perspective on the public schools in general. Again, thank you for your most expedient and professional response. You and Hector will hear from me ASAP. Sincerely, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 B8. LETTER REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR SECOND VIEWER OF VIDEOTAPE FOR RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT PURPOSES From: Hector Ibarra Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:54 PM To: three teachers Subject: Inter rater reliability--viewing tape for validation Hello once again. If you would be so kind to allow another person to view your tape I would greatly appreciate it. In order to validate how I have scored all of the tapes, another person needs to view your tape and score the tapes. We will then make comparisons and correlate our findings. Please state yes or no to allow others to view your tape. I had not made provisions that stated other people would be viewing your tape. The Human Subjects Office requires confirmation that allows others to view your tape. The Human Subjects Office is very strict when it comes to viewing tapes for research. I thank you for your approval. Hector Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 B9. LETTERS OF APPROVAL FOR REVIEW OF VIDEOTAPE BY SECOND REVIEWER FOR PURPOSES OF SCORING RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT To: Hector Ibarra From: Teacher 1 Subject: Re: Inter rater reliability—viewing tape for validation Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:03:07 -0600 Regarding the Human Subjects Office. You certainly have mv permission. Best wishes, From: "Teacher 2 To: Hector Ibarra Subject: RE: Inter rater reliability-viewing tape for validation Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:16:55 -0800 Hector, No problem and have a great day. From: Teacher 3 Subject: Re: Inter rater reliability—viewing tape for validation To: Hector Ibarra on 11/15/04 1:54 PM, Hector Ibarra wrote: NO PROBLEMO - GO RIGHT AHEAD - BY THE WAY, HOW DID YOU "SCORE" MY TAPE. I would love your feedback and results. Mahalo for mailing the letters too. Thanks, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT SURVEY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Constructivist Learning Environment Survey1 Science Teacher Form Date_____________________ Teacher Name_ School Science Taught. Directions: For each statement, fill in the circle that best describes your teaching when implementing your module. Learning about science... In c la S S ... 1. Students learn about the world outside of school. 2. Students learn that scientific theories are human inventions. 3. It is OK for students to ask, “Why do we have to learn this?” 4. Students help me to plan what they are going to learn. 5. Students get the chance to talk to each other. 6. Students look forward to learning activities. 7. New learning starts with problems about the world outside of school. 8. Students learn that science is influenced by people’s values and opinions. 9. Students feel free to question the way they are being taught. In class... 10. Students help the teacher decide how well their teaching is going. 11. Students talk with each other about how to solve problems. 12. The activities are among the most interesting at this school. 13. Students learn how science can be a part of their out of school life. 14. It is OK for students to question the way they are being taught. 15. It’s OK for students to complain about activities that are confusing. 16. Students have a say in deciding the rules for classroom discussion. 17. Students try to make sense of each other’s ideas. 18. The activities make students interested in science. 19. Students get a better understanding of the world outside of school. 20. Students learn that different sciences are used by different people in different countries. Alm ost Always O ften Som etim es Seldom Alm ost Never 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A lm ost Always Often Sometimes Seldom Almos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 21.It’s OK for students to complain about anything that keeps them from learning. 22.Students have a say in deciding how much time time they spend on activities. 23. Students ask each other to explain their ideas. 24. Students enjoy the learning activities. In class Learning to communicate... 25. Students learn interesting things about the world outside of school. 26. Students learn that scientific knowledge can be questioned. 27. Students are free to express their opinions. 28. Students offer to explain their ideas to one 29. Students feel confused 30. What students learn has nothing to do with their out of school life. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A lm ost Always Often Som etim es Seldom A lm ost Never 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D SURVEY OF CLASSROOM PRACTICES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 Survey of Classroom Practices2 D ate_______________ Teacher Name____________ School__________________ Science Taught. Teacher Characteristics 1. How many years have you taught science? <1 yr 1-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8yrs 9-11 yrs 12+ yrs 2. How long have you taught at your current school? <1 yr 1-2 yrs 3-5 yrs 6-8yrs 9-11 yrs 12+ yrs 3. What is the highest Degree that you hold? BA or BS MA or MSPh.D or Ed.D other 4. What was your major field of study for your bachelors Degree? 0 Elementary education 0 Middle school certification 0 Science education 0 A field of science (include biology chemistry, physics, & geology). 0 Science education & a field of science 0 Other disciplines (includes other education fields, mathematics, history, English, etc.) 5. If applicable, what was your major field of study for the highest Degree you hold beyond a bachelors Degree? 0 0 0 0 Elementary education Middle school education Science education A field of science (include biology chemistry, physics, & geology). Science education & a field of science Other disciplines (includes other education fields, mathematics, history, English, etc.) 0 0 6. What type(s) of state certification do you currently have? 0 0 0 0 0 Emergency or temporary certification Elementary grades certification Middle grades certification Secondary certification in field other than science Secondary science certification Professional Development What is the total amount of time (clock hours) in the last twelve months that you spent on professional development or in-service activities that: None < 6 hrs 16 to 35 hrs >35 hrs 7. Provided in-dept study of science content. 0 0 0 0 8. Focused on methods of teaching science. 0 0 0 0 For each of the following professional development activities that you participated in during the last Caused me to twelve months, what best describes the impact of the activities. change my Had little or no teaching impact on my Trying to Did not use practices teaching participate 9. How to implement state or national science 0 0 0 0 content standards 10. How to implement new curriculum or 0 0 instructional materials. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 11. New methods of teaching science. 12. In-depth study of science content. 13. Multiple strategies for student assessment. 14. Observed other teachers teaching science in your school, district, or another district. 15. Attended an extended science institute or science professional development program for teachers, (cumulative 40 contact hrs or more). 16. Read or contributed to professional science journals. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Formal Course Preparation Please indicate the number of quarter or semester courses that you have taken at the undergraduate level in each of the following areas: 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17+ 17. Biology/life science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18. Physics/chemistry/physical science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. Geology, astronomy, earth science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20. Science education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Classroom Instructional Preparation For items, 20-27, please indicate how well prepared you are now to: 21. Teach science at your assigned level. 