Title: A Professional Development Program for Science Teachers: Classroom Connectivity for Math and Science
1A Professional Development Program for Science
Teachers Classroom Connectivity for Math and
Science
- Christy Kim Boscardin, CRESST-UCLA
- Sedat Ucar, Cukurova University
- Sukru Kaya, Gazi University
- Melissa L. Shirley, The Ohio State University
Vehbi A Sanalan, The Ohio State University Karen,
E. Irving, The Ohio State University Stephen J.
Pape, University of Florida Douglas T. Owens, The
Ohio State University Louis Abrahamson, Better
Education Foundation
The research reported here was supported by the
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The
Ohio State University. The opinions expressed
are those of the authors and do not represent
views of the U.S. Department of Education.
2Changing conception of science competence
(National Research Council, 1996)
- Conceptual understanding
- Evidence-based reasoning
- Fluency in scientific inquiry and process skills
- Understanding the nature of science
- Broad science knowledge base
TI Navigator slides adapted from a presentation
by Eileen Shihadeh, Texas Instruments
3Changing roles for teachers include
- Thinking beyond skills-based conceptions
- Setting norms for discourse
- Fostering scientific reasoning
- Using problem solving and inquiry to support
knowledge construction - Developing scientific competence more broadly
defined - Using formative as well as summative assessment
- Differentiating instruction
4CCMS Project Overview
- Interdisciplinary professional development and
research project - Algebra I and Physical Science
- Classroom connectivity technology
- Summer Institute training
- T3 conference follow-up
5The TI-Navigator Connected Classroom
The TI-Navigator System allows the teacher to
- Create a collaborative learning environment
- Engage in formative assessment by way of
immediate feedback - Enhance classroom management of TI graphing
technology - Quick Poll provides teacher understanding by
receiving impromptu feedback
6Professional Development
- Week-long summer institute
- Follow-up workshops at T3 Conferences
- Web-based training
- Online discussion forums
- Telephone interviews
7Summer Institute
- You have to walk the walk to talk the talk
- Model is used in T3 PD program
- Based on the lessons learned
- Teachers teaching other teachers
- Research support for teacher-driven and
learning-focused PD programs
8Summer Institute (cont.)
- Important components
- Focus on student learning in physical science
- Extensive hands-on practice
- Curriculum specific applications
- Focus on both the technology and the pedagogy
- Experienced teacher instructors
- Teachers technology ability level
9Summer Institute (cont.)
- Treatment group in 2006, control group in 2007
- Five days, from 800 am to 500 pm
- Daily Debriefing sessions
- Pedagogical discussions about
- Self regulated learning
- Formative assessment
- Lesson projects and presentations
10Summer Institute (cont.)
- 21 Physical science, physics and chemistry
teachers - 11 different states
- 15 different schools
- 11 female, 10 male
- 9 teachers first year, 12 teachers second year
11Demographics
12Technology Use
Construct Mean SD Scale Range
General Technology Use 3.38 1.09 Very low - Very High 1-5
Educational Technology Use 2.96 1.25 Very low - Very High 1-5
Technology integration tendency 2.48 1.33 Never / Everyday 1-5
Perceived Technology Skill level 3.36 1.37 Very low - Very High 1-5
Perceived expertise in CK 3.71 1.45 Novice - Very Knowledgeable 1-5
13Professional Development
Type of Professional Development Never Once in two years Once a year Twice a year More than twice a year
Science Content Course N 3 1 8 3 5
Physics Content Course N 4 5 9 1 1
Chemistry Content Course N 9 2 6 1 2
District level one-day workshops N 2 1 5 2 10
Long-term PD (2 or more days) N 6 1 4 6 3
Graphing Calculator workshops N 12 2 3 2 1
Technology workshops N 6 3 6 2 3
University coursework N 7 5 2 1 5
Attending a conference N 4 4 8 2 2
Presenting at a conference N 15 1 3 0 1
14Institute Evaluation
After the institute
Construct Mean SD Scale Range
Appropriateness of institute contents 4.61 0.64 S. Disagree / S. Agree 1-5
Perceived pedagogical usefulness of Navigator 4.32 0.76 S. Disagree / S. Agree 1-5
Perceived self-confidence in Navigator components 4.33 0.94 S. Disagree / S. Agree 1-5
Overall Satisfaction 1.53 0.77 Excellent / Poor 1-4
15Results
- Teachers
- feel positive about using the technology in their
teaching - show appreciation for the institute contents
- Have confidence in their Navigator use skills
- Are satisfied with their overall experience in
the summer institute
16Future Directions
- Ongoing analysis of data from one-day workshops,
telephone interviews and observations. - Studying about the effects of PD on teachers
implementation of the technology. - Seeking a relationship between teachers use of
the technology and student achievement.
17Thank You!
http//ccms.osu.edu