Professional Development Institute for Science Teachers in ...



Professional Development Institute for Science Teachers in New York State

Comprehensive Assessment

The New York State Science Teachers Consortium (Table I) represents close to 20,000 science teachers in New York State. During the summer of 2002, the Consortium met invited members of the New York State Education Department (NYSED) and related stakeholders to discuss the needs and mechanisms for professional development of science in New York State public and non-public schools (Appendix VIII). This proposal is the culmination of methodical analysis of student and teacher needs in the State. Professional development is an essential component in preparing teachers to meet the educational needs of all students in the State.

The Consortium assessed teacher quality and professional development needs in a standards-based learning environment over the course of three stages of meetings in 2002-2004. The findings of that assessment have defined the focus of the proposed grant for the Professional Development Institute for Science Teachers.

Stage I: The Science Consortium held its third Science Summit over two days in August of 2002. During that meeting the Consortium detailed problems and solutions facing science educators as they implement the New York State Learning Standards. Participants were asked, “ What knowledge, skills and attitudes concerning curriculum, instruction, and assessment do K-12 science educators need in order to become effective and reflective practitioners?” Table 2 is a summary from that discussion (Appendix VIII).

Stage II: Representatives from the Consortium, University at Albany and SUNY Central met monthly in late 2003 and through the winter of 2004 to design the architecture of an NSF-MSP Professional Development Institute for the 21st Century. During this stage, certain goals of the Institute were identified. Each goal identified during Stage I was grounded in a need that had been explicitly identified:

• Increase the number of students who meet State and National Standards

• Bridge the Achievement Gap. Address strategies to increase achievement levels for all students regardless of socio-economic levels or ethnicity.

• Increase student enrollment from diverse backgrounds in advanced science classes

• Develop challenging, engaging curriculum that is articulated to the State Standards

• Attract more teachers into teaching of science including less represented groups.

• Retention of teachers in education. According to Susan Moore Johnson in her book, Finders and Keepers (2004), the new crop “Women and people of color have so many more job options than in the 60’s and 70’s”

• Improve scientific literacy

• Increase understanding of the nature of science using inquiry strategies

• Improve conceptual understanding among elementary and secondary teachers

• Provide opportunities for teachers to learn cutting edge science and develop activities that can be used in the classroom that reflect this new science

• Help higher education faculty become better teachers through improved pedagogy

• Improve science teaching at the elementary level by having the secondary teachers who attend the Institute working with the elementary teachers

• Address the content gap issues facing the elementary science teacher

• Develop strategies to form a dynamic partnership between higher education and K-12 education

• Address needs indigenous to participating school districts.

• Improve the quality of in-service for teachers

• Address misconceptions in science

• Provide models for new teacher induction programs

During this stage two important document were generated:

-Project summary of Architecture of Institute (Appendix I)

-K-12 Prospectus to invite K-12 institutions (Appendix II)

Stage III: All partners for this NCLB/MSP grant first met in the spring of 2004 (Appendix IX). These partners were recruited using the documents in Appendix I & II. A needs assessment rubric was developed using an adaptation of the Wiggins and McTighe instructional model called “Backward Design, (Wiggins).

The following guide questions were provided:

• What is the need and what is the evidence for each need?

• What goal/s will address the need/s (intended outcome/s)?

• What strategy/strategies will be employed to address the needs?

• What outcome/s are expected?

• How will these outcomes be evaluated or measured?

This exercise was initiated at this meeting and continued electronically for several weeks. The results of this exercise are summarized in the chart called Needs Assessment of Participating Institutions within Appendix I. Some of the major needs identified by this partnership are as follows:

• Inquiry-centered curriculum and instruction

• Raise the achievement level of all students

• Close the achievement gap between less represented groups and their white cohorts

• Formative and summative standards-based assessment strategies

• Improve inservice programs

• Strategies that will attract and retain science teachers

• Improve content knowledge of teachers

• Provide professional development and support to elementary science teachers

• Opportunities to bring cutting-edge science into the classroom (Table III)

• Curriculum mapping in elementary and middle school

• Highly qualified science teachers in every classroom

• Integration of math and technology

• Increase number of students in advanced science classes

A study conducted by the Council of Chief State School Officers from 1990-2002 summarizes a number of trends in science education. Across the country, enrollments in advanced placement courses are small. Though New York State is slightly above the average, only 7% taken biology, 3% chemistry and 5% physics. Enrollments by minorities are fractions of that percentage smaller (Projects).

Many teachers lack an understanding of the nature of science. Those teachers are focused more on having their students memorize factoids than teaching major concepts through inquiry. They are teaching a course curriculum rather than the MST Standards. The content knowledge of teachers also requires attention. Many misconceptions in science are held not only by students, but also by many teachers (Misconceptions). These misconceptions are often perpetuated in textbooks. Elementary teachers, who are not usually certified in a science discipline, are deficient in both content knowledge and pedagogy content knowledge (NSTA Standards). Add to this the demands of reading and math; science often becomes the “stepchild subject” of teachers at the elementary level. Furthermore, since 5th and 6th grades are part of the Intermediate Standards, Middle Schools have teachers who have not majored in science and so are struggling to meet the demands of the Intermediate Core Curriculum.

Introducing cutting-edge science to the classroom adds relevance and opportunities to develop engaging inquiry-based activities. It is also a vehicle by which teachers and scientists can interact with one another. Teachers improve their content knowledge, while scientists learn pedagogical strategies.

All of the goals outlined in this project are measurable. The Evaluation Team will develop the instruments needed to carry out the evaluation, as discussed in Evaluation and Accountability Section of this proposal. All participating K-12 institutions will facilitate the evaluation of the goals by providing necessary data and/or control groups, as needed, in order to determine the effectiveness of certain strategies. The formative assessments carried out by the Institute’s Evaluation Team will provide the “stoplights” for this project. Needs assessments and evaluations will act as the compass by which the Institute navigates and delivers professional development. The higher education institutions will provide research-active faculty to work with teachers on topics of interest at the cutting-edge science (Table 3) to improve their content base knowledge. In addition, the proposed Institute will use research on misconceptions in science to help science teachers improve their content knowledge (Appendix V).