22. Use/manage cooperative learning groups 23. Take into account students’ prior conceptions about natural phenomena when planning curriculum and instruction 24. Provide science instruction that meets science standards (district, state, or national) 25. Integrate science with other subjects 26. Manage a class of students who are using hands-on or laboratory activities 27. Use a variety of assessment strategies (including objective and open-ended formats). 28. Help students document and evaluate their own science work. N ot well Som ew hat prepared prepared prepared W ell Very well prepared 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instructional Influences For items 28-37, indicate the Degree to which each of the following influences what you teach in the target science class. Strong Somewhat Little Somewhat Strong N/A Negative Negative no or Positive Positive Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence 29. Your state’s curriculum framework or content standards 0 0 0 0 0 0 30. Your district’s curriculum framework 0 or guidelines 0 0 0 0 0 31. Textbook/instructional materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32. State test 0 0 0 0 33. District test 0 0 0 0 0 0 34. National science education standards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35. Your experience in pre-service preparation 0 0 0 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 36. Student’s special needs 37. Parent/community 38. Prepare students for next grade or level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instructional Activities in Science Listed below are questions about what students in the target class do in science. For each activity, pick one of the choices to indicate the percentage of instructional time that students are engaged in the activity identified. Note: No more than two 33% or four at the 25-33% should be recorded for the answers to numbers 38-49. In responding, please think of an average student in your class. What percentage of science instructional time do students in the target class: None Less than 25% 39. Listen to the teacher explain something about science. 0 40. Read about science in books, magazines, articles. 0 41. Collect information about science. 0 42. Maintain and reflect on a science portfolio of their own work. 0 43. Write about science. 0 44. Do laboratory activity, investigation, or experiment in class. 0 45. Watch the teacher give a demonstration of an experiment. 0 46. Work in pairs or small groups (non-laboratory). 0 47. Do a science activity with the class outside the classroom or science laboratory. 0 48. Use computers, calculators or other educational technology to learn science. 0 49. Work individually on assignments. 0 50. Take a quiz or a test. 0 25% to 33% M ore than 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When students in the target class are engaged in laboratory activities, investigations, or experiments, as part of science instruction, what percentage of that lab time do students: Note: No more than two 33% or at the four 25-33% should be recorded for the answers to numbers 50-56. 51. 52. 53. 54. Follow step-by-step directions. Use science equipment or measuring tools. Collect data. Change something in an experiment to see what will happen. 55. Design ways to solve a problem. 56. Make tables, graphs, or charts. 57. Draw conclusions from science data. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When students in the target class work in pairs or small groups as percentage of that time do students: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 part of science instruction, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 what Note: No more than two 33% or four at the 25-33% should be recorded for the answers to numbers 57-68. 58. Talk about ways to solve science problems. 0 0 0 0 59. Complete written assignments from the textbook or workbook. 0 0 0 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 60. Write results or conclusions of a laboratory activity. 61. Work on an assignment, report or project that takes longer than one week to complete. 62. Work on a writing project or portfolio where group members help to improve each others’ (or the group’s) work. 63. Review assignments or prepare for a quiz or test. 64. Ask questions to improve understanding. 65. Organize and display the information in tables or graphs. 66. Make a prediction based on the information or data. 67. Discuss different conclusions from the information or data. 68. List positive (pro) and negative (con) reactions to the information. 69. Reach conclusions or decisions based upon the information or data. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70. Which of the following best describes the students in the target class. All students are highly motivated. The majority of the students are highly motivated. The class is mainstreamed ranging from gifted to students who find learning challenging. The class is mainstreamed with motivated students. The class is tracked (ability grouped). 0 0 0 0 0 Survey of Classroom Practices in Middle School Science. A joint project of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Institute for Science Education funded by the National Science Foundation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E ESTEEM SCIENCE CLASSROOM OBSERVATION RUBRIC AND SCORING SHEET Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 Expert Science Teaching Educational Evaluation Model Science Classroom Observation Rubric Category I: Facilitating the Learning Process from a Constructivist Perspective A. Teacher as a Facilitator 5 Students are responsible for their own learning experience. Teacher facilitates the learning process. Teacher-student learning experience is a partnership. 4 Students more than teacher... 3 Students are not always responsible for their own learning experience. Teacher directs the students more than facilitates the learning process. (Teacher-student learning experience is more teacher-centered than student-centered.) 2 Teacher usually directs... 1 Students are not responsible for their own learning experience. Teacher directs the learning process. (Teacher-student learning experience is completely teacher-centered, i.e., teacher lectures or demonstrates and never interacts with students.) B. Student Engagement in Activities 5 Students are actively engaged in initiating examples, asking questions, and suggesting and implementing activities throughout the lesson. 4 ...reasonably... 3 Students are partially engaged in initiating examples and asking questions at times 2 ...infrequently... 1 Students are almost never engaged in initiating examples and asking questions during the lesson C. Student Engagement in Experiences 5 Students are actively engaged in experiences (physically and/or mentally). 4 ...usually... 3 Students are moderately engaged in experiences. 2 ...sometimes... 1 Students are almost never engaged in experiences. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 D. Novelty 5 Novelty, newness, discrepancy, or curiosity are used consistently to motivate learning. 4 ...often... 3 Novelty, newness, discrepancy, or curiosity are used sometimes to motivate learning. 2 ... only occasionally... 1 Novelty, newness, discrepancy, or curiosity are used very little or not at all to motivate learning. E. Textbook Dependency 5 Teacher does not depend on the text to present the lesson. Teacher and students adapt or develop own content materials for their needs. 4 ... only occasionally... 3 Teacher does depend somewhat on the text to present the lesson. Teacher and students make some modifications. 2 ...often... 1 Teacher does depend solely on the text to present the lesson. Teacher makes no modifications with students. Category II: Content-Specific Pedagogy (Pedagogy Related to Student Understanding) F. Student Conceptual Understanding 5 The lesson focuses on activities that relate to student understanding of concepts. 