towson’s PhysTEC course improvement Project,
years 1 and 2: results and lessons learned
Cody Sandifer, Towson University
Elizabeth Renwick, Sinclair Lane
Elementary
The
goal of Towson University’s Physics Teacher Education Coalition (Phys=
TEC)
project is to improve a field experience course for elementary education
majors. The improvements are
focused on (1) making the different sections of the course more uniformly a=
ligned
with the course goals, (2) increasing the amount and quality of inquiry in =
the
undergraduate interns’ science lessons, and (3) helping the interns m=
ore
fully understand and appreciate inquiry-based science instruction. The project team, including a full=
-time
teacher-in-residence, engaged in a number of activities to improve the
course: the re-establishment =
of
clear course goals, the teaching of certain course sections by the project
faculty, and instructor and mentor teacher workshops. Data collected from teaching
observations, end-of-semester surveys, and course assignments revealed that=
the
project was generally successful.
As a result of our project activities, when compared to baseline dat=
a,
the interns spent more time teaching (and less time observing), the interns
more frequently taught modified science lessons (rather than teaching the
official lessons as-is), and the interns’ science lessons focused more
frequently on scientific investigations and the communication of ideas (rat=
her
than scientific demonstrations, lectures, and the verification of ideas).
The goal of Towson University’=
;s
Physics Teacher Education Coalition (PhysTEC) project is to improve our
“Teaching Science in Elementary School” course (SCIE 376), whic=
h is
a required field experience course taken by elementary education majors.
This article is a companion piece t=
o our
original ASTE proceedings paper on the description and results of our Physi=
cs
Teacher Education Coalition (PhysTEC) course improvement project (Sandifer,
Lising, & Tirocchi, 2005).
Here, the structure and format of the field experience course is
explained more fully, our data have been updated to include results from ye=
ar
two of the project (2005-2006), and our list of project outcomes has been
expanded to include lessons learned by the project team about effective cou=
rse
structure, different forms of inquiry lessons, realistic course goals, cour=
se
coordination, and attitude and belief outcomes for the field experience
interns.
Expanded descriptions of certain as=
pects
of our project – including our institutional context, course goals, a=
nd
the activities of our teachers-in-residence – can be found in the
original paper. Abbreviated
descriptions are provided here.
The
PhysTEC Project
The Physics Teacher Education Coalition (Phys= TEC) project is a nationwide project sponsored by the American Physical Society,= the American Institute of Physics, and the American Association of Physics Teac= hers that has the goal of improving science preparation for K-12 teachers. At ea= ch of the PhysTEC sites around the United States, science faculty, education faculty, and a full-time teacher-in-residence (TIR) work together to implem= ent local teaching reforms that emphasize interactive engagement and a student-centered approach to learning science. At Towson, the PhysTEC project team consists of Dr. Cody Sandifer and Dr. Laura Lising, two full-time science education faculty in the Department of Physics, Astronomy and Geosciences, = and a full-time elementary TIR. T= he 2004-2005 TIR was Ms. Lisa Tirocchi, a Baltimore County Public Schools elementary teacher; the 2005-2006 TIR was Ms. Elizabeth Renwick, a Baltimore City Public Schools elementary teacher.
SCIE 376: Course Overview and the Need for
Improvement
Prior to student teaching, elementary
education majors at Towson University are required to complete a "math=
and
science” semester, which is a semester solely dedicated to content and
methods related to math/science instruction. One of the courses taken during
the math/science semester is our science field experience (SCIE 376), which=
is
the course that serves as the focus of our PhysTEC project. SCIE 376 is structured to help
preservice elementary teachers (hereafter referred to as “internsR=
21;)
learn and practice methods of inquiry-based science teach=
ing
and engage in self-reflection and improvement.
There
are six to eight sections of SCIE 376 offered each semester; each section m=
eets
once per week for
four hours at a Baltimore City or Baltimore County public elementary school=
. Course activities include an hour of teaching time, coach=
ing
from the classroom mentor teacher, lesson planning under the supervision of=
the
course instructor, and methods/content discussions and activities. The plan=
ning
sessions and methods/content activities are conducted in a central meeting
space (e.g., an unused classroom) provided by the school.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";color:windowtext'>In the years leadi=
ng up
to our PhysTEC project, instructor and student complaints about SCIE 376 had
been steadily increasing.
Discussions with instructors and interns revealed that the different
sections of the course were no longer uniform (in terms of the number of
science lessons taught per intern, the number of interns per classroom,
feedback on the interns’ science teaching, and the degree to which ea=
ch
section focused on inquiry), and also that there was a general lack of
communication about the goals, structure, and logistics of the course. A critical issue was that, at the
beginning of the project, it was unclear as to whether the interns’
science lessons in the elementary schools were inquiry-based, or were inste=
ad
more traditional types of science lessons.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";color:windowtext'>Given these proble=
ms,
the mission of our PhysTEC project became clear: to improve SCIE 376 using methods =
that
would be effective, sustainable, and measurable. Our subsequent course improvement =
efforts,
along with our project results, are found below.
