Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and...

62
Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools DUE-1002638 Midwest Noyce Regional Conference for 2010 and 2011 PI: Kim S. Nguyen, Ed.D. Proceedings from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Midwest Noyce Regional Conferences

Transcript of Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and...

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

DUE-1002638 Midwest Noyce Regional Conference for 2010 and 2011PI: Kim S. Nguyen, Ed.D.

Proceedings from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Midwest Noyce Regional Conferences

Table of Contents

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

Relevant Legal Information for Public School Teachers 1 Suzanne E. Eckes, Indiana University

The DUETS Program: Highly Effective Urban STEM Teachers 9 Deborah Harmon, Eastern Michigan University

Constructing Inquiry-based Lessons in Teaching Science 15 Carolyn A. Hayes, Indiana University

Integrating Biology and Literature 20 Chris Hiller and Sally Nichols, Decatur Central High School, Indianapolis, Ind.

Keys to Improving Learning: Ways to Transform Teacher Performance 23 Jeff C. Marshall, Clemson University

Making Math Matter: Project-based Learning in Mathematics 27 Jean S. Lee, University of Indianapolis Catherine A. Brown, Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus Sarah Leiker, New Tech Network, Columbus, Ind.

Problem Based Learning: Forensic Chemistry 34 Kylee List and Linda Monroe, Warren Central High School, Indianapolis, Ind.

Beginning Secondary Science Teachers: Strengthening, Sustaining, or Sinking 37 Julie A. Luft, University of Georgia

Math and Science Scholars (MASS) Program: A Model Program for theRecruitment and Retention of Preservice Mathematics and Science Teachers 42 Tim Scott, Texas A&M University

Practicing the Science of Culturally Relevant Mathematics Pedagogy: Indeed, It Is Just Good Mathematics Teaching! 43 David W. Stinson, Georgia State University

Tailoring STEM Instruction for Diverse Learners: What Matters Most? 49 Annela Teemant, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

How Loud is too Loud? Project-based Inquiry as a Model for Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Science 55 Regina Toolin and Beth White, University of Vermont

We gratefully acknowledge the work of Brenda Bishop, Jon Eynon, and Erin Wessels in the production of this publication.

AbstractThis paper presents the findings of a study involving the legal literacy of undergraduate students enrolled in a school law course designed for pre-service teachers. The researcher conducted this study in order to evaluate her students’ growth and interest in the topic. She was most concerned if students learned the course content and which specific topics students found to be most relevant to their future roles as teachers. Data was collected over six semesters. There were 782 students who completed a survey and 30 who were later selected to participate in more in-depth focus groups. The findings suggest that pre-service teachers increased their knowledge about legal issues and that they considered the several legal topics covered in the course relevant to their furture teaching careers.

KeywordsLaw, Teacher Education, Leadership

INTRODUCTIONSchool districts often spend several thousand dollars per year on litigation related to everything from student speech to special education to personnel issues (Andren, 2010). School officials also take hours away from important instructional time in order to address legal issues that, in many cases, could have been avoided if they had received training in this area (Andren, 2010). Research suggests that many educators consider the study of legal issues to be the third most essential area of teacher preparation (Davis & Williams, 1992; Garner, 2000; Traynelis-Yurek & Giacobee, 1992). Furthermore, Militello (2006) found in a survey of more than 500 public school principals in Massachusetts that they identified “legal aspects” as the most important area to include in professional development for new principals and the second most important area for experienced principals.

This paper presents the findings of a study involving the legal literacy of undergraduate students enrolled in a required three-credit school law course in their pre-service program. I was most concerned if students gained new knowledge about school legal issues and which specific topics students found to

be most important for their future teaching careers. This article first highlights findings from a study that was completed in 2010 involving 782 undergraduate students who responded to survey questions about the content of the course.1 The researcher was interested in learning whether students were gaining new and important knowledge of school law. Next, the study reports findings from focus groups that were held with selected students to learn what topics they believed to be most important to their future jobs.

Setting/Background The study took place in a four-year teacher education program at a public midwest university. This university is one of the few universities in the United States that provides school law instruction to undergraduate students. Since 2002, a three-credit required course of “Legal/Ethical Issues” has been required for students majoring in education. Students enrolled in this course are usually juniors and seniors, with some sophomores.

