Learning Progressions for Describing Teachers Use of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 39
About This Presentation
Title:

Learning Progressions for Describing Teachers Use of

Description:

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation ... They were attuned to standards and learning goals. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:105
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: franci183
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Learning Progressions for Describing Teachers Use of


1
Learning Progressions for Describing Teachers
Use of Curriculum Materials
Christina Schwarz, MSU Betsy Davis, UM David
Kanter, Northwestern Sean Smith, Horizon CCMS
KSI July, 2006
This material is based on work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No.
ESI-0227557. Any opinions, findings and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
2
What Do We Mean by a Teacher Learning Progression?
  • Not a stage theory model of teacher development
  • A learning progression that can help us
  • Clarify beginning, middle, and end goals for
    teacher curriculum use
  • Think about teacher use of CMs with and without
    intervention and guidance
  • Think about what types of intervention and
    guidance are needed and when
  • Think about the role of mediating factors such as
    context, teacher knowledge, skills, and beliefs

3
Session Rationale
  • Why a teacher learning progression around CMs?
  • CMs are important in teacher practice, and
    teachers use of CMs evolves and changes over
    time.
  • Beginning teachers are highly dependent on CMs,
    and its important for them to know how to
    evaluate, select, and modify CMs in a principled,
    reform-based manner. Important to help beginning
    and experienced teachers develop a participatory
    relationship with CMs that enables effective
    curriculum modification, learning, and use.
  • Lack of knowledge around teacher progressions
    hampers teacher educators from designing
    effective teacher education and curriculum
    designers from creating effective materials for a
    range of teachers along the continuum.

4
Session Goal
  • Have a conversation and map out a tentative
    teacher learning progression or set of
    progressions for pre-service, beginning, and
    experienced teachers around curriculum materials
    use, including
  • Curriculum evaluation/choice (including finding
    and evaluating CMs)
  • Curriculum modification/planning
  • Curriculum enactment
  • Reflection with CMs (looking at student learning
    and outcomes)
  • Learning with CMs
  • Identity with respect to CMs (including
    professional role as teacher)
  • Mediating factors Context (learning community
    and tools), teacher knowledge (content and
    other), pedagogical skills (management, etc.),
    and teacher beliefs.

5
Session Questions
  • How do teachers interact with curriculum
    materials with and without support? What sorts of
    participatory relationships do they have with
    respect to CMs?
  • How do those aspects change over teachers
    careers?
  • What might we want teachers to know and be able
    to do with respect to CMs?
  • How might we help teachers get there?
  • What kind of research might we need to determine
    the answers to these questions?

6
Teacher Learning Progressions
7
Organization of Session
  • Introduction (10 min)
  • Presentation of findings from session organizers
    (50 min)
  • Break (15 min)
  • Small Group work on mapping out one dimension of
    LP (50 min)
  • Sharing of LPs (30 min)
  • Discussion (25 min)

8
Christina Schwarz, ETCM group at MSU
  • Focus on helping pre-service elementary teachers
    learn to evaluate and modify curriculum materials
    for effective science teaching.
  • Use P2061 criteria to guide pre-service teachers
    in evaluating materials (e.g. providing a sense
    of purpose, building on students ideas, engaging
    students in real world phenomena, etc.).
  • Used criteria to evaluate materials
  • Used criteria to evaluate and modify set of
    lessons taught in elementary classrooms
  • Trials of implementation of approach in 3 methods
    sections -- iterations over 3 years. Year 2
    studied extensively.
  • Analyzed scaffolded and spontaneous use of P2061
    and own criteria. Looked at attitudes towards
    P2061 criteria use and modification.

9
ETCM work
10
ETCM findings
  • Pre-service teachers evaluations of materials
    based on strong intuitive notions of what makes
    good material. Often, a practical orientation --
    age appropriate activities that can be easily
    managed, fun, with hands-on activities, and
    provides clear science explanations for both
    teachers and students.
  • Efforts to focus pre-service teachers on
    evaluating materials with P2061 criteria a
    challenge because the criteria did not match
    intuitive notions and the task sometimes seemed
    inauthentic, unnecessary, and sometimes
    destabilizing. Needed more support in modifying
    materials to meet criteria.
  • Some indication that PSTs felt lack of power and
    knowledge for modifying materials, but were
    willing to consider modification when related to
    practical management concerns or to address
    concerns about age appropriateness.

11
Other ETCM Findings and Recommendations
  • Better results when focusing on helping PST
    evaluate and modify CMs with an instructional
    framework that helped them see HOW they can
    modify curriculum materials and brings in an
    overall guideline for how to do this and an image
    for this kind of instruction.
  • Engage Establish a problem. Ask a question.
    Elicit student ideas.
  • Explore and Investigate Explore phenomena and
    students ideas. Ask students to derive patterns
    and explanations based on evidence.
  • Explain Introduce scientific ideas. Compare
    student ideas.
  • Apply Model concept use and application, coach,
    and fade.

