Title : Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialists ... · Title : Expansion of K-6 NGSS...

Title: Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialists Program Principal Investigators: William Becker, PSU Center for Science Education, Principal Investigator Carol Biskupic Knight, Portland Metro STEM Partnership, Co-Principal Investigator Table of Contents: 1b. Abstract 1c. List of Partners

PSU, District Partners (4), Oregon Regional STEM Hub (4), Contractors (2), Business Partners (6)

1d. Statements of Commitment 1e. Signed Assurances (4)

1. Beaverton School District 2. Hillsboro School District 3. Forest Grove School District 4. Portland Public School District

1f. Documentation showing that equitable by the partner school districts 1g. Evidence that the partnership meets the eligibility requirements 1h. Partner Vitae or Resume William Becker (Principal Investigator)

Carol Biskupic Knight (Co-Principal Investigator) Ohkee Lee (grant consultant)

2. Partnership Narrative ............................................................................................................... 1 3. Evaluation Plan ........................................................................................................................ 26 4. Budget Worksheet and Budget Narrative ............................................................................. 31 5. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 40

1. Percentage of 5th Grade Students Meeting Science Performance Assessments for 2013-2014 2. Teacher Needs Assessment Survey Results 3. Portland Metro STEM Partnership Common Measures Logic Model 4. Partner Roles 5. Number of Grant Participant Slots for Each Region 6. Alignment of Professional Development Content to Oregon Diploma Requirements 7. Citations/Bibliography

1b. ABSTRACT Portland State University Center for Science Education

Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialist Program

With the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards as the 2014 Oregon Science Standards, the need for effective professional development in science at the elementary level is critical. The goal of this project is to expand the K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialist Program through a collaborative partnership among Oregon STEM hubs and their partnering school districts: Portland Metro STEM Partnership, South Metro Salem STEM Partnership, the Oregon Coast Regional STEM Hub, and the emerging East Metro STEM Partnership/Early Learning Hub. The expansion of the NGSS K-6 Science Instructional Specialist Program has the potential to serve up to 615 teachers (the 75 grant participants and up to 540 teachers taking the NGSS content courses that are part of this program). These teachers are from elementary schools from six counties encompassing 15 school districts enrolling over 133,000 students, or approximately 45% of the elementary students in Oregon.

Participating teachers will be engaged in three components of professional development: (1) NGSS content courses focus on the development of science content knowledge, (2) NGSS workshops focus on pedagogical content knowledge and curricular content knowledge, and (3) NGSS seminars focus on leadership, equity, and use of language in the science classroom. Like the NGSS standards, the three NGSS professional development components fit together coherently, build on each other, and help grant participants develop proficiency in effective science instruction. Additionally, grant participants will explore science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular content knowledge through the lens of leadership, equity, and use of language in the science classroom in all three professional development components.

All professional development components utilize rich classroom enactments, collaborative learning within professional learning teams, and digitally-supported learning opportunities, following the recommendations of Reiser (2013) on the characteristics of effective NGSS-aligned professional development. Underserved students will be examined through the lens of Dr. Ohkee Lee, grant consultant, who brings expertise in addressing equity through the use of language in the science classroom.

Upon completion of the program, grant participants will receive 240 instructional hours of graduate level coursework for a total of 24 credits from Portland State University. In addition, the project will seek to more strongly connected the STEM hubs, including developing new partnerships among schools and community-based organizations, build a collection of field-tested digital learning resources to support the NGSS Instructional Specialists in working with other teachers, and capture processes that supported the expansion of the NGSS K-6 Instructional Specialists Program, including participant recruitment strategies and online delivery systems for reaching more teachers across the state.

1c. List of Partners Mathematics and Science (MSP) Partnership List of Partners

The following individuals and/or organizations have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their part in implementing the MSP plan proposed in this grant application:

Name Title Organization Role/Responsibilities

1. Brian Landoe Grants and Agreements Analyst

Portland State University

Fiscal agent; managing grant funds;

2. Jeff Rose Superintendent Beaverton School District

Recruitment, Dissemination and Data Collection Support

3. Mike Scott Superintendent Hillsboro School District


4. Yvonne Curtis Superintendent Forest Grove School District


5. Carole Smith Superintendent Portland Public Schools


6. William Becker Director Portland Metro STEM Partnership

Personnel, Programming and Assessment Management

7. Mateo Aboy Vice President for Research

South Metro Salem Partnership Hub

Recruitment, hosting and logistical support

8. Bridget Ryslinge Chair, STEM Steering Committee

Oregon Coast Hub Recruitment, hosting and logistical support

9. Dr. Linda Florence Superintendent Reynolds School District

East Multnomah County School District Partner (emerging hub)

10. Okhee Lee Professor of Science Education

New York University NGSS Consultant on Equity and Professional Development

11. Joan Pasco Principal The Pasco Group External Evaluator

12. Aubrey Clark Education Relations Manager

Intel Recruitment and Support of Science Professionals

13. Susan Shugerman Assistant VP of Education

Oregon Health Science Institute

Recruitment and Support of Science Professionals from

14. Maureen Fallt Talent Management Consultant

Portland General Electric

Recruitment and Support of Science Professionals

15. David Vernier CEO Vernier Recruitment and Support of Science Professionals

16. Darrin Marks Director of Student Programs

Business Education Compact


17. Barbara Jorgensen Superintendent MESD Outdoor School


A signed commitment form is required for each individual listed.

1

Part 2: Project Narrative

2a. Needs Assessment

The need for effective professional development in science at the elementary level is

compelling. According to data from the Oregon Department of Education Data Explorer website,

for the 2013-14 school year only 67% of students in 29 potential partnering districts across the

three STEM Hub regions are meeting 5th grade science performance standards (range: 35% -

87%), with seven districts falling at or below 60% meeting expectations (Appendix 1). The data

is more disturbing at the student subgroup level:

Subgroup Average Range # districts ≤ 60%

Female (vs. Male) 64% (vs. 69%) 32 – 86% (vs. 45 – 88%) 10

Economic Disadvantage 57% 27 – 81% 18

Students w/ Disabilities 34% 9 – 71% 28

The data for subgroups based on race/ethnicity shows similar disparities:

Racial/Ethnic Subgroup Average Range # districts ≤ 60%

White 74% 50 – 89% 5

Black/African American 44% 14 – 67% 6 (out of 7 with data)

Hispanic 47% 23 – 77% 21 (out of 25 with data)

Other 60% 28 – 91% 10 (out of 20 with data)

Given the data at the student subgroup level, the need for professional development

targeted not only at science content, but at effective approaches for addressing equity disparities,

creating equitable learning opportunities for all students in science, and closing the opportunity

gap is critical.

2

According to a survey sent to districts served by the three regional STEM hubs and

answered by 303 teachers representing 12 districts, 73% of teachers reported having insufficient

professional development aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards, 63% indicated that

they had insufficient science content coursework at the grade level they teach, and 65% indicated

that they have insufficient training in how to teach engineering practices. In addition, 68%

expressed a need for additional training on assessing student achievement in science. For the

complete survey results, see Appendix 2. Finally, few districts have instructional science

specialists specifically trained to support science instruction at the elementary level. Only two

districts out of the 12 contacted have such a position identified in the regions served by the three

STEM hubs.

The transition to rigorous Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and recent adoption of

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as the 2014 Oregon Science Standards requires

innovative approaches to both teaching and learning, for educators and students alike. Educators

must increase their content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and

curricular content knowledge (CCK) in order to foster the acquisition of critical and higher order

thinking skills, promote depth of knowledge, inspire academically productive discourse, and set

a clear purpose for learning through authentic connections within and beyond the classroom

setting for all students. The goals and objectives of this project are in direct alignment with

professional development that builds the capacity of teachers to provide effective science

instruction, resulting in student achievement gains. The project is consistent with the Portland

Metro STEM Partnership (PMSP) theory of change (Appendix 3).

3

2b. Research Base

With the advent of the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research

Council, 2012) and the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), schools are

challenged to enact a radically different vision for teaching and learning science. This new

vision of teaching and learning is built around three interrelated and connected dimensions,

intended to make science more meaningful and learning more effective:

1. Practices: Describes the broad range of cognitive, social, and physical practices that

scientists and engineers use as they develop explanatory ideas and models through

investigations for the purpose of explaining phenomena and solving problems

2. Crosscutting Concepts: Identifies key concepts that cut across science disciplines to

provide greater coherence and a scientifically-based view of the world

3. Disciplinary Core Ideas: Recognizes key content for in-depth learning that has broad

importance, connected to societal or personal concerns, be teachable/learnable over

multiple grades at increasing levels of depth and sophistication, and/or provides a key

tool for understanding or investigating complex ideas.

(http://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions)

Project elements were selected and designed to incorporate theories from peer reviewed

research and principles developed by Reiser (2013) who identified seven shifts in teacher

knowledge and practice as a result of NGSS:

Traditional Approach NGSS Shift in Practice

Lessons are based on Topics pursued sequentially

Questions arising from phenomena

Investigations are used to

Test hypothesis Guide construction of explanatory models

4

Answers to science investigations focus on

Explaining how two variables are related

Helping to construct an explanatory account

Students see learning science as

Going on to the next topic Answering exploratory questions

Teaching is focused on Procedural skills in doing experiments

Building knowledge on all aspects of science/engineering practices

Class focus is on Textbooks and teachers presenting ideas

Argumentation and reaching consensus about ideas

Classroom culture promotes

Learning what they are told and waiting for answers

Working together to figure out and learn

According to Reiser’s review of research in shifts in teaching practices, effective

professional development to increase student achievement has the following characteristics:

embedded and deeply connected to the subject matter (Garet, et al., 2001; Putman & Borko,

2000); involves active learning, sensemaking, and problem solving (Garet et al., 2001; Roth et

al., 2011); strongly connected to the teachers’ own practice (Garet et al., 2001) and provides

support to apply ideas for changing practice (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Putman & Borko, 2000;

Heller et al., 2012); and is part of a coherent system of support (Garet et al., 2001) that includes

teachers’ goals and changes in standards, assessments, and curricular materials associated with

reform efforts (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Wilson, 2013).