4 ...often... 3 Most of the time the lesson focuses on activities that relate to student understanding of concepts. 2 ...sometimes... 1 Much of the time the lesson focuses on activities that do not relate to student understanding of concepts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 G. Student Relevance 5 Student relevance is always a focus. (Highly personal and to the lesson) 4 May be very relevant to student and somewhat relevant to lesson or vice-versa. 3 At times the teacher drifts away from student relevance, but brings the lesson into focus quickly. (Moderately relevant to both personal & lesson relevance) 2 ...somewhat relevant to lesson, not at all to student or vice-versa... 1 When the lesson drifts away from student relevance, the teacher does not readily bring the lesson into focus. (No personal or lesson relevance—why are these people even here!!!???) H. Variation of Teaching Methods 5 During the lesson the teacher appropriately varies methods to facilitate student conceptual understanding; i.e., discussion, questions, brainstorming, experiments, log reports, student presentations, lecture, demonstrations, etc. 4 ...often... 3 During the lesson the teacher sometimes varies methods to demonstrate the content; i.e., discussion, questions, brainstorming, experiments, log reports, student presentations, lecture, demonstration, etc. 2 ...seldom... 1 During the lesson the teacher uses only one method to demonstrate the content; i.e., discussion, questions, brainstorming, experiments, log reports, student presentations, lecture, demonstration, etc. I. Higher Order Thinking Skills 5 Teacher consistently moves students through different cognitive levels to reach higher order thinking skills. 4 ...often... 3 Teacher sometimes moves students through different cognitive levels to reach higher order student thinking skills. 2 ...seldom... 1 Teacher does not move students through different cognitive levels to reach higher order thinking skills. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 J. Integration of Content and Process Skills 5 Content and process skills are clearly integrated. 4 ...modestly... 3 Content and process skills are not clearly integrated. 2 Content and process are loosely integrated—i.e., you have to work to make a case fo r it. 1 Content is taught without process or process without content. K. Connection of Concepts and Evidence 5 Concepts are connected to the evidence. 4 ...modestly... 3 Concepts are partially connected to evidence. 2 Concepts and evidence are loosely connected... 1 Concepts are not connected to evidence. Category III: Context-Specific Pedagogy (Adjustments in Strategies Based on Interactions with Students) L. Resolution of Misperceptions 5 As students misperceptions become apparent, the teacher always facilitates student efforts to resolve them by gathering evidence, participating in discussion with students, or fostering discussion among students. 4 ...almostalways... 3 As student misperceptions become apparent, the teacher usually facilitates student efforts to resolve them by gathering evidence, participating in discussion with students, or fostering discussion among students. 2 ...occasionally... 1 As student misperceptions become apparent, the teacher does not facilitate student efforts to resolve them by gathering evidence, participating in discussion with students, or fostering discussion among students. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 M. Teacher-Student Relationship 5 The teacher consistently demonstrates good interpersonal relations with students. No differentiation is made regarding: Ethnicity, gender, multi-cultural diversity, or special needs classifications. 4 ...almostalways... 3 The teacher demonstrates good interpersonal relations with students most of the time. On occasion some differentiation is made regarding: Ethnicity, gender, multi­ cultural diversity, or special needs classifications. 2 ...sometimes... 1 Teacher does not demonstrate good interpersonal relations with students. Differentiation is made regarding: Ethnicity, gender, multi-cultural diversity, or special needs classifications. N. Modifications of Teaching Strategies to Facilitate Student-Understanding 5 Teacher has continuous awareness of his/her student understanding and modifies the lesson when necessary. 4 ... continuous awareness... often modifies... 3 Teacher has a general awareness of student understanding and occasionally modifies the lesson when necessary. 2 limited awareness.. .does not modify... 1 Teacher has little or no awareness of student understanding and does not modify the lesson when it is appropriate. O. Use of Exemplars 5 Exemplars and metaphors (verbal, visual, and physical) are frequently used and are accurate and relevant. 4 ...are often used...accurate... 3 Exemplars and metaphors (verbal, visual, and physical) are sometimes used and are accurate and relevant most of the time. 2 ... infrequent and/or inaccurate/irrelevant... 1 Exemplars and metaphors are rarely used and are not accurate or relevant. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 P. Coherent Lesson 5 Concepts, generalizations, and skills are integrated coherently throughout the lesson. 4 ...almostalways... 3 Concepts, generalizations, and skills are integrated most of the time as a coherent organization of events throughout the lesson. 2 ...sometimes... 1 Concepts, generalizations, and skills are not integrated and lack coherency throughout the lesson. Q. Balance Between Depth and Comprehensiveness 5 Content has an appropriate balance between in-depth and comprehensive coverage. 4 .. .more emphasis on one at the expense o f the other... 3 Lesson does not have an appropriate balance between depth and comprehensive much of the time. (Lesson has too much depth for the topic and too little coverage, or lesson has too much coverage and too little depth.) 2 .. .not only unbalanced but lacks sufficient substance in both... 1 Content shallow, incomplete, or lacking. (Lesson has neither depth or breadth; e.g., may focus exclusively on process.) R. Accurate Content 5 Content is always evident and always accurate. 4 ...almostalways... 3 Most content is usually prevalent and mostly accurate. 2 Content is frequently inaccurate. 1 Content is missing or inaccurate (e.g., process bound). The ESTEEM Instruments ©1995 Judith A. Burry-Stock 1998 Revised by Varella with permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ESTEEM CLASSROOM OBSERVATION RUBRIC SCORING SHEET Teacher’s Name:_____________________________________ Date:___________ Category I: Facilitating the Learning Process A .___ B .___ C .___ D .___ E .___ Subtotal /25 =___ % Category II: Content-Specific Pedagogy F .___ G .___ H .___ I .___ J.___ K.___ Subtotal /30 =___% Category III: Context-Specific Pedagogy L.___ M.___ N.___ Subtotal___ /15 =__ % Category IV: Content-Knowledge O.___ P.___ Q-___ R.___ Subtotal /20 =___ % Instrument Total /90 =___% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX F PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING SURVEY QUESTIONS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 The Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) Survey 1. What learning in your classroom do you think will be valuable to your students outside the class? 2. Describe the best teaching or learning situation that you have ever experienced (either as a teacher or as a student). 3. In what ways do you try to model the best teaching or learning situation in your classroom? 4. How do you believe your students learn best? 5. How do you know when your students understand a concept? 6. In what ways do you manipulate the educational environment to maximize student understanding? 7. What concepts do you believe are most important for your students to understand by the end of the year? 8. What values do you want to develop in your students? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX G SCORING GUIDES FOR PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING (PTL) SURVEY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 Scoring Guide for Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) Survey Question 1. What learning in your classroom do you think will be valuable to your students outside the classroom? Responses Validated Score la. No idea; does not answer question 1 If. Study habits lg. Basic content (teacher list discrete concepts) lh. Time management li. Organizational skills 2 2 2 2 lk. Responsibility 11. Honesty lm. Respect In. Confidence/self esteem lo. Maturity 3 3 3 3 3 lp. Thinking/reflecting lq. Curiosity/inquisitiveness lr. Questioning Is. Skepticism/science is changing It. Use of varied resources, e.g., references, internet, experts,.. ./learning to learn 4 4 4 4 4 lu. Creativity/critical thinking lv. Application/related to real life (personal/work) lw. Active problem solving/decision making lx. Application/related to community/society (societal learning) ly. Lifelong learning Iz. Involved in societal issues/responsible citizen 5 5 5 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 Question 2. Describe the best teaching or learning situation that you have ever experienced (either as a teacher or as a student) Responses Validated Score 2a. No idea; does not answer question 2b. Practice and review 2c. Focus on good teacher(s) as role model(s) - direct “copying” 1 1 1 2f. Focus on conferences/conventions as models 2g. Fun for student 2h. Affirmation by others 2 2 2 2k. Laboratory experiences/hands on 21. Student success 2m. Responsibility 2n. Group work/learning together 2o. Teacher-student interaction 3 3 3 3 3 2p. Student desire/motivation to learn 2q. One on one/individual attention 2r. Teacher self reflection/Teacher as facilitator 2s. Learning extended outside the classroom 2t. Use of varied resources (reference, internet, experts, video....) 2z. Teacher-student & student-student interactions 4 4 4 4 4 2u. Varied learning/teaching methods; (including small group activities or discussion, and brainstorming...) 2v. Student learning from student/peer teaching 2w. Related to everyday life 2x. Creativity/critical thinking 2y. Student participation in decision on learning (activities/assessments) 5 4 5 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 Question 3. In what ways do you try to model the best teaching or learning situation in your classroom? Responses Validated Score 3a. No ideas/does not answer 3b. Model by directly “copying” 3c. Repetition 1 1 1 3f. Watching videos 3g. Demonstrations 3h. Student answering questions (worksheets) 2 2 2 3k. Laboratory activities/hands-on 31. Student success 3m. Teacher questioning/discussions 3n. Group work 3o. Teacher-student interaction 3 3 3 3 3 3p. Student desire/motivation to leam 3q. One on one/individual attention 3r. Encourage student questioning (curiosity/inquisitiveness) 3s. Teacher as facilitator/coach 3t. Learning extended outside of classroom 4 4 4 4 4 3u. Application of knowledge/active problem solving/decision making 3v. Cooperative learning/peer teaching 3w. Student participate in decision on learning (activities/assessments) 3x. Lifelong learning 5 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 Question 4. How do you believe your students learn best? Responses Validated Score 4a. No idea, does not answer question 4b. Like I do 4c. Through repetition 4d. By listening 1 1 1 1 4f. Watching video 4g. By reading/seeing 2 2 4k. Laboratory activities/Hands on 41. Discussions 4m. Teacher questioning 3 3 3 4p. Student desire/motivation to learn 4q. One on one and/or individual attention 4r. Student generating questions 4s. Thinking/reflecting 4t. Use of varied resources (including e.g., references, internet, experts,...) 4z. Self assessment 4 4 4 4 4 4U. Different learning styles, hence varied learning and/or teaching methods 4v. Cooperative learning/peer teaching 4w. Use of challenging issues 4x. Application to real world/decision making 4y. Learning that starts with student question/problem or issue 5 4 5 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 Question 5. How do you know when your students understand a concept? Responses Validated Score 5a. No idea; does not answer question 5b. Recall or paraphrase original question 5c. Based on student self reports 5d. Inferences from teacher 1 1 1 1 5f. Based on tests and grades 5g. Through student writings (essays, explanation) 2 2 51. By doing (activities/labs) 5k. Doing problem solving/application questions (worksheet) 3 3 5p. Explaining in own words 5q. Student generating questions/problems 4 4 5u. Through multiple ways of assessment (presentation, quiz, projects, essays...) 5v. Peer teaching (student learning from student) 5w. Apply knowledge to new situation 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 Question 6. In what ways do you manipulate the educational environment to maximize student understanding? Responses Validated Score 6a. No idea; does not answer question 1 6f. Use of technology 6g. Fun for students 6h. Demonstrations 6i. Organization 6j. Physical environment of class (posters, books, laboratory equipment,....) 2 2 2 2 2 6k. Many labs/activities 6m. Teacher-student interactions 3 3 6p. Student desire/motivation to learn 6q. One on one and/or individual attention 6s. Connections/relatedness between concepts (Oprevious & integrated) 6t. Relate (science) learning to ethics 4 4 4 6u. Variety of learning/teaching methods; (inc. small group activities/discussions, presentations, brainstorming...) 6v. Student learning from student and/or peer teaching 6w. Start with student question/issue or problem 6x. Application/related to real life and/or /contextual 6y. Related to current issues 6z. Teacher as model for continued (lifelong) learning 5 4 5 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 Question 7. What (science) concepts do you believe are the most important for your students to understand by the end of the year? Responses Validated Score 7a. No idea; does not answer question 1 7f. Experiments - process skills 7g. Basic content (teacher lists discrete concepts) 2 2 7k. Concept of group work 71. Concepts that (teacher thinks) are useful Respect (for teachers, peers, science) 7n. Self esteem 3 3 3 3 7p. Science has limitations 7q. Science is changing 7r. Science issues are controversial (human values) 7s. Learning from varied resources (references, internet, experts,...) 4 4 4 4 7n. Current/controversial issues - related to real world 7v. Cooperative learning/peer teaching 7w. Concepts for active problem solving/decision making 7x. Concepts useful to life/society 7y. Concept of learning for life (lifelong learning) 7z. Student interest drives what to leam 5 5 5 5 5 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 Question 8. What values do you want to develop in your students? Responses Validated Score 8a. No idea; does not answer question 1 8f. Hard working 8g. Time management 8h. Organizational skills 8i.l Study habits 2 2 2 2 8k. Responsibility 8t. Positive attitudes 8m. Respect/value others’ opinion 8n. Self esteem/confidence 8o. Value safe learning environment 3 3 3 3 3 8p. Use of varied resources to learn (learn to use resources) 8q. Communication/discussions between teacher & student, students & students 8r. Thinking/reflecting 8s. Value/respect science 8t. Self assessment/reflection 8z. Student desire to leam/motivation 4 4 8u. “Cooperative” learning/peer teaching 8v. Life long learning 8w. Capable of decision making/problem solving 8x. Involved with societal issues/responsible citizens 8y. Understand nature of science (useful, meaningful, complex, limitations) 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 (Lew, 2001, p. 372) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 Table G l. Scoring guide for beliefs about what students should be doing in the classroom (Student Action, SA) that are aligned with National Science Education Standards Student action code Student action (SA) responses to items in PTL Code assigned under individual items Validated score SA1 Application of knowledge to new situation/active problem solving or decision making 5w, lw , 8w 5 SA2 Application of knowledge to personal life an/or to community/society/world 4x, lv 5 SA3 Understand nature of science lx, 8y 5 SA4 Student as responsible citizens/involve with societal issue lz, 8x 5 SA5 Creativity/critical thinking lu 5 SA6 “Cooperative” learning/student learning from student/peer teaching 4v, 5v, 8u 5 SA7 Learning from various methods, including projects, investigations, brainstorming... 