12
Other ETCM Findings and Recommendations
  • Providing several experiences evaluating,
    modifying, and enacting CMs in the pre-service
    stage may be very important, as well as
    discussing related issues. (When can and should I
    modify? What if my CT or principal tells me I
    have to stick to the book and worksheets?)
  • Important to match the PST communities with
    one-another so that they see this practice in
    action. Have CTs discuss CM evaluation and
    modification to make this invisible task more
    explicit.
  • Create tasks or cases related to curriculum
    evaluation and modification in teacher education
    courses that are engaging and authentic for PSTs.

13
End Goal for PSTs
  • Where do we want PSTs to be at the end of their
    methods courses?
  • Knowing that CMs can be a useful resource, but
    they need to be evaluated and carefully modified
    to meet learning goals and student needs
  • Having gained experiences and skills in
    evaluating, modifying, and enacting of CMs in a
    principled, reform-based manner
  • Having gained experience working with a community
    (colleagues, developers, teacher educators) in
    evaluating and modifying CMs. And to a greater or
    lesser extent, enacting CMs and reflecting on
    that enactment.

14
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM
Preservice teacher education (several studies
have been published) Example research question
What is the basis for preservice elementary
teachers critique of instructional materials in
science? Participants Preservice elementary
teachers at UM Example data sources work on
critique adaptation assignments Longitudinal
study (ongoing no studies have been
published) One overarching research question How
do new elementary teachers knowledge and
practice change over time? Specifically were
interested in inquiry-oriented science teaching
and related dimensions. Participants 7
elementary teachers, UM preservice through sixth
year of teaching, nationwide Multiple data
sources interviews, log files, reflections, etc.
bd
15
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM
bd
16
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about
  • Preservice teachers evaluation and modification
    of CM (AB) (see Davis, 2006, Science Education
    Forbes Davis, 2006 ASTE / submitted)
  • The preservice elementary teachers held a
    sophisticated set of criteria for critiquing
    instructional materials for example, they paid
    attention to scientific inquiry and instructional
    goals.
  • Even with explicit support, the preservice
    teachers did not engage in substantive critique
    about how scientific content is represented.
  • The preservice elementary teachers critiqued and
    modified curriculum materials dealing with
    socioscientific issues in ways that reflected
    their own orientations toward meaningful science
    learning and their developing understanding of
    inquiry-oriented science.

bd
17
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about
  • Preservice teachers learning from and with CM
    (E) (see Smithey Davis, 2004, ICLS Dietz
    Davis, in progress)
  • Since this is very specific to supports we use in
    CASES, we wont discuss this today.
  • When responding to narrative images of inquiry,
    half of the preservice teachers studied reported
    agreement with instructional decisions of the
    image teacher as the only rationale for
    identifying with them. The other half also
    considered issues of similarity of circumstance
    and whether or not they could relate to the image
    teacher.
  • Also when responding to narrative images of
    inquiry, the preservice teachers reflect on five
    common themes (including identity, students
    ideas, and teacher modifications to CM), while
    also reflecting on some themes that are specific
    to particular narratives (including inquiry and
    learning goals).

bd
18
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about
  • Preservice teachers curricular role identity
    (F)(see Forbes Davis, 2006 ASTE / submitted
    for review Forbes Davis, in progress)
  • In critiquing and adapting CM dealing with
    socioscientific issues, the preservice teachers
    SMK, informal reasoning about socioscientific
    issues, and their role identity mediated their
    efforts.
  • They adopted a value-neutral approach to
    practice.
  • They were attuned to standards and learning
    goals. The challenge was to navigate
    conceptually-oriented goals and SSI-oriented
    ones.
  • Curricular role identity development is tied to
    preservice teachers practicum experiences. Many
    rarely interact, or observe cooperating teachers
    interact, with CM and dont perceive CM a
    fundamental part of classroom-based practice.
    This is a function of what materials are
    available.
  • Preservice teachers view CM as always helpful for
    inexperienced teachers but less so for
    experienced teachers, except in cases where the
    teachers are learning to use new CM or teaching
    unfamiliar content.

cf
19
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about
  • Beginning teachers evaluation and modification
    of CM (AB)(talk to Forbes, Stevens, Beyer,
    Smithey, and/or Davis for different slants on
    this)
  • In general, beginning elementary teachers do
    engage in critique and adaptation of existing CM.
    They draw from a variety of resources but
    experience a tension between an
    investigation-orientation and a text-orientation.
    This tension is constructed and articulated
    differently by each teacher.
  • Time or experience isnt the only factor in
    change. Context matters in how beginning teachers
    critique, adapt, and use CM.
  • The teachers have a wide variety of science CM to
    work with.
  • Their available CM influences the development of
    their science teaching practice over time.
  • Having and using a stable set of CM over time may
    help promote the development of PCK and
    pedagogical design capacity.
  • Some beginning teachers show increasing
    sophistication with regard to the criteria along
    which they critique instructional representations
    in CM and consider inquiry practices supported by
    the CM.

