IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY PROGRAM – OHIO BOARD …



IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS PROGRAM – OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2010 (check one)

Interim Report _____

INTERIM/FINAL PROJECT REPORT (Due Date 9/1/11)

Part II – Project Operation Final Report __X___

(Due date 8/1/12)

1. General Information Date Submitted _7/20/12_____

a) Grant Number ___10-34_______________________________________________________

b) Name of Institution __The Ohio State University______________________________

c) Mailing Address ____1960 Kenny Rd; Columbus, OH 43210_____________________________

d) Project Title __Modeling Instruction for Physical Science and Chemistry in Ohio__________

e) Project _Director(s) Kathleen A. Harper /Ted Clark ________________________________

Title(s) _ Auxiliary Faculty /Assistant Professor & Facilities Manager/__ Phone (614) 688-7538___

2. Project Staff

List all professional personnel involved in conducting the project and related data. Use separate sheet if necessary.

% of Person’s

Staff Title & Disciplines Responsibility Time on Project

Ted Clark Assistant Professor, chemistry Instr., evaluation, oversight 8%

Kathleen Harper Auxiliary Faculty, engineering Instr., design, oversight 12%

Nathan Ash H. S. teacher, physics, phys science Instruction 10%

Elizabeth Emmer H. S. teacher, chemistry Instruction 10%

Douglas Forrest H. S. teacher, physics, phys sci Instruction 10%

Mary Kate Hafemann H. S. teacher, chem Instruction 10%

Heidi Kresge H. S. teacher, physics, phys sci Instruction 10%

David Parry H. S. teacher, chem., phys, phys. sci Instruction 10%

Mary Whalen H. S. teacher, physics Instruction 10%

Rick Jacox H. S. teacher, physics, chem.. Logistics 5%

Theodore Rader Undergraduate student Logistics 7%

3. Project Operation – PLEASE SUBMIT 3a – 3g WITH BOTH THE INTERIM AND FINAL REPORTS. Use additional sheets with the headings provided below. Please include the Project Number, Institution and Project Director(s) name at the top of each page.

a) Describe the major accomplishments.

• Conducted 3 simultaneous, 3-week, 90 hour workshops from June 13- 30. One workshop was in chemistry, one was in physics, and one was a second-year curriculum development workshop with groups of participants working on materials for topics in either chemistry or physics. The chemistry and physics workshops each contained elements of physical science, as well. There were 58 participants, representing 44 different schools, 35 districts, and 21 counties, supported by the grant who completed the workshop. This included 24 teachers who were taking their 2nd or 3rd workshop with us. No participants dropped out of the program.

• Administered content, beliefs, and scientific reasoning pre/post tests to participants (results discussed below)

• Designated dates for three follow-up sessions (6 hours each) (Oct. 8, Jan. 21, & Feb. 11).

• Welcomed participants from 15 schools that had not previously sent a participant to our workshops.

• Hosted approximately 12 administrators from Ohio schools, including one superintendent, during our administrators’ visiting day.

• Hosted two distinguished visitors:

o Dr. Jonathan Gaffney of the University of Kentucky. Dr. Gaffney presented findings of his research on how students make decisions when solving science problems and related it to studies in logical reasoning. Additionally, Dr. Gaffney observed our workshops to learn about Modeling Instruction in general and the structure of our workshops in particular.

o Mr. Charles Deremer from Marion Steele High School in Amherst, OH. Mr. Deremer is an alumnus of two of our workshops who presented to the teachers regarding his teaching experiences with and without employing Modeling. He gave the new teachers an idea of what they might expect upon returning to their classrooms and provided all of the teachers with additional ideas to employ when transitioning from traditional instruction to Modeling. For the past 7 years we have had a nationally-known Modeling teacher visit to present in this capacity; this was the first time we invited someone from one of our own workshops, and he was very well received as an expert.

• Teachers have received materials to administer content pre-tests to their students. Additionally, they ordered classroom equipment and materials to support their use of Modeling instruction in their classrooms. This equipment will be distributed at the first follow-up in October.

b) Describe internal monitoring used to measure the success of activities in achieving project objectives.

The success of the 3-week workshop portion of the project was determined by four measures:

1) The attendance of the participants. This was essentially 100% during the summer. A few participants had legitimate reasons to miss a few hours here or there, but all performed make-up work. In addition, the participation of the participants was excellent, with no exceptions. This may have been the most enthusiastic group of participants we had seen (before the FY 10 cohort arrived this year!). Attendance at the first follow-up was stellar – the only two participants who missed were cross country coaches who had a meet on the other side of town that day. Other participants who had initially indicated they could not make that date altered their schedules. Further, two participants brought colleagues with them to observe. Attendance at the second and third follow-ups was very good, particularly given the weather. More details are in section k.