Considerable research supports Best Practices in science education (Table IV). While well-grounded in solid research, according to our needs assessment, many of these practices are often poorly understood by teachers and not used in the classroom (Appendix IV). The Institute’s pedagogy experts will be provided through the Science Teachers Consortium, Board Certified Teachers identified by Union University and faculty from participating schools of education.

Scientifically-Based Research

There has been a paradigm shift in education from syllabus-based curricula to a standards-based learning environment. There is a need for high quality professional development to help educators make the transition. The National Standards in Science Education promotes the concept of “less is more” (NSTA Standards). Science is a process, rather than a static collection of factoids. Its body of knowledge is dynamic, and thereby a product of ever-improving ways of describing the natural world. Inquiry and the Nature of Science is considered so essential to effective science education that it has been given the status of a separate Standard within the National Science Learning Standards, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and New York State MST Standards. However, many teachers currently lack an understanding of the nature of science and/or how to create an inquiry-based learning environment in their classrooms.

Research has shown that student understanding of major science concepts correlates closely to both the knowledge base and pedagogical skills and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of the teacher (National Congress on Science Education 2004). Since many teachers are inadequately prepared, they are struggling to prepare students for success in standards-based assessments. A large achievement gap exists between minority groups and their white cohorts (Denbo). This problem is so pervasive in the United States that it was the subject of a Focus Group, called Equity and Assessment at the 2004 National Congress on Science Education. In New York State, 45% of students are classified as belonging to minority groups. Of that population, 38.9% are classified as African-American, Hispanic or American Indians (Council of Chief State School Officers from 1990-2002).

NYSED has developed core curricula for elementary-, intermediate- and commencement- level science education that emphasize science content, skills and attitudes that should be used to address the science literacy needs of all the science students in New York State. The program in this proposed Professional Development Institute has been designed to (a) engage and guide science teachers in learning processes unique to science education that will then be used in the classroom to (b) engage and guide students through their science learning processes. Long term, comprehensive, inquiry-based professional development is an absolute requirement for the success of standards-based reform (NRC 1996). This proposed Professional Development Institute will be guided by the principles identified by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA Standards 2000):

✓ A commitment to the concept that all children can and should learn science in ways that reflect an emphasis on inquiry-based learning, problem solving, student investigation and discovery, and application of knowledge.

✓ The implementation and modeling of instructional methods to promote adult learning of science mirror the methods to be used with students.

✓ Professional development programs that regularly review and assess their effectiveness and ability to meet their goals, to revise and improve based on those assessments, and to align with their vision.

✓ Consciously designed structures that link professional development in science to other parts of the educational system; e.g., higher education.

✓ Professional development programs that constantly review and assess their effectiveness and ability to meet their goals and align with their vision.

The proposed Institute has adapted its model for the professional development of science teachers from the NSTA Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science (Table 5). The importance of knowledge of content is supported by research, but not as strongly as the importance of the teachers’ general and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) that is specific to the science being taught. The Institute will work to improve the teachers’ content knowledge using misconceptions of science (Appendix V) not only from the students’ point of view as reported by teachers but also by teachers themselves. Using the richness of scientific resources available in the Capital Region (i.e., University at Albany; Hudson Valley Community College; Union College and University; College of St. Rose; Wadsworth Laboratories) and Buffalo State College in Buffalo, NY, teachers’ knowledge will be expanded by working with participating scientists to bring cutting-edge science into the classroom.

• Concepts and principles understood through science.

• Concepts and relationships unifying science domains.

• Processes of investigation in a science discipline.

• Applications of mathematics in science research.

Inquiry is the standard by which science should be taught and learned. It is the very backbone of science (Sulkes 1996). During a presentation at the STANYS annual State conference, in 2003 Nobel Laureate, Dr. Leon Lederman made the statement “Doing science is messy!” There is no scientific method with its static, sequential steps, which has been a myth perpetuated in many textbooks. However, there are protocols that underlie good science (e.g., sample, size, data collection and analysis, control groups). In order to implement inquiry/constructivism into the science classroom, learning cycles, such as the 5E instructional model for constructivism, will be used by teachers to develop their lesson plans. In order to implement inquiry/constructivism into the science classroom, learning cycles, such as the 5E’s, will be used by teachers to develop their lesson plans (Bybee 1997). The standard called social context includes:

• Relationships among systems of human endeavor including science and technology.

• Relationships among scientific, technological, personal, social and cultural values.

• Relevance and importance of science to the personal lives of students.

Over 50 years ago in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Ralph Tyler noted the importance of providing relevance when teaching science. Traditionally, science has been taught as if all learners were destined to enter a science-related profession. (Tyler 1949). Since that is clearly not correct, considerable professional development is needed for teachers to bring science into the lives of students in ways that are durable and meaningful. For example, in order to conduct discussions on bioethical issues, teachers require (a) training on how to lead these types of discussions and (b) in-depth knowledge of the relevant science. This proposed Institute will do this.

The standard for pedagogy includes a subset called pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). General pedagogy includes all the strategies a teacher uses to engage a student in the learning process and how to monitor learning. However, many concepts in science require specific types of pedagogy that are closely linked to the teaching of the content. This is probably one of the most important standards to master for effective teaching as measured in student learning. The importance of metacognition and formative assessment are two examples of “Best Practices. The former helps the student do the mental gymnastics needed to understand concepts, while the latter enables the teacher to monitor learning (Pressley 1995).