Project Activity: Course Improvement
In the past, the only resource provided to new SCIE 376
instructors was a sample syllabus. This proved to be an insufficient means =
of
instructor support – one which typically resulted in a state of affai=
rs
where the different SCIE 376 course sections varied tremendously in terms of
their focus on inquiry, their teaching and observation expectations, their
methods activities and course assignments, and the degree to which the inte=
rns
were satisfied with the course.
After becoming aware of the
lack of uniformity across sections in SCIE 376, the project team engaged in=
a
number of course improvement activities, including the re-establishment of
clear course goals, the teaching of certain course sections by the project
faculty, course instructor and mentor teacher workshops, and the creation a=
nd
distribution of a resource CD-rom for course instructors. The following sections describe ea=
ch of
these improvement activities in detail.
Updating
of Course Goals
The updated course goals required = that the interns in each section of SCIE 376 should (1) begin to understand and apply inquiry-focused theories of science teaching, (2) become expose= d to content and teaching standards, (3) teach science as often as possible, (4) receive in-depth feedback on their teaching, and (5) engage in self-reflection and make steps toward improvement.
Our notion of inquiry teaching and
learning is aligned with the approach taken by the National Science
Education Standards (1996, pp. 52 and 113), which defines inquiry learning and teaching through a series of
“emphasis” summaries that contrast inquiry-based teaching with =
more
traditional teaching methods. At
Towson, we have further distilled the NSES inquiry approach into our own th=
ree
core principles of inquiry:
1.&n= bsp; Figuring O= ut. Students are figuring out science concepts and underlying mechanisms = on their own whenever possible. (“Concepts” are differentiated from facts and terms, and “mechanism” is defined as how something is happening.)
2.&n= bsp; Active Lea= rning. Lessons are activity- and discussion-based (sometimes hands-on, often cooperative, but always minds-on= ), rather than lecture- and reading-based.&nb= sp; These lessons require clear, common sense, contextualized, and non-obvious questions that the activities and discussions seek to answer.
3.&n= bsp; Ideas and = Good Reasoning/Making Sense. L= essons focus on ideas and reasoning (making sense of things) rather than memorizat= ion of right answers and vocabulary words.&nbs= p; Here students are developing and applying evidence-based reasoning skills, where evidence consists of everyday experiences, experimental data, common sense, and prior knowledge. (“What do you think, why do you think that, and how do you know?”)
Restructuring the Field Experience =
Course
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";color:windowtext'>After trying a num=
ber of
different teaching formats for our field experience course, the project team
has now settled on a single teaching and planning format that is (ideally) =
used
in all sections of SCIE 376. =
In
this format, the ~13-20 interns in any given section of SCIE 376 are spread
across a small number of classrooms in a single school; ideally, between fo=
ur
and six interns are placed in each science classroom. During the allotted teaching time,=
the
classroom is broken into four to six groups of elementary students, with ea=
ch
small group being led through an inquiry-based science activity by a single
intern. The same interns that=
teach
shoulder-to-shoulder in a classroom also plan their lessons together, with =
the
result that the lessons that are taught concurrently in the different intern
groups are nearly identical – although there is certainly room for
variation and creativity from group to group if the interns so desire. Occasionally, if appropriate, the
interns might also alternate between small-group and whole-class instruction
within a single lesson. For
example, in a particular lesson, each intern might guide her own group thro=
ugh
a discussion or experiment, at which point the different student groups mig=
ht
then share their ideas or results with the entire class; the lesson might t=
hen
conclude with the students returning to their own small groups to make sens=
e of
the data or discussion with the help of their “teacher” (i.e., =
that
group’s permanently assigned intern).
Another key component of our course
format is the fact that the interns are not expected to create lesson plans
from scratch. Instead, for the
first three or four weeks, the course instructor typically provides the int=
erns
with inquiry-based lesson plans (or lesson plan outlines, minimally) for the
interns to flesh out and implement.
These lesson plans tend to consist of official school lessons that h=
ave
been modified by the instructor to be more closely aligned with our princip=
les
of inquiry. After the first f=
ew
weeks, once the interns have grown more comfortable with inquiry-based
teaching, the course instructor stops distributing lesson plans to the inte=
rns;
from that point forward, the interns are expected (with the help of the
instructor) to analyze each upcoming activity from the official curriculum,
modify the official activity to make it more inquiry-based, and then implem=
ent
the modified version of the official activity.