To address the demands of the NGSS and to align professional development to the key

research-based characteristics described above, this project will incorporate the following

recommendations for NGSS-connected professional development as proposed by Reiser:

Recommendation What it looks like

1. Engage teacher learning through rich images of classroom enactments

• Teachers analyzing video case studies, vignettes of actual practice, observations of their own classroom learning environments

• Cases are situated in the classroom and applied to individual

5

context • Focus on NGSS expectations such as creating sense-making

models, engaging in explanations and arguments and analyzing student thinking

• Evidences the progression of learning as articulated by NGSS

2. Structure teacher learning through collaborative approaches

• Models the collaborative learning expectations of NGSS • Teachers working together in sense-making opportunities • Teachers participate in NGSS-aligned learning such as

engaging in analysis and argumentation around reform issues and application of reforms to their practices

• Focuses on “knowledge-in-use” rather than abstract decontextualized knowledge

• Promotes self- and group reflection

3. Utilizes digital learning environments

• Access to digital resources including video case studies, video presentations by experts, example curricular materials, descriptions and resources associated with classroom enactments including sample student work

• Support of ongoing (online) communication and discourse among peers and between teachers and experts

• Cultivate Communities of Practice/Professional Learning Communities

The adoption of NGSS, along with Common Core State Standards in English Language

Arts, has created additional challenges for teachers as the student demographics continue to shift.

The US Census Bureau (2012) projects that school-age children from racial or ethnic minority

backgrounds will become the collective numeric majority within the next decade. In addition, the

fastest growing student population in the nation is English language learners (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2012). Quinn & colleagues (2012) argue that four of the eight NGSS

science and engineering practices pose particular challenges for teachers with respect to

scientific sense-making and language use:

The 8 NGSS Science & Engineering Practices (most challenging in bold)

Reasons for selected as most challenging

1. Asking questions (for science) and • Practices represent a major shift in teaching,

6

defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational

thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science)

and developing designs (for engineering)

7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating and

communicating information

especially at the lower grade levels • Practices are strongly connected with each

other, requiring an integrated and coherent approach

• Practices require students to engage in science discourse utilizing both receptive and productive language skills

• Teachers need an understanding of both the NGSS practices and strategies for engaging students regardless of the students’ English language proficiency

Given NGSS, the critical role of language in science learning and teaching impacts not

only English-language learners, but all students and the role of the teacher. Teachers must have

strong understanding of “language in use”, the unique challenges posed by the “language of the

science classroom”, and the role of the teacher to advance both science learning and language

acquisition (Lee et al., 2013; Quinn et al., 2102). The power of language and the power of

science can be leveraged together to support each other, but only if teachers have the necessary

knowledge and skills to do so. The research on effective strategies to promote and facilitate

productive and deep discourse is growing. Michaels and O’Connor (in press) identify the goals

of such discourse, the practical challenges, implications for teacher professional development,

and review of specific tools, strategies and digital resources available (e.g., Talk Moves and the

web-based Talk Science! project for elementary teachers).

This project incorporates the effective professional development practices and lessons

learned from the Connect2Math-Connect2Science MSP grant, the Next Generation Science

Exemplar Project (NGSX) and PMSP STEM Teacher Academy programming. The following

take-aways will direct the grant programming:

A. Focus on science content knowledge embedded in practices central to developing

scientific and engineering proficiency in teachers

7

B. Attend to both content and pedagogy and the ways in which pedagogy can support the

learning of content

C. Provide on-going support with opportunities to do more science, collaborate with

peers, refine lessons/units, analyze student work and reflect on practice

D. Connect the use of language and productive academic talk with robust student

learning

E. Incorporate equity and culturally relevant practices into instruction

F. Impact change in teacher practice by focusing on what is implemented in

the classroom after teachers complete professional development versus what is

modeled in the professional development

Finally, the development of NGSS included a focus on addressing issues of diversity and

equity. The NGSS Diversity and Equity Team conducted bias reviews of the NGSS, developed

resources including case studies for teacher learning, and worked to assure diversity and equity

were addressed throughout the NGSS Appendices (Lee et al., 2014). Dr. Okhee Lee was the lead

for this team and is a consultant for this project.

2c. Plan of Work

The overarching goal of this project is to increase the number of well-trained science

content specialists at the K-6 level to better serve teachers and their students. The Center for

Science and Education (CSE) is in the Portland State University (PSU) College of Liberal Arts

and Sciences and is the facilitating unit for the University’s participation in the Portland Metro

STEM Partnership (PMSP), an Oregon regional STEM hub. Additional collaborating STEM

hubs include the South Metro Salem STEM Partnership, the Oregon Coast Regional STEM Hub,

8

and the emerging East Metro STEAM Partnership/Early Learning Hub. The STEM hubs will

provide recruitment, logistical, and communication support within their regions.

The expansion of the NGSS K-6 Science Instructional Specialist Program has the

potential to serve up to 615 teachers (the 75 grant participants and up to 540 teachers taking the

NGSS content courses that are part of this program). These teachers are from elementary schools

from six counties encompassing 15 school districts enrolling over 133,000 students, or

approximately 45% of the elementary students in Oregon.

Project Objectives

Needs assessment data and partner input were the basis for identifying the six primary project

objectives.

1. Expand the capacity of Oregon STEM hubs and partnering districts to provide NGSS

science content specialists at the elementary level by increasing the number of teachers

participating in high quality science content-based professional development

2. Measurably increase the science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and

curricular content knowledge of participating teachers

3. Measurably increase student achievement in science in the classrooms of participating

teachers

4. Measurably increase teachers’ understanding of the role of language in creating equitable

learning opportunities in science for all students

5. Develop digital learning opportunities and resources for use in Professional Learning

Teams for teachers and professional learning communities among the Oregon STEM

hubs and other project partners

9

6. Establish sustainable partnerships between the Oregon STEM hubs, participating school

districts, institutions of higher education, science professionals, and community-based

organizations including businesses

Project Theory of Action

The theory of action is built off of the PMSP Common Measurements System which

includes a detailed logic model, adapted for this project (Figure 1 below). The logic model will

be used to guide project design, implementation and evaluation. All linkages in Figure 1 indicate

past research has demonstrated a relationship between variables in the STEM Common

Measurement System and student achievement (Saxton et al., 2012).

Figure 1 (next page)

10

As shown in the logic model, by focusing teacher professional development on content

knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular content knowledge, the project will

develop 75 NGSS Science Instructional Specialists, with the in-depth knowledge needed for

changing their classroom practices to improve student achievement.

Dr. Lee will work with the PMSP and PSU staff to provide course development support

that addresses instruction, curriculum and assessment challenges, utilizing her research-based

expertise on equity and the use of language to advance student science achievement. She will

also support implementation and refinement of the professional development components of the

Professional Development

Educator Practices

Student Learning

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Instructional Practices

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Content Knowledge

Curricular Content Knowledge

Supportive Teacher-Student

Relationships

Academic Identity

Motivational Resilience

Higher-Order Cognitive Skills

Application of Conceptual Knowledge

Logic Model Key: Established direct relationship Hypothesized relationship

Expansion of NGSS K-6 Science Instructional Specialists Program Logic Model

11

project and the development of digital resources on language use within science classrooms. For

a more detail description of partner roles, see Appendix 4.

Professional Development Components:

Grant participants will experience three formats of professional development: NGSS

Instructional Specialist Workshops, NGSS Content Courses, and NGSS Instructional Specialist

Seminars.

Professional Development Components Areas of Focus

Instructional Specialist Workshops (30 instructional hours/3 cr. each) Academic years of 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17

NGSS Physical Science Progression NGSS Earth-Space Science Progression NGSS Life Science Progression

NGSS Content Courses (Portland State University/Center for Science Education) (40 instructional hours/4 cr. each) Summers 2015, 2016, and 2017

NGSS-Energy and Matter NGSS-Change Over Time NGSS-Interactions and Systems

NGSS Instructional Specialists Seminars (10 instructional hours/1 cr. each) Academic years of 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17

• Instructional shifts in the NGSS scientific and engineering practices

• Addressing diversity and equity through language for learning

• NGSS disciplinary core idea learning progressions

• Aligning assessments to the NGSS performance expectations

• Facilitating Professional Learning Teams

All three components will have engineering and science practices embedded in the

content delivery. The NGSS Content Course series will focus on the development of science

content knowledge, within the context of pedagogical content knowledge and curricular content

knowledge. The Instructional Specialists workshops and seminars will focus on pedagogical

content knowledge and curricular content knowledge within the context of science content

knowledge. Grant participants will have the flexibility of selecting the order of completion for

12

each course in the NGSS Content Course series. Upon completion of the program, grant

participants will have received 240 instructional hours of graduate level coursework for a total of

24 credits from Portland State University.

The Instructional Specialists Workshops will increase the conceptual understanding

around the scientific phenomena and engineering content of the disciplinary core ideas, scientific

and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts of the NGSS appropriate at the elementary

level while developing understanding of the K-12 learning progressions as identified in the NRC

Framework for Science Education and Appendix E of the NGSS. This approach creates a clear

pathway to college and career readiness in science. The workshops will have a strong focus on

teacher pedagogical content knowledge and curricular content knowledge. Taught by nationally

recognized Teachers on Special Assignments from the PMSP, these workshops will provide

participating teachers with the needed supports to provide effective science learning

environments for their students.

The NGSS Content Course series is a PSU-developed and field tested three-course

sequence designed to build teachers’ science content understanding around the crosscutting

concepts of the NGSS, directly linked to the learning progressions (including engineering and

technology content) and performance expectations delineated in the NRC Framework for K-12

Science Education and the NGSS. The courses address three content strands: Matter and Energy,

Change Over Time, and Systems and Interactions. Course series will utilize a “hybrid” format

combining face-to-face workshops with six digital learning labs, which are focused on

developing knowledge to answer the essential questions featured in the NRC Framework. The

instructors for the NGSS content courses are PSU faculty who are content area specialists,

13

having received professional development training in the NRC Framework, the NGSS, and best

practices pedagogy of elementary teacher instruction.