National Science Education Standards defines the standard curriculum as "the way content is delivered . . . the structure, organization, balance, and presentation of the content in the classroom (NRC 1996).” All curriculum and activities developed by the Institute will be articulated to the New York MST State Learning Standards. The professional standard for teaching stresses the importance of roles such as this one. All participants will receive leadership training. Teachers graduating this Professional Development Institute will become master teachers/intellectual leaders for their respective school districts. They will all become cooperating teachers for inservice teachers. They will work with teachers in their respective districts to help improve the district’s science program. They will work with teachers in their respective districts to improve the district’s science program, and be called upon by the Teacher Center and BOCES to provide professional development for other teachers. They will be expected to attend professional conferences and make presentations at conferences.

The standard for the environment of learning includes knowledge of laboratory safety, treatment and care of animals and the psycho-emotional development of their students. There is a considerable body of research that correlates readiness of learning specific concepts in science with age (NRC 1996). The New York State MST Learning Standards identifies Performance Indicators and major understandings appropriate for the elementary, intermediate and commencement level learners.

The standard for assessment is often linked with summative assessment, which has an important role but does not directly affect day-to-day teaching. Teachers will be trained in formative assessment strategies (Black 1998). This provides teachers with the information needed to adjust their teaching. Teachers will be trained to use the data analysis of summative tests to improve their programs. The Institute will provide teachers with training on item writing for their own tests. This is intended to improve teacher-generated summative tests. The item writing training has the extra benefit of providing the State with a potential source of item writers for State exams.

Project Goals and Alignment

The brainstorming rubric that was used to identify the goals for this project is summarized in the Needs Assessment of Participating Institutions charts. A goal is defined as an intended outcome. What actually happens is the outcome. Some strategies to address the goals and ways to measure outcomes were also brainstormed (Appendix III). The New York State Science Initiative’s mission and vision is congruent with the mission and vision of this project. The establishment of this Professional Development Institute will act as a model to set up satellites across the State to “create a statewide learning community to support student achievement of the learning standards in science, leading to a scientifically literate population (mission statement of NYS Science Initiative).” Graduates of the Institute will become master teachers/intellectual leaders, who will provide K-12 institutions with their own professional developers for science education. Hence this will “ensure the learning of science for all pre-K-12 students by providing equitable access to exemplary teachers, inquiry-centered curriculum and instruction, standards-based assessments, a wealth of resources and community support” (mission statement of NYS Science Initiative 2004).

Inquiry science and understanding the nature of science will be the unifying theme of the Institute. These professional development standards will act as the glue for all of the other professional development standards. Teachers will learn how to create inquiry-based learning and teaching environments as instructors model the process and provide strategies from the best practices to achieve this goal. Graduates of the Institute will teach to the Standards, not the State test. Their training will be turn-keyed to their respective school districts.

As noted before, the Institute will provide extensive formative assessment training. Teachers will develop their own summative tests that reflect the way the students will be evaluated by the State exam. Participants will be trained on how to write items for tests and how to use data collected from tests to improve their teaching.

Teachers need to improve their content base. Misconceptions in science will be addressed and teachers will have the opportunity to learn cutting-edge science from professional, research-active scientists. Pedagogy content knowledge will ensure that major science concepts are taught effectively.

The needs of the elementary science teacher will also be addressed. Some of the teachers trained in this Institute will become professional developers for the elementary teacher to help them to improve their content and pedagogy knowledge. They will receive training that will specifically meet this important goal of raising the teacher quality of the elementary science teacher. In addition, the new master teachers will help the elementary teachers develop curriculum through curriculum mapping, assessments and activities articulated to the K-4 Core.

The Institute will help teachers identify the curricula that would benefit from forming connections to math and applying technology. (Instructional Model 2004) Scientists use math to describe processes in the natural world. Strategies will be developed for teachers to incorporate math and technology into the science curriculum.

Equity in education is a complicated issue. Developing strategies to address this achievement gap will be a goal of this Institute. Members of the equity group from the CAGS meeting have already been invited to NYS to work with teachers on this issue. The high needs schools participating in this proposal have large minority populations. The achievement gap between minority groups and students classified as white is extraordinarily complex and cannot be addressed solely by using “best practices” (Denbo 2001).

All participants will receive leadership training. The Institute Management team (Appendix VI) will identify faculty to provide leadership training to all participants. This training will be used by participants to work with their respective schools on plans for systemic change in science education at the local level.

Action Research training will be a requirement of all participants. Learning how to be a reflective teacher will improve teacher quality and address teacher isolation issues. They will receive training to develop their own Action Research plan that will be evaluated by the Evaluation Team (NSTA Position Paper).

The Institute will address the issue of placing highly qualified teachers in every science classroom. Opportunities for second certification will be offered by the Institute through online and/or face-to-face course work. Improving teacher quality should increase student enrollments in advanced science classes. Presently, enrollments in advanced placement classes are very low: biology = 7%; physics = 5%; and chemistry = 3%. African-Americans and Hispanics comprise a small percentage of student enrollments in these advanced courses (Council of Chief State School Officers Report 2002).

Attracting and retaining science teachers is becoming a serious problem that needs attention by both K-12 and higher education institutions. Presently, teachers have one of the highest attrition rates, leaving education after 3-5 years. There are a number of factors associated with this phenomenon, including more opportunities for women and minority groups in other professions. However, there are specific activities that this partnership will perform:

• Higher education institutions in this partnership will work to improve the teaching of its faculty. More engaging courses and degree programs should result in more students majoring in science, and in pursuing careers in teaching science.

• Improved teacher quality should result in greater student enrollments in advanced science classes and a greater interest in pursuing science-related careers.

• Improved teacher quality may result in more enrollments in advanced science classes and a greater interest in pursuing a science related career.

• Since substitutes will be needed for participating teachers, the higher education institutions will train science majors and preservice teachers to become substitutes. A generic pay will be provided and paid by the K-12 institutions with help from the Institute’s funding, if needed. This will also introduce undergraduates to the profession of teaching as a career option.