Before the start of the internship,=
to
obviate the need for week-by-week coordination between the course instructo=
r,
mentor teachers, and interns, the instructors and teachers carefully negoti=
ate which
specific activities and/or content units from the official school curriculum
will be taught by the interns during the semester.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";color:windowtext'>Finally, it should=
be
noted that the interns are not expected to teach science lessons as soon as
they begin the internship. To=
ease
the interns into the course, the first one to three class meetings –
which are four hours in length, just as they are for the remainder of the
semester – are held at the
university campus. These early
meetings provide an opportunity for the interns to engage in preparatory
activities that focus on inquiry-based science instruction, lesson planning,
and the specific science concepts relevant to the interns’ upcoming
lessons.
Instr=
uctor
and Mentor Teacher Workshops
Since Towson University offers as many as eight sections =
of
SCIE 376 each semester, the course has a fairly significant amount of
instructor and mentor teacher turnover.&nb=
sp;
Any reforms of our field experience course therefore involve strong =
coordination
between multiple course sections, some of which are led by relatively
inexperienced part-time instructors and/or mentor teachers. The project team chose to remedy t=
he
coordination and communication problems plaguing SCIE 376 by creating profe=
ssional
development/training workshops for these new instructors and mentor teacher=
s.
Towson’s PhysTEC workshops we=
re
created and refined during the first two years of the project, and eventual=
ly
took the form of half-day workshops for new mentor teachers and two-day
workshops for new instructors. These
workshops are now offered every semester, as needed. The goals of the works=
hops
are to: help new instructors and new mentor teachers develop a better
understanding of inquiry; clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
university instructors and mentor teachers; clarify the format of the cours=
e;
and hold open discussions about course goals, course logistics, feedback on=
the
interns’ lesson plans and lessons, and other issues of concern. A variety of brief presentations a=
nd
interactive methods- and science-related activities are implemented in the
workshops to achieve the workshop goals.
A critical aspect of the mentor tea=
cher
workshop is the inclusion of a time for mentor teachers to meet with the
individual instructor assigned to their school; the purpose of these
small-group meetings is for the teachers/instructors to negotiate
section-specific issues relevant to each school site: teaching times, the content units =
and
grade levels to be taught, and mentor teacher and instructor expectations.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> In the instructor workshops, time =
is
also spent on the introduction and overview of the SCIE 376 resource cd-rom
that is provided to each instructor.
This cd-rom is an exhaustive teaching and curriculum resource that
includes a course overview, a list of web resources, science education
readings, videos of students engaged in inquiry-based instruction, 25 metho=
ds
activities (each of which is explicitly linked to the national standards and
course goals), and a variety of other support documents: a core syllabus, sample observation
schedules, sample lesson outlines, and observation forms.
Towson’s PhysTEC team has ado=
pted a
multi-pronged approach to project assessment. Observations of the interns’
science lessons give us the most relevant data concerning our project
successes, since these observations allow us to look at the interns’
actual classroom practice – thereby allowing us to gauge the degree to
which we have been successful at fostering inquiry-based instruction at the
field experience school sites. The
observational data is complemented by survey data that allows us to obtain =
both
multiple-choice and open-ended written responses concerning the internsR=
17;
attitudes, beliefs, course activities, and suggestions for improvement.
Survey Results: Course Activities
A multiple choice survey was admini=
stered
to all SCIE 376 interns at the end of the Fall 2004, Spring 2005, Fall 2005,
and Spring 2006 semesters to ascertain the type of activity occurring in the
different sections of the course, as well as to determine if there had been=
any
course improvements after Fall 2004. =
The PhysTEC team had not attempted to make any curricular changes to
SCIE 376 in Fall 2004 (except in Dr. Lising’s section), and so the Fa=
ll
2004 results represent the baseline data for the course before any signific=
ant
PhysTEC-related course improvements were instituted. The results of this ongoing survey=
are presented
in Table 1.
Table
1
|
|
Fall 2004 (89 interns) |
Spring 2005 (108 interns) |
Fall 2005 (75 interns) |
Spring 2006 (93 interns) |
|
Intern=
s who
observed their mentor teacher teaching 4 or more times |
19% |
18% |
9% |
1% |
|
Intern=
s who
taught fewer than 4 times |
28% |
11% |
0% |
2% |
|
Intern=
s who
indicated that their lessons were primarily official school activities
implemented as written |
20% |
10% |
20% |
2% |
As demonstrated in Table 1, in comp=
aring
each subsequent semester’s data to the Fall 2004 baseline data, our
PhysTEC project continues to be extremely successful in (a) decreasing the
number of times that the practicum interns observe their mentor teachers, (=
b)
increasing the number of times that the interns teach science, and (c)
increasing the number of lessons that are adapted lessons rather than
unmodified lessons. For examp=
le,
the percentage of interns who taught fewer than four times in Spring 2005 (=
11%)
is significantly less than the percentage of interns who taught fewer than =
four
times in Fall 2004 (28%),
Survey Results: Attitudes Toward Sc=
ience
and Science Teaching
In the Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 se=
mesters,
the SCIE 376 interns were assessed with Likert-scale items (strongly agree,
agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) about their attitudes toward
science and science teaching. Table
2 and Table 3, below, show the data for these survey items. The internsR=
17;
“strongly agree” and “agree” responses have been
combined (under “agree”) and the interns’
“disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses have b=
een
combined (under “disagree”).
