Presentation on theme: "Impact of Inverted Curriculum and Modeling Instruction on Student Achievement in Science Tom Cheatham (MTSU), Jennifer Dye (JP2), Ginger Rowell, Angela."— Presentation transcript:
Impact of Inverted Curriculum and Modeling Instruction on Student Achievement in Science Tom Cheatham (MTSU), Jennifer Dye (JP2), Ginger Rowell, Angela Barlow, Robert Carlton (MTSU) 2013 Institute for CTE Educators July 15-19 MTSU
What does “College and Career Ready (CCR)” mean? 1. HS student complete a “core” curriculum. (4 English, 4 math, 3 science, 3 social science) 2. Meet ACT college readiness benchmarks (CRB) (English=18, Reading=21, Math=22, Science=24) What does it mean to say that a student with an ACT science score of 24 or higher is CR in science? >= 75% chance of earning a “C” or better in freshman biology or >= 50% chance of earning a “B” or better in freshman biology
SubjectUS PercentTN Percent English67%59% Reading52%43% Mathematics46%29% Science31%21% All Four Subjects25%16% ACT-Tested High School Graduates Meeting CRB 2012 Does CCR require we meet CRB in all 4 subjects?
What are the TN average ACT scores in these 4 areas? SubjectTN ACT AverageACT CRB by Subject English19.018 Reading19.421 Mathematics18.722 Science19.224 Tennessee 2012 ACT Average Subscores and Corresponding CRB
How can we do better? ACT claim: Test earlier EXPLORE in 8 th Grade PLAN in 10 th Grade ACT in 11 th Grade (available on TDOE Report Card) ACT CRB Benchmarks by Test TestMathScience EXPLORE1720 PLAN1921 ACT2224
We are testing early and often and still only meet CRB in English, on average. Only 21% of TN HS graduates meet CRB in science (2012). What else can be done to graduate more students CCR in science? Change the way we teach science!
We may have the best opportunity ever to change how we teach Math/Science: CCSS-M and NGSS I hope we don’t mess this up. What else can be done to graduate more students CCR in science? I will show you data from JP2 using 3 methods.
Two alternative strategies used at JP2: Inverted Curriculum (IC) and Modeling Instruction (MI) The IC is easy to understand: Traditional science curriculum (T): B – C – P Inverted science curriculum (IC): P – C – B Why would you do this? What is the advantage? It is a bit more complicated than P – C – B, right?
1. You can’t teach junior/senior level physics to freshman 2. What physics can you teach freshman? Conceptual physics? 3. Should not teach freshman biology to juniors, right? Molecular ? Who is using the IC in Tennessee? JP2, Webb, Clarksville-Montgomery Co, Hamilton Co., others?
In Modeling Instruction (MI), lectures and traditional content units are replaced with modeling cycles in which students, working in small groups, collaboratively collect data and construct a conceptual model to explain observations of a real-world system. In class, groups engage in model analysis using whiteboards with emphasis on Socratic dialog, responding to challenges, and employing multiple representations (diagrams, graphs or equations). The teacher then guides the development of a generalizable model which students will deploy and use to predict outcomes for new initial conditions or constraints. The modeling cycle concludes when a representative student from each group explains and defends their model of the real-world system, again using whiteboards. The teacher is responsible for ongoing Socratic dialog that challenges misconceptions, for defining the real-world problem, for guiding model development and deployment, and for formative assessment of student understanding. (Robert Carlton, MTSU). https://vimeo.com/49925916 https://vimeo.com/49925916
What does the study look like at JP2? Eight Graduating classes taught with three methods: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 [T], (Traditional science curriculum) 2010, 2011 [IC], (Inverted curriculum) 2012, 2013 [IM2] (Inverted plus modeling C+B) (I know that 2013 graduates …) JP2 administers PLAN at beginning of 9 th grade, ACT at end of 11 th grade. Not same as public schools, but PLAN provides a good benchmark upon entry to HS. Data for JP2 on following slides
PLAN MathPLAN SciencePLAN Comp Treatmentn=Mean T40219.4120.3120.11 IC21419.0019.5719.26 IM219219.5319.9719.81 All80819.3320.0319.81 Min ALL 811 Max ALL 32 31 Median All 182019 Pope John Paul II PLAN Scores by Curriculum
ACT MathACT ScienceACT Comp Treatmentn=Mean T40222.4923.0823.60 IC21422.3923.6923.64 IM219223.4524.2724.49 All80822.6923.5223.82 Min ALL 131211 Max ALL 36 35 Median All 23 Pope John Paul II ACT Scores by Curriculum
Changes to College Readiness by Curriculum Percent who Met CRB in Science/Math by Curriculum TreatN=PLAN-mACT-mPLAN-sACT-s T40246.0%53.7%42.8%45.3% IC21443.9%55.1%30.4%48.1% IM219251.6%66.7%35.9%56.8% m=math; s=science
Students Changing from not CR on PLAN to CR on ACT by Curriculum MathScience CurriculumNot CR-P -> CR-A T31.8%20.4% INV32.5%30.2% IM238.7%39.0% All33.5%27.9% P=PLAN; A=ACT
Off-Target on PLAN to CR on ACT by Curriculum TreatmentN=Math %Science % T40216.5%7.8% Inv21413.0%18.1% IM219216.7%21.2% All80815.6%13.9%