The course covers the following topics: student expression, teacher expression, collective bargaining, special education law, negligence, student discipline, search and seizure, teacher privacy, child abuse, student classifications, bullying, harassment, desegregation, employment discrimination, collective bargaining, church/state relations, instructional issues, and teacher dismissal. The purpose of the course is to examine the legal issues that teachers may confront on a daily basis in public schools. The objectives are to introduce students to various legal issues and to identify those issues inherent in schools; to explore various legal principles and their applications; and to analyze current school practices from the standpoint of potential legal controversies. In addition to identifying pragmatic approaches to the law, this course also aims to involve students in academic discourse involving issues of social justice and the democratic underpinnings of education.

ProceduresData on pre-service teachers’ knowledge and attitudes of the law on issues of equity and social

Relevant Legal Information for Public School TeachersSuzanne E. Eckes

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

1 These data were reported in 2010 and 2011 at the National Science Foundation’s sponsored Noyce Conference in Indiana and Washington D.C.

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

1

justice were collected through an anonymous survey. Subjects of this study are teacher education students who were enrolled in “Legal/Ethical Issues” in spring semester 2006, fall semester 2006, spring semester 2007, fall semester 2007, spring semester 2008, and fall semester 2008.2 The survey contains 12 multiple-choice questions (see appendix A). The same questionnaires were administered by a graduate assistant in this school law class twice in each semester: at the beginning of the semester and before the end of semester. Data were collected either at the beginning of the class or before the end of class period, when the principle investigator, who is also the instructor for this course, was not present. Students were informed that the survey was anonymous and that participation was totally voluntary. This data collection process generated pre-test and post-test responses in each of the six semesters. A total of 782 questionnaires were collected. After deleting 12 cases with missing values,3 the number of questionnaires collected at the six data collection points is shown in Table 1.

At the end of each semester, focus groups were conducted with students from the course to ask more in-depth questions. Specifically, six different focus groups with four to six students participated after each semester. A total of 30 students participated in the focus groups. At the end of the course, the instructor sent an email to the class asking for volunteers. The first six students to respond were selected. Twenty of the students were juniors, and 10 were seniors. During the focus groups, the students were asked to discuss whether they felt the content was relevant to their future practice as teachers and to rank the most important topics covered during the semester. The researcher asked the students whether this course should remain a requirement for the pre-service teaching program and tallied all responses.

Instrument Twelve survey questions were designed by the principle investigator, covering significant areas of equity and social justice in education. The development of these questions is informed by the researcher’s experience of teaching in the public school system and teaching this undergraduate law/ethics course over the past several years.

These questions focus on pre-service students’ legal knowledge and attitudes regarding desegregation,

Table 1. Number of Valid Questionnaires Collected

Semester Pre-test Post-test TotalSpring 2006 85 70 155Fall 2006 48 20 68Spring 2007 86 82 168Fall 2007 75 68 143

Spring 2008 70 50 130Fall 2008 74 54 128Total 438 344 782

affirmative action, prayer in public schools, LGBT teachers’ rights, special education, and sexual harassment of students (see appendix). Responses to the knowledge questions (“What is your knowledge of…?”) are measured by a four-point scale: “I have no knowledge,” “I have little to no knowledge,” “I have little to some knowledge,” and “I am quite knowledgeable.” Responses to the attitude/judgment questions (“Do you think that…?”) are measured by three categories: “Yes,” “No,” and “I am not sure.” It takes less than five minutes for students to finish all 12 survey questions. This paper focuses on students’ responses to the knowledge questions.

RESULTS FROM SURVEYResponses to the survey questions were coded and input into an SPSS program. Frequencies of each response were tabulated to show pre-service students’ knowledge and attitudes in the pre-test and post-test.4

As Table 2 demonstrates, before taking the school law course, pre-service students are most likely to have no to little knowledge on laws regarding affirmative action [Q3], gay teachers’ rights [Q7], and sexual harassment of students in school [Q11] and to have little to some knowledge on laws regarding desegregation [Q1], prayers in school [Q5], and students with disabilities [Q9]. After taking the course, pre-service students are most likely to be quite knowledgeable on laws regarding desegregation, prayers in school, gay teachers’ rights, students with disabilities, and sexual harassment of students in school, and to have little to some knowledge on law regarding affirmative action. In general, students’ knowledge level has been improved by one level. The one exception is related to students’ knowledge about