2) The content pre and post tests. Physics and chemistry participants were given either the Force Concept Inventory or the Chemistry Concept Inventory as a pre- and post-test. The physics normalized gain was 0.29, while the gain for the chemistry participants was 0.23. (A gain of 0.29 indicates that the participants learned 29% of the material measured by the test that they possibly could.) These results are solidly in the “interactive engagement” zone identified by Richard Hake.

3) The beliefs pre and post tests. The Lawson Test of Scientific Reasoning was administered and participants achieved a gain from 20.6 to 21.4 for a normalized gain of 0.24.

4) Notebooks/journals. The participants were required to put all class work and notes in a furnished notebook. These notebooks were collected, read, and graded several times during the 3-week workshop. The notebooks of the participants were very detailed and thorough. We used the content of the notebooks as feedback for our course and adjusted our instruction to address any expressed needs or identified problems.

c) Describe any changes from the original proposal (e.g., activities, audiences served) including the rationale for the changes.

We have proceeded as planned.

d) Describe administrative, programmatic or recruitment problems that have been encountered and how they were resolved.

This was the first time we attempted to run our workshops at a school where there was not a Modeling-trained teacher on-site. We were at Metro School, and we had planned to employ a Metro science teacher to assist with logistics. There was no interest, so we were able to hire Mr. Jacox, who was a participant the last two years in that capacity, and he was a superb help to the rest of the staff. Still, there were many administrative “surprises” at the site regarding space, scheduling, and equipment that made smooth operations more difficult that we had anticipated. The flexibility and quick thinking of our staff, along with the lending of equipment from the Ohio State University’s physics and chemistry departments, kept any of these issues from affecting the presentation of the workshop. To avoid further issues, we will be holding the follow-up sessions at Olentangy High School and will be looking for a new site for next year.

e) If publicity regarding activities and accomplishments has been obtained, please describe and include samples.

There is no additional publicity that we know of at this time.

f) Please provide and other related project information that you would like to share with Improving Teacher Quality Program Staff.

This year ITQ also funded a Modeling Workshop through Bowling Green State University, led by former participants and current members of our staff, Nathan Ash and Mary Kate Hafemann. We were pleased to support their proposal and delighted to hear of the success of this first official “spin-off” of our workshops.

Project Director Kathleen Harper was invited to lead a 3-week Modeling curriculum development workshop at Mansfield University of Pennsylvania in July of 2011. The Mansfield workshops started in 2009 when Paul Wendel, who had been trained in one of our previous Ohio Modeling workshops, moved to the area. Dr. Harper appears to be the person that the national Modeling community is consulting about these curriculum development workshops, as Ohio has been the only state offering them over the past several years. The reception of the workshop in Pennsylvania was enthusiastic, and she has already been asked to return in 2013 to repeat the workshop. As further dissemination, Dr. Harper was able to choose a co-presenter, and so she worked with Brenda Royce of Fresno, CA. Mrs. Royce has been one of the driving forces in the national chemistry Modeling movement, and has been interested in offering workshops such as this for several years. She expects to use many of the materials and approaches in working with teachers in her areas. She has also already agreed to return to Mansfield in 2013.

The American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA) has contacted several of our leadership staff to assist with some of their current initiatives. Dr. Harper will be serving on the AMTA curriculum committee, and several other members of the staff, including but not necessarily limited to Doug Forrest, Mary Whalen, and Nate Ash have been asked to contribute to a major revision of the current mechanics materials. Additionally, former chemistry instructor Jessica Mamais was part of a small group of teachers who have piloted a substantial revision to the materials handed out to chemistry workshop participants nationwide. Also, inaugural workshop leader Jason Cervenec has been asked to contribute to projects in a number of areas, including development of biology materials.

g) Provide a list of all participants. Include school district, school, grade, and subject area. Identify participants from the High Need LEA Principal Partner

Please see attached. The 7 bolded names are teachers from Columbus City Schools.

IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS PROGRAM – OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2010

INTERIM/FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Part II – Project Operation

SUBMIT 3h through 3p for final reports only.

h) Describe (with supporting evidence) how your project made an impact on participants’

1) content knowledge and

2) instructional approaches/teaching strategies.

As described previously, the impact of the workshop on teacher content knowledge was evaluated using discipline-specific instruments with established validity and reliability for probing conceptual understanding. These included the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) for participants in the physics/physical science workshop and the Chemistry Concept Inventory (CCI) for the chemistry participants. Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning was administered to all workshop participants as well. These results are details in section b.

