Upload
silvia-gilbert
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Changes in Student and Teacher Attitudes and Behaviors in an Integrated High School Curriculum
Presented by:
Nicolle Gottfried & Catherine Saldutti
Background
Design of an integrated, standards- & inquiry-based 2-year Biology and Chemistry program
Use of research-based best practicesIn cooperation with: teachers, students, Teachers College, Columbia and The Rockefeller University
Piloted in 2 Public Schools in New York CityTeachers of varying levels of experience
Students representing diverse needs
Background, cont.
Evaluation of the pilot test included many data sources:
Classroom Observations
Interviews of teachers, administrators and students
Written student and teacher reflections
Review of student work and Regents test scores
Pre- and post-participation questionnaires including an attitudinal battery
Our Approach
Multiple sources of data designed to provide a mosaic of understanding
To be used both formatively and summatively
All data were collected by EduChange and Gottfried, and reported anonymously
Data Analysis
Data analyzed in aggregate, by teacher, school and ethnicity
Qualitative data and observations reported as notable trends, quotes and describable behavioral changesQuantitative data (e.g. survey responses and reflections) have been categorized, analyzed and reported as percentages and means
These data are compared to reasonable matched non-participant normative data for New York City students, when available
Key Findings
Student and teacher attitudes toward program participation change over 2-years in a predictable pattern
Model of Student and Teacher Attitude Change
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fall 1stYear
Spring 1stYear
Fall 2ndYear
Spring2nd Year
TeacherStudent
Key Findings, cont.
Students in the program perform on par or better than matched counterparts on the Regents Living Environment (biology) exams
Teachers improve relative to “best practices,” in parallel to student improvements
Students demonstrate very sophisticated conceptual learning, habits of mind relating to science, and how to facilitate their own learning
“When I felt confused, I tended to just tune everything out. When I’m confused now, I should ask questions in class.”
Additional Questions?
Contact:
Nicolle Gottfried ([email protected])
Catherine Saldutti ([email protected])
Assessing Discrete Inquiry Skills Using a Classroom Laboratory Rubric: Six Student Case Studies
Presented by:
Catherine Saldutti & Nicolle Gottfried
Six Case Studies
6 students who had participated in both years of the pilot program and had most of the requested labs available (rubric-based, teacher-selected)
2 high-achieving student in laboratory write-ups
2 mid-achieving students
2 low-achieving students Represent School A and School B
Study Focus
All lab write-ups assessed using a 4-point rubric designed to address performance levels of inquiry habits
Same rubric criteria and performance levels over 2 years, with several opportunities to revisit these inquiry habits in different laboratory contexts
Case Studies: Evaluation of a portfolio of lab write-ups, Fall 2002-present
Focused on 3 of 18 rubric criteria
Criterion #1: Understanding the Purpose of the Experiment
Performance
Levels
Criterion
Insufficient
Evidence
Approaches Standard
Achieves Standard
Exceeds Standard
(Achieves Standard plus…)
Understanding the Purpose of the Experiment
(Introduction)
1B. Does not explain the main purpose clearly OR does not use own words
(Introduction)
1B. Explains the main purpose of the experiment clearly in own words
(Introduction)
1B. Explains the main purpose of the experiment clearly in own words, including how we will know if the purpose has been achieved (Introduction)
1B. Identifies 2 or more additional purposes for conducting the experiment (Introduction)
Criterion #2: Understanding the Design of the Experiment
Performance
Levels
Criterion
Insufficient
Evidence
Approaches Standard
Achieves Standard
Exceeds Standard
(Achieves Standard plus…)
Understanding the Design of the Experiment
(Materials and Methods)
4. Predicts 1 or 2 sources of error but does not provide logical explanations
4. Predicts once source of error when conducting the experiment, explaining it logically
4. Logically predicts 2 sources of error when conducting the experiment
4. Proposes 2 or more ways to ensure that the experiment is conducted safely and accurately
Criterion #3: Analyzing and Interpreting Data
Performance
Levels
Criterion
Insufficient
Evidence
Approaches Standard
Achieves Standard
Exceeds Standard
(Achieves Standard plus…)
Analyzing and Interpreting Data
(Analysis and Discussion)
4. Offers 1 new experimental question or purposes that is not directly related outcomes of this experience
4. Offers 1 new experimental question or purposes directly related to outcomes of this experience
4. Offers 2 new experimental questions or purposes directly related to outcomes of this experience
4. Takes one of the new experimental questions and outlines a design for a new experiment
Preliminary Findings
A longitudinal assessment system that culls out discrete inquiry habits of mind, regardless of the laboratory context, helps students improve over time
PurposeMore detailed descriptionsTighter connections
ErrorNotion of inherent error is difficultRequires a “cognitive leap”
Further Experimental QuestionsQuestions loosely related to the lab at firstMid & high-level students move toward connections to results
Additional Questions?
Contact:Catherine Saldutti ([email protected])
Nicolle Gottfried ([email protected])