2 Because summer semesters are much shorter than spring/fall semesters, no data were collected during the summer sessions.3 Cases with missing values (failure to respond to at least one of the 12 questions) are distributed as follows: two cases in the pre-test of spring 2006; three cases in the post-test of spring 2006; one case in the pre-test of fall 2006; one case in the post-test of fall 2006; four cases in the pre-test of spring 2007; one case in the post-test of spring 2007. Because the cases with missing values are only a small percent (less than 3 percent of the total cases), they are dropped from the analysis to avoid potential systematic errors. 4 Indiana University graduate students Ran Zhang and Kelly Rapp assisted with the collection and analysis of this data.

2

affirmative action. The researcher followed up with the students about how the course could be improved to increase student knowledge on this particular topic. An independent t-test also reveals that there is a significant difference between the pre-test mean and post-test mean in all six knowledge areas at p<.001 level. In other words, after the school law instruction, pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the laws regarding desegregation, affirmative action, prayers in school, gay teachers, students with disabilities, and harassment of students in school have all changed significantly.

Instrument for Focus GroupsAfter grades were submitted at end of each semester, the researcher invited six students (all voluntary) to meet for one hour to discuss the content of the undergraduate school law course from the previous semester. During the focus groups, students were asked to discuss and rank which topics they felt were most benefical to them as future classroom teachers (see Appendix). While discussing each of the identified topics, students posed key questions that related to each topic. During the focus groups, the researcher asked the students what can be done to improve their understanding about affirmative action, because this was the only area on the survey that indicated a lower level of understanding. The researcher learned that on the survey she used the terminology “affirmative action” but while teaching the topic in class she referred to “race-conscious decisions.” As a result, it appears that the students may have had a greater understanding of the topic than the survey reports.

RESULTS FROM FOCUS GROUPSThe findings from the focus groups revealed that students believed that all of the topics covered in the course were important to their future teaching careers. During the focus groups, the researcher asked questions about topics that went beyond those included in the survey but were discussed in class. They ranked the topics (in order of importance to their future careers) in the following order.

1. Special Education Law2. Bullying/Harassment Laws3. Teacher Speech and Teacher Out of School

Conduct (Tied)4. Church/State Relations5. Student Expression

6. Negligence7. Student Discipline 8. Instructional Issues9. Employment Discrimination10. Affirmative Action/Desegregation (Tied)

This section higlights the topics that the undergraduates in this study found to be most important. Their interests in several key questions are summarized below.

Special Education1. What is the difference between IDEA, Section

504, and ADA, and how do they apply in the classroom setting?

2. What do pre-service teachers need to know in order to write IEPs, BIPs, etc. that comply with the law?

3. May teachers discipline students with disabilities in the same way as students without disabilities?

Bullying/Harassment/Abuse1. Can school districts be found liable when a

teacher fails to address known acts of bullying/harassment in the classroom?

2. What do state bullying statutes require, and how do these law differ from using a Title IX analysis?

3. What are teachers’ reporting requirements if child abuse is suspected?

Teacher Expression and Teacher Out of School Conduct1. Do teachers have First Amendment protections

inside and outside the classroom?2. Can teachers’ out of school conduct be regulated

by the school (e.g., getting drunk at a bar)?3. Do teachers have the right to participate in

protests during their personal time (e.g., Can I attend a pro-marijuana rally on the weekend?).

Church/State Relations1. Are teachers permitted to wear religious garb in

the classroom?2. Are students permitted to pray in school?3. Can religious-based clubs meet on school

grounds?

