| Author |
Post |
|
|
|
|
Chapter 6-
Robert Payo and I are leading the discussion this week of Chapters 6-7 in Science Teachers’ Learning. We will start with Chapter 6 and then post Chapter 7 mid week. We look forward to having you join us!
Here are some questions to get started on discussion of Chapter 6: Professional Development Programs. Feel free to respond to one or many, or bring up points that you found resonate with you:
1. According to the reading, “Students whose teachers participated in the professional development and who used the materials had significantly higher scores on five benchmark tests in science and on reading assessments relative to students in the control group” (p.127)-regarding PD paired with specific science lessons about inquiry-based teaching affecting achievement among 5th grade ELLs. What opportunities have you had to experience this type of professional learning and what changes did you notice in your students?
2. How can teachers get coherence with current classroom challenges if they attend a preplanned professional development session (such as NSTA)?
3. Describe a professional learning experience you found valuable. How did it compare to the “consensus model of effective professional development” five elements (p. 118):Content focus, active learning, coherence, sufficient duration, collective participation?
4. How can NSTA improve its support of expanded professional learning opportunities in science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello James,
Good to re-connect in this learning center opportunity.
Earlier this week, you posed a question, 3. Describe a professional learning experience you found valuable. How did it compare to the “consensus model of effective professional development” five elements (p. 118):Content focus, active learning, coherence, sufficient duration, collective participation?
Wondering if you could describe for the group the Nebraska Vision for Science professional development institute which you coordinated and facilitated earlier this summer? Believe this was an example of authentic implementation of the consensus model as described on pg.118 and serves as an exemplar of the type of PD opportunities referenced in this book.
Thank you,
Kenneth Huff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
Here are my thoughts on the questions for Chapter 6:
1) The chapter mentions how "gaps in the evidence base" exists and Conclusion 5 is based on "best available evidence" which means more action research studies need to be conducted. With a shift in the focus on science instruction from content to process, how can we effectively and efficiently measure a student's mastery of science as a process? Currently, our students perform very well on the NYS science assessments. NYS has not made to the shift of the NGSS, but it will be happening soon. If the students are performing well, the teachers argue "Why change?" or they fear negative impact on the test scores.
2) The coherence would come from the sequence in which they take a string of courses aligned with a common theme.
3) Teachers enjoy and value face to face time with their colleagues. They are able to discuss effective pedagogy and actual lab activities that have been proven to be effective. Which goes back to the first question......how do we know if is effective?
4) NSTA has a challenge of reaching science teachers from across the country. It is difficult to establish face to face time given the parameters of a national organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Ken, I will accept your challenge to talk about Nebraska Vision of Science (NVOS) in 2016!)
[i]3. Describe a professional learning experience you found valuable. How did it compare to the “consensus model of effective professional development” five elements (p. 118):Content focus, active learning, coherence, sufficient duration, collective participation?[/i]
I helped organize a large statewide PD session this summer with our Math and Science Partnership grant and our state museum. The first day was capped at 250 participants in grades K-12. Days 2 and 3, we narrowed the audience to just science teacher leaders in a smaller group to organize a more intensive experience; and funds prevented us from keeping all 250 at the table.
I think NVOS was successful in light of the Consensus Model because there was not a presenter that was "sit and get"; everyone was challenged with an interplay between group and individual science performances as if they were the student; and then quickly putting the teacher hat back on to reflect on the experience.
Point of tension (which I took as a great point of learning for participants!): Because our goal was to provide experiences where teachers were the students, I think participants really got to feel the pressure to reason, explain, and argue; which was a big focus of the PD. Instead of passing judgement on something new and saying, "My students could... or My students could not", we were experiencing it as THE student, which made the experience powerful.
When I was re-reading the posts from the Learning Center Ch 6/7 thread this week and looking for themes, one piece that stuck out was from Robert Payo's reply, "They have a focus on students' thinking skills and using those skills as a way of mapping out lessons, constantly asking teachers to be clear about what type of thinking they want their students to do and in turn how that directs the kind of product they want students to produce." Robert's comment resonated with me because at NVOS our focus in writing science performances was to look at the lesson idea from a student perspective. We even got as specific as to italicize anything in our lesson ideas that was for teacher use to separate it from what was there from student use.
Coming out of this 3 day statewide event, we have collected dozens of lesson ideas and I think my biggest "ah ha" moment was that we aren't teaching 3D because of NGSS, but the standards are there to support 3D teaching and learning as our goal.
