Improving gender, racial, and social equity in elementary science

instruction and student achievement: The impact of a

professional development program

RHETA E. LANEHARTKATHRYN M. BORMAN

THEODORE BOYDSTON BRIDGET A . COTNER

REGINALD S. LEE

ALLIANCE FOR APPLIED RESEARCH IN EDUCATION AND ANTHROPOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

Overview of the Study

• Replication and Outcomes of the Teaching SMART Program in Elementary Science Classrooms (US DOE IES) Design: Randomized Control Trial Sample:

10 treatment; 10 control schools Approximately 300 teachers and 9000 students

Mixed method• Purpose of the study

To document the efficacy of a professional development program

Overview of the Teaching SMART Program

RESOURCES

• TS project staff

• 3 yr research-based PD model

• 100+ lesson plans aligned curriculum and based on standards

• science supplies and equipment

ACTIVITIES

• Train the trainer model

• In-class visits

• Mirror coaching

• Ongoing technical assistance

• Formal evaluation

OUTPUTS

• Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced levels

• 90 hours of PD for Site Specialists

• 60 hours of PD for teachers

SHORT-TERM

OUTCOMES• ↑ student-

centered learning

• ↓teacher-centered learning

• Equity-based teaching strategies

IMPACT

More students, females

and minorities, pursuing

STEM studies

and STEM careers

Focus of this Analysis

• Evaluation Equity

Gender, racial, social Student attitudes toward science Science achievement data

• Definition of equity all students, regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background,

disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science, should have the opportunity to attain high levels of scientific literacy (NSES, 1996)

• Teaching SMART Strategies to Promote Equity Cooperative learning Job roles Student exploration Open inquiry

Research Question

• To what extent does teacher participation in the Teaching SMART professional development program improve students’ outcome in science? Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART

improve student science outcomes? Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART

increase students’ interest in science? Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART

improve achievement outcomes for female, low-income, or minority students?

STEM Pathways: Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

• Status of historically underrepresented groups in the STEM pathway Passed over or opted out of the STEM pathway• Status of females, minorities, and low income

groups pursuing STEM degrees Not the same rate as men, White and Asian

students, and students with higher SES (Tyson, 2007).

Science Achievement

• Males outperform females at grade proficiency levels for 4th, 8th, & 12th grade state science assessments.• Black, Hispanic, and American Indian

students in 4th, 8th, & 12th grades are 4-5 times more likely to have lower science scores on average as well as a smaller percentage of students reaching grade proficiency levels• Students on free/reduced lunches are 3 times

more likely to experience lower science scores

SEI, 2006

Science Achievement

NSF, 1999

Science Achievement

NSF, 1999

Attitude toward science and science achievement

• Social Capital (Bourdieu, 1977) Important relationships forged during

students’ academic career• Agency (Foucault, 1980;Gramsci, 1971)

Student perceptions of their own power in educational choices.

Measurement of Attitude and Achievement

• Performance gap and negative attitude toward science Study of kindergarten children found that boys

and girls differed in their “motivational-related beliefs” about science (Patrick, et al. 2009).

A large racial/ethnic gap in science knowledge occurs during the first 2 years of school among black children, with scores 1 SD below that of white children (Chapin, 2006).

Low SES students entering kindergarten have cognitive scores 60% lower than high SES students(Lee & Burkham, 2002).

Statement of Purpose

• Evaluation Student attitudes as indicated by student

survey responses Student achievement as indicated by

student responses on the PASS Multiple Choice assessment

Data Collection

• Fall, 2005 (baseline), Spring, 2006, Spring, 2007, & Spring, 2008• Measure of Outcome

Multiple choice assessment Partnership for the Assessment of

Standards-based Science (PASS) Items for the multiple choice

n=28 for 3rd grade n=29 for 4th & 5th

Sample

• 3rd grade cohort 1037 students: 598 treatment & 439

control• Teachers

249 teachers: 135 treatment & 114 control

• Schools 19 schools: 9 treatment & 10 control

School Demographics at Baseline

Attrition

• Overall attrition = 27.9%• Differential attrition = 3.9%

Adapted from WWC, 2008

Item Response Theory (IRT)

IRT models for binary data Item responses

1 = correct 0= incorrect

Two parameter logistic (2PL) model Measures latent traits: item difficulty &

item discriminationBILOG_MG3 software

Multiple choice scores scaled from -3 to +3

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)