The NGSS Instructional Specialists Seminars will focus on instructional and curricular

implications of NGSS such as the shifts in NGSS scientific and engineering practices, learning

progressions of disciplinary core ideas, aligning assessments to NGSS performance expectations,

and crosscutting concepts supporting the integration of NGSS with CCSS in ELA and

Mathematics. Seminars will support teachers in connecting the science content knowledge

gained in the content courses with the pedagogical content knowledge acquired in the workshops

to further develop curricular content knowledge. In addition, the seminars will explore creating

equitable learning environments for all students through the role of language use within the

science classroom and effective practices for facilitating Professional Learning Teams (PLTs).

In line with the research stated above, the three professional development components

will engage teachers in making sense of science content and instruction through three modalities:

(1) utilizing rich classroom enactments, (2) participating in collaborative learning opportunities,

and (3) employing digitally-supported learning. These modalities cut across each of the

components and include explicit modeling of NGSS expectations for student learning, placing

the teacher in the role of the NGSS student. The three modalities are also intertwined and cross-

supporting. This approach is modeled after the NGSX Professional Learning System that is

showing preliminary evidence of effectiveness (http://ngsx.org). The table below describes each

modality in more detail.

Modality Description of Activities

Rich Classroom Enactments

Use video case studies and vignettes to: • Explore instructional shifts and learning progressions of the

NGSS • Analyze and deconstruct NGSS-aligned science instruction

14

• Interact with science phenomena • Develop sense-making models • Engage in explanation through argumentation • Analyze student thinking within a classroom setting • Reflect on instructional practices and learning environments • Apply new learning to individual teaching contexts

Collaborative learning within Professional Learning Teams (PLTs)

Use face-to-face and distance PLTs to: • Iteratively evaluate, modify and ultimately develop new lessons,

resulting in increased content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular content knowledge

• Explore scientific models as a means of interpreting or explaining scientific concepts

• Engage in productive discourse with colleagues around the application of effective instructional practices

Digitally-Supported Learning

Incorporate technology and digital video materials to: • Digitally capture the work of Okhee Lee, the NGSS content

courses, and science professionals • Develop asynchronous learning opportunities as part of the

NGSS Instructional Specialists courses, workshops, and seminars

• Facilitate virtual mentorships with STEM industry partners • Support online communities of practice and professional

learning teams • Collaborate across geographic locations for the purpose of

expanding the distribution of expertise in science curriculum, instruction, and assessment

Through collaborative learning opportunities within each of the professional development

components, participating teachers will work together in professional learning teams (PLTs) to

remove barriers of success and ensure effective implementation of content and instructional

practices to support student achievement. The structure of the PLTs will be aligned to participant

needs and project outcomes, with consideration of geographic location and/or demographic

characteristics.

During the third year of the grant, grant participants will work with their school and/or

district administrators and professional development leadership to determine the dissemination

and delivery format for the district/school's specific NGSS implementation plan. By the third

15

year of the project, grant participants will have the capacity and self-efficacy to facilitate NGSS

aligned professional development and PLTs to reach additional teachers, to impact even more

students.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Grant participants will be recruited from public and private elementary schools in the

regions served by project STEM hubs. Each hub will be allocated a specific number of slots

based on the population density of each region (Appendix 5). An attempt will be made to cluster

participants in grade-level groups and distribute the clusters geographically. Recruitment and

selection will be conducted through the regional STEM hubs, using a central online application

process and in collaboration with the partnering districts. Selection criteria will include

participants having at least three years of classroom experience and demonstrating leadership and

service potential through a written personal commitment testimony. Priority efforts will focus on

recruiting teachers of color and teachers who support high numbers of students of color. In

addition, applicants will submit an assurance of collaboration statement from their principal.

The grant participants will be provided with stipends totaling $3,600 paid out in six $600

installments over two and one half years of participation. They will receive 240 hours of direct

instruction and earn 24 graduate science credits from PSU. Tuition costs will be paid via district

or school tuition reimbursement programs, or in the absence of these programs through the grant.

Participants who successfully complete all components of the NGSS Science professional

development program will receive a Letter of Completion from the PSU Center for Science

Education and the Portland Metro STEM Partnership stating that they have completed all of the

requirements necessary to be designated as an NGSS K-6 Instructional Specialist.

16

Given the number of respondents to the needs assessment survey, the PSU NGSS content

courses will be open to additional teachers who will be recruited via e-mail solicitations to both

private and public school principals from the collaborating regional STEM hubs. In addition,

teacher certification programs will be notified so that pre-service elementary teachers can

participate. The content courses will be offered during the academic year and in the summer at

locations served by each of the Hubs, to minimize the travel burden for the participants. Based

on course taking rates from previous work, we anticipate up to 180 teachers annually (20

teachers for each of the three courses, from the three regions), totaling up to 540 teachers over

the course of the project.

The timeline below shows the work of the partners including participant recruitment,

professional development delivery, assessment and evaluation key tasks, and required reporting.

Timeline Project Activity Assignments

Year 1: December 1, 2014- September 30, 2015

Nov. 2014 Attend Fall MSP Directors Meeting PI, CPI

Dec. 2014 Notify Key Partners of Funding, Review MOU PI, CPI, PC

Dec. 2014 Grant Staff Orientation, Implement Project Work Plan PI, CPI, PC

Dec. 2014 Finalize Project Assessment and Evaluation Protocols PI, CPI, AC, EE

Dec. 2014 Develop Project Overview for Recruitment:

Participant Criteria, Benefits, Responsibilities

PI, CPI, PC, UF, WD

Jan. 2015 Begin Participant Recruitment (see regional distribution) PC, RH, TOSAs

Jan.-Feb. 2015 Review & Refine PD: Seminar I, Instructional Specialist Course A, NGSS Content Courses

PI, CPI, AC, UF, PC, WD, GC

Jan.-Feb. 2015 Determine Technology and Content Supports for Web-Enhanced PD and Communication Platforms

PC, WD, GC, TS

Feb. 2015 Assemble PLT Cohorts: logistics, dates, stipends PC, RH

Feb. 2015 Begin Baseline Data Collection AC, EE

17


Feb. 2015 Write 1st Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE

Winter-Spring 2015

Deliver Instructional Specialist Seminar I

(10 instructional hours, 1 PSU graduate credit)

PC, SP, GP

Winter-Spring 2015

Deliver Instructional Specialist Workshop: Physical Science (30 instructional hours, 3 PSU graduate credits)

PC, WD, GP

April 2015 Collect, Analyze and Report Formative Data AC, EE

May 2015 Write 2nd Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE

May 2015 Attend Spring MSP Directors Meeting PI, CPI

Summer 2015 Deliver PSU Teachers Academy NGSS Content Courses

(40 instructional hours, 4 PSU graduate credits)

UF, GP, OE

Summer

2015

Conduct Collaborative Review of Project Goals, Objectives, Data, and Outcomes


July 2015 Collect, Analyze and Report Formative Data AC, EE

Aug. 2015 Submit 3rd Quarter Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE

Year 2: October 1, 2015- September 30, 2016

Fall 2015 Attend National MSP Meeting (Washington, DC) GS

Oct. 2015 Submit Year 1 Annual Performance Report PI, CPI, AC, EE


Fall 2015 Review & Refine PD: Seminar II, Instructional Specialist Course B


Fall 2015 Review/Update Technology and Content Supports for Web-Enhanced PD and Communication Platforms

PC, WD, GC, TS

Nov. 2015 Collect, Analyze and Report Formative Data AC, EE

Dec. 2015 Write 1st Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE

AY 2015-16 Deliver Instructional Specialist Seminar II


WD, GP, SP, PC,

AY 2015-16 Deliver Instructional Specialist Workshop: Earth-Space Science (30 instructional hours, 3 PSU graduate credits)

PC, WD, GP

Mar. 2016 Write 2nd Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE

18



May 2015 Collect, Analyze and Report Formative Data AC, EE

June 2016 Write 3rd Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE



UF, GP, OE

Summer 2016 Conduct Collaborative Review of Project Goals, Objectives, Data, and Outcomes


Year 3: October 1, 2016- September 30, 2017

Fall 2016 Attend National MSP Meeting (Washington, DC) GS


Fall 2016 Review & Refine PD: Seminar III, Instructional Specialist Course C


Fall 2016 Review/Update Technology and Content Supports for Web-Enhanced PD and Communication Platforms

PC, WD, GC, TS

Nov. 2016 Collect, Analyze and Report Formative Data AC, EE


Dec. 2016 Write 1st Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE

AY 2016-17 Deliver Instructional Specialist Seminar III


PC, GP, SP

AY 2016-17 Deliver Instructional Specialist Workshop: Life Science


WD, GP, PC

Mar. 2017 Write 2nd Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE


May 2017 Collect, Analyze and Report Formative Data AC, EE

June 2017 Write 3rd Quarter Internal Project Report PI, CPI, AC, EE



UF, GP, OE

Summer 2017 Conduct Final Project Assessment & Evaluation Activities

PI, CPI, AC, EE

19


June 2017 Attend Confederation of Oregon School Administrators Conference Presentation, Seaside Oregon

PI, CPI, SC, GP, WD

Sept. 2017 Final grant activities completed PI, CPI, AC, EE, PC


Nov. 2017 Submit Year 3 Final Claims- EGMS Grant Management System

PI, CPI, AC, EE, PC

Grant Staff (GS), STEM Regional Hubs (RH), Principal Investigator (PI), Co-Principal Investigator (CPI), Project Coordinator (PC), Assessment Coordinator (AC),

External Evaluator (EE), Grant Consultant on NGSS Equity and Language (GC), University Faculty (UF), Workshop Developer (WD), Science Professionals (SP), Technology Support (TS); NGSS Instructional Specialist Program Grant Participants (GP), Other Educators Participating in Summer NGSS Content Courses (OE)

Evaluation data will include both formative and summative data aligned to the project

objectives utilizing assessment instruments that have established validity and reliability, as

established by the PMSP Common Measures System and the state-level OAKS measures.