Because this work is grant funded, we are doing evaluations after every PD session. I am very curious to see the results. Anecdotally, I have heard many teachers say this was the best PD they had had in their long career in LPS, who were a large portion of the teachers in attendance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 7 questions:
[b][color=#575655][size=2][font="Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]Here are some questions to get started on discussion of Chapter 7-Teacher Learning in Schools and Classrooms. Feel free to respond to one or many, or bring up points that you found resonate with you:[/font][/size][/color][/b]
1. What is your current job role? Does reading about the importance of collaboration and professional learning affirm or challenge what you are currently doing? Please explain.
2. “Teachers spend the majority of their professional time in classrooms and schools, and it is imperative that those settings support their professional learning, both individually and collectively.” (p. 166)
James Blake's thoughts-- this is important, the research says teachers at best get around 30 hours professional learning in 3 years (10 per year), which is relatively true in my district where teachers only 10.5 hours with district professional learning per year; teachers learning in the context of their work is the only way to achieve levels that they need.
QUESTION: Describe opportunities in your district for teachers to engage in school-based learning outside of just “professional development days.”.
3. One study from National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Banilower et al., 2013) (p.152) gave the following stats regarding how teacher study gruops spent their time:
73% collective analysis of science assessment results
65%-Analyze instructional materials
67% planning lessons together
25% teachers own engagement in scientific investigations
How does this compare to how you spend time in teacher study groups? Do you agree with these priorities? If not, which one would you increase focus on?
4. According to Coburn et al., 2012; effective networks include strong ties (frequent interaction and social closeness), access to expertise, and deep interactions (focused on underlying pedagogical principles, the nature of the discipline or how students learn) (p.161). How does your interaction with NSTA exemplify or match up (or not?) with the context of Coburn et al. depiction of strong networks? If not, what would be needed to improve NSTA’s role as a convener of strong teacher networks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
Here are my thoughts on the questions posed for Chapter 7:
1) I am the P-12 Science Chairperson for a school district located on Long Island, New York. Collaboration and professional learning is integrated into all of the professional development opportunities that we offer the teachers. We recently held an EdCamp in which the teachers created the sessions that they wanted to participate in. http://www.hewlett-woodmere.net/Page/8920
2) In addition to our three professional development days, we have approximately two science department meetings a month and approximately two faculty meetings per month. Teachers are given release time if they request it to pursue an initiative of their choosing (on-line tools, new lab equipment, etc). It has been a challenge to arrange for peer observations. Teachers are also able to sign up for local, state, and national science professional development opportunities.
3) This aligns with what we do in our district as a whole. Based on the stats given, more time should be spent on developing local common assessments for the teachers review collectively and analyze.
4) In order for NSTA to provide stronger teacher networks, I think they need to have more localized representatives to provide on-site professional development. The outreach should be at the colleges and universities in order to identify and encourage current and future leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
Here are my thoughts on the questions posed for Chapter 7:
1) I am the P-12 Science Chairperson for a school district located on Long Island, New York. Collaboration and professional learning is integrated into all of the professional development opportunities that we offer the teachers. We recently held an EdCamp in which the teachers created the sessions that they wanted to participate in. http://www.hewlett-woodmere.net/Page/8920
2) In addition to our three professional development days, we have approximately two science department meetings a month and approximately two faculty meetings per month. Teachers are given release time if they request it to pursue an initiative of their choosing (on-line tools, new lab equipment, etc). It has been a challenge to arrange for peer observations. Teachers are also able to sign up for local, state, and national science professional development opportunities.
3) This aligns with what we do in our district as a whole. Based on the stats given, more time should be spent on developing local common assessments for the teachers review collectively and analyze.
4) In order for NSTA to provide stronger teacher networks, I think they need to have more localized representatives to provide on-site professional development. The outreach should be at the colleges and universities in order to identify and encourage current and future leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
Here are my thoughts on the questions posed for Chapter 7:
1) I am the P-12 Science Chairperson for a school district located on Long Island, New York. Collaboration and professional learning is integrated into all of the professional development opportunities that we offer the teachers. We recently held an EdCamp in which the teachers created the sessions that they wanted to participate in. http://www.hewlett-woodmere.net/Page/8920
2) In addition to our three professional development days, we have approximately two science department meetings a month and approximately two faculty meetings per month. Teachers are given release time if they request it to pursue an initiative of their choosing (on-line tools, new lab equipment, etc). It has been a challenge to arrange for peer observations. Teachers are also able to sign up for local, state, and national science professional development opportunities.