4u 5 SA8 Student understanding that learning is continuous (lifelong learning) 8v 5 SA9 Student desire to learn and/or showing curiosity/inquisitiveness 4p, lq, 8z 4 SA10 Student questioning and/or generating questions 4r, 5q, lr 4 SA11 Student thinking/reflecting/explaining with own words 4s, 5p, lp, 8r 4 SA12 Student communication with teacher and other students 4 SA13 Self assessment 8q 4z, 8s 4 SA14 Student value and/or respect science 8t 4 SA15 Student skepticism Is 4 SA16 Student use of varied resources (including references, experts, internet,...)/Leaming to learn 4t, 8p 4 SA17 Safe learning environment 8o 3 SA18 Laboratory activities/hands on 4k, 5k 3 SA19 Discussions 41 3 SA20 Worksheet problem solving and/or application questions 51 3 SA21 Personal learning (e.g., responsibility, respect, honesty, confidence, maturity) lk, 11, lm, In, lo, 8k, 81, 8m, 8n 3 SA22 Learning personal skills for future (study habits, time management, organizational skills, hard working) If, lh, li, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i 2 SA23 Watching video, reading/seeing 4f, 4g 2 SA24 Learning through repetition/practice/listening 4c, 4d 1 SA25 Learn the way the teacher does 4b 1 SA26 No idea/does not answer 4a, 5a, 5b, la 1 (Lew, 2001, p. 381) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 Table G2. Scoring guide for beliefs about what teachers should be doing in the classroom (Teacher Actions, TA) that are aligned with National Science Education Standards Teacher action code Teacher action (TA) responses to items in PTL Code assigned under individual items Validated score TA1 Lead by/use students ideas in decision on learning (activities, assessment) 6w, 3w, 4y 5 TA2 Relate to real life or to community/society/world 6x 5 TA3 Relate to current issues/challenging issue 6y, 4w 5 TA4 Application of knowledge/active problem solving or decision making 3u 5 TA5 “Cooperative” learning/student learning from student 6v, 3v 5 TA6 Different learning styles - varied methods of teaching; including projects, investigations, brainstorming... 6u 5 TA7 Use multiple ways of assessment 5u 5 TA8 Model lifelong learning/learning with students 6z, 3x, ly 5 TA9 Motivate students desire to leam/make learning science exciting 6p, 3p 4 TA10 Encouraging student questioning, curiosity, inquisitiveness 6r, 3r, 3t 4 TA11 Teacher as facilitator/coach 3s 4 TA12 Use of varied resources (including references, experts, internet,... )/Leaming to learn It 4 TA13 Teacher caring/give individual attention 6q, 3q, 4q 4 TA14 Laboratory activities/hands on 6k, 3k 3 TA15 Learning extended to outside of classroom 61, 31 3 TA16 Group learning 3n 3 TA17 Clarity of expectations/assessment 3z 3 TA18 Teacher-student interaction/discussion/teacher questioning 6n, 3m, 4m 3 TA19 Physical environment or organization which promotes learning 6i,6j 2 TA20 Demonstrations 6h, 3g 2 TA21 Make learning fun 6g 2 TA22 Student answering questions (worksheets) 3h 2 TA23 Assess students based on grades/tests/students’ writings 5f,5g 2 TA24 Use of technology/ watch videos 6f,3f 2 TA25 Assess students based on student self report or teacher inferences 5c, 5d 1 TA26 Model by “direct copying” 3b 1 TA27 Use of repetition 3c 1 TA28 No idea/does not answer question 6a, 3a 1 (Lew, 2001, p. 382) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 Table G3. Scoring guide for teacher understanding of process and content (Teacher and Content, T/C) that are aligned with National Science Education Standards Teacher and content codes Responses on Teacher Understanding of Content and Process to items in PTL Code assigned under individual items Validated score TCI Lead by/use students ideas or interest in decision on learning (activities, assessment) 7z,2y 5 TC2 Relate/application to real life or to community/society/world 7x, 7w, 2w 5 TC3 Relate/application to current/controversial issues 7u 5 TC4 Encourage creativity/critical thinking 2x 5 TC5 “Cooperative” learning/student learning from student 7v,2v 5 TC6 Varied methods of teaching; including projects, investigations, brainstorming.. ./multiple ways of assessment 2u 5 TC7 Model continued learning/learning with students 5 TC8 Science has limitation/is changing/is controversial 7y 7p, 7q, 7r TC9 Teacher-student and student-student interactions 2z 4 TC10 Teacher as facilitator/reflective practitioner 2s, 2r 4 TC11 Motivation/invite student desire to learn 4 TC12 Use of varied resources (including references, experts, internet,.. .)/learning to learn 2p 7s, 2t 4 TC13 Connections/relatedness between concepts (previous and between discipline) 6s 4 TC14 Teacher caring/give individual attention 4 4 4 TC15 Relate learning to ethics 2q 6t TC16 Learning extended to outside of classroom 21 3 TC17 Teacher-student interactions 2o 3 TC18 Group work 7k, 2n 3 TC19 Laboratory activities/hands on 2k 3 TC20 Personal learning (respect, confidence, maturity, responsibility) 7m, 7n, 2m 3 TC21 Concepts that teacher thinks are useful 71 3 TC22 Basic concepts/basic content 2 TC23 Experiments - process skills 7g, lg 7f TC24 Make learning fun for students Affirmation by others 2g 2h 2 TC25 TC26 Focus on conferences/conventions as models 2f 2 TC27 Focus on teacher “direct copy” others 2c 1 TC28 Practice and review 2b 1 No idea/does not answer question 7a, 2a, 8a 1 TC29 (Lew, 2001, p. 383) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 APPENDIX H INSTRUMENT RAW SCORES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 Table H I. Teacher sub-category scores from Science Classroom Observation Rubric Category 1: Facilitating the learning process from a constructivist perspective Category 2: Content specific pedagogy (pedagogy related to student understanding) Category 3: Context specific pedagogy (adjustments in strategies based on interactions with students) Category 4: Content knowledge (teacher knowledge of subject matter) Ml 18 22 11 16 M2 20 23 13 16 M3 14 17 9 14 M4 23 24 12 16 M5 24 28 13 18 M6 21 28 14 17 M7 18 24 9 15 M8 23 28 13 17 Teacher M9 18 22 12 16 M10 21 28 13 17 M il 22 27 14 18 HI 23 28 14 17 H2 16 24 12 18 H3 22 27 12 18 H4 22 28 13 17 H5 11 15 9 11 H6 14 22 13 13 H7 22 28 13 17 H8 20 24 13 16 H9 12 12 9 9 H10 18 22 10 15 H ll 22 27 14 18 H12 22 28 13 17 H13 22 28 14 18 H14 22 28 14 17 H15 22 23 11 16 H16 14 22 11 15 H17 16 21 11 13 H18 14 22 11 14 H19 21 28 14 18 H20 18 21 12 15 H21 16 28 14 17 H22 23 28 12 17 H23 20 27 13 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 Table H2. Philosophy of Teaching and Learning (PTL) survey response codes Teacher Score 1 ideas Score 2 ideas Score 3 ideas Score 4 ideas Score 5 ideas Summary Ml 2c, 4d 3g, 4g, 6h, 7g 3o, 4k 5p, 6p lv, 3u, 8y n=13 nl=2 (15%); n2=4 (31%); n3=2 (15%); n4= 2(15%); n5=3 (23%) M2 2 f,7 f 2n, 2o, 3k, 7k, 71 2r, 3t, 4x, 4s lw, 2u, 5w, 6v, 7v, 8x, 8w, 8u n=19 nl=0 (0%); n2=2 (11%); n3=5 (26%); n4=4 (21%); n5=8 (42%) M3 2h, 6f 2k, 3k, 6k 3p, 4t, 5p lu, lw, 2y, 2v, 4u, 4x, 7w, 8x n=16 nl=0 n2=2 n3=3 n4=3 n5=8 lw, 6v n=9 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (11%); n3=3 (33%); n4=3 (33%); n5=2 (22%) lw, 5v, 6v n=9 nl=0 (0%); n2=0 (0%); n3=6 (67%); n4=0 (0%); n5=3 (33%) 2r, 4s, 6s, 6q lv, 3w, 5w, 7y, 7w, 8w n=10 nl=0 (0%); n2=0 (0%); n3=0 (0%); n4=4 (40%); n5=6 (60%) 3t, 4p, 8z lv, 3u, 4y, 5v, 6u, 7w, 8x n=13 n l= l (7.6%); n2=l (7.6%); n3=l (7.6%); n4=4 (23%); n5=7 (53.8%) M4 7g 2k, 6k, 8m 2k, 3o, 4k, 6k, 7n, 8m M5 M6 M7 3p, 4p, 5p 2a li 6k Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (0%); (13%); (19%); (19%); (50%) 159 Table H2: Continued M8 2g 2k, 3k, 4k 5p, 7s lw, lz, lx, lv, 2y, 3u, 5v, 6x, 8v n=17 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (5.8%); n3=3 (17.6%); n4=2 (11.7%); n5=ll (64.7%) M9 2f,7g 2k, 3k, 61 2r, 3s, 4t lv, lw , 4u, 4x, 5v, 8x n=14 nl=0 n2=2 n3=3 n4=3 n5=6 Is, 3r, 3p, 4t,6r lv, lw, 