Formative data will be used to improve the project over time. Data will include a combination of

productivity and impact data. Data will be collected, reviewed and reported on a quarterly basis.

Annual reports will encompass all activities and outcomes achieved during that year.

2d. Alignment with the Oregon Academic Content Standards & Diploma Requirement

The design and content of each professional development course, workshop, and seminar

aligns to Next Generation Science Standards, supporting teachers in preparing students to meet

the Oregon Diploma requirements. The NGSS content courses are designed to provide teachers

with the knowledge and skills around all seven NGSS crosscutting concepts, eight engineering

and scientific practices, and the 13 disciplinary core ideas. These courses are discrete courses

20

that include teacher outcome measures for content knowledge and pedagogical content

knowledge based on the PMSP Common Measurement System.

The Instructional Specialist Pathway workshops and seminars, along with the NGSS

content courses, will provide grant participants with the unique experience of mastering the

science content knowledge and skills appropriate for teaching science at the elementary level

within the NGSS progressions that articulate increasing sophistication of student thinking which

culminate with college/career readiness. The workshops and seminars focus strongly on the

NGSS learning progressions that support the Oregon Diploma requirements. For a more detailed

alignment of course/workshop/seminar content to Oregon Diploma requirements, see table in

Appendix 6.

The partnership will use a collaborative review process to assure the alignment of the

academic content of the professional development activities to the academic content and

cognitive demand defined in the Oregon science academic content standards. This process will

involve the project leadership, instructors, project consultant, and assessment coordinator in a

one-day structured meeting at the start of the project, and repeated annually.

Within the structure of the seminars, participating teachers will identify how the

modeling of effective instructional practices aligns to their own implementation of effective

classroom instruction. Participating teachers will use the EQuIP science rubric (developed by

Achieve for NGSS) to assure alignment of curricular materials, resources, and lesson plans to the

NGSS. In addition, participating teachers will be involved in developing content specific

formative assessment probes aligned to the PMSP (student’s) Application of Conceptual

Knowledge rubric and the NGSS learning progressions. Participating teachers will also

experience, discuss, adapt and use existing formative student assessment resources within their

21

classrooms. As part of a feedback loop, the participating teachers will reflect on and debrief their

experiences within their learning cohort. This information will also be used to guide

modifications to courses/workshops/seminars.

Finally, formative assessment data collected by the evaluation coordinator will be used to

inform changes to the professional development content, activities, and approaches. Formative

data will be reviewed quarterly. All student assessments will be aligned to NGSS performance

expectations. All project assessments will be aligned to the project’s logic model and the PMSP

Common Measurements System.

2e. Management Capabilities

The PSU Office of Research and Strategic Partnerships (RSP) will be the fiscal agent and

provide award management services for the Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialist

Program. PSU receives and successfully administers approximately five hundred new/continuing

grants and contracts each year with annual research expenditures of more than $60 million. RSP

provide services throughout the full lifecycle of sponsored projects, including award acceptance

and negotiation, initiation and setup, funds management, and closeout. The directors and most of

the analysts and accountants in RSP are members of the National Council of Research

Administrators (NCURA) and attend the Council's annual trainings to stay informed on OMB

Circulars A-21, A-101, and A-133. Within RSP, the Office of Research Integrity houses entities

responsible for ensuring university compliance with state and federal regulations governing

research, such as the Institutional Review Board, that reviews and either allows or recommends

improvements for the protection of human and other subjects, and officers who monitor financial

conflicts of interest (FCOI). The timeline and evaluation plan indicate when quarterly and annual

22

reports will be submitted. An outside, independent evaluator will be engaged to ensure these

reports are submitted as required.

William Becker, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, is the Director of the PSU Center for

Science Education and the Executive Director of the Portland Metro STEM Partnership. He has

over 30 years of experience as a principal investigator on over 40 grants with combined budgets

in excess of $6 million. These include multi-year grants from the National Science Foundation,

the US Department of Education, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Oregon

Department of Education. Dr. Becker will be the lead grant administrator for fiscal, assessment

and personal matters. He will also coordinate the participation of the partnering Oregon Regional

STEM hubs.

Carol Biskupic Knight, M.Ed., Co-Principal Investigator, serves as the Beaverton

School District Elementary Science Curriculum Specialist and is the Director of the PMSP

STEM Teacher Academy. The STEM Teachers Academy administers over 25 courses and

enrolls over 300 teachers annually. Ms. Biskupic Knight has 28 years experience as a classroom

teacher of 1st-7th grades. She served as the program director of the 2010-2013 Title IIB MSP

“Connect2Math-Connect2Science” grant and was a member of the national and state Next

Generation Science Standards review and implementation teams. Ms. Biskupic Knight will

provide leadership and direction for the NGSS K-6 Instructional Specialist Program expansion.

Erika Hansen-Rudishauser, MAT, Project Coordinator , has an Oregon Teaching

License (K-8) with a Reading Specialist Endorsement (K-12) and an Oregon Administrators

License (K-12). She has 12 years of classroom teaching experience. Ms. Hansen-Rudishauser is

a professional development instructor for the Portland Metro STEM Partnership. She is the

recipient of the 2014 Oregon Science Teachers Association Outstanding Classroom Teacher’s

23

Award and was a 2013 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching

nominee. Ms. Hansen-Rudishauser will manage the day-to-day operations of the project and

coordinate the recruitment and participation of the project’s 75 Instructional Specialists/grant

participants. She will coordinate the Instructional Specialists Seminars and manage the

implementation and reporting timelines. She will also support the establishment of professional

learning teams in the third year of the project.

Okhee Lee, Ph.D., NGSS Equity and Language Consultant, is the Professor of

Childhood Education at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at

New York University. Her current research involves the scale-up of a model of a curricular and

teacher professional development to promote science learning and language development of

English language learners. She was a member of the writing team to develop the Next

Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and leader for the NGSS Diversity and Equity Team. Dr.

Lee is a 2009 Fellow of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and received

the Distinguished Career Award from the AERA Scholars of Color in Education in 2003. She

was awarded a 1993-95 National Academy of Education Spencer Post-doctoral Fellowship. She

has published over seventy-five peer-reviewed journal articles, over ten invited journal articles,

fifteen book chapters, and three books. Dr. Lee will provide consulting and leadership training

for all three professional development components of the project’s NGSS Instructional Specialist

Program. She will also advise project staff on the design of research and assessment activities

and the analysis of the project’s productivity and impact data.

Jerian Abel, Ph.D., Assessment Coordinator, is the Director of the PMSP Office of

Research and Assessment. Prior to joining the PMSP, Dr. Abel was employed for 16 years at

Education Northwest in a variety of management and coordinator positions on federal, state and

24

district grants and contracts. She was the director of Quality Teaching and Learning at the Center

for Strengthening Education Systems for six years. Prior to Education Northwest Dr. Abel taught

science professional development courses to elementary teachers at Radford University in

Virginia from 1989-95. Dr. Abel will be responsible for the implementation of the project’s

research and assessment plan. She will work with staff to collect, compile and analyze the

assessment data.

Joan Pasco, Project External Evaluator, is the principal at The Pasco Group, East

County One Stop. She has been a program evaluator at PSU for over 18 years and has completed

evaluations on several multi-year teacher education and STEM partnership projects funded by

the National Science Foundation. As a consultant she specializes in strategic planning, project

management, grant writing, program evaluation, research, technical writing and editing, and

community-based needs assessments. Ms. Pasco will serve as the external evaluator for this

project. She will provide evaluation analysis on all of the project’s intended goals and objectives

and will draft and submit all of the project’s evaluation reports.

2f. Sustainability

The PSU Center for Science Education has designed and delivered graduate level science

teacher professional development since 1992. Beginning in 2010, the CSE aligned its efforts

with the Portland Metro STEM Partnership to create the STEM Teachers Academy. As part of

this alliance each school district committed to matching funds to employ science Teachers on

Special Assignment (TOSA) to serve as liaisons between the school districts and over 50 STEM

education partners in the PMSP. The Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialist Program

grew out of PMSP’s TOSA participation in Oregon’s review and adoption of the Next

Generation Science Standards and our state’s participation in the Next Generation Science

25

Exemplars (NGSX) pilot study (http://ngsx.org). The workshops, courses and seminars that make

up this program will be assessed and modified to achieve optimum results advancing the

implementation of the NGSS in elementary classrooms. This NGSS Instructional Specialist

Program will also create a cohort of teachers who have the knowledge and skills to support

NGSS implementation plans that are required of all Oregon school districts.

This project also further advances the collaboration among three Oregon regional STEM

hubs. At the end of the funding period we envision (1) STEM hubs that are more strongly

connected with greater capacity to serve their regions, including new partnerships among schools

and community-based organizations; (2) a network of highly trained NGSS K-6 Instructional

Specialists working within schools and districts in both urban and rural settings; (3) a collection

of field-tested digital learning resources to support the NGSS Instructional Specialists in working

with other teachers; and (4) processes in place to continue the expansion of the NGSS K-6

Instructional Specialists Program, including participant recruitment strategies and online delivery

systems for reaching more teachers across the state. Finally, project staff will work with PSU

administration to pursue the steps for submitting an application for an Elementary Science

Instructional Specialist certificate program.