• Multi-level model used to analyze nested data Three-level model with students nested within classrooms

(teachers) nested within schools.Mixed Model

Yij (Scaled Multiple Choice Score) =

γ000 + γ001* FCAT + γ010* Gifted + γ020* Reading

Baseline + γ030* Math Baseline + γ100* Time + γ101* Group*Time + γ102* Migrant * Time + γ110* Teacher Science Emphasis* Time + γ120* Non-White*Time + γ200* Self-efficacy + r0 + r1 * Time + r2 * Self-efficacy + u00 + u10 *Time + u20* Self-efficacy

HLM Variables

• Level-1: Student Time: Time-point of data collection: 0,1,2,or 3 Self-Efficacy: Composite variable of a factor loading derived from

Likert scale type student survey responses that conceptualized self-efficacy

• Level-2: Teacher Gifted: Average percentage of gifted students in a teacher’s

classroom Baseline Reading Score: Average value of students’ baseline

reading score Baseline Mathematics Score: Average value of students’ baseline

mathematics score in a teacher’s classroom Teacher Emphasis on Science: Score on teacher survey based on

responses that conceptualized teacher emphasis on science in the classroom

Non-White: Average percentage of non-white students in a teacher’s classroom

HLM Variables

• Level 3 FCAT Score

Average school score on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test for 5th grade science

Group Treatment or control school

Migrant Status Average percentage of migrant students at a

school Female

Average percentage of females at a school

Results

• HLM Baseline

Average initial scaled MC score for the control schools was -0.05(p < 0.06)

Scaled MC scores of the treatment schools were 0.03 units higher (3%) than the control group (p = 0.50)

Classrooms with a higher percentage of gifted students (0.60, p<0.001), high baseline reading (0.0004, p<01), baseline math scores (0.002, p<0.001)had higher scaled MC scores.

Schools with higher student self-efficacy (0.22, p<0.001) and FCAT (0.01, p<0.01)scores had higher scaled MC scores.

Schools with a higher percentage of female students (-0.14,p=0.50) had lower scaled MC scores.

Results

• Linear Growth Science achievement outcomes

Average rate of change for control schools was -0.07 (p < 0.001)

Treatment schools’ average rate of change was (0.09, p < 0.008) significantly higher than control schools per unit change

Results

• A positive rate of change for treatment schools and a negative rate of change for control schools. 0.02 Slope tx - (-0.07) Slope ctrl = 0.09 (treatment

effect)

Results

• Linear Growth Students’ attitude toward science

Change in student self-efficacy was higher in treatment schools than control schools.

Schools with low student self-efficacy scores at baseline had lower scaled MC scores overtime.

Results

• Linear Growtho Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART improve achievement outcome for

female, low-income, or minority students?o Classrooms in schools with a high percentage of non-white students (-0.18, 0<0.01)

had a decrease in scaled MC scores overtime.o However, classrooms in treatment schools with a high percentage of non-white

students had a rate of change in scaled MC scores equivalent to control classrooms with a low percentage of non-white students.

Results

• Schools with a high percentage of migrant students (-0.72, p<01) had a decrease in scaled MC scores overtimeo However, treatment schools with a high % of migrant

students had a rate of change in scaled MC scores greater than control schools with a high % of migrant students.

Results

• Schools with a high percentage of females had an increase in scaled multiple choice scores (0.22, p=0.25).o Treatment schools with a high percentage of females had

the greatest rate of change in scaled MC scores overtime.

Conclusions

• Teacher participation in the Teaching SMART professional development program Improves science achievement outcomes Improves student attitude towards science Improves science achievement outcomes

among female, minorities, and low income groups.

Discussion

• The influence of teachers is a crucial element in bridging the gap between students’ achievement and initiating educational change (van Driel, et al. 2001).• Schools must be a catalyst for providing an even

playing ground for inequities in social capital.• Teaching SMART

Sustained duration Active learning opportunities Collaboration Standards based curriculum

Questions?

• Kathryn Borman, borman@cas.usf.edu• Maressa Dixon, mdixon83@gmail.com• Bridget Cotner, bcotner@cas.usf.edu• Ted Boydston, boydston@cas.usf.edu• Vanessa Hein, vhein@mail.usf.edu• Rheta Lanehart, rlanehar@cas.usf.edu• Reginald Lee, rlee@cas.usf.edu

Thank you!