cf
20
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about
  • Beginning teachers enactment of CM (C)(see
    Beyer, in progress)
  • Since this is a case study of a single teacher,
    we wont discuss this today.
  • In enacting the educative materials, one
    third-year, second grade teacher developed a more
    sophisticated understanding of scientific
    explanation, adopted learning goals for some
    lessons that emphasized this inquiry practice,
    and developed instructional practices to foster
    students explanation construction.
  • However, she tended to emphasize the importance
    of learning factual content above the importance
    of generating explanations in some of her
    learning goals and in her instructional and
    assessment practices. She did not see this
    inquiry practice as an instructional strategy for
    facilitating students understanding of the
    science content nor did she see this inquiry
    practice as an educational goal in its own right.

cf
21
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UMAn
Overarching Question
How can we make sense of longitudinal data
like these to make claims about a learning
progression?
cf
22
David Kanter, Northwestern
  • In-service middle and high school Biology
    teachers
  • Curriculum-driven, practice-based professional
    development(Learning and Teaching Human Biology
    graduate course)
  • Concurrent with first enactment of project-based
    inquiry science (PbIS) I, Bio or Disease
    Detectives Biology curricula
  • Split between beginning and experienced
    teachers,although none particularly experienced
    with pedagogy or content
  • 12 weeks during school year, 3 hours, 1
    evening/week
  • Co-taught with practicing teacher experienced
    with the curriculum

23
  • PbIS curricula designed around big Biology
    content ideas support opportunities to figure out
    students initial ideas about the big ideas,
    support students changing their ideas, and figure
    out students final ideas about the big ideas
  • Teachers learn in order to use pedagogical
    content knowledge content knowledge to plan and
    reflect on puzzling through their students
    conceptual change
  • New big ideas added each week as we work toward
    enacting the next lesson
  • Reflecting and planning is structured by
    organizer that requiresdesign/ identify/
    interpret ( reasoning)/ design (
    reasoning)when clarifying or changing students
    ideas about (stated) big idea

24
David Kanter, Northwestern
25
Big Science Ideas
Design/Plan
  • Provide organizer

Identify
Interpret
Teaching Jobs
Design/Plan
26
  • Use organizer for homework to reflect on enacted
    lesson that was (review during class)
  • Use organizer for homework to plan to enact
    lesson that will be (review during class) with
    further planning support during class, prior to
    enactment.
  • Planning and reflecting supported by content and
    conceptions readings and lecture for big ideas in
    each new lesson, video of other teachers
    enacting that lesson and personally experiencing
    that lesson.
  • Weekly, use one organizer per lesson. Update one
    reflecting on lesson that was. Begin another
    to plan for lesson that will be.
  • Flesh out organizer into paper for two lessons.
    Classroom video of teachers enactment provided
    to support this task.
  • (Pre-service teachers in same methods type
    course complete papers based on observations in
    in-service teachers classrooms)

27
  • Analyze organizer-structured papers. Compare to
    pre-measure administered for big ideas from
    target lessons.
  • Chunk self-contained use of teaching jobsto
    clarify or change a big science idea(i.e. column
    on the organizer)
  • Four (organizer-supported) qualities
  • Content
  • Connected
  • Correct
  • Justified

28
  • GREEN CHUNK
  • -Content focused
  • -Connected
  • -Correct
  • -Justified
  • YELLOW CHUNK
  • -Content focused
  • -Connected
  • -INCORRECT (e.g over estimation best chunks are
    correct)
  • -NOT Justified

ORANGE CHUNK (pick 2) -SHIFTS AWAY from
Content focus -Often UNCONNECTED -INCORRECT
(pedagogical) -NOT Justified
  • RED CHUNK
  • -NO Content focus
  • -UNCONNECTED
  • -INCORRECT (pedagogical)
  • -NOT Justified

29
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher B
30
  • Teacher Learning Progressions of Curriculum
    Materials Use
  • Pre PREDOMINATELY RED OR ORANGE CHUNKS unable
    to identify relevant student comments/writings/act
    ions unable to make interpretations about what
    students ideas are let alone justify
    (reasoning) unable to suggest designs to
    clarify or change students ideas let alone
    justify (reasoning)
  • Post FEWER RED OR ORANGE CHUNKS MORE YELLOW AND
    SOME GREEN CHUNKS able to identify relevant
    student comments/writings/actions able to make
    correct interpretations about students
    ideas (although over/under estimation
    possible) some justify (reasoning) able to
    suggest designs to clarify or change students
    ideas some justify (reasoning) ALTHOUGH
    DIFFERENCES AMONG TEACHERS/CONTENT

