Teacher Professional Development When Using the SWH as Student-Oriented Teacher Professional Development When Using the SWH as Student-Oriented Teaching ApproachTeaching Approach

Murat Gunel, Sozan Omar, Recai Akkus  Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education

Department of Curriculum and Instruction Iowa State University, 50011

The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) TemplatesTemplates

Teacher’s templateTeacher’s template

• Exploration of pre-instruction understanding

• Pre-laboratory activities

• Laboratory activity

• Negotiation- individual writing

• Negotiation- group discussion

• Negotiation- textbook and other resources

• Negotiation- individual writing

• Exploration of post-instruction understanding

Student’s templateStudent’s template• Beginning questions or ideas

What are my questions about this experiment?• Tests and Procedures

What will I do to help answer my questions?• Observations

What did I see when I completed my tests and procedure?• Claims

What can I claim?• Evidence

What evidence do I have to support my claim? How do I know?

Why am I making these claims?• Reading

How do my ideas compare with others?• Reflection

How have my ideas changed

Comparison and Contrast for the SWH Comparison and Contrast for the SWH Format vs. the Traditional FormatFormat vs. the Traditional Format

ImplicationsImplications

Overall StudyOverall Study

Teacher Data CollectionTeacher Data Collection Teacher Data AnalysesTeacher Data Analyses Student Data CollectionStudent Data Collection

Quantitative Data AnalysisQuantitative Data Analysis Quantitative Results (after the study)Quantitative Results (after the study)

The success of implementing new students-oriented teaching approach is dependent upon the level of risk taken by the teachers, that is, implementation was conditional

on their readiness to attempt something new. The level of implementation was dependent upon the engagement with the necessary pedagogy. Moreover, in the lowest

implementation level, teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological approach is no different than a traditional didactic approach.

Indeed, the achievement of the control groups taught by a teacher who was categorized as low implementation was higher than students within the treatment groups. On

the other hand, this is not the case for control groups’ students taught by a teacher who was recognized as a moderate level of implementation. In this situation treatment and

control groups are approximately equal. Further studies are needed to generalize the results generated from this study.

Study in 2002-2003 Six-week, 50 min/day, 5 days/week

9th Grade high school biology course-Genetic

198 Students Involved

94 Treatment & 101 Control

Tom*

36 Treatment&

38 Control

Tim16 Treatment

&20 Control

Bob42 Treatment

&43 Control

Prior to Study:Prior to Study:One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was estimated on pre-

test total and baseline score by comparing control and treatment groups for each teacher

After the studyAfter the studyAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was estimated on post-test

conceptual question total score by using;Independent variablesIndependent variables* Group (Control/Treatment)* Gender* Level of implementationCovariateCovariate* Baseline

Note: All scores were transformed to z-scores for each teacher to eliminate the grading variation among teachers.

Quantitative Results (prior to study)Quantitative Results (prior to study)

Laboratory Format

SWH Traditional

Beginning questions or ideas

Tests and procedures

Observations

Claims

Evidence

Reflection

Title and Purpose

Outline of procedure

Data and observations

Discussion

Balanced equations, calculations, or graphs

No equivalent

Student Performance

Baseline Test Pre- and Post-Test

Conceptual Question

Multiple Choice Question• Created based on TIMSSstandardized test for gradeLevels 7, 8, 9• Includes 20 questions total - 30 % in life science - 30 % in physics - 15 % in earth science - 10 % in NOS - 15 % in chemistry• Reliability coefficient is 0.71

15 to 25 recall questions

3 to 5 open-ended questions

Professional Development Program

Group Individual

Two-day Workshop

• Constructivism as a learning theory • Teacher beliefs about teaching and learning • Teacher- vs. student- oriented pedagogy• Modeling the SWH

Collaborative Support

Created by, and among, the teachers involved: - Observing each other - Discussing problems - Helping each other in the implementation