• Career ladders will be encouraged. Traditionally, when teachers elect to “move ahead” in the teaching profession, they leave teaching and become administrators. Providing an avenue by which teachers can be recognized by their teacher quality status mirrors industry and will provide mobility within the teaching profession. Funding for this strategy is provided for in the NCLB legislation. The concept of career ladders has been promoted by the AFT. Presently, many school districts recognize National Board Certified teachers with a stipend. Participants in this proposed Institute have been encouraged to have this issue placed on the negotiating table at their respective schools.

• Teacher isolation is another factor associated with the teacher retention issue. The isolation often experienced by teachers will be addressed and minimized through participation in this Institute. The networking and opportunity to interact with colleagues in the profession is intended to reduce the corrosive effect of this isolation.

Bringing cutting-edge science into the classroom is another goal of this Institute. The Capital Region is rich in science research and technology. Nanotechnology, which crosses many disciplines, will be one of the major content focuses. The University at Albany possesses a strong research program in this area. The participating higher education institutions will provide faculty who are experts in the areas of modern science that have been identified by the K-12 participants as being areas of interest.

Application of Technology is closely associated with cutting-edge science. The use of probes, sensors, computer simulations and computers to collect and analyze data are tools often not used in the science classroom due to a lack of training and/or resources by teachers. All activities developed by this proposed Institute will incorporate technology in a manner that will enhance both the teaching and learning environments.

Though New York State’s certification of elementary teachers covers all disciplines, the elementary teachers often lack both the content knowledge and pedagogy needed for the teaching of science. The Institute will provide specialized training to a cadre of participants to create “expert” professional developers of science education for the elementary level. Most of this professional development will take place at the district level. It is felt that this type of professional development will be more ‘user friendly’ and accessible to the elementary teachers who are often responsible for teaching all of the disciplines. All K-12 Institutions will commit to this happening.

Many schools lack the resources to have effective science programs. This will be addressed by this proposed Institute in three main ways.

1) All teacher participants will be provided with an allowance of $500 for equipment and supplies needed to implement the new curricula and activities that they develop at the Institute.

2) The Institute will purchase the more costly equipment, which will then be shared by all participants.

3) Participating schools will be eligible for mini-grants valued at up to $1000 offered by the Institute to each participating K-12 institution. The RFP for these mini-grants will require participants to work with their colleagues at their respective K-12 institutions to develop science activities aligned with the goals of the Institute. The grant money will be used to purchase the equipment and/or supplies needed to implement the activities at their respective school districts. These mini-grants are intended to engage teachers in a competitive search for innovative ideas in the effective delivery of effective science education to their students. The proposals, which will be limited to 3 pages in length, will be peer-reviewed for merit by a group named by the Management Team.

All activities developed by the Institute will be tested and refined before being available on the Institute’s website.

A fully functioning New York State Professional Development Institute for Science Teachers would be grounded in the Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science while achieving the goals of the partners summarized in the needs rubric. A model of the structure of the index can be found in Appendix VI of this proposal.

• The Institute will ensure quality control over the type of professional development available for teachers.

• An equitable partnership would be established between higher education and K-12 institutions.

• The New York State Science Teachers Consortium (K-12 Advisory Committee) will facilitate this partnership.

• Teachers will improve their content base and have the opportunity to learn contemporary science that can be brought into the classroom. The pedagogy and pedagogy content knowledge will be based on the best practices identified in Appendix IV.

• Measurements of teacher growth and correlating this growth to student achievement will be studied by the Evaluation Team with cooperation from the schools and involvement by the participating teachers.

• A management team will deal with the day-to-day operations of the Institute. One person within that team will be given the title of Project Director.

• A Professional Development Institute would first be established in the Capital Region. The operational model of this Institute will be exported with a number of satellites across the State using the SUNY system as the main higher education partner and support from local BOCES and Teacher Centers. The Management Team, working with the K-12 Advisory Team will determine the number of satellites. All satellites will require a Certificate of Affiliation from the central Institute in the Capital Region.

• In addition to facilitating systemic change at the school district level, there will be systemic change in how professional development is delivered to science teachers throughout New York State.

• The SUNY System Administration will provide access to major resources. The SUNY Learning Network and SUNY Net will be available for the Institute to use. The former will provide an avenue for online courses, while the latter will provide access to programs developed by the Annenberg Foundation.

• Teachers will be able to earn inservice credits and/or graduate credits through online courses in addition to face-to-face workshops and summer Institutes.

• The Institute will also take advantage of human resources available in the Capital Region, which has a rich supply of Nationally Board Certified teachers, the mentor network and master teacher trainers affiliated with the New York State Science Teachers Consortium. Union University, in collaboration with the Greater Capital Region Teacher Center, has facilitated teachers obtaining National Board Certification (NBC). These professionals will provide some of the instruction for the Institute.

• Content specialists will be provided by the participating higher education institutions.

• Schools of education will be actively involved with improving their pre-service programs through collaboration with the proposed Institute, in addition to providing some of the instructors in pedagogy for the Institute.

• The K-12 and higher education institutions will develop strategies to attract more students into science and science education.

• The Institute will work with participants on strategies to improve induction and mentoring programs for new teachers or newly assigned teachers.

• BaP (the NSTA initiative called ‘Building a Presence’) will enhance communication among science teachers participating in this proposed Institute by setting up custom e-mailing to facilitate interaction among participating members and the Institute. STANYS is the lead organization in NYS for BaP.

Program Activities

The Management Team (Consortium and higher education representatives) will develop the curriculum for the Institute. The model of teaching and learning, “Designing Professional Development Strategies for Teachers of Science and Mathematics” will guide some of the planning for the structuring of the Institute’s coursework (Loucks-Horsley 2003).

Fourteen K-12 Institutions, 4 higher education institutions, two BOCES, one Teacher Center, SUNY Learning Network and SUNY Net and the Scientific Research Society, Sigma Chi will be directly involved with the Institute (Appendix VII). Over 200 secondary science teachers and 800 elementary teachers will be impacted by the work of the Institute with opportunities for professional development. Over 100 teachers will graduate the Institute (180 inservice credit hours or graduate credit equivalent) to become master teachers/intellectual leaders for their respective teachers and provide turnkey professional development at the district level (Appendix VI). Participating teachers will have the opportunity to earn up 95 inservice or credits a year.