3

“What is your knowledge of…?” Pre-test Post-test TotalQ1: Law regarding desegregation* I have no knowledge 12 2 14 I have little to no knowledge 122 8 130 I have little to some knowledge 294 142 436 I am quite knowledgeable 10 192 202Q3: Law regarding affirmative action* I have no knowledge 32 2 34 I have little to no knowledge 210 14 224 I have little to some knowledge 194 206 400 I am quite knowledgeable 2 122 124Q5: Law regarding prayer in school* I have no knowledge 6 0 6 I have little to no knowledge 110 2 112 I have little to some knowledge 264 62 326 I am quite knowledgeable 58 280 338Q7: Law regarding gay teachers* I have no knowledge 114 0 114 I have little to no knowledge 242 8 250 I have little to some knowledge 72 110 182 I am quite knowledgeable 10 226 236Q9: Providing for students with disabilities*

I have no knowledge 10 0 10

I have little to no knowledge 80 4 84 I have little to some knowledge 252 100 352 I am quite knowledgeable 96 240 336Q11: Harassment laws of students in schools*

I have no knowledge 48 0 48

I have little to no knowledge 238 14 252 I have little to some knowledge 150 132 282 I am quite knowledgeable 2 198 200Total 438 344 782

Table 2. Knowledge of Significant Equity and Social Justice Issues

*There is a significant difference between pre-test and post-test results, p<.001.

4

Student Expression 1. Can students wear any politically-related shirts or

buttons to school?2. Can teachers curtail student speech that is

included in course assignments?3. Can students’ off-campus speech (e.g., Facebook)

be regulated by school officials?

Negligence1. If a student gets injured in the classroom, can a

teacher be held liable?2. Can a teacher be held liable for defamation if s/he

writes something negative about a student?

Student Discipline1. What type of due process must students receive

before suspension or expulsion?2. Are teachers permitted to search a student’s

belongings if they suspect the student stole another student’s phone?

Instructional Issues1. What do teachers need to know about FERPA?2. What do teachers need to know about copyright

law?3. What if a parent challenges a book that a teacher

is reading to the students in class (e.g., Harry Potter)?

Employment Discrimination1. How does federal law protect pregnant teachers?2. Does federal law protect LGBT teachers from

discrimination?3. What does Title VII address?

Desegregation/Affirmative Action1. What is the difference between de jure and de

facto segregation?2. Can race be considered in student assignment

plans and scholarships?

In addition to the top 10 topics, students also discussed the importance of legal issues surrounding English Language Learners (i.e., To what extent does federal law apply to this group of marginalized students?), Teacher Dismissal (e.g., What types of due process must a teacher be afforded before getting fired?), Collective Bargaining (e.g., Should I join a union?), Charter Schools (e.g., What does the law say about providing for students with disabilities?), and NCLB (e.g., Is there a conflict in laws between IDEA and NCLB?).

Finally, all 30 students believed that the school law course was relevant to their future careers as teachers and think it should be a required course for pre-service teachers. Eight of the 30 students said there is a lot of overlap with other courses in the program, but this course presented unique and helpful information.

Limitations A survey questionnaire delivered during class period can by no means become as elaborate as an exam sheet. Therefore, it is not plausible to include very complex questions in this kind of survey. The students

who participated in the focus groups could have been influenced by group dynamics and the fact that the course professor led the groups. Also, the six students who volunteered for the focus groups at the end of each semester were probably students who found the course interesting and were highly motivated. Finally, these are pre-service teachers. As such, it is likely the relevance of topics would change once they have their own classrooms.

CONCLUSIONSchool law scholars have argued that pre-service teaching programs have a responsibility to assist every teacher and administrator to become legally literate (Schimmel & Militello, 1997). Others have posited that knowledge of the law creates a “powerful tool that educators can use to advance their most important aims” (Heubert, 1997, p. 353) and that teachers need to be trained about legal issues that arise in schools (Redfield, 2002). The findings from the survey demonstrated that pre-service teachers gained a greater understanding about school legal issues through an undergraduate course in school law, and the focus group affirmed that pre-service teachers believe in the importance of legal literacy. It is hoped that this article will spark debate among pre-service teacher education programs about whether a school law course might be included in the program.

Suzanne Eckes is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at Indiana University. Eckes has published more than 80 school-law articles and book chapters, is an editor of the Principal’s Legal Handbook, and was a member of the board of directors for the Education Law Association. She is the recipient of the Jack A. Culbertson Award for outstanding achievements in education from the University Council of Educational Administration. Prior to joining the faculty at Indiana University, Eckes was a high school French teacher and an attorney. She earned her master’s in Education from Harvard University and her law degree and PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

5

REFERENCESAndren, K. (2010, January 27). School districts spend thousand on litigation over special education. PennLive. com. Retrieved from http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/school_districts_spend_ thousan.html.