31
Sean Smith, Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI)
  • HRI was the external evaluator for an
    Instructional Materials Development project
    observed several teachers enacting the curriculum
    over 4 years.
  • The materials
  • InterActions in Physical Science (formerly known
    as CIPSConstructing Ideas in Physical Science)
  • Year-long physical science curriculum targeting
    8th grade scaffolding of science concepts and
    science practices across units.
  • Highly structured curriculum based on a learning
    cycle approachlessons within cycles within
    units.
  • Instruction heavily based on scientific
    argumentation and explanation.
  • Developed by team of physicists and physics
    educators from SDSU, U of Minn, and WMU.
  • Designed with P2061 criteria in mind solicited
    P2061 feedback regularly during development.

32
Differences in Research Focus
  • HRIs focus was on fidelity of implementation.
  • To what extent was the teachers enactment
    aligned with the developers vision?
  • What factors contributed to a high (or low)
    fidelity implementation?
  • How did teachers change over time in their
    enactment, particularly in relation to
    curriculum-related PD?
  • Focus of curriculum-related PD was on enabling
    teachers to implement with fidelity.
  • Not about principles for evaluating and choosing
    curricula.
  • Not about modifying the curriculum.

33
Teacher Support During Pilot and Field Test
  • Extensive educative materials to accompany
    student materials.
  • Week long summer workshop.
  • 4 day long workshops during the year.
  • Afternoon meetings every other week (pilot phase
    only)

34
(No Transcript)
35
Findings
  • Findings are limited to enactment how using the
    materials changed teachers and how teachers
    changed the materials.
  • How the materials changed the teachers and their
    classrooms
  • All teachers made progress in terms of fidelity,
    some much more than others.
  • Teachers spoke of major changes in
  • Classroom culture from teacher dominated to
    collaborative from no student talk or disruptive
    talk to constructive, respectful talk among
    students.
  • Who does the intellectual work in the classroom
    shift from teacher only to students and teacher
    sharing the load.
  • The kind of intellectual work the teacher does in
    the classroom from information dispensing to
    facilitating, making sense of evidence, and
    anticipating, analyzing, and reacting to student
    thinking.
  • Their relationship to the curriculum after the
    first year of enactment from an
    activity-by-activity approach to a unit- and even
    curriculum-level approach.

36
How Teachers Changed the MaterialsA Progression
of Sorts
  • Managing classroom behavior and managing
    logistical aspects of the curriculum
  • Teachers with no class control struggled. Those
    who could not manage the material and paper
    demands of the curriculum also struggled.
  • These teachers implemented with the least
    fidelity no constructive discussions, no making
    sense of evidence.
  • Managing the pedagogy InterActions involves a
    relatively sophisticated pedagogy that depends,
    among other things, on having certain kinds of
    discussions at certain points in the cycle.
  • Teachers focused heavily on the what of the
    pedagogy, but not the why. More emphasis on the
    form of the pedagogy than the substance.
  • Had discussions but these often did not build
    toward a conclusion, or teachers rushed to
    conclusion.
  • A mechanical enactment at best.
  • Managing the learning Some teachers eventually
    saw the why of the pedagogy, and became
    comfortable with pedagogy, as well as the scope
    and sequence of the curriculum.
  • Had discussions guided by students ideas and the
    pedagogy.
  • Did not rush to closure or short-circuit the
    inquiries.
  • A purposeful enactment.

37
Create Learning Progression Along Dimensions
  • Group 1 - CM choice and evaluation
  • Group 2 - CM modification and planning
  • Group 3 - CM enactment
  • Group 4 - Reflection with CMs
  • Group 5 - Learning with and from CMs
  • Group 6 - Identity and CMs
  • We acknowledge these categories overlap. Feel
    free to modify the framework.
  • Mediating factors within these dimensions
    include context (learning community, tools),
    teacher knowledge (content, etc.), pedagogical
    skills (classroom management, etc.), teacher
    vision/beliefs/orientations.

38
Discussion Questions for LPs
  • Where are teachers? (What do they know and what
    are they able to do? Unpack the information from
    these findings and your own.) Where are the
    teachers with and without scaffolding? What are
    some of the challenges and opportunities at those
    particular levels and foci?
  • Where do we want teachers to be with respect to
    CMs? When?
  • How can we help teachers get there? (e.g.
    educative CMs, teacher education, professional
    development)
  • What research might we need to figure this out?

39
Share Learning Progressions Discuss Main Issues
  • Share Learning Progressions
  • Discuss main issues
  • Where do we want teachers to be? When?
  • What kind of experiences, scaffolding, or
    education is needed? (e.g. educative CMs, TE, PD)
    When?
  • What should our next steps be?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com