26

Part 3: Evaluation Plan

3a. Describe clear objectives:

The evaluation work will seek to address the following research questions aligned to the

project objectives specified earlier:

• What factors support the capacity building of the Oregon STEM hubs and partnering districts

to support science instruction at the elementary level? (objectives 1 & 5)

• How effective is the professional development provide to teachers in changing their CK,

PCK, and CCK and knowledge on language use in science classrooms? (objective 2, 4 & 5)

• What is the impact of the professional development on student factors (e.g., academic

identity, motivational resiliency) shown to impact science achievement? (objective 3)

• What is the impact on student academic science achievement? (objective 3)

• What factors lead to strong and sustainable partnerships? (objective 6)

The following chart shows the alignment of the six project objectives with the identified

needs, evaluation questions, and data sources:

Project Objectives, Evaluation Questions, & Data Sources Questions Data Sources

1. Expand the capacity of Oregon STEM Hubs and partnering districts to provide NGSS science content specialists at the elementary level

• How many teachers were recruited to participate?

• What retention issues arose and how were they addressed?

• What strategies and practices supported the capacity building of STEM hubs?

• Project documentation • # of teachers recruited • # of teachers retained • Annual interviews

2. Measurably increase the science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular content knowledge of participating teachers

27


To what degree did teachers’ science content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular content knowledge change? How many hours of professional development did the participating teachers receive? *Analysis of a subgroup of grant participants

• Pre/post-test surveys at the course level and aggregated as a overall measure of effectiveness of the PD

• Annual interview of participating teachers

• EQuIP rubric* • PMSP Application of PCK Rubric* • PMSP Teachers Instructional Practices

rubric* • PMSP Teacher Self-Efficacy Survey

(pre/post) • PMSP Student Survey of Teacher’s

Instructional Practices (pre/post) • Course logs

3. Measurably increase student achievement in science in the classrooms of participating teachers

To what degree did the participating teachers’ students show an increase in science achievement? What was the impact of the professional development on student factors shown to impact science achievement?

• Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) data

• ACT Explore data • Classroom assessments* • PMSP Application of Conceptual

Knowledge* • PMSP Academic Identity &

Motivational Resilience Student Survey (pre/post) and Teacher Report

4. Measurably increase teachers’ understanding of the role of language in creating equitable learning opportunities in science for all students

To what degree did the teachers’ knowledge of the role of language in creating equitable learning opportunities change? How did teachers apply this information in their classrooms?

• Pre/post-test surveys at the course level and aggregated as a overall measure of effectiveness of the PD

• EQUiP Rubric • Video case studies (sample analysis) • PMSP Teacher Self-Efficacy Survey • Additional measures developed by Dr.

Lee

5. Develop digital learning opportunities and resources for use in Professional Learning Teams for teachers and professional learning communities among the Oregon STEM hubs and other project partners

How many digital learning resources were developed and/or refined? How effectively were professional learning teams and/or communities formed and

• Project records • Pre-post surveys

28


supported among the various stakeholder groups (e.g., the 3 STEM Hubs, among the participating teachers, with science professionals)? What benefits and challenges were identified?

• Annual interviews

6. Establish sustainable partnerships between the Oregon STEM Hubs, participating school districts, Institutions of Higher Education, science professionals, and community-based organizations including businesses

How many collaborations were created? What benefits have the partnerships provided? How sustainable are the partnerships?

• Project partner reports • Formative/needs assessment survey for

each new partnership • Annual interviews

Teacher participation will be tracked through professional development activity logs kept

by the instructors. Student academic achievement will be tracked annually for the 5th Grade

OAKS and at the end of the project for the 8th grade OAKS. Changes in students’ application of

conceptual knowledge will be measured using the PMSP Student Application of Conceptual

Knowledge rubric. Grant participants will be assessing students’ application of conceptual

knowledge using formative assessments they develop. Other district, school, and/or classroom

level data may be used as appropriate. The degree of improvement on OAKS measures is

challenging to estimate as OAKS may not be strongly aligned to NGSS. We do anticipate

increases in student factors associated with higher academic achievement.

Changes in teacher content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular

content knowledge will be measured using the instruments:

Assessment Instrument Content Knowledge (CK) • Pre/post content tests Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) • PMSP Application of PCK Rubric

• PMSP Teachers Instructional Practices rubric • PMSP Student Survey of Teacher’s

Instructional Practices Curricular Content Knowledge (CCK) • EQUiP rubric

29

All PMSP measures used to document teacher knowledge (CK, PCK, CCK) have

established validity and/or strong research base. Teacher content knowledge assessments will be

drawn from a pool of instruments selected to ensure alignment with the project goals, objectives

and NGSS content. These assessments will be model after the DTAMS (Diagnostic Teacher

Assessments in Math and Science), which showed content knowledge growth of participants in

the Connect2Math-Connect2Science Project. In that project, participants demonstrated 9-14

percentage points improvement. We would expect similar growth. PMSP PCK measures and the

EQUiP rubric (CCK) are in refinement and we cannot predict degree of improvement anticipate.

3b. Proposed Evaluation Design:

This project will incorporate a design-based research (DBR) methodology and utilizing

the Portland Metro STEM Partnership’s Common Measures Framework (Saxton, et al., 2014).

This design was chosen because of its alignment to the overarching goals and context of the

work. DBR is contextually-based within the ecology of local school improvement contexts and

systems, incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives, seeks to improve practice through a

collaborative approach, and uses formative data to inform the work (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012;

Penual, et al., 2011; Wang & Hannafin, 2005).

The evaluation design will include formative and summative components. Summative

components will incorporate survey and assessment materials to measure project quality and

quantity in addition to the impact of the project on teachers, students and partnerships.

Formative evaluation components will provide continuous quality feedback for course

correction and project improvement. All participating project staff and teachers will be included

in the annual evaluation. Annual reports and the final evaluation report in the last grant year will

30

provide data on the effectiveness of the project. Evaluation activities will focus on each project

objective.

Changes in teachers’ content knowledge will be assessed using a variety of instruments

including pre/post surveys at the course level, annual interviews of participating teachers, and a

Student Survey of Teacher’s Instructional Practices. In addition, a cohort of 15 teachers (~20%

of the grant participants) will be selected to participate in a deeper analysis of changes in

instructional practice, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular content knowledge

utilizing a set of research-based rubrics. This sample analysis may be correlated with the other

measures, allowing extrapolation to the larger pool of participating teachers. For the objective

related to creating equitable learning environments, participating teachers will take the PMSP

Teacher Survey on Self-Efficacy (adapted). Additional measures may be developed in

consultation with Dr. Lee.

During the school year, the students of the 20% cohort will be assessed for changes in

student science achievement using classroom assessments developed as part of the project. In

addition, this cohort of teachers will use the PMSP Application of Conceptual Knowledge rubric

to further assess science achievement. State-level data (e.g., OAKS, ACT Explorer) will be

analyzed for the grade levels of the participating teachers’ students. We will utilize 5th grade

OAKS each project year and 8th grade OAKS at the end of the project, examining students taught

by grant participants.

The partnership outcomes will be measured through pre/post surveys, annual interviews,

and project partner reports. Pre-surveys will serve the dual function of creating a baseline as well

as providing formative/needs assessment information to inform the work associated with the two

partnership objectives (5 & 6).

40

APPENDICES

1. Percentage of 5th Grade Students Meeting Science Performance Assessments for 2013-2014 2. Teacher Needs Assessment Survey Results 3. Portland Metro STEM Partnership Common Measures Logic Model 4. Partner Roles 5. Number of Grant Participant Slots for Each Region 6. Alignment of Professional Development Content to Oregon Diploma Requirements 7. Citations/Bibliography

41

Appendix 1 - % Meeting 5th Grade Science Performance Assessments (OAKS) for the 2013-14 School Year District (Source: ODE

Education Data Explorer) Gender Economically Disadv. Ethnic Group1 Students w/

Disabilities All Students Male Female Yes No W B H O

PM

SP

Beaverton 74 74 52 89 85 48 44 472 38 74 Hillsboro 70 64 53 83 82 63 44 532 27 67 Forest Grove 45 33 27 62 58 -- 23 503 18 40 Portland Public 73 73 54 89 84 39 52 432 35 73

Sou

th M

etro

-Sal

em S

TE

M H

ub Amity 65 58 55 68 67 -- 41 503 35 62

Canby 68 63 52 76 75 17 39 893 31 66 Central 63 60 53 78 77 -- 40 633 29 62 Dallas 81 73 66 87 80 50 77 -- 24 78 Gladstone 67 52 51 72 64 -- 35 833 23 60 Molalla River 82 72 66 84 82 -- 60 803 51 77 Newberg 78 75 66 86 85 -- 55 643 48 77 North Clackamas 66 71 57 76 73 42 50 434 35 68 Oregon City 79 76 65 86 79 14 67 833 41 77 Salem-Keiser 64 62 52 87 78 55 44 282 38 63 Silver Falls 76 74 64 83 81 -- 42 -- 46 75 Tigard-Tualatin 78 77 58 89 86 67 55 502 40 77 West Linn-Wilsonville 88 86 76 90 89 -- 75 913 53 87 Woodburn 38 32 35 65 68 -- 25 -- 10 35

Ore

gon

Coa

st S

TE

M H

ub

Astoria 81 72 74 81 85 -- 48 833 47 77 Bandon 88 79 80 94 87 -- -- 713 -- 85 Coos Bay 50 51 43 61 53 -- 45 503,4 28 51 Lincoln County 54 54 45 72 60 -- 37 484 22 54 Neah-Kah-Nie 57 61 47 82 70 -- 29 -- 9 59 Nestucca Valley 80 74 81 63 81 -- -- -- 71 77 North Bend S.D. 73 65 61 81 72 -- 58 434 38 72 Port Orford/Langlois 63 44 50 -- 50 -- -- -- -- 53 Reedsport 60 45 48 64 51 -- -- -- 14 53 Seaside S.D. 70 75 54 93 78 -- 45 -- 50 72 Siuslaw 64 68 58 81 63 -- 44 743 32 66 Tillamook S.D. 61 51 47 70 71 -- 29 433 13 55 Warrenton-Hammond 72 74 71 74 74 -- 71 -- 40 73

1 W=White, B=Black/African-American, H=Hispanic, O=other 2 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 3 Multi-Racial 4 American Indian/Alaskan Native

42

Appendix 2 – Teacher Needs Assessment Survey Results

1. How many years have you been teaching elementary school? # Answer

Response % 1 0-2 years

33 11% 2 3-5 years

22 7% 3 6-10 years

54 18% 4 10-15 years

69 23% 5 more than 15 years

125 41% Total 303 100%

2. In what type of school do you currently teach? # Answer

Response %

1 An urban private school

23 8%

2 A rural private school

0 0%

3 An urban public school

179 59%

4 A rural public school

67 22% 5 Suburban public

34 11% Total 303 100%

3. Is your school Title I? # Answer

Response % 1 Yes

145 48% 2 No

158 52% Total 303 100%

4. At what grade level do you currently teach? (check all that apply) # Answer

Response % 1 Kindergarten

42 14% 2 1st grade

57 19% 3 2nd grade

62 20% 4 3rd grade

63 21% 5 4th grade

57 19% 6 5th grade

58 19% 7 6th grade

12 4% 8 Other

19 6%

43

Other STEAM TOSA Instructional Coach Master's program for education K-6 ELD for Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 4th K-5 Principal Reading Specialist/Peer Coach Technology and Library Science middle school AND 7&8 ELL K-8 E.L.D. (with a science based curriculum) Middle School 7-8 7-8 Education Technology Specialist teach all grades Special Ed.