2y, 3w, 4y, 5u, 6z, 6w, 7z, 8v, 8u n=16 nl=0 (0%); n2=0 (0%); n3=0 (0%); n4=5 (31.3%); n5= ll (68.7%) 3t, 6p, 4t lv, lw, 2v, 3v, 4y, 5v, 7y, 8y n=12 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (8.3%); n3=0 (0%); n4=3 (25%); n5=8 (75%) M il (0%); (14.2%); (21.4%); (21.4%); (35.2%) HI 6j H2 7g 4k, 8m 3s, 5p lv, 2y, 6u n=8 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (12.5%); n3=2 (25%); n4=2 (25%); n5=3 (37.5%) H3 7g 3k, 6k, 8m lp, 4t lw , 2y, 3x, 5v n=10 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (10%); n3=3 (30%); n4=2 (20%); n5=4 (40%) H4 5f, 6j, 7g, I f 2k, 3k, 4k, 8m, 81 lp, 2r, 3q, 4t 2w, 4x, 5u, 6u, 8w, 8u n=19 nl=0 (0%); n2=4 (21%); n3=5 (26.3%); n4=4 (21%); n5=6 (31.6%) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 Table H2: Continued H5 H6 H7 4k, 6k 8s lv, 5v, 6u, 7x n=9 nl=2 (20%); n2= (0%); n3=2 (20%); n4=l (11%); n5=4 (40%) 2k, 3k, 4k, 8n 4t, 6p, 3r, 8t, 8q, 8z lv, 3w, 5v, 8w n=23 nl=0 (0%); n2=9 (39%); n3=4 (17%); n4=6 (26%); n5=4 (17%) 2k, 3k, 4k, 4m, 71, 8m lp, 4t, 5p, 6p, 7q, 8q lu, lw, lz, 2v, 2y, 3w, 7x n=19 n l= l (5.2%); n2=0 (0%); n3=6 (31.5%); n4=6 (31.5%); n5=7 (36.8%) 6i 3k, 41, 71 4t, 5p, 8z lv, 2y n=9 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (11%); n3=3 (33%); n4=2 (33%); n5=2 (20%) 2a, 3b lg, 2f, 4f, 4g, 5g, 6j, 7f,7g 5d H8 H9 3b li, 2f, 5g, 7f 6k, 7m, 8n 5p 4v n=10 n l= l (10%); n2=4 (40%); n3=3 (30%); n4=l (10%); n5=l (10%) H10 5d 6i In, lo, 71, 8m Is, 8s lu, lw, 2v, 2y, 3u, 4v, 5u n=15 n l= l n2=l n3=4 n4=2 n5=7 lu, 2y, 3u, 4v, 5w, 6u, 6v, 6w, 6z, 7w, 8x n=14 nl=0; n2=l (7%); n3=0; n4=2 (14%); n5=ll (78.6%) H it 7g lr, Is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (6.6%); (6.6%); (26.6%); (13.3%); (46.6%) 161 Table H2: Continued 2f 3t, 4r, 5q, 6r lv, lw, 3w, 4u, 5u, 7y, 8w n=15 nl=0 (0%); n2=l (75%); n3=3 (20%); n4=4 (27%); n5= 7 (47%) H13 8z lz, 2u, 3w, 4v, 5u, 5v, 5w, 6v, 7y n=10 nl=0 (0%); n2=0 (0%); n3=0 (0%); n4=0 (10%); n5=9 (90%) H14 5p lu, 2w, 3u, 4x, 6u, 7x, 8x n=8 nl=0 (0%); n2=0 (0%); n3=0 (0%); n4=l (12.5%); n5=7 (87.5%) 4s, 4t, 5q, 5p, 8s lu, lw, 2w, 3w, 4u, 5w, 6y, 8x n=18 nl=0 n2=2 n3=3 n4=5 n5=8 21.4% (72/336) 45.5% (153/336) H12 H15 Percentage 4g, 7g 2.4% (8/336) 11.6% (39/336) 21, 4k, 8m 3n, 4k, 81 19% (64/336) (0%); (.11%); (.17%); (.28%); (.44%) N=336 n = total number of responses to 8 PTL questions; n l = number of responses which are least constructivist; n5 = number of responses which are most constructivist; and n2, n3, n4 refer to number of responses which range from less constructivist to more constructivist respectively Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 Table H3. Teacher perceptions of classroom learning environment Learning environment activity Students learn about the world outside of school Students learn that scientific theories are human inventions It is OK for students to ask “why do we have to learn this” Students help me to plan what they are going to learn Students get the chance to talk to each other Students look forward to the learning activities New learning starts with problems about the world outside of school Students learn that science is influenced by people’s values and opinions Students feel free to question the way they are being taught Students help the teacher decide how their teaching is going Students talk with each other about how to solve problems The activities are among the most interesting at this school Students learn how science can be a part of their out of school life Students learn that the views of science have changed over time It is OK for students to complain about activities that are confusing Students have a say in deciding the rules for classroom discussion Students try to make sense of each others’ ideas The activities make students interested in science Students get a better understanding of the world outside of school Students learn that different sciences are used by different people in different countries It is OK for a student to complain about anything that keeps them from learning Students have a say in deciding how much time they spend on an activity Students ask each other to explain their ideas Almost always 11 (44%) 5 (20%) Often Sometimes Seldom 13 (52%) 11 (44%) 1(4%) 9 (36%) 0 0 Almost Never 0 0 11 (44%) 9 (36%) 5 (20%) 0 0 10 (40%) 12 (48%) 3 (12%) 0 0 9 (36%) 11(44%) 4 (16%) 14 (56%) 9 (36%) 14 (56%) 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) 0 1 (4%) 0 0 0 2 (8%) 9 (36%) 11(44%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 0 6 (24%) 9 (36%) 8 (32%) 2 (8%) 0 11 (44%) 7 (28%) 0 0 8 (32%) 10 (40%) 5 (24%) 7 (28%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 10 (40%) 10(40%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 13 (52%) 6 (24%) 6 (24%) 0 0 10(40%) 10(40%) 5 (20%) 0 0 11 (44%) 7 (28%) 7 (28%) 0 0 8 (32%) 12 (48%) 5 (20%) 0 0 18(72%) 14 (56%) 7 (28%) 8 (32%) 0 3 (12%) 0 0 0 0 1 (4%) 4 (16%) 14 (56%) 0 1 (4%) 14 (56%) 9 (36%) 6 (24%) 1 (4%) 0 8 (32%) 15 (60%) 2 (8%) 0 1 (4%) 6 (24%) 11 (44%) 0 0 5 (20%) 15 (60%) Students enjoy the learning activities 1 (4%) 6(24%) 11 (44%) Students leam interesting things about the world outside of school 15 (60%) 10 (40%) 0 7 (28%) 5 (20%) 6 (24%) 0 5 (20%) Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 0 0 1 (4%) 0 163 Table H3. Continued Students learn that scientific knowledge can be questioned Students are free to express their opinions Students offer to explain their ideas to one another Students feel confused What students learn has nothing to do with their out of school life 12 (48%) 12 (48%) 1 (4%) 0 0 9 (36%) 7 (28%) 14 (56%) 13 (52%) 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 0 1 (4%) 0 0 5 (20%) 0 13 (52%) 1 (4%) 6 (24%) 7 (28%) 1 (4%) 11 (44%) 0 6(24%) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table H4. Science Classroom Observation Rubric Data Teacher Category II Category I Category IV Category III Sub total Grand Total SCOR % 16 67 74 4 16 72 80 4 4 14 53 59 4 4 4 16 75 83 4 5 5 4 18 83 92 14 4 4 5 4 17 80 89 3 9 3 4 4 4 15 66 73 5 4 13 4 4 5 4 17 81 90 3 5 4 12 4 4 4 4 16 68 76 28 4 5 4 13 4 4 5 5 17 79 88 5 27 4 5 5 14 5 4 5 4 18 81 90 4 5 5 5 28 4 5 5 14 4 4 5 4 17 82 91 4 4 3 4 5 24 3 5 4 12 4 5 4 5 18 70 78 5 4 5 4 5 4 27 4 4 4 12 4 5 5 4 18 79 88 22 5 4 5 4 5 5 28 4 5 4 13 4 4 5 4 17 80 89 2 11 3 3 2 2 2 3 15 2 4 3 9 2 3 3 3 11 46 51 3 14 4 4 4 3 3 4 22 3 5 5 13 4 5 4 4 13 62 69 Sub total 0 P 3 11 4 4 Q R 4 4 5 5 13 4 4 4 2 4 3 9 3 3 24 2 5 4 12 4 5 5 5 28 3 5 5 13 4 5 5 5 28 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 24 2 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 28 4 18 4 4 4 3 4 3 22 5 21 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 22 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 23 5 4 3 4 3 3 16 4 4 5 4 4 5 22 15 4 4 4 5 5 16 2 2 3 2 17 2 3 3 3 Sub K total A B C D E Sub total F G H I 1 3 4 4 3 3 18 4 4 3 3 4 4 22 3 5 2 4 3 3 5 5 20 3 4 4 3 4 5 23 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 14 3 3 3 2 3 3 17 4 4 4 5 5 5 23 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 24 5 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 5 21 5 4 7 4 3 4 3 4 18 5 8 4 5 5 4 5 23 9 4 3 3 3 5 10 4 4 4 4 11 4 4 4 12 5 4 13 3 14 J L M N T-H 00 00 -= t CM r- o ON ON 00 On o ON o 00 Os 00 no NO o QO CO r- CO ^r wo NO 00 o 00 CM 00 00 CM l> CM NO o NO T*H 00 r^ 00 r- NO wo ON i wo T“H T“H Tt wo wo wo CM wo ■Of" wo CO ON co o 00 CM Tfr CO wo wo CO CO ■^t CO CO CO CO wo CO -St CM Tt M" Tt CO CM CO wo wo wo Tf CO CO co Tt CO Tt CO co CM CM CM CM CM CM 00 CM CM 00 CM 00 CM CM CO 'Tj- wo M" wo wo wo Tt wo CO wo *3- CO CO wo CM wo Tt Tj* CO CO Tfr ■^t wo Tt- Tt xj- ^ t wo wo wo wo wo NO CO CM CM wo wo wo wo wo CM wo wo Tfr wo CO wo CM wo Tt wo wo CO -rfr CM Tj- ■Of wo wo wo CO Tfr CM CM 'r*H 00 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM wo wo wo wo wo CM CO wo wo wo wo CO CO Tf CM CO Tt CM ■<fr Tt CO CM wo wo Tt "3* rt wo wo T}- co T j- ■^t wo wo CM CM t J- wo wo 1—■< wo wo wo wo CM r- T^H wo 00 CM CM wo wo 00 CM O 00 wo 00 CM ON Tf t -H CO wo 00 CO t -H CO rCM wo wo r- CO CM CM wo o 00 CO CM CM wo I> WO '^ t O NO NO wo co CM 00 'r-H CM CM NO r*H 4«mH wo <M NO r*H CM CM CO 00 1-H r-H Tf WO On 00 ▼-H wo CM CO 00 M- CO CO CO r- Tfr wo T-H o ON M- WO CM wo 00 NO Tf- M" CM wo T“H CM CM CO wo CO ^ t Table H4. Continued l-H ON 00 wo oo NO CM CO CM CO wo CO CO CM wo CO Tf wo wo T-H wo co CO CO r- o Tfr CM co CM CO CO CO CO wo CM CO CM CO CO CO co r3- rf Tf CO CO co CM wo CM NO CM rCM 00 CM ON CM o CO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 REFERENCES Abell, S.K., Pizzini, E.L., and Shepardson, D.P. 1988. Rethinking thinking in the science classroom. The Science Teacher. 