One parti=
cularly
interesting shift is the positive, statistically significant pre/post shift=
in
the percentage of interns who like science, which occurred in both the Fall
2005 and Spring 2006 semesters.
Another interesting result is the encouraging (although not
statistically significant) pre/post shift in the degree to which the interns
were scared by the idea of teaching science. Finally, after a single semester of
inquiry-based science teaching, interns from both semesters shifted
significantly (toward smaller percentages) in their belief that the ability=
to
do well in science is a natural ability.
Table 2<= o:p>
Attitudes
Toward Science and Science Teaching:
Fall 2005
|
|
Pre (80 students) |
Post (75 students) |
Chi-square |
||||
|
Statement |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
|
|
Some
students have a natural talent for science, and some do not |
47% |
40% |
13% |
40% |
28% |
32% |
7.8, p< 0.05 |
|
The id=
ea of
teaching science scares me. |
19% |
26% |
55% |
8% |
20% |
72% |
5.7, p> 0.05 |
|
I like
science. |
61% |
21% |
18% |
77% |
17% |
5% |
6.7, p< 0.05 |
Table 3<= o:p>
Attitudes
Toward Science and Science Teaching:
Spring 2006=
|
|
Pre (109 students) |
Post (93 students) |
Chi-square |
||||
|
Statement |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
|
|
Some
students have a natural talent for science, and some do not |
38% |
38% |
24% |
1% |
11% |
88% |
64.4, p< 0.001 |
|
The id=
ea of
teaching science scares me. |
19% |
25% |
56% |
9% |
12% |
79% |
5.7, p> 0.05 |
|
I like
science. |
54% |
29% |
17% |
74% |
12% |
4% |
6.7, p< 0.05 |
Observation
Results: Science Teaching at the Field Experience Sites
To assess the degree to which the
interns’ science lessons were inquiry-focused, our TIR (Ms. Tirocchi =
or
Ms. Renwick, depending on the project year) conducted two observations per
course section. For each
observation, the TIR would choose an intern at random and then observe that
intern’s entire science lesson, during which time she would make notes
about the intern’s lesson and the elementary students’
responses. A day or two within
observing each lesson, our TIR coded her observations with a standards-based
observation protocol that had been developed by the project team. This method of observation and data
coding was used to collect baseline data during Fall 2004 (the semester
immediately before course reforms were introduced), and to collect follow-up
data during subsequent semesters.
Because SCIE 376 interns are novices at science teaching, the
observations were coded for intent toward inquiry as well as for success at
implementation.
Tables 4-6 contain the “lesson
intent” data that resulted from the observations of the interns’
science lessons. Originally, each lesson characteristic was rated on=
a 0
(very traditional) to 5 (very inquiry-oriented) scale for each lesson. Ratings at the 0 or 1 level were
relabeled as “traditional”, denoting that the particular lesson
characteristic was aligned with traditional teaching methods. Ratings at th=
e 2
or 3 level were relabeled as “mixed”, denoting that the particu=
lar
lesson characteristic contained aspects of both traditional and inquiry
teaching methods. Ratings at =
the 4
or 5 level were relabeled as “inquiry”, denoting that the
particular lesson characteristic was aligned with inquiry teaching methods.=
Table 4<= o:p>
Number
of Interns’ Lessons Demonstrating Science Content (Traditional) vs.
Investigating Science Content (Inquiry)
|
|
Baseline (11 lessons) |
Spring 2005 (14 lessons) |
Fall 2005 (10 lessons) |
Spring 2006 (14 lessons) |
Traditional<= o:p> |
9 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
Mixture of
Traditional and Inquiry
|
0 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
Inquiry
|
2 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
Table
5
Number
of Interns’ Lessons Focused on Getting an Answer (Traditional) vs.
Developing an Explanation (Inquiry)
|
|
Baseline (11 lessons) |
Spring 2005 (14 lessons) |
Fall 2005 (10 lessons) |
Spring 2006 (14 lessons) |
Traditional
|
8 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
Mixture of Traditional and Inquiry
|
1 |
0 |
2 |
10 |
Inquiry
|
2 |
9 |
4 |
3 |
Table
6
Number
of Interns’ Lessons Focus on Providing Answers (Traditional) vs.
Communicating Science Ideas (Inquiry)
|
|
Baseline (11 lessons) |
Spring 2005 (14 lessons) |
Fall 2005 (10 lessons) |
Spring 2006 (14 lessons) |
Traditional
|