5. On average, how many hours per week do your students receive science instruction? # Answer

Response %

1 Less than 1 hour per week

48 16%

2 About 1 hour per week

74 24%

3 2 hours per week

87 29% 4 3 hours per week

51 17% 5 4 hours per week

28 9%

6 More than 4 hours per week

15 5%

Total 303 100%

6. I have received sufficient professional development training that has allowed me to align my teaching to the Next Generation Science Standards. # Answer

Response % 1 Strongly Disagree

67 23% 2 Disagree

146 50% 3 Agree

69 24% 4 Strongly Agree

10 3% Total 292 100%

44

7. I have received sufficient science content coursework/professional development that covers the curriculum at the grade level(s) that I teach. # Answer


58 20% 2 Disagree

127 43% 3 Agree


9 3% Total 292 100%

8. I have received sufficient training in how to teach scientific practices (e.g., conducting investigations, constructing explanations) to my students. # Answer

Response % 1 Strongly Agree

23 8% 2 Agree

118 40% 3 Disagree

117 40% 4 Strongly Disagree

34 12% Total 292 100%

9. I have received sufficient training in how to teach engineering practices (e.g., defining problems, designing solutions) to my students. # Answer

Response % 1 Strongly Agree

16 5% 2 Agree

86 29% 3 Disagree

143 49% 4 Strongly Disagree

47 16% Total 292 100%

10. I have received sufficient training in how to effectively assess student achievement of the science learning targets that are assigned to my grade level. # Answer


50 17% 2 Disagree

148 51% 3 Agree


13 4% Total 291 100%

45

11. I can effectively deliver science instruction that is aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards to all my students. # Answer


23 8% 2 Disagree

128 44% 3 Agree


6 2% Total 292 100%

Additional comments and information:

• Science is difficult to fit in a half-day kindergarten program, when the reading and math standards have also become more rigorous.

• In recent years teachers were not allowed time to teach science. I am happy that we are now allowed to teach it. Teachers need clearly developed curriculum to teach it well. In the middle of this switch to CCSS, teachers do not have the time or training to create things for science from scratch. Also it's great to say, "teach that scientific concept during reading," but we are not given leveled books to do so. For science we need curriculum.

• I have not received any professional development on the NGSS. I have researched and studied on my own.

• We are just starting our journey with NGSS. I would love to have professional development embedded into my instructional day for both my Kindergarten students and to support the teachers in my building.

• I would like more resources to able to implement science with ease and in Spanish! • Because of the new common core standards I believe that we have had less of a focus on

NCGS because we are taking on one at a time. I think our district is preparing to start more training in this area but are focusing on math and lit currently. What worries me is the lack of focus on engaging complete units within science topics. They need to be related to our reading themes so that we can be more thematic but they also should be in depth units in themselves. I like to use our science topics to develop nonfiction writing skills. In order to read these topics and research they need hands on experiments to help connect them to vocabulary they will see.

• My district has provided pretty much zero training for elementary teachers when it comes to science and NGSS. I feel prepared simply because I have spent my own personal time researching and taking classes. There have been a few opportunities for a minority of people to have training but nothing for staff as a whole. If you ask me a few people care a lot, but most administrators at the elementary level do not care much about science content or instruction. They should, but I feel they don't.

• We need more time- training and materials.

46

• While I haven't received sufficient training on the standards and how to implement them, I am a teacher. I can locate the standards and know that it t is my job to design, plan and modify in order to meet the needs of my students.

• Everything I have learned has been self taught. I feel this is an area of extreme need in my building.

• I am doing the best I can without a curriculum. • We have not received any instruction or training in regards to Next Generation Science

Standards.

• I have worked with a group who have unwrapped the new standards, so I’m familiar with the expectations, but not the skills to implement.

• I'd love training on how to deliver materials using science kits and workbooks for first grade. The only training we have received is watching another teacher teach a lesson or two....not enough!! If you want us to use it train us on delivery and making that science journal manageable for first graders!

• When looking at training teachers in science, I believe the grade levels need to be broken down even more than just K-5. Instruction needs to be more relevant to grade levels K-2 is different then 4-5

• I've heard about Next Generation but only because I've stumbled upon it in a class. We were told in our district to not worry about it for this year.

• In our case, it is more trying to fit in the time than anything else. • I have received very little science professional development in my over 10 years in this

district and with the NGSS even less. With the help and support of a STEM person in my school, I do have a better understanding of how I can approach teaching science, but that is because I asked for explicit help and support.

• I am comfortable teaching and integrating science into our curriculum, but we have received very little training . . .

• We are all still becoming familiar with the new standards but have not had the time to develop units of study that address the new standards at our Expeditionary Learning School. We have had meetings about the new standards but no staff-wide training.

• I have worked with my team and done a lot of reading, but have had very little training. • There is simply too much to teach and expect elementary teachers, most who do not have

sufficient science background, to effectively teach science. There is not the room to store resources or have an effective space for science activities. I know of districts who have hired science teachers for 4th and 5th grade and classes rotate to science just as they do for music and PE. This would be much more effective in delivering the content than the current method; especially in a Title 1 school. Additionally, there could be after school programs at title one schools where outside teachers come in and teach. This would be true equity. As I stated the current system simply does not work.

• I think I can effectively deliver science instruction that is aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards, but lack the time to sit down and closely read the standards and plan how

47

to best implement them. In addition there is very little instructional time during the day to teach science, social studies, and health. I know how to and do integrate into language arts/reading and math, but that is mainly reading about science, and we want students to DO science. The best that I seem to be able to do is some demonstrations and experiments that keep kids excited about science and glad they came to school that day. The amount of writing required for science is overwhelming for many of our Title I students. This includes third graders reading at a kindergarten or first grade level, those with fine motor skill issues, and those who are struggling to understand and use a new language.

• Much of what I am doing in my classroom I have had to research and read about on my own about the next generation science standards. We have not had much training at all.

• I've only taken one class in the summer of 2013 that discussed the NGSS. • Time constraints in the school day are particularly difficult to try and fit science in. • Preface, I am coming to 2nd grade this year after teaching 14 years in K plus a year's leave of

absence. I feel knowledgeable in knowing the standards and how to implement across the curriculum (embed teaching...).

• We all need training in assessing science standards.

• Luckily, my teammate has a science background so he's done a great job guiding us and our practice. It's still insufficient professional development for something so crucial.

• There is not enough time in the day to teach it!!

• I feel that more time with the NGSS is needed. I have a strong background in science because of my bachelors degree on biology and my work on our district science team. I know from working with other staff members that they do not have the same level of confidence.

• The Science textbook given to use is much too difficult for my students. I have to scaffold everything, and even then, most students fail miserably on the given assessments. We have not had enough training with this new Science. Although we were given materials to help us conduct our Science lessons, most of the textbook is not even aligned with Common core or our Beaverton benchmarks!

• I would love to have more training, especially pd that includes SIOP/GLAD strategies that supports the learning of my ELLs. I don't want training that just shows me how to use the textbook adoption that we have.

• I piloted the program in a few years ago in a Title I school so I received a bit more training on the program than others. My current school was having a hard time jumping on board. I had to train others about the program to get it off the ground and out of the cabinet. The trainings are all optional and offered after school not as a staff or school. Beaverton has put the focus on writing, math, and now reading with the CCSS.

• Unfortunately, it is very challenging to squeeze in science units when our kindergartners are only in school for 2.5 hours. We do have an engineer visit during NEM visit.

• My ability to teach to NGSS comes directly from my coursework (STEM) classes. • Reading, Writing, and 'Rithmatic are the priorities. Hard to prioritize science, especially with

the district's unappealing textbook adoption.

48

• I teach in a half day kdg program. • The science workbook requires a much higher level of reading and writing ability than my

students possess. • I would always value additional science classes on instruction and aligning the Next

Generation Science Standards.

• I love science, engineering and problem-solving, but there isn't any time left for social studies, science, or health with our fragmented schedule around ELL, SPED, and Title services.

• I agree that I can deliver science instruction but Kindergarten teachers in the Beaverton School District have not been included in the professional development. However, we did just receive some curriculum books.

• I teach at an IB school using the Primary Years Programme. We try to teach science within some of our units of inquiry, but sometimes go months without science instruction.

• I just participated in the Project Lead the Way Launch Curriculum Training this summer; it is an amazing program to support teachers in engineering design, STEM pedagogy, and Next Gen standards. It should be connected as a choice through Metro

• We have had NO PD regarding the Next Generation Science Standards • Still confusion at my school about when we are adopting the next generation standards and

which grade level now teaches what content. Very little professional development around science at the school level.

• I could definitely use some more training in the area of science and Engineering.

• We have received no training on the Next Generation Science Standards. While I have worked on my own to compile resources and develop units, my professional development time has not been used to address science needs.