Davis, B.M., & Williams, J.L. (1992). Integrating legal issues into teacher preparation programs. Ashland, VA: Randolph-Macon College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347139).

Garner, D.R.M. (2000, November). The knowledge of legal issues needed by teachers and student teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Bowling Green, KY.

Heubert, J. (1997). The more we get together: Improving collaboration between educators and their lawyers. Harvard Education Review, 67(3), 531-583.

Redfield, S. (2002). Thinking like a Lawyer: An Educator’s Guide to Legal Analysis and Research. Carolina Academic Press: Durham, NC.

Schimmel, D. (1975). Legal literacy: A right and responsibility of teacher. American Teacher, 59(6), 10-11.

Schimmel, D. & Militello, M. (2007). Legal literacy for teachers: A neglected responsibility. Harvard Educational Review, 77(3), 257-84.

Traynelis-Yurek, E., & Giacobee, G. (1992). Teacher preparation areas described as most valued and least valued by practicing teachers. Teacher Educators Journal, 3(1), 23-31.

6

APPENDIx

Questionnaire on Pre-service Teachers’ Legal KnowledgeThis anonymous survey is to investigate pre-service teachers’ prior legal knowledge. It is by no means related to the evaluation of you in this course. Please check the item that you think best captures your opinion. I appreciate your time and input very much!

1. What is your knowledge of the law regarding desegregation?a. I have no knowledge.b. I have little to no knowledge.c. I have little to some knowledge.d. I am quite knowledgeable.

2. Do you think most public school students are given equal educational opportunities?a. Yesb. Noc. I am not sure.

3. What is your knowledge of the law regarding affirmative action?a. I have no knowledge.b. I have little to no knowledge.c. I have little to some knowledge.d. I am quite knowledgeable.

4. Do you think universities should consider race in admitting students?a. Yesb. Noc. I am not sure.

5. What is your knowledge of the law regarding prayer in schools?a. I have no knowledge.b. I have little to no knowledge.c. I have little to some knowledge.d. I am quite knowledgeable.

6. Do you think that teachers should be allowed to lead Christian prayers if no student objects?a. Yesb. Noc. I am not sure.

7. What is your knowledge on the laws regarding gay teachers?a. I have no knowledge.b. I have little to no knowledge.c. I have little to some knowledge.d. I am quite knowledgeable.

8. Do you think openly gay teachers should be permitted to teach in the public schools?a. Yesb. Noc. I am not sure.

7

9. What is your knowledge of providing for students with disabilities?a. I have no knowledge.b. I have little to no knowledge.c. I have little to some knowledge.d. I am quite knowledgeable.

10. Do you think that special education laws have gone too far in protecting students with disabilities? a. Yesb. Noc. I am not sure.

11. What is your knowledge of harassment laws of students in schools?a. I have no knowledge.b. I have little to no knowledge.c. I have little to some knowledge.d. I am quite knowledgeable.

12. Do you think that teachers should be held liable if they fail to prohibit peer harassment in schools?a. Yesb. Noc. I am not sure.

Guiding Discussion Questions for Focus Groups1. Now that the course is complete (and grades have been posted), let’s discuss which topics you found to be

most relevant for your future teaching career. What are some of the key questions that fall under each topic, and how would you rank these topics in order of importance for pre-service teachers?

2. Do you believe this course should be a requirement for all pre-service teachers?

3. Is there anything else you can tell me to help improve the relevance of this course or to help increase student learning in this course?various legal issues and to identify those issues inherent in schools; to explore various legal principles and their applications; and to analyze current school practices from the standpoint of potential legal controversies. In addition to identifying pragmatic approaches to the law, this course also aims to involve students in academic discourse involving issues of social justice and the democratic underpinnings of education.

88 Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

AbstractThe DUETS Programs was built upon the foundation of two other highly successful programs aimed at recruiting STEM teachers and recruiting and retaining preservice teachers of color and teachers of color. EMU’s Creative Scientific Inquiry Experience (CSIE) Program, an NSF-funded STEP initiative and the Minority Achievement, Resiliency, and Success (MARS) Program combined to support the preparation of STEM teachers for urban schools. The merging of these two programs led to the creation of a comprehensive support system that follows DUETS scholars through preservice into 5 years of teaching. The result has been STEM teachers who are highly effective in urban schools who continue to receive support into their novice years of teaching.

