Promise and Problems of Learning Progression-guided Interventions Hui Jin, Hyo Jeong Shin, Michele...
-
Upload
julian-palmer -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
3
Transcript of Promise and Problems of Learning Progression-guided Interventions Hui Jin, Hyo Jeong Shin, Michele...
Promise and Problems of Learning Progression-guided Interventions
Hui Jin, Hyo Jeong Shin, Michele Johnson, Jinho Kim
Overview
Carbon Cycle Teaching Experiment: Using knowledge of photosynthesis & cellular respiration to explain plant growth Tracing matter Tracing energy Connecting scales
Motivations Validation LPs vs. Evolutionary LPs (Duschl, Maeng, & Sezen,
2011). Evolutionary LPs can be aimed at either knowledge enrichment or conceptual change depending on “different conditions of prior knowledge” (Chi, 2009).
Conceptual change-oriented learning progression Very few learning progression studies explore teacher’s role in
interventions (e.g. Furtak, 2012; Thompson, Braaten, & Windschitl, 2012). Teachers are agents who enact curriculum in class.
Explore teachers’ role in LP-guided interventions.
Research Questions
Student Outcomes: What are students’ learning outcomes in an intervention guided by a conceptual change-oriented Learning Progression Framework (LPF)? What learning difficulties do students have?
Teacher Knowledge: How do we develop LPF-based measures of teachers’ CK (content knowledge) and PCK (Pedagogical content knowledge)? What is teachers’ achievement in the CK and PCK assessments?
Teachers’ Impact on Student Outcomes: Is teachers’ CK and PCK linked to students’ outcomes? How? What are some other factors affecting student outcomes?
Development Process
The LPF served as a guide in the design of a coordinated set of resources:1. Student Assessments
2. Teacher Assessment
3. Teaching unit
4. Professional Development programs and resources
Level 1. Force-dynamic Reasoning
Level 2. Hidden Mechanisms Reasoning
Level 4. Tracing Matter; Tracing Energy; Connecting Scales
Level 3. Reasoning about Matter and Energy
UnsuccessfullyPlant Growth
1) Plants gaining mass2) Gas exchange (CO2
and O2)
Phenomena
Explanation Practice:Learning Progression
Framework (LPF)
1. Student Assessment7 Tracing Matter Items3 Tracing Energy Items4 Connecting Scales Items
2. Teacher AssessmentCK Items: 6PCK Items: Analyze responses at Levels 1, 2, and 3; 3 Knowledge of student thinking items; 3 Next instructional move items
To engage students in scientific practices
Level 1. Force-dynamic Reasoning
Level 2. Hidden Mechanisms Reasoning
Level 4. Tracing Matter; Tracing Energy; Connecting
ScalesLevel 3. Reasoning about
Matter and Energy Unsuccessfully
Explanation PracticeLearning Progression
Framework (LPF) To promote conceptual change
Tracing Matte
r;
Tracing Energy
Connecting Scales
3. TEACHING UNIT
4. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
http://www.pathwaysproject.kbs.msu.edu/?page_id=59
Data Sources & Analysis Research Components
Student Outcomes
Teacher Knowledge
Teachers’ Impact on Student Outcomes
Data Pre- and post-assessments from students (2011-12: 605 students; 2012-13: 380 students)
CK & PCK assessments from teachers (2011-12: 120 teachers; 2012-13: 74 teachers)
Pre- and post-student assessments (2011-12: 598 students; 2012-13: 380 students)
CK & PCK assessments from teachers who taught these students (2011-12: 15 teachers; 2012-13: 10 teachers)
Feedback forms from 11 teachers who were identified as low-performing/high-performing teachers
Analyses Use LPF to code data
Apply IRT Analyses to the coding results
Use a LPF-based PCK Rubric to code data
Apply IRT Analyses to the coding results
Qualitative & Quantitative Analyses
LPF-based PCK Rubrics Levels Teacher Responses Alignment
with the student LPF
4. Targeting the transition from naïve ideas to scientific big ideas
A student responds, “Along with soil, plants use carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to help them make food.”Which of the following question would you ask next? b. Where does carbon dioxide go? b. By asking where the CO2 goes during the process, I am looking to see if students understand that carbon is the backbone of organic molecules. I am a little uncomfortable asking where plants get food as that might lead students to think about fertilizer as food.