Each participating school district will send an interdisciplinary team of teachers from their respective school districts. The number sent will correlate to the size of the school district. As noted earlier, the elementary teachers of science will be trained by the participants in this Institute. Higher education will provide scientists representing all of the disciplines to become an active member of a team of. Each scientist will be the content expert for the team. Professional developers from the New York State Science Teachers Consortium, the Mentor Network and/or National Board Certified Teachers identified by Union University will also join a team. Therefore, each team will consist of a group of teachers representing the same discipline, a content specialist and one pedagogy specialist. The Institute will aim for a team of about five members. In order to ensure high productivity from each team, they will all receive training on teaming. Much of the research that has come out of Cooperative Learning can be adapted to the Institute teams. Each team will be referred to as an Action Team so as to emphasize their mission in science education.

The pedagogy for the Institute will be based on the Best Practices (Appendix IV). The work of the Institute will look closely at how the adaptation of researched-based pedagogy affects teaching and teaching outcomes (student achievement). Inquiry and the nature of science will provide the theme by which both teaching and learning takes place for all participants. It will act as the glue that holds together the cutting edge science that teachers will have the opportunity to learn and translate into their respective classrooms and the glue that will reinforce the content knowledge base of the participants so they can more effectively address the science topics they struggle to teach and students struggle to learn. Action Research that uses formative assessments will be the catalyst that will transform K-12 participants into reflective educators. Evidence-based research will be part of the process at all levels. The 5E/7E Learning Cycle will provide the main instructional model by which lesson plans and activities are developed within a team. The application of metacognition (Flavell) to the teaching and learning process will be modeled while teachers develop strategies to use this teaching tool in their respective classrooms. Flavell describes metacognition as “thinking about thinking.” Understanding the cognitive gymnastics the brain must undergo in solving problems will facilitate learning and encourage life long learners. Concept mapping and graphic organizers are tools that help teach metacognition. Participants will be trained to use formative assessments as a strategy to “inform teaching. In the article, “Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment,” the authors state, “Firm evidence shows that formative assessment is an essential component of classroom work and that its development can raise standards of achievement”(Black)

In order to ensure that all instructors are on the same page regarding the goals and outcomes for the Institute, training will be provided for the K-12 and K-20 instructors. The “best practices” will be modeled by all instructors and adapted to teach specific content (PCK). Common misconceptions in science will be discussed with a plan to address this educational issue. Contemporary science topics will be planned, including the types of hands-on experiences that will be available to teachers. A plan will be developed to ensure that each teacher’s experience will incorporate the use of technology and the application of mathematics. Participating teachers will have the opportunity to become a National Board Certified teacher. The Institute will follow the “Backward Design” model developed by Wiggins and Mctighe

• The objectives for the participants will be clearly delineated by the Institute.

• Assessments will be developed to measure the achievement of the objectives

• An instructional plan will developed (inquiry-based).

All Institute K-12 participants will receive leadership training. All participants will receive this training so they can effectively work with their respective institutions to develop a strategy for the professional development of science teachers in their districts.

The Institute will act as a resource center for all participants. Scientists will continue to provide support from the participating higher education institutions and the Wadsworth Center. Questar III BOCES will provide training on data analysis of State exams and access to online courses. The Capital Region BOCES will provide leadership training and access to online courses. The Greater Capital Region Center will facilitate the National Board Certification of science teachers and will provide fiscal support for graduate credits. In return, the BOCES and the Teacher Center will have access to trained professional developers. Online courses will be offered to further support both content and pedagogy. The SUNY Learning Network and SUNY Net will be available. The latter will provide access to the Annenberg Foundation resources. NSTA also has a wealth of resources that is available on line such as “Search for Solutions.” Participants in the Institute will act as cooperating teachers for preservice programs. The New York State Science Teachers Consortium will work closely with the K-12 and higher education institutions. The Consortium will provide trainers, facilitate communication and be actively involved in the day-to-day management of this Institute.

The Institute will utilize a number of formats such as online coursework, summer institutes, weekday and/or weekend meetings and online conferencing. During the winter and spring of 2005, faculty for the Institute will receive training and develop coursework. During the late spring, a one-day meeting of participants will take place. This will be the induction to the Institute. The goals, expectations and outcomes for all participants will be reviewed. During this induction, special focus groups will be identified to deal with specific topics relevant to the needs of a participating schools district such as equity in education. Focus groups can be formed anytime to address issues identified by a group of participants. All participants will become a member of online Institute discussion groups. Teachers will conference with one another and higher education to identify topics they find most difficult to teach and for students to learn. Introductory online coursework will also be available for participants to peruse and enroll through the SUNY Learning Network, Teacher Center, BOCES or other higher education institutions. The Institute Management Team will provide a choice of certain online courses participants can enroll in or if available, may enroll in a course offered at the higher education institution. Some coursework will be required such as inquiry science and Action Research. Other courses will be electives that address the specific needs of teachers. Teachers will receive graduate credits for some of the courses and/or inservice for others. Each graduate credit requires fifteen hours of contact time and will be equivalent to fifteen inservice hours. Each year, participants will have the opportunity to earn over of 60 inservice hours

During the summer of 2005, a one-week summer institute will be offered for all participants. The focus of this first summer institute will be:

1) Inquiry science and the nature of science

2) Formative and summative assessment

3) Action Research.

4) Data Analysis using the data from the recent State exams.

Once the grant begins, participants will be expected to participate in three contact days a semester. Some of these contact days will take place on the weekends. Since substitutes may be a problem, as was noted earlier, higher education will train science majors and preservice teachers to be substitutes. BaP will provide additional communication to the participants.