KeywordsUrban education; Cultural Responsive Pedagogy; Recruitment and Retention; Minority STEM teachers

INTRODUCTIONCurrently, there is a high demand for effective STEM teachers, particularly in urban and high-need schools (McNair, 2000; Matthew, 2003). In addition, there is great concern about the low achievement of many low-income and culturally diverse students in urban schools (Johnson & Kean, 1992; Mattes, 2004; McNair, 2000). Many of these students do not find mathematics and science curriculum and instruction contextual and meaningful, and may not see its value. The lack of culturally diverse math and science teachers, as role models, causes students to perceive math and science as subject areas that are for White students (Ford & Milner, 2005; Ford, Moore, Harmon, 2005; Moody, 2004; Silva & Moses, 1990).

The Developing Urban Educators Teaching STEM (DUETS) Program addresses these issues by combining a focused, hands-on, integrated, interdisciplinary, academic service-learning entry-level science curriculum, Creative Scientific Inquiry Experience (CSIE) with a proven urban-education teacher-preparation program, Minority Achievement, Retention and Success (MARS), to guide students

through their professional-education curriculum, with particular emphasis on the specific challenges listed above that face teachers in urban school districts. The elements of the DUETS Program are: (1) recruitment and financial support, (2) academic and career advising and mentoring, (3) specialized professional-development training, and (4) mentoring of newly placed teachers. The purpose of this paper is to describe the DUETS program, identify challenges that occurred, share lessons learned, and give recommendations related to developing and supporting STEM teachers in urban communities. The DUETS Program was housed in the Honors College in hopes that the DUETS students would also become part of and participate in the Honor College. The anticipated general outcomes of the program were to: (1) increase the number of secondary education STEM majors graduated and placed in high-need school districts; (2) Increase the retention of new secondary STEM teachers in urban school districts; and (3) increase secondary STEM teacher effectiveness in the classroom by pairing EMU’s successful Minority Achievement, Retention, and Success (MARS) Program with its recently-established Creative Science Inquiry Experience (CSIE) program. Another outcome of the DUETS program was to positively impact both curricular and pedagogical approaches to secondary education at EMU and other institutions.

CREATIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY ExPERIENCES (CSIE)

EMU’s Creative Scientific Inquiry Experience (CSIE) Program, an NSF-funded STEP initiative, was created by faculty from chemistry, mathematics, and the Office of Academic Service-Learning to link introductory STEM courses in a cluster model with a one-credit University-Seminar component. The intent was to implement interventions and innovative pedagogy that supports high academic standards, promote faculty collaboration across disciplines, and increase student performance and persistence in STEM fields. To date, 29 faculty members from eight departments (25 percent of all STEM faculty) have

The DUETS Program: Highly Effective Urban STEM TeachersDeborah Harmon

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

9

10

been trained as CSIE Fellows and have taught CSIE sections to 162 students (Source: CSIE Report, 2008). Students enrolled in a CSIE cluster experience a community atmosphere with smaller class size, enhanced academic support, experiential learning, and career exploration, all developed to encourage completion of a STEM major. DUETS scholars who participated in CSIE were able to observe math and science classes in secondary schools in urban communities. Students were assigned to either a single school or observed in multiple schools. They worked with science and math teachers facilitating small group activities, assisting with laboratory experiments, as well as working with individual students.

MINORITY ACHIEVEMENT, RETENTION, AND SUCCESS (MARS)

EMU’s commitment to preparing students for the rigors of teaching in schools in urban communities led to the establishment of the MARS Program in the College of Education Office of Urban Education and Educational Equity. The MARS Program has the goal of dramatically increasing the number of under-represented teachers obtaining teacher certification. This program uses three approaches to address the critical national shortage of under-represented minorities in the classroom: (1) recruiting and exposing under-represented and minority students to educational careers, (2) eliminating barriers and nurturing the resilience needed to be successful in pursuing an educational career, and (3) promoting the retention of under-represented and minority teachers in education. The MARS Program was the first program established in the Office of Urban Education and Educational Equity and has been overwhelmingly successful in retaining minority students in teacher education. During the past 11 years, 98% of the approximately 225 MARS students graduated and are currently teaching in urban school districts within or outside of Michigan. The MARS Program incorporates specialized training that prepares students for effective and successful teaching in high-need, urban schools. The 100 hours of required field experiences occur in Professional Development Partnership schools in urban communities. Students attend a bimonthly MARS Scholars Seminar within a community of color addressing and learning about racial identity, cultural