Level 4 understanding of the LPF & understanding of students’ ideas at Levels 1, 2, & 3 of the LPF.
3. Targeting scientific big ideas
a. How is your explanation related to photosynthesis? My looking at photosynthesis one will need to answer the other questions. The formula for photosynthesis is a central theme to the question.
Level 4 understanding at the LPF
2. Content-specific approach
In a lesson on food, students debate whether or not water is food for plants. Which one of the following would be the best next instructional step? b. Cut open a cactus to show students that water is stored inside. This would show the storage of water, thus using it for food.
Level 3 understanding of the LPF.
1. Content general approach
D. Have students observe two plants, only one of which is watered, over a period of a week. It is an experiment and has results
Findings
Student Outcomes
Teacher Knowledge
Teachers’ Impact on student outcomes
Student Learning Gains
IRT Analyses
Pre Post Gain
2011-12
-0.38 0.40 0.72**
2012-13
-0.42 0.75 1.17**
Distribution of Students’ Responses
** p<0.001
Teacher Knowledge: General Pattern
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 40.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
2.8%
10.5%
25.2%
61.5%
6.5%
14.3%
31.2%
48.1%
CKPCK
CK
PCK
Teacher Knowledge: The Most Difficult ItemsCK PCK
Teacher Knowledge: The most difficult PCK items
The easiest item (Identifying incorrect description of content): During a discussion about how plants and animals get energy, one student says, “I know animals break down food to get energy, but I don’t think plants break down food for energy because they get light energy from the Sun.” What, if anything, is wrong with this student’s statement?
The most difficult item (Identifying naïve ideas of students): A teacher asks students where plants get their food. A student responds, “Along with soil, plants use carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to help them make food.” In order to find out more fully how the student’s ideas of how matter is transformed when plants grow, which of the following question would you ask next?
Teacher Knowledge and Student Learning Gains
The association of teacher knowledge and student learning gains is statistically significant Teachers with average knowledge level (combined CK &
PCK scores) produced a significant learning gain in their students: 0.59 logits (p<0.001) for 2011-12 1.13 logits (p<0.001) for 2012-13
Teachers who had one logit higher knowledge produced an additional increase in student learning gain: 0.36 logits (p<0.001) for 2011-12 0.34 logits (p<0.001) for 2012-13.
Identify High/Low performing Teachers
Zero learning gain
Average learning gain
2011-12 Data
Identify High/Low performing Teachers
Zero learning gain
Average learning gain
2012-13 Data
Compare High-performing teachers with low-performing teachers
Feedback forms from 7 High performing teachers & 4 Low performing teachers Low-performing teachers taught 6, 7, or 8 lessons High-performing teachers taught 10 or 11 lessons Teacher H1 (highest learning gain) taught only 5 activities,
but produced the highest learning gain in 2012-13. Feedback from suggests that the teacher used similar activities to replace activities in the curriculum
The coverage of curriculum is positively associated with student learning gains.
Implications
The LPF was the basis for developing an intervention that enabled students to learn significant knowledge and practices in an important domain.
We developed LPF-based measures of teachers’ CK and PCK, and those independently contributed to students’ learning.
Teachers’ classroom practices also made a difference, at least in terms of the coverage of curriculum. We are currently analyzing teachers’ classroom teaching videos to examine how teaching practice affect learning outcomes.
Questions?
Find manuscript, presentations, curriculum and PD resources at: www.pathwaysproject.kbs.msu.edu
Further questions, contact: Hui Jin: [email protected]; Michele Johnson:
This grant was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant number DUE-0832173. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NSF.