During the fall semester of 2005 teachers will enroll in courses that will introduce them to strategies for incorporating mathematics into the classroom and technology. During the summer of 2006, there will be a two-week training summer institute). During this time participants will improve their content knowledge base. Part of the focus will be to develop teaching strategies and activities that will address misconceptions in science that have previously been identified by the teachers. Teachers will learn cutting-edge science associated with their discipline and working with scientists, will develop activities for the classroom. Nancy Ridenour, a member of the Consortium has extensive knowledge about the CIBT program, which also teams teachers with scientists. The Institute will “borrow” some of the successful elements from this structure when setting up the 2006 summer institute. Teachers will learn how to integrate technology and mathematics into the curriculum through the activities they develop at the Institute.

During the spring of 2006, participants will receive leadership training and the training needed to help elementary teachers become more effective science teachers. They will work with both elementary and intermediate science teachers on curriculum mapping. During the 2006-2007 academic school year, activities developed by the institute will be implemented and tools will be developed to measure their effect on the learning of students and teacher quality.

School districts must provide time for participants to work with science teachers, administrators and guidance counselors because they all impact the quality of science education available to the students in the district. Four meetings during the school year is recommended or at a minimum, one per semester. Administrators will be invited to the induction meetings to better educate them regarding the goals of the Professional Development Institute. In order to encourage attendance by administrators, they will be provided a stipend to be used toward science education in their district for attending. All graduates of the Institute will be given the title of Master Teacher. All participants (instructors and teachers) will receive a stipend at the NSF MSP recommended rate of $200/day. Participants in the Institute who provide professional development to the faculty and staff will receive inservice credit hours for both their preparation and presentation time. K-12 Institute faculty will earn inservice credit hours for their work.

The major work within the Institute is summarized in Table 6.

|Date/length of time |Goals addressing |Activities planned |Graduate and/or Service credits|

|Winter/spring 2005 |Professional development faculty are |Overview of Institute’s goals and |K-12 faculty can receive up to |

|(2 days) |identified and receive training |outcomes |15 inservice credit hours |

| | |Best practices | |

| | |Teaming | |

|Winter /Spring 2005 |• Cooperative learning/teaming |Induction for participants and |1-2 graduate credit hours or |

|(2 days) |• Misconceptions in science (content |instructors whereby goals, |15-30 inservice credit hours |

| |knowledge) |expectations and outcomes are | |

| |• Metacognition |reviewed. Action teams and focus | |

| |• Differenciated Learning |groups will be established | |

| | |Online courses | |

| | |Graphics organizers | |

| | |Concept mapping | |

|Summer 2005 |• Inquiry and the nature of science |Background presentations and |3 graduate hours and/or 40 |

|One-week institute |• Constructivism |hands-on activities with samples of|inservice hours |

| |• Formative and Summative Assessment |work | |

| |• Data analysis of State tests | | |

| |• Action Research | | |

|Fall 2005 |• Technology in the science classroom |Online and contact |1-2 graduate credit hours or |

| |• Integrating mathematics into the | |15-30 inservice credit hours |

| |science classroom | | |

|Spring 2006 |• Leadership training |Online and contact |1-2 graduate credit hours or |

| |• Focus group issues such as equity to | |15-30 inservice credit hours |

| |address the achievement gap | | |

|Summer 2006 |• Contemporary science |Teachers work with scientists to |6 graduate hours and/or 80 |

|2 weeks |• Action Research |learn cutting edge science and |inservice credit hours |

| | |develop activities for the | |

| | |classroom | |

| | |Participants develop an Action | |

| | |Research plan | |

|Fall 2006 |• Strategies to work with elementary |Online and contact with hands-on |1-2 graduate credit hours or |

|4 contact days |teachers of science teachers. Improve |activities |15-30 inservice credit hours |

| |their content knowledge, pedagogy and to | | |

| |develop curricula and assessments | | |

| |• Work on Action Research Plan | | |

|Spring 2007 |• Work with elementary teachers |Online and contact |1-2 graduate credit hours or |

|4 contact days |• Evaluate Action Plan and share findings| |15-30 inservice credit hours |

Table 6 provides a Time-line of the Institute’s activities.

Table 6

Evaluation and Accountability

The Kirkpatrick Model will be employed as a tool for organizing the evaluation because of the multi-dimensional nature of the Institute with its interactive component features and systems dynamics. This hierarchical model asserts four levels of evaluation to examine the elements of the Institute, their interrelationships and their impacts on students, teachers, and the systems into which they are integrated:

← Level 1—Reactions: Participants’ feedback at the conclusion of the training workshops

← Level 2—Learning: Evaluation of pre- and post-training practices regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment

← Level 3—Transfer: Participants’ use of program methods and tools in the actual work setting

← Level 4—Results: Improvements in the organization’s or system's ability to use assessment, enhance science instruction, and attract and retain skilled science teachers, and improve student performance.

Project staff, in consultation with the External Evaluator (EE), will design formative studies including data analysis procedures and reports. The EE will design summative studies. The project staff will take responsibility for data collection and management. Project staff and the EE will prepare periodic and final reports. The External Evaluator will act as the project’s “ethical voice” in reporting and analysis.