competency, cultural accoutrements, multicultural lesson planning, culturally responsive instruction, classroom management, organizational skills, professionalism, job preparation, and interviewing. The seminars are presented by EMU faculty of color, former MARS students, teachers, and administrators from urban school districts. MARS Scholars are provided with faculty advisors and mentors and MARS teacher mentors. Tutors are also available and students have opportunities to participate in study groups. Workshops helping students with test preparation and text anxiety are offered as well. Computers are accessible to those students who are in need of a computer. MARS Scholars who have graduated and are hired as teachers in school districts are able to continue to participate in the MARS Teacher Program. This program meets monthly to discuss issues related to novice teachers including classroom management, curriculum and instruction, leadership, interacting with families, working with colleagues and administrators.

THE DUETS PROGRAM The DUETS Program formed a bridge between the CSIE program and the MARS Program. The DUETS Program provides scholarship and programmatic support for preservice secondary teachers in STEM undergraduate majors during a six-year period. Scholarships provided $13,333 per year for a period of 2 years of academic support. The DUETS Program supports preservice secondary teachers in math and science disciplines through a combination of academic support services, seminars, mentoring by teachers and faculty from EMU’s Department of Teacher Education, classroom and field experiences, practicums, and student teaching in urban schools. All DUETS Scholars receive continuous mentoring during their first year of teaching and serve as resources for current DUETS Scholars. The Office of Urban Education & Educational Equity coordinates linkages with urban school districts, mentoring, classroom experiences for DUETS Scholars, job placement, and support and mentoring teachers while teaching. About half of the DUETS graduates took advantage of this additional support.

DUETS Scholars participate in an Urban Education Seminar that focuses on the challenges and issues of teaching in urban communities. Speakers included novice, experienced, and veteran teachers, principles, community resources school personnel, family members, and students. In addition to this, DUETS students attended bimonthly meetings with staff and former DUETS students to share experiences.

LESSONS LEARNEDThe DUETS program proved to be successful with all 17 participating students either successfully The DUETS program proved to be successful with all 17 participating students either successfully graduating with secondary teacher certification in STEM (14) or in the process of completing the program (3). All DUET graduates are currently teaching in urban, high-need schools. The success of this program illuminated many issues that need to be considered when preparing students, especially culturally diverse students, for STEM education careers in urban communities. In addition, strategies were identified that were highly successful in supporting the DUETS student.

Recruitment of Preservice TeachersThe recruitment process involves completing an application from the Honors College, reporting grades, financial need, and writing an essay about the desire to teach in an urban community. At least 2 recommendations were requested from STEM and education professors. Points were assessed for each item with a minimum amount required for proceeding to the next step, the interview with DUETS faculty. Interview questions focused on the realities for students and teachers in urban schools. The first lesson learned about the recruitment process was that many culturally diverse students were not comfortable going to the Honors College for applications. Students reported that they had never been in the Honors College and many of them shared that it was a program they did not expect to see themselves participate in. Their associations with the Honors College made them apprehensive and they were not sure how they would be received in the college. To remedy this problem, we added the Office of Urban Education & Educational Equity in the College of Education as another office to get applications. In addition, we created an online application online. These actions appear successful.