In terms of objective two, the entire workshop was designed to improve classroom pedagogy by including inquiry-based teaching and learning practices, and also promoting and managing student discourse, within a modeling framework. Subsequent surveys indicate that workshop participants increased their understanding of authentic assessment measures and effective questioning techniques for use with their students. More details are provided in the external evaluator’s report.

i) Describe with supporting evidence how your project impacted student achievement.

Learning gains of the students of workshop participants were evaluated in a pre-, post- format. The physics students were given the FCI, the chemistry students the CCI, and the physical science students the Lawson Test (see responses to question h for more details about these instruments). We received data that was sufficiently matched to perform an analysis for 10 physics teachers (representing 402 students), 4 chemistry teachers (representing 257 students), and 6 physical science teachers (representing 338 students). The schools represented in this sample were diverse, including one private school, many suburban schools, several rural schools, and several inner-city schools.

Normalized gains on the FCI ranged from 0.09 to 0.49, with an average normalized gain of 0.31. These are very strong results. The weaker gains tended to come from our inner-city participants. Student gains on the CCI ranged from 0.09 to 0.20, with an average gain of 0.14. Results on the Lawson Test were mixed, with about one-third of the instructors’ students showing significant gains; this is due, at least in part, to the difficulty in paring an instrument with the content covered in the physical science course. This is the second year in which we used the Lawson test for the physical science courses, and the results are the same as in the previous year; it appears to be quite difficult to attain significant changes on this instrument with physical science students in just one year.

It should be noted that traditional instruction in Physics courses (at all levels) consistently leads to minimal student gains on the FCI, the most established and applicable instrument used in this investigation.  The most significant gains reported here are truly noteworthy; even the modest gains, while less than the other modeling-based settings, still surpass many examples of 'traditional' instruction.

We had enough data this year from both first-year and advanced physics participants that we were able to pull the FCI scores apart for these two groups and do a further analysis. The average normalized gain for the 166 students learning from first-time modelers was 0.25. For the 236 students who were taught by a more experienced Modeling instructor, the average normalized gain was 0.35. This would seem to indicate that more experience with the method leads to better instruction. However, this is too strong of a conclusion to draw without further data, given that the demographics of the districts in the two groups vary greatly. (In particular, all of the inner-city data is in the first-time Modelers group.)

j) Provide a sample of participants’ comments (This section may be embedded into ‘h’ and ‘i’ above or in the external evaluator’s report.)

1) about their experience in the project,

2) after using activities and/or strategies learned in the project with their students, and

3) about their students’ performance and involvement as a result of their participation in the project.

Please see the external evaluator’s report.

k) Use the format below to list project activities. “Type of Activity” might include categories such as (but not limited to) summer institute, follow-up session or online learning community.

|Type of Activity |Date of Activity |Number of Participants Attending |Contact Hours |

|Summer Workshop |6/13-30/11 |60 |90 hours |

| | |(+7 admin. one day) | |

|First follow-up session |10/8/11 |37 *** |6 hours |

|Second follow-up session |1/21/12 |22 * |6 hours |

|Third follow-up session |2/11/12 |61 * ** |6 hours |

* Please note that the only two major winter storms of the year coincided with our second and third follow-ups, having a particularly significant effect on the second one’s attendance.

** The third follow-up included a presentation by David Hestenes, co-founder of Modeling instruction. We had several guests in attendance to hear him.

*** Advanced participants were not required to attend the first follow-up.

l) Describe the content focus of each follow-up session.

The first two follow-up sessions focused on subject-specific content, e.g. in the chemistry workshop attention was given to atomic theory and Nature of Science topics (first follow-up) and acid-base chemistry and equilibrium (second follow-up); in the physics follow-up attention was given to circular and projectile motion. The third follow-up session differed from these content-specific ones in that over-arching pedagogical themes were first addressed by two guest speakers, followed by the presentation and discussion of model lessons developed by the advanced participants.

m) Describe any unexpected project outcomes.

None

n) Summarize changes you would make if you were doing this project again.

The assessment instrument (the Lawson Test) is not ideally suited for the 9th grade physical science evaluation. An effort should be made to identify and test an alternative instrument with this group of students. However, a similar effort around 5 years ago did not yield a viable test.

o) Enclose a small sample of materials developed for the project and a sample of materials developed by the participants.

Modeling-inspired lessons were prepared by teacher participants in the 2nd year workshop, consisting of worksheets, teacher lesson plans, PowerPoint slides, etc. These documents are available on media storage devices, like CD-ROMs. If representative documents are desired, please ask and they will be provided.

p) Please enclose a copy of the external evaluator’s project evaluation report.

Attached.

Please submit one copy of this report to:

Russell O. Utgard,

Ohio Board of Regents

Improving Teacher Quality Program

30 East Broad Street, 36th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3414

(614) 752-8810 (Direct Dial) or (614) 466-6000

rutgard@regents.state.oh.us

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download