The evaluation will address the following key questions:

|To what degree do the project goals address the identified needs? |First month of project and ongoing |

|Align project goals to the identified needs. For example, align learning goals to standards. |

|Reassess and realign project goals in accordance with ongoing needs assessments. |

|To what degree are the goals being attained? |Quarterly review |

|Operationalize both learning and program goals. |

|Define indicators of sustainability |

|Identify sound measures for goals. For example, measures of learning goals might include performance on state science assessments |

|and assessments of inquiry capabilities of targeted student populations. Measures of program goals might include percent of |

|students taking higher-level science courses. |

|Identify data collection procedures and responsibilities. |

|Specify data collection schedule. |

|To what degree are the professional development strategies implemented as expected (quality and|Quarterly review |

|fidelity)? | |

|Identify indicators for quality and fidelity of learning strategy implementation. For example inquiry based instruction and action |

|research. |

|Identify means for collecting data on the above indicators. |

|Identify data collection procedures and responsibilities. |

|Specify data collection schedule. |

|To what degree are program outcomes attributable to the strategies? |Bi-annual review |

|Identify demographic and academic characteristics of students. |

|Identify possible relevant school characteristics. |

|Identify comparison groups. For example, treatment vs. control groups. |

|Specify instructional administration schedule, consistent with experimental design. |

|Specify statistical protocols to adjust for systemic bias in the data. |

|Conduct statistical analyses |

|How may modifications in the program increase success in attaining goals? |Quarterly review |

|Modify professional development strategies |

|Differentiate student instruction |

|Target schools or populations for special assistance |

|To what degree are successful strategies sustainable? |Last months of Project |

|Identify successful strategies. |

|Identify indicators of sustainability of those strategies. |

|Identify means for collecting data on the above indicators. |

|Identify data collection procedures and responsibilities. |

|Specify data collection schedule. |

|Conduct appropriate analyses. |

The evaluation will be structured so that information gathered for summative purposes will also support the Institute's proposed formative assessment and action research efforts including support to a collaborative inquiry process based on student achievement at all levels, i.e. classroom, school district, Institute and State (Love 2002).

Sustainability

The vision for this Institute is to establish Professional Development satellites across the State using the SUNY higher education system includes resources provided by:

• SUNY Learning Network

• SUNY NET (with resources from the Annenberg Foundation).

• Teacher Centers

• BOCES

• Funds for Education and Outreach from grants to research scientists

• Local businesses

The Greater Capital Region Teachers Center will provide financial support for the Institute for graduate credits and will facilitate National Board Certification. This will continue beyond the three-year cycle of the grant. The two BOCES involved, Questar III and Capital Region BOCES will provide trainers and help publicize the work of the Institute. They will also continue to provide support for the Institute beyond the life of the grant, such as by providing instructors for activities and help in the recruiting of new participants. BOCES school districts may elect to continue to have available the resources of the Institute through a fee paid to BOCES that will be used to fiscally support the work of the Institute. The master teachers who graduate from the Institute will provide BOCES and Teacher Centers with high quality professional developers. The Wadsworth Center, which is part of the New York State Department of Health, will provide scientists to work with teachers, fulfilling both one of the mission statements of the Center and the requirements of many of the research proposals written by scientists. Almost all proposals written by research scientists at Wadsworth Laboratories and research universities throughout New York State have education and outreach components required by the Federal funding agencies (e.g., NASA; DOE; NIH; NSF). Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, the scientists can subcontract to the Institute for the education and outreach components, which would include content specialists and funds to support the continued work of the Institute.

Additional strategies to ensure the Institute’s sustainability include:

• Active recruitment of new participants

• Effectiveness of turn-key training to K-12 institutions

• Opportunities for second certification

• Opportunities for new teaching status as Master Teacher or National Board Certification

• Publication of results from the Institute’s activities

• Promotion of the Institute’s programs by the New York State Science Teachers Association (STANYS).

Research on Professional Development (NSTA Standards 2000) encourages K-12 institutions to utilize their own resources because local professional development is more accessible to teachers. All schools will have “home-grown” professional developers for their science teachers. The Institute will provide the science teachers with the support they need to continue in their new roles.

Higher education schools of education will benefit form the work of the Institute and continue the partnership because the partnership will help improve their preservice programs. In addition, they will have access to a database of the graduates of the institute to target as potential cooperating teachers. This too should improve the quality of their preservice programs. Although some institutions of higher education place a greater emphasis on teaching than others, as the quality of teaching improves at the college level, liberal arts schools may see an increase in enrollments in science programs. If it is shown that improved teaching quality will attract more science majors, K-12 institutions may be encouraged to maintain the partnership and to recognize faculty who have demonstrated records of excellence in teaching. The institute provides teachers with a significant contribution toward their required 175 hours professional development requirements (if they have been certified post Feb. 2004).

Providing teachers with monetary incentives, inservice credits and graduate credits to improve their content sophistication and best practices will provide a powerful carrot to participate in the Institute. Industry frequently rewards its employers for outstanding service. The incentives offered by the Institute provide the same function as bonuses do for industry. Teachers should be recognized for their achievements and hard work. Research conducted by the Institute will provide the data to see if there is a correlation between teacher retention and the opportunities to be part of a professional development community.

The proposed Institute will provide teachers with more than their required 175 hours of professional development (if they have been certified post Feb. 2004).

Providing teachers with monetary incentives, in-service credits and graduate credits to improve their content sophistication and best practices will provide a powerful incentive for their participation in the Institute. Industry frequently rewards its employers for outstanding service. The incentives offered by the Institute would be intended to have the same function as bonuses do for industry. Teachers should be recognized for their achievements and hard work. Research conducted by the Institute will provide the data to see if there is a correlation between teacher retention and the opportunities to be part of a professional development community.

The content courses offered by the Institute can be adapted to provide teachers with a 2nd or 3rd certification. This is another factor that will not only encourage participation by teachers but also promote the sustainability of the Institute. Periodic needs assessments of all stakeholders will guide the Institute’s work.

Isolation has been identified through surveys of teachers as to why they left the profession. The Professional Development Institute will provide an environment by which isolation is reduced through direct contact with teachers and by the use of electronic communication.

During the last year of the grant, other school districts will be identified to participate in the Institute. We will invite some of these teachers to participate from these newly identified schools in some of the Institute’s professional development activities.