55(9): 22-25. Abelson, R.P. 1979. Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science. 3(1): 355-366. Alberts, B. 2000. Some thoughts of a scientist. Inquiry into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Edited by Jim Minstrell and Emily H. VanZee. AAAS. Washington, DC. 3-13. Alexander, P. A. and Dochy, F.J.R.C. 1995. Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: a comparison across varying cultural and educational communities. American Educational Research Journal. 32(2): 413-442. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science fo r all Americans. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, C.W., and Smith, E.L. 1987. Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ Handbook - A Research Perspective, (pp. 84-111). New York: Longman. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1989.Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Washington, DC: Author. Atkin,J.M., Black, P., and Coffey, J. 2001. Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. National Academy Press. Ausubel, D. and Robinson, F. 1969. School Learning: An Introduction to Educational Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Barone, T., Berliner, D.C., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U., and McGowan, T. 1996. A future for teacher education - developing a strong sense of professionalism. In Sikula, J. (Ed.). Handbook o f Research on Teacher Education. New York: Simon and Shuster Macmillan. Barrows, H.S. and Tamdoyly, R.M. 1980. Problem Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. NY: Springer Publishing Co. Inc. Berliner, D.C. 1987. But do they understand? In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ Handbook - A Research Perspective, (pp.259-293). New York: Longman. Blum, R.V. 1979. Tribbles, truth, and teaching: An approach to instruction in the scientific method. In J. Lockhead and J. Clement (Eds.) Cognitive Process Instruction: Research on Teaching Thinking Skills. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press. Bonwell, C.C and Eison, J.A. 1991. The Modified Lecture. In Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the classroom. ASHEE-Eric Higher Education Report, No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, pp 7-19. Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 Bredderman, T. 1982. What Research Says: About Science—The Evidence Shows it Matters. Science and Children. 20(1):39-41. Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G. 1999. The case fo r constructivist classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Bruner, J.S. 1971. The Relevance o f Education. New York, News York: WW Norton and Company, Inc. Bruner, J.S. 1966. Towards a Theory o f Instruction. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Burry-Stock, J.A. 1995. Expert science teaching educational evaluation model (ESTEEM) administration, scoring, and interpretation manual. (1st ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE). Burry-Stock, J.A. 1995. Expert science teaching educational evaluation model (ESTEEM) instruments. (1st ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE). Burry-Stock, J.A. 1995. Expert science teaching educational evaluation model (ERSTEEM) theory, development, and research. (1st ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Education Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE). Caprio, M.W., McIntosh, W., and Koritz, H. 1989. Science education for the nonmajor: the problems. Journal o f College Science Teaching. 18(6): 424-426. Catrambone, R. 1995. Aiding subgoal learning: effects on transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology. 87(1): March 5-17. Center on Education Policy. 2003. From the Capital to the classroom —state and federal efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington DC: Center on Education Policy. Chism, N., Jones, C., Macce, B., Mountford, R., Stanley, C., Single, N., and Bonilla, J. 1992. Teaching at The Ohio State University. A Handbook. Columbus: Ohio State University, Center for Teaching Excellence, pp 29-41. Clermont, C.P., Borko, H., and Krajcik, J.S. 1994. Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. 31(4): 419-441. Clermont, C.P., Krajcik, J.S., and Borko, H. 1993. The influence of an intensive inservice workshop on pedagogical content knowledge growth among novice chemical demonstrators. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. 30(1): 21-43. Colburn, A. 2000. An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope: 23(6): 42-44 Costa, A.L. 1985. In A.L. Costa (Ed) Developing minds: a resource book fo r teaching thinking (125-137). Teacher Behaviors that enable student thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervising and Curriculum Development. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 Costa, A.L. and Marzano, R. 1987. Teaching the language of thinking. Educational Leadership. 45(2): 29-33. Crawley, F.E. and Salyer, B.A. 1995. Origins of life science teachers’ beliefs underlying curriculum reform in Texas. Science Teacher Education. 79(6): 611-635. Cronback, L. and Snow, R. 1977. Aptitudes and Instructional Methods. New York: Irvington Publishers. Dewey, J. 1944. Democracy and Education. Collier-Macmillan, London. The Free Press, NY. Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. DS Heath and Company. Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. Collier-Macmillan, London. Dewey, J. and Dewey, E. 1915. Schools o f Tomorrow. NY: E.P. Dutton and Company. Duckworth, E. 1964. Piaget Rediscovered. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. Volume 2(3). 172-175. Elmore, R.F. and Rothman, R.R. (Eds.). 2000. Testing, teaching, and learning - a guide fo r states and school districts. National Academy Press. Elstegeest, J. 1970. Teaching science by posing problems, Prospects 8(1):2. Ennis, C.D., Cothran, D.J., and Loftus, S.J. 1997. The influence of teachers’ educational beliefs on their knowledge organization. Journal o f Research and Development in Education. 30(2): 73-86. Fullan, M.G. 1991. The meaning o f educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fulp, S.L. 2002. 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Status of Middle School Science Teaching. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Horizon Research, Inc. Gagne, R. M. 1965. The Conditions o f Learning. NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Goodman, J. 1986. University education courses and the professional preparation of teachers: a descriptive analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2(4): 341-353. Gray, R. 1979. Toward observing that which in not observable. In cognitive process instruction. J. Lockhead and J. Clement, eds. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press. Hammes, M. and Duryea, E. 1987. Problem base learning: a teaching technique to enhance skills for problem-solving. Health Education, December 1986/January 1987. 44-45. Harms, N. 1977. Project Synthesis: An Interpretation Consolidation o f Research Identifying Needs in National Science Education. NSF University of Colorado, CO. Harms, N. and Yager, R.E. 1981. What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3. Washington, D.C. National Science Teachers Association. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 Healy, J.M. 1990. Endangered minds: why our children don’t think. New York: Simon and Schuster. Hegarty,M., Mayer, R., and Monk, C. 1995. Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: a comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 87(1): 18-32. Hollingsworth, S. 1989. Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal. 26(2): 160-189. Kimble, L.L. A comparison o f observed teaching practices with teacher perceptions o f their teaching during and following major funding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa City, The University of Iowa. Kraft, R.G. 1985. Group inquiry turns passive students into active. College Teaching. 33(4): 149-154. Krajcik, J.S., and Penick, J.E. 1989. Evaluation of a model science teacher education program. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. 26(9): 795-810. Layman, J.W., Ochoa, G., and Heikkinen, H. 1996. Inquiry and Learning: Realizing Science Standards in the Classroom. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Lew, L.Y. 2001. Development o f constructivist behaviors among four new science teachers prepared at the University o f Iowa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa City, The University of Iowa. Llewellyn, D. 2002. Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-based Scientific Standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Lowery, L.F. (Ed.). 1997. NSTA pathways to the science standard: guidelines fo r moving the vision into practices - elementary school edition. National Science Teachers Association, Mayer, R. and Greeno, J. 1972. Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal o f Educational Psychology. 63: 165-173. Messick, R.G. and Reynolds, K.E. 1992. Middle Level Curriculum in Action. White Plains, New York: Longman Publishing Company. National Center for Educational Statistics. 1999. Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications o f Public School Teachers. NCES 1999-080. Laurie Lewis, Basmat Parsad, Nancy Carey, Nicole Bartfai, Elizabeth Farris, and Becky Smerdon. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: Importance fo r Educational Reform. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. National Governor’s Conference. 1990. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 National Research Council. 1994. Draft for comment and review. National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. National Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide fo r Teaching and Learning. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. National Research Council. 2001. Knowing What Students Know. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. Nelson, B., Boyd, S., Hudson, S., and Weiss, I.R. 1989. Science and Mathematics Education Briefing Book. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Horizon Research. Nespor, J. 1987. The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal o f Curriculum Studies. 19(4): 317-328. Olton, R.M. and Crutchfield, R.S. 1969. Developing the skills of productive thinking. Paul H. Mussen, Jonas Langer, and Martin Covington, eds. Trends and Issues in Developmental Psychology. NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review o f Educational Research. 62(3): 307-332. Piaget, J. 1964. Part I Cognitive development in children. Development and learning. 2: 176-186. Pines, A.L. and West, L.H.T. 1986. Conceptual understanding and science learning: an interpretation of research within a source of knowledge framework. Science Education. 70(5): 583-604. Pizzini, E.L., Shepardson, D.P., and Abell, S.K. 1989. A rationale for the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education. Science Education. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 73(5): 523-534. Prawat, R. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. A constructivists perspective. American Journal o f Education, 100(3), 354-395. Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 2005 application packet. Rakow,S.J. (Ed.) 1998. NSTA pathways to the science standards: guidelines fo r moving the vision into practice - middle school edition. National Science Teachers Association. Rhoton,J. and Bowers,P. 1996. Issues in science education. National Science Teachers Association. Richardson, V. 1996. The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula, J. (Ed.). Handbook o f Research on Teacher Education. New York: Simon and Shuster Macmillan. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 Rosenshine, B. 1976. “Classroom Instruction,” in The Psychology o f Teaching Methods, 75th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, ed. N.L. Gage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 335-371. Ryan, F.L., and Ellis, A.K. 1974. Instructional implications o f inquiry. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Schwab, J.J. 1962. The Teaching o f Science. Joseph E. Schwab The Teaching of Science as Enquiry. 1-104. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Smith, P., Banilower, E., McMahon, K., and Weiss, I.R. 2002. The National Survey o f Science and Mathematics Education: Trends from 1977-2000. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Horizon Research, Inc. Sprinthall, N.A., Reiman, A.J., and Thies-Sprinthall, L. 1996. Teacher professional development. In Sikula, J. (Ed.). Handbook o f Research on Teacher Education. New York: Simon and Shuster Macmillan. Stofflett, R.T. 1994. The accommodation of science pedagogical knowledge: the application of conceptual change constructs to teacher education. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. 31(8): 787-810. Taylor, P., Dawson, V., and Fraser, B. (1995). A constructivist perspective on monitoring classroom learning environments under transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, San Francisco. Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). 1999. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J., and Gallard, A.J. 1994. Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In Gabel, D.L. (Ed.). Handbook o f Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Varella, G.F. 1997. The relationships o f science teachers’ beliefs and practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa City, University of Iowa. Watson, B., and Konicek, R. 1990. Teaching for conceptual change: confronting children’s experience. Phi Delta Kappan. 71: 680-685. Weiss, I.R. 1994. A profile o f science and mathematics education in the United States, 1993. Horizon Research Inc. Weiss, I.R. 1978. Report o f the 1977 National Survey o f Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation. Weiss, I.R and Raphael, J.B. 1996. The Characteristics o f Presidential Awardees: how do they compare with science and mathematics teachers nationally? Horizon Research, Inc. Weiss, I.R., Smith, P.S., and Malzahn, K.A. 2001. The Presidential Award fo r Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching: Results from the 2000 National Survey o f Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 Wells, G. Language and the Inquiry Oriented Curriculum. Nov 18-23, 1992. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. Louisville, KY, 42 pgs. Wiggins, G. 1989. The futility of trying to teach everything of importance. Educational Leadership. Vol. 47 November 44-48. Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., and Richert, A.E. (1987) ‘150 different ways’ o f knowing: representations o f knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.). Exploring teachers’ thinking, (p. 104-124). London: Cassell Educational Limited. Woods, D.R. 1977. On teaching problem solving part II: The Challenges. Chemical Engineering Education, 11, 140-144. Yager, R E . 1991. The constmctivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher. Sept. 52-57. Yager, R., Hidayat, E.M., and Penick, J.E. 1988, Features which separate least effective from most effective science teachers. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching. 25(3): 165-177. Yager, R.E., and Penick, J.E. 1986. Perceptions of four age groups toward science classes, teachers, and the value of science. Science Education. 70(4): 355-363. Yager, R.E., and Weld, J.D. 1999. Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa Project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education. 21(2): 169-194. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.