• As a PYP school we teach Science through our Units of Inquiry. We may have a few weeks where our focus is on a Social studies Unit and then we will spend 6 weeks on a Science based unit. Using

• I can follow the program, but it is not easy or natural for me. • There has been no science curriculum training for Kindergarten teachers in my district. • One unique benefit in my professional development experience was to attend the 2013 Phil

Mickelson Exxon/Mobile Teachers Academy in New Jersey. This week long academy focused on the NGSS in a huge way. Day long hands-on instruction with top teachers in the field. Teachers from all 50 states. They provided a wealth of books and resources to take home an use in our classrooms. I would hope that individual school districts could follow their lead in some way despite funding barriers.

• Though money is limited for training, teachers take the time to learn what is necessary to be an effective teacher.

• I'm not sure how accurate the feedback will be. Part way through I noticed that the ratings change direction and then change back again. In other words, on #1-2 strongly disagree is on the left all the way to strongly agree on the right, #3-4 are the reverse and then it switches

49

back for #5-6. I'm not sure if that was intentional, but I do believe it has the potential to throw off the responses and make them inaccurate. Sorry!

• I did participate in the training last year with the next generation standards through the STEM center NGSX but I think I would need more training.

• After a pilot year and 1 year of official curriculum adoption, I finally signed up for a paid 2 hour training after school on how to use Interactive Science. Many components of this curriculum were unused all of 2013-14. This is the first time Beaverton has offered paid science trainings.

• I am the building's speech-language specialist. Though I try to incorporate the teaching of key science terms/vocabulary to my students I have not been taught nor have I researched any of the NGSS or STEM.

• I got a lot of training from my previous school district but haven't received training in NSD

• We have not had any conversations about next generation standards at all • We need much more training! • I feel like Elementary teachers have to be proficient in so many different areas that they aren't

really great in the subjects that aren't the 3 main subjects. I feel like each school should have a teacher that only teaches Science (could be a position that would help cover prep times). If the Science teacher just focused on Science they would have all of the materials that they need and we couldn't be constantly trying to share.

• I haven't received any "official school" training. I have learned on my own time. • I have taken several STEM classes that have helped me so much. I can still use more

instruction. • I feel capable of providing instruction, but not because I was provided with training from the

school district.

• Our curriculum is terrible (Discovery), and we are not provided with any of the materials to conduct hands-on activities and experiments.

• I can deliver it by putting in a lot of personal time to find materials and projects to teach the concepts. Would love a curriculum that has been developed to provide explanation, activities and assessments.

• materials need to be provided for all science activities as teachers should not be expected as private citizens to fund all of their public school science explorations

• These questions were hard to answer as I might be more neutral in my answers but went with my best answer. I believe training needs to be ongoing and address the expectation of what is being asked of us as teachers. Our school is in year 2 of becoming a STEM school and we teachers are putting in hours upon hours of extra time to prep lessons with very little training. I am hoping that we will get the training we need in the future so that we can be sure to do what is best for students.

• The problem is that we are all too busy-- we are a STEM school and our STEM coordinator only works part time and is on overload -- which is, in general-- the problem with all of us!!

50

We just don't have the resources (particularly informational tests at ALL students' levels) to integrate the science (and social studies) which is what we have to do!!

• I was just looking at the ODE science standards and recognized that they have changed. It's interesting that out district hasn't said anything about the Next Generation Science Standards. Maybe it's because we have little time in the day to cover so much content...

• We currently do not have curriculum that aligns with the Next Generation Standards.

• Even though most of my answers are agree, it's because I have received sufficient training, but putting into application have been difficult due to time constraints, preparation, and most recently, our district and building is focusing on math.

• Many grade configurations affect this Question. Our district has many multi-grade classrooms, especially at the primary level.

• As a new teacher transferred to the elementary level, I feel thrown in. It's a sink or swim adventure. I'm getting by, but with help from coworkers. I'm not blaming anyone, but I feel my students aren't getting the science instruction they deserve based on my lack of experience and training.

• I am an English Language Teacher. The district adopted curriculum is science and social studies based. While I am comfortable with the language standards, I do not always feel as prepared to teach the content standards and objectives. Also I work with a K-8 population so I cover a range of topics from various areas of study.

• I know how to teach and figure out how to meet the standards. The best use of time for me would be to help me deepen my understanding of the content and give me time in class to design better units that align with the new standards.

• The biggest frustration is lack of resources and time

• I'm not exactly sure what Next Generation Standards are, but I assume they are the newer science standards. I feel pretty confident in the science arena for this age. We could as a district look at those standards and talk it out a bit! I wouldn't mind a little training.

• I have been to some professional development outside of my school requirements. I believe my knowledge that I have about NGSS comes from that, not from anything my school has provided.

• The science curriculum and materials which I am currently using to deliver science instruction are materials and curriculum which I have either developed or purchased out of pocket. I have no text book or materials that have already been aligned with the next generation science standards nor have I been offered any training.

• I'm confident I can begin teaching engineering practices this year, but not at the level needed to satisfy all of the Next Generation Science Standards for my grade levels. My school would benefit from more professional development in teaching scientific practices, and more unit/lesson ideas for teaching the new science standards.

• Most of the training I have received has been form classes I have taken outside of school from OMSI, the zoo, or other locations.

51

• I was a general science major in college, so I feel my background is strong in a variety of sciences, but I have not received any professional training outside my teacher ed program 20 years ago.

• science curriculum is not very good

52

Appendix 3 – Portland Metro STEM Partnership Common Measures Logic Model

53

Appendix 4 – Partner Roles

Principal Investigator: William G. Becker, Ph.D Chemistry Dr. Becker is the Director of the PSU Center for Science Education and the Executive Director of the Portland Metro STEM Partnership. He has over 30 years of experience as a principal investigator on over 40 grants with combined budgets in excess of $6 million. These include multi-year grants from the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Education, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Oregon Department of Education. Dr. Becker will be the lead grant administrator for fiscal, assessment and personal matters. He will also coordinate the participation of the partnering Oregon Regional STEM hubs. Co-Principal Investigator: Carol Biskupic Knight, M.Ed. Ms. Biskupic Knight serves as the Beaverton School District Elementary Science Curriculum Specialist and is the Director of the PMSP STEM Teacher Academy. The STEM Teachers Academy administers over 25 courses and enrolls over 300 teachers annually. Ms. Biskupic Knight has 28 years experience as a classroom teacher of 1st-7th grades. She served as the program director of the 2010-2013 Title IIB MSP “Connect2Math-Connect2Science” grant and was a member of the national and state Next Generation Science Standards review and implementation teams. Ms. Biskupic Knight will provide leadership and direction for the NGSS K-6 Instructional Specialist Program expansion. Project Coordinator: Erika Hansen-Rudishauser, MAT Ms. Hansen-Rudishauser has an Oregon Teaching License (K-8) with a Reading Specialist Endorsement (K-12) and an Oregon Administrators License (K-12). She has 12 years of classroom teaching experience and is the recipient of the 2014 Oregon Science Teachers Association Outstanding Classroom Teacher’s Award and was a 2013 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching nominee. Ms. Hansen-Rudishauser is a professional development instructor for the Portland Metro STEM Partnership. She will manage the day-to-day operations of the project and coordinate the recruitment and participation of the project’s 75 Instructional Specialists/grant participants. Ms. Hansen-Rudishauser will coordinate the Instructional Specialists Seminars and manage the implementation and reporting timelines. She will also support the establishment of professional learning teams in the third year of the project. NGSS Equity and Language Project Development Consultant: Ohkee Lee, Ph.D. Dr. Lee is the Professor of Childhood Education at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University. Her current research involves the scale-up of a model of a curricular and teacher professional development to promote science learning and language development of English language learners. She was a member of the writing team to develop the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and leader for the NGSS Diversity and Equity Team. Dr. Lee is a 2009 Fellow of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and received the Distinguished Career Award from the AERA Scholars of Color in Education in 2003. She was awarded a 1993-95 National Academy of Education Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship. She has published over seventy-five peer-reviewed journal articles, over ten invited journal articles, fifteen book chapters, and three books. Dr. Lee will provide consulting and leadership training for all three professional development components of the

54

project’s NGSS Instructional Specialist Program. She will also advise project staff on the design of research and assessment activities and the analysis of the project’s productivity and impact data. Instructional Specialist Pathway Program Developer: Bradford Hill, M.A. Science Education, M.S. Physics Mr. Hill is a Science Teacher and Teacher on Special Assignment focused on implementing rigorous STEM coursework in the Beaverton School District and is a Professional Development Facilitator as an Adjunct Professor with Center for Science Education at Portland State University. Mr. Hill has earned the American Association of Physics Teachers highest award for teaching, the Zitzewitz Award, and is a Finalist for the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Math Teaching. As President of the Oregon Science Teachers Association, part of the state level Next Generation Science Standards review and implementation teams, and as part of a National Engineering Task Force through the Knowles Science Teaching Foundation, Mr. Hill has developed professional development coursework, workshops and trainings for classroom and college teachers on understanding and aligning instruction to the NGSS standards. Assessment Coordinator: Jerian Abel, Ph.D. Jerian Abel is the Director of the PMSP Office of Research and Assessment. Prior to joining the PMSP, Dr. Abel was employed for 16 years at Education Northwest in a variety of management and coordinator positions on federal, state and district grants and contracts. She was the director of Quality Teaching and Learning at the Center for Strengthening Education Systems for six years. Prior to Education Northwest Dr. Abel taught science professional development courses to elementary teachers at Radford University in Virginia from 1989-95. Dr. Abel will be responsible for the implementation of the project’s research and assessment plan. She will work with staff to collect, compile and analyze the assessment data. Project External Evaluator: Joan Pasco Joan Pasco is the principal at The Pasco Group, East County One Stop. She has been a program evaluator at PSU for over 18 years and has completed evaluations on several multi-year teacher education and STEM partnership projects funded by the National Science Foundation. As a consultant she specializes in strategic planning, project management, grant writing, program evaluation, research, technical writing and editing, and community-based needs assessments. Ms. Pasco will serve as the external evaluator for this project. She will provide evaluation analysis on all of the project’s intended goals and objectives and will draft and submit all of the project’s evaluation reports.

