1. Teacher Professional Development When Using the SWH as Student-Oriented Teaching 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) Templates Teacher’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 template Student’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 Format vs. the Traditional Format Implications Overall Study Teacher Data Collection Teacher Data Analyses Student Data Collection Quantitative Data Analysis 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 9 th Grade high school biology course-Genetic 198 Students Involved 94 Treatment & 101 Control Tom * 36 Treatment & 38 Control Tim 16 Treatment & 20 Control Bob 42 Treatment & 43 Control  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 study Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was estimated on post-test conceptual question total score by using; Independent variables * Group (Control/Treatment) * Gender * Level of implementationCovariate * Baseline Note: All scores were transformed to z-scores for each teacher to eliminate the grading variation among teachers. Quantitative Results (prior to study) Laboratory Format SWH Beginning questions or ideas Tests and procedures Observations Claims Evidence Reflection Traditional Title and Purpose Outline of procedure Data and observations Discussion Balanced equations, calculations, or graphs No equivalent Student Performance Baseline Test Created based on TIMSS standardized test for grade Levels 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 Pre- and Post-Test Conceptual Question 3 to 5 open-ended questions Multiple Choice Question 15 to 25 recall questions Professional Development Program Group 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 Individual One-on-One Support Unit Big Ideas Conceptual Questions Activities for the SWH Implementation Feedback  Observations  Observations: conducted by two independent observer - On site Observation: 55 min each week per teacher - Videotape Observation: One class period recorded per teacher  Field notes  Field notes: rich description of the debriefing session that followed each observation  Survey  Survey: probes perceptions and the challenges that teachers encounter through implementation (conducted at the end of the study)  Interview  Interview: 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 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. References Research 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.