One-on-One Support

Unit Big Ideas

Conceptual Questions

Activities for the SWH

Implementation Feedback

ObservationsObservations: conducted by two independent observer

- On site Observation: 55 min each week per teacher

- Videotape Observation: One class period recorded per

teacher

Field notesField notes: rich description of the debriefing session that followed each observation

SurveySurvey: probes perceptions and the challenges that teachers encounter through implementation (conducted at the end of the study)

InterviewInterview: semi-structured, explores teachers’ feelings and understanding of the underpinning pedagogy and the role of teacher within the learning environment

Teacher pedagogy, questioning skill, teacher verbal and nonverbal behaviors, richness of dialogical discussion, and students’ engagements within the learning process (observation focus) were analyzed by each observer individually

Individual observer identified the level of implementation for each teacher based on observations, field notes, and debriefing sessions

Individual observer shared their field notes, observation and conclusion to establish consistency regarding each teacher level of implementation and increase the creditability of their findings

Collaborative videotape observations were used to overcome problems with inconsistency

.31211.034Bob

.0751.005Tom

.94613.369Tim

pdfFTeacher

.31211.034Bob

.0751.005Tom

.94613.369Tim

pdfFTeacher

ANOVA results indicate that prior to the study, there were no significant differences on baseline scores between groups for any teacher.

.8021.063Bob

.5731.321Tom

.17811.891Tim

pdfFTeacher

.8021.063Bob

.5731.321Tom

.17811.891Tim

pdfFTeacher

ANOVA results indicate that prior to the study, there were no significant differences on pre-test total between groups for any teacher.

There were no significant main effects in this model. However, The interaction effect between group and implementation level was significant

.033.012*6.4111Group*Imp. LevelNote. Non-significant interactions are not shown. α=.05 and R Squared= .255 (Adjusted R squared=.223)

.001.609.2621Imp. Level

.000.828.0471Gender

.001.617.2511Group

.184<.00142.6841Baseline

.162<.00136.5841Intercept

.255<.0018.0728Corrected Model

η2PFdfSource

.033.012*6.4111Group*Imp. LevelNote. Non-significant interactions are not shown. α=.05 and R Squared= .255 (Adjusted R squared=.223)

.001.609.2621Imp. Level

.000.828.0471Gender

.001.617.2511Group

.184<.00142.6841Baseline

.162<.00136.5841Intercept

.255<.0018.0728Corrected Model

η2PFdfSource

Level 1 teacher’s students in control group performed higher than students in treatment group for same teacher

There were no significant differences between control and treatment groups for level 2 teaches

Note.* Indicates significant mean differences at the .05 level. Means used for comparisons are adjustment.

1.44.1846-.266Treatment L2-Treatment L1

1.6476.1627.268Control L2-Treatment L2

1.931.207-.40*Control L1-Treatment L1

Group*Imp.Level

ltlStandard

ErrorMean

Difference 2-Way Interactions Sources

Note.* Indicates significant mean differences at the .05 level. Means used for comparisons are adjustment.

1.44.1846-.266Treatment L2-Treatment L1

1.6476.1627.268Control L2-Treatment L2

1.931.207-.40*Control L1-Treatment L1

Group*Imp.Level

ltlStandard

ErrorMean

Difference 2-Way Interactions Sources

Quantitative Results (after the study)Quantitative Results (after the study)

The main goal of this project is two folded. First is scaffolding science

teacher professional development when implementing student-

oriented approaches using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH, Hand

& Keys, 1999). Second is enhancing students’ understanding of

concepts of science. For this particular presentation, our main focus is

on investigating the relationship between teacher implementation of

the SWH and students’ performance on conceptual questions (Keys,

et al, 1999).

The research question that guided this study is, what is the effect of

the teachers’ levels of implementation of the SWH on students’

conceptual understanding of science.

ReferencesReferences

Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

Hand, B. & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27-29.

Keys, C. W., B. Hand, V. Prain and S. Collins. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(10): 1065-1084.