NGSS Content Course, Workshop and Seminar Instructors: Molly Harding Marra , Ph.D. Neuroscience Dr. Marra received her doctorate in neuroscience from OHSU and as an undergraduate conducted research on the genetic causes of retinal degeneration at University of Notre Dame. She is a biology instructor at PSU. Marilyn Mackiweiz , Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry

55

Dr. Mackiweiz has worked as a process engineer for Intel Corporation, served as a graduate research assistant at Texas A&M University, and is currently research assistant professor at PSU. Her specialities include bioinorganic, organometallic and nanomaterials chemistry. Stephanie Wagner, M.A. Cell Physiology, B.A. Zoology Ms. Wagner has been a PSU faculty member in the Center for Science Education (CSE) and in Environmental Studies since 1998. She is presently serving as Program Director for the CSE Master in Science Teaching program and teaching Understanding the NGSS: Systems and Interactions; a science content course for pre-service and in-service teachers designed to promote a deeper understanding of the Core Ideas outlined in the Framework for K-12 Science Education. She has also taught professional development courses for elementary teachers participating in the CSE’s Connect2Science/Connect2Math program. While earning her Master's degree, Ms. Wagner served as a research associate investigating mosquito genetics and contractile proteins in movement of unicellular organisms. She was employed as the education and executive director of the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park for 14 years and as an elementary school science education coordinator in a Portland-area district for 9 years. Ms. Wagner is presently serving on the Oregon Environmental Literacy Plan Steering Committee and on the Intertwine Conservation Education Committee. Hillary E. Brown , Ph.D. Geophysics Dr.. Brown’s has industry experience as an exploration geophysicist. Her passion for addressing the equity issue prompted her to become a science teacher in a high-need urban high school where the student body was 97% Hispanic and 95% qualified for free or reduced lunch. Then, as a lecturer at the University of New Mexico, Dr. Brown worked with pre-service K-12 teachers in the physical sciences to improve their science literacy and understanding of recent scientific and technological advances. She currently holds teaching licenses in Oregon, New Mexico, and Texas. Dr. Brown will be one of the instructors for the NGSS content courses. Caitlin Everett , M.Ed. in Teaching and Learning, B.S. Biology Ms. Everett is a high school biology teacher and teacher on special assignment at Beaverton School District and the Portland Metro STEM Partnership. As a district STEM coordinator, she is involved in leading professional development, STEM school program implementation, and writing curriculum aligned to the NGSS. Caitlin teaches the Biology for the Next Generation course at Portland State University and has presented at Oregon Science Teachers Association and the Oregon Department of Education Professional Learning Team (PLT) science strand. Susan E. Holveck, D.Ed Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership; MAT; M.S. Genetics and Cellular Biology Dr. Holveck is a Science Specialist for the Beaverton School District (BSD), President-elect for Oregon Science Teachers Association, and Adjunct Professor for PSU Center for Science Education. She is holds a teaching license for both middle and high school science and has an Oregon Administrative license. She is a firm believer in the equity of education and as a result, led her district in the development of a Physics First science sequence that all BSD high school students are required to take. The three courses in the High school science sequence were redesigned so that they were aligned with the NGSS. She has worked at the state level in the development of the 2009 Oregon Science Standards and was on the Oregon review team for the

56

NGSS standards, is a member of the Oregon Science Curricular Review committee and has created and led many professional development courses for middle school and high school teachers helping them with the transition to the practices, core concepts, and cross-cutting ideas found in NGSS. Melissa Potter, D.Ed., M.A.T., B.A. Biology Cum Laude, Ms. Potter is a Research Associate for the Center for Science Education at Portland State University currently teaches the following courses: Assessing Student Achievement in Science, Teaching Science with Science Inquiry and Engineering Design, Understanding NGSS: Change Over Time (hybrid online course), Using Technology to Teach NGSS (online course), and Science Education Research Seminar. To help support k-12 teachers in the classroom, she is completing the Professional Learning Series for Teacher Mentors sponsored by the Oregon Department of Education and the New Teacher Center. As a teacher on special assignment (TOSA) for the Beaverton School District she was the Co-Director of Connect2Science: Elementary Science Methods Professional Development from 2007-2009. In addition, she co-wrote and received grants to support staff development in science and engineering methods for Elementary School Teachers. Before transitioning to the role of a TOSA, she taught physics and biology for the Beaverton School District for eight years. Jomae Mertz Sica, M.S. Chemistry, M.S. Biology Ms. Sica has been teaching high school chemistry and biology for thirteen years in Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon. She was an early adopter of the Next Generation Science Standards and has been using these as a guide to make changes in her curriculum for three years starting with draft two of the standards. The biggest shift in the past years has been having students to use inquiry as a mode to learn content and designing authentic, real-world engineering projects where students can apply the content knowledge they have acquired. She is also well versed in the misconceptions that students might have upon entering her subject areas and works diligently to create student experiences that will put them on the path to rectifying their mental model of the concepts. She now leads other teachers in this transition in both the Beaverton and Forest Grove School Districts as well as presenting at conferences such as the recent ones held by the Oregon Science Teachers Association (OSTA) and Oregon Department of Education. She has been recognized for her accomplishments as a winner of the OSTA Outstanding Classroom Teacher Award region 1—High School and as a nominee for the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. She also has begun the process this year of becoming National Board Certified. Partnering Hubs

• Oregon Coast STEM Hub, Ruth McDonald, Oregon Coast Coordinator Ms. McDonald has over 24 years in STEM education. She was on the NGSS Review Committee, the Oregon Adoption of the NGSS Committee, and the NGSX pilot group. She is also a former Einstein Distinguished Fellow. Ms. McDonald is the Curriculum Resource Liaison for the Lincoln County School District and the Director of the Oregon Coast STEM Hub. As site coordinator, Ms. McDonald will facilitate grant activities for the Oregon Coast STEM Hub region.

57

• South Metro Salem STEM Hub, Melissa Dubois, Director. Recruitment, communication and logistical support

• (Emerging) East Multnomah County STEM Hub, Marc Goldberg (Dean of Instruction,

Workforce, and Adult Education, Mt. Hood Community College) and Alison Hart (CEO of the Gresham Area Chamber of Commerce), Co-Leaders. Recruitment, communication and logistical support

Grant Participants: 75 Teachers Teachers Academy NGSS Course Participants: 180 Teachers a year

58

Appendix 5 – Number of Grant Participant Slots for Each Region

Regional Hub/Private Schools Participants

PMSP (Portland) 17

PMSP (Beaverton) 16

PMSP (Hillsboro) 10

PMSP (Forest Grove) 5

Oregon Coast STEM Hub 12

South Metro – Salem STEM 5

East Multnomah County STEAM 5

Private Schools 5

Total Grant Participants 75

59

Appendix 6 – Alignment of Professional Development Content to Oregon Diploma Requirements

Professional Development Component

Impact on Educator Science Effective Practices

Resulting Impact on Student Achievement of the Science Oregon Standards at the Elementary Level

Projected Impact on Student Achievement at High School and Diploma Level

NGSS Content Courses

Increase in teacher Science Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Curricular Content

Knowledge (CCK) aligned to NGSS

Increase in application of science conceptual understanding (as demonstrated on OAKS science and classroom formative assessments)

Increase in application of science conceptual understanding (as demonstrated on OAKS Science and classroom formative assessments)

Completion of 3 credits of science with lab component

Instructional Specialist

Workshops

Increase in teacher science CK, PCK, CCK aligned to NGSS and science effective instructional practices

● Prior knowledge ● Learning

progressions ● Addressing

misconceptions and common difficulties

● Integration of Technology

● Use of frequent and formative assessments to facilitate diagnostic

● Facilitate active engagement of students

Increase in application of science conceptual understanding (as demonstrated on OAKS science and classroom formative assessments) and Higher Order Cognitive Skills/Oregon Essential Skills formative/summative assessments-science inquiry/NGSS work samples connected to scientific and engineering practices at the 5th grade level

Increase in Application of Science Conceptual Understanding (as demonstrated on OAKS Science and classroom formative assessments) and Higher Order Cognitive Skills/Oregon Essential Skills formative/summative assessments-science inquiry/NGSS work samples connected to scientific and engineering practices at the 10th and 12th grade level

Instructional Specialist

● Addressing learning goals and instruction around deep content

Increase the application of conceptual knowledge, higher order thinking

Increase the application of conceptual knowledge, higher order thinking

60

Seminars knowledge and higher order thinking skills

● Multiple and diverse opportunities

● Alignment of instruction, curriculum, materials, and assessment around the EQuIP Rubric

● Understanding the use of language and NGSS performance expectations.

skills, and academic identity and motivational resilience in science for ALL students as measured by disaggregated data of the OAKS and classroom assessments.

skills, and academic identity and motivational resilience in science for ALL students by disaggregated data of the OAKS and completion of 3 credits of science.

61

Appendix 7 – Citations/Bibliography Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813 Lee, O., Miller, E., & Januszyk, R. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 223-233. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233. Michaels, S. & O’Connor, C. (in press). Conceptualizing talk moves as toolks: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. In Resnick, L.B., Asterhan, C. And Clark, S.N. Socializing Intelligence through Talk and Dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. National Center for Educational Statistics (2012).The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institue of Education Sciences. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting themes and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Penual, W., Fishman, B.j., Cheng, B.H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English Language Learners: What teacher need to know. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Understanding Language Initiative at Stanford University (ell.stanford.edu). Saxton, E., et al., (2013) A Common Measurement System for K-12 STEM Education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.005 U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education.html Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-Based Research and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.

Title : Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialists ... · Title : Expansion of K-6 NGSS...

Documents

Transcript of Title : Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialists ... · Title : Expansion of K-6 NGSS...