3) This aligns with what we do in our district as a whole. Based on the stats given, more time should be spent on developing local common assessments for the teachers review collectively and analyze.
4) In order for NSTA to provide stronger teacher networks, I think they need to have more localized representatives to provide on-site professional development. The outreach should be at the colleges and universities in order to identify and encourage current and future leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
First full day of school was today! Two Professional Development Programs that I recruit other teachers to join are QuarkNet and ITSI (formerly ITSU-SU Innovative Technology in Science Inquiry Scale Up). Both are NSF funded. QuarkNet is sponsored by universities across the country. The workshops allow teachers to study high energy physics along with other science teachers in the area and even spend time at Fermi Lab. These workshops include inquiry type hands-on activities and authentic data collecting from cosmic ray detectors we build during the week long workshop. Guest lecturers share their knowledge with demos and applications to our classrooms. Last week we each constructed a large cloud chamber in which our students will view the tracks of radioactive particles. We all continue to be active learners and collaborate throughout the workshop. In addition, we have the option to take field trips to observe scientists in the field.
ITSI was developed by the great folks at The Concord Consortium. The initial workshop was during a summer, followed by online classes each semester and another summer together with teachers from 4 states. The summer times allowed teachers to increase their science knowledge and discuss how students learn. The pre and post tests in each unit allowed teachers to gather data about their students and then spring video analysis, teachers received peer evaluation. Once I started using these online simulations and probe ware inquiry type experiments, my students were so engaged that they did not leave when the bell rang. They looked forward to the designing their own experiments and learning about STEM careers in each activity. Check it out https://itsi.portal.concord.org/ or click on the link science activities grades 3 -12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
These sound like outstanding programs. Reflecting about these in light of the five elements of the "consensus model of professional development" in Science Teachers' Learning: Content focus, active learning, coherence, sufficient duration, collective participation; I would say these programs exemplify these elements.
As a former chemistry teacher, I would love to see the cloud chamber!
Thank you for sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the cloud chamber. Much bigger than the perti dish ones I used in my classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I run teacher professional development programs for the museum I work at and the points that James brings up are things that sort of linger in the back of my brain when it comes to quantifying impact of teacher PD. We provide a host of programming, often with extended learning through hybrid format courses of face-to-face sessions and weekly online coursework. I know that are teachers benefit from our trainings, they incorporate the activities and strategies that they learn from us, and are highly motivated to attend more of our programs once they attend for the first time. We are constantly looking at how to make our programs relevant with approaches and ideas that teachers can use right away in their classroom and I know that they do from the host of stories teachers tell me of how their using the materials, especially when we have extended contact with them in our hybrid courses.
But given all that, we do not evaluate how that influence changes student skills or compentencies. Having met several other PD providers in the informal education world, I know that we are not alone in that regard. I do wish that we had measures that we could speak to that get at this specifally, but we don't. We are starting to partner more closely with districts and there is potential in working with a particular district to embed these evaluative measures into our programming--and this would largely be dependent on funding to support the evaluation and mapping out what impact looks like.
I remember going to a session in Nashville of a university that was looking at impact of their trainings with teachers and one of the things they found in their study was that content training, especially in specific content areas such as physics were noted for indicating that the teachers' buidling of their content knowledge did not sustain over time. Teachers did not retain the content after a year and it in turn didn't make an impact in their teaching and curriculum planning. This speaks to the need for repeated application and exposure to the information in order to make it stick.
Chris, I like how you mention the Concord Consortium. They have wonderful materials and its great that there is a pre and post test component to help gather data on students and video peer evaluation. Those approaches can certainly get at generating more analytical data on effectiveness and it reminds me that I should reach out to them and talk to the folks at Concord more about that. Thanks for the info and reminder!
For me personally, we have a local organization, [url=http://www.pebc.org/]PEBC[/url] (Public Education + Business Coaltion) that runs excellent PD that has made a great impact on how I facilitate our programs. They have a focus on students' thinking skills and using those skills as a way of mapping out lessons, constantly asking teachers to be clear about what type of thinking they want their students to do and in turn how that directs the kind of product they want students to produce. It's helped me to structure what my learning goals are and to make those more overt to teachers, allowing us to see if what we're intending is actually happening. As a faciltiator, this has really been powerful, giving greater purpose to what I'm asking teachers to do and think about.
|
|