-----------------------

Table 3

Professional Development Content Topics

GPS science

Biotechnology

Nanotechnology

Bioinformatics

Water Quality and the Environment

Ethical issues, (e.g., stem cell research)

RNA interference

Black matter/dark energy

Stem cell research

Bioterrorism

Emerging diseases

Behavior genetics

Hydrogen fuel cells

Alternative energy/solar cell technology

Potential Energy usage for batteries

Table 1

New York State Science Teachers Consortium

Science Teachers Association of NYS, Inc

NYS Science Education Leadership Association

Science Council of NYC

Chemistry Teachers Club

Educators for Gateway

Elementary School Science Association

New York Biology Teachers Association

New York State Marine Education Association

Physics Club of New York

Science Supervisors Association of New York City

Staten Island Science Teachers Association

UFT Outdoor Education Committee

Catholic Science Council

NYS Earth Science Mentor Network

NYS Biology Mentor Network

NYS Chemistry Mentor Network

NYS Physics Mentor Network

Long Island Science Education Leadership Association

Table 5

Standards for the Education of Teachers of Science (2000)

1. Content

2. Nature of Science

3. Inquiry

4. Context of Science

5. Pedagogy

6. Science Curriculum

7. Social context

8. Professional practice

9. Learning Environments

10. Assessment

Table 2

Teachers need instruction in the following areas:

Curriculum

a) An understanding of the relationship between the MST Standards, cores and local curriculum.

b) A working knowledge of the K-12 district science grade by grade curriculum

c) A working knowledge of Inquiry-based teaching

Assessment

a) An understanding of the relationship of the State assessments to the Standards and cores

b) Use formative assessments to monitor student progress

c) A working knowledge of a variety of assessment strategies

d) An understanding of the transition to standards-based testing

e) How to gather and use data to modify practice (i.e. Action Research)

Instruction

To know how to develop standards-based instruction from a district curriculum aligned to state standards and cores.

a) An understanding of the nature of science and extensive content knowledge in their discipline

b) To use appropriate teaching strategies

c) Knowledge of constructivism

d) Knowledge of metacognition

e) To integrate technology in the classroom

f) A working knowledge of how students learn and brain research

g) Classroom management skills

h) Knowledge of classroom safety

i) Knowledge of behavioral strategies

j) To use hands-on/minds-on learning

k) A working knowledge of cooperative learning

l) To create student centered-classrooms with the teacher as facilitator of learning.

m) To know how to work with inclusion students and working as a collaborative team

n) To know how to provide AIS

o) Differentiated instruction

p) Reading, writing and verbally communicating in science

q) How to engage students in learning science

Table 4

Best Practices Summary

1. Formative Assessments/ Ongoing, Embedded, Authentic Assessment:

2. Cooperative Learning

3. Student Centered Instruction:

4. Hands-On/Minds-On Learning:

5. Inquiry Approaches to the teaching and Learning of Science

6. 5E/7E Learning Cycle

7. Constructivism.

8. Emphasis on Communication Skills

9. Metacognition

10.  Concept Mapping

11. Graphic Organizers

12. Teaching Science and Technology Through the Context of Human Experience

13. Probing Questions

14. Use of Technology

15. Action Research

16. Differenciated Learning

17. Equity and the Teaching of underrepresented groups in science (including girls

Table 6

Summary of Institute’s Work

• Identify topics in science that are difficult to teach due to the many misconceptions associated with the topic. Develop lesson plans and activities to improve the teaching of these topics so that the misconceptions associated with the topic are given up by students (and teachers). These activities should be both challenging and engaging to the learner. The activities developed can be adapted for different age groups including post secondary students. During this time, teachers can reflect on topics they struggle with because of gaps in their own knowledge base and use their team to address the gaps.

• Choose a contemporary topic in science to bring into the classroom. The Capital Region is rich in science research. Nanotechnology and biotechnology are two of the largest areas in which research is being done in the Capital Region. In addition, the NYS Department of Health scientists can potentially provide experts in human health and disease. Topics such as the impact of human activity on health is a focus of the Wadsworth Center. Each team will be expected to show the best use of technology and the incorporation of mathematics into their science lessons/activities. The grant participants will receive an allowance for the purchase of some equipment and supplies. They will work with teachers in their district to develop other activities and write mini-grants for the purchase of equipment they may need for the activity. Each team will be provided with a budget to make certain purchases of equipment that due to its expense will be owned by the Institute and shared by all trained participants.

• Use the 5E7E learning Model to develop lesson plans, activities and formative assessments that will inform your teaching.

• Develop an Action Research Plan to measure the impact of your experience with the Institute.

• Teams will publish and/or present their lesson plans/activities and Action Research results.

• Work with the pedagogy experts to apply the best practices to the teaching of content.

• Using the Cooperative Learning Model called “jig-sawing,” focus teams will be established to address other urgent problems that the Institute participants have identified. The achievement gap between minority groups and students classified as white is extraordinarily complex and cannot be addressed solely by practicing “best practices.” Equity in education is a complicated issue. Developing strategies to address this achievement gap will be a goal of this Institute. Some “jig-saw” teams may choose to work on developing advance science courses at their respective schools. The Institute will foster collegiality among educators. The synergy of K-12 and K-20 partners sharing the same goals will result in improved coursework at both the higher education institutions in addition to the K-12 institutions. The training K-12 educators receive in addition to the actual contact time they have with students will act as an excellent resource for higher education educators who would like to design new curricula. An Institute focus group will be established that includes administrators, guidance counselors, and participating teachers. The mission of this focus group is twofold: participating teachers ‘educate’ the group about standard based science education while the teachers facilitate a discussion about the obstacles the district faces and develops strategies to overcome the obstacles. Members of these focus groups will share their findings with their respective districts and use the Institute to develop discussion groups that share information about what their districts are planning to ameliorate the problems.

• Online courses will be made available in both content and pedagogy. The SUNY Learning Network will provide training on how to use its software to develop these courses. This software embodies the ‘best practices’ so higher education participants will further improve their pedagogy base. The Institute will also explore the use of high school online courses in rural areas where a conundrum exist regarding defining NYS’s definition of ‘highly qualified teacher.’ It is almost impossible to find a teacher certified in all of the sciences. A special focus group can develop a strategy to address this issue using online courses.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download