In reviewing the applications and interviews of students who were selected and were not selected, patterns emerged especially around students’ desire to work in urban schools and communities. Candidates could be grouped into four categories: Saviors, Opportunists, Service Learners, and those who “Want to Give Back”. Saviors came from backgrounds that students believed were ‘normal’. They had a desire to work with students who were less fortunate than themselves because they believed urban students could benefit and learn from them. One student applicant shared, “ I have lived a fortunate life with two parents and good schools and want to teach them how they can live. They need my help. I can show them how to learn.” Opportunists were those who saw the program as a way to get financial assistance and were willing to teach in high-needs districts to avoid having to pay back loans. Service Learners seemed focused on the how the experience of working in an urban school would benefit themselves – especially in future careers. They described teaching in urban schools as a great experience to work with those students. Those in the “Want to Give Back” category expressed a desire to support and teach students in ways that they would love science or math. They wanted to be that teacher that helped them enjoy science and math. Many of them wanted to give back to an urban community – which was similar to their own community – because they recognized the need for caring teachers. The students that were selected for the DUETS program came from the “Want to Give Back” category. Their experiences working with students from urban communities ranged from working in summer programs to attending urban schools. What they had in common was a recognition that science and math was not taught in ways that allowed students to engage, believed that students could learn and love math and science, and felt that the greatest challenge for urban students are teachers who do not understand students’ cultures.

Experiences of Under-represented DUETS StudentsEight of the DUETS scholars were African American and Latino. These students had the added support of attending MARS seminars. Through the seminars, a deeper understanding about the experiences of underrepresented students in their teacher preparation program was gained. Students shared they were

11

12

usually the only or one of a few students of color in all of their content courses. They all stated the most frustrating experience was dealing with professors and peers who did not believe they were capable of understanding the material. Students stated that they felt there was a general consensus among professor and peers that students of color could not perform as well as their White counterparts. All of the students believed they had to work harder for their grades and continuously prove they understood the content. Students reported how professors used examples from their own experiences when describing concepts, which were often very different from the students’ experiences. Regarding peers, Kiesa shared, “ We are not trusted to do our parts in groups. When we are in groups, we become invisible…no one wants to hear our perspective.” Shani reported, “We are undermined when we have to work in groups. What we submit is always reviewed by someone else.” The experiences DUETS students shared were similar to the experiences reported by MARS students. Students felt that it was very beneficial to discuss their feelings within a community of color. All of them stated that it was extremely helpful talking to people who have had the same experiences they were having. They felt safe and were able to gain a better understanding about their professors’ and peers’ attitudes and behaviors. This insight was valuable to them as they engaged in problem solving and discussing coping strategies.

MentorsMentors played a crucial role in the DUETS program. Both faculty who were experienced in urban education and MARS teachers acted as mentors and were present at the seminars. Students looked to their mentors for advising and support in dealing with a variety of challenges they faced in their courses and student teaching. Students expressed how encouraging their mentors were. One student shared, “I would not have continued if not for my mentors…. I would have changed my major..”

Urban Education and MARS SeminarsDUETS scholars took teacher education courses that focused on teaching in urban schools and communities. Culturally responsive pedagogy and how to create multicultural curriculum were presented in the seminars. Practicum classes were in urban classrooms and student teaching placements were

also in urban classrooms. In addition to the MARS seminar, all DUETS students had the opportunity to participate in programming about urban education and seminars on urban education. Through these activities students met teachers, administrators, middle and high school students, and families from urban schools and communities. DUETS students reported that all of these activities were very enlightening and useful as indicated by the following journal entries:

“I learned how to really understand what students and teachers face in urban schools.” (Kiesa)

“I was so off-base on how to teach. Our methods professors need to visit urban classrooms.” (Jamaal)

“We are being taught to teach White middle-class students–not diversity–which is what classrooms look like now.” (Shani)

“I see why teachers don’t last in urban schools–they are not prepared.” (Megan)

“If I didn’t have this seminar–I would bomb as a math teacher in urban schools” (Andrew) “In my science and math classes–I learned content. This seminar taught me how to teach.” (Michael) “We all need to be culturally competent–why aren’t teacher preparation programs teaching that!” (Charles)

The immersion of DUETS students in urban classrooms and communities, along with the opportunity to hear the perspectives of teachers, administrators, students, and family members gave DUETS students an authentic insight into the learning needs of students and the importance of developing relationships. It also fostered the development of cultural competency in the DUETS students. The focus of the seminars on developing cultural competency informed students about the challenges of both students and teachers in urban schools and communities. Students were able to learn about themselves as a cultural being, learn about the experiences and learning styles of culturally diverse students, and the importance of teaching in ways

13

that enable students to engage in learning. Learning about culturally responsive instruction and how to create multicultural lessons in the seminars, observing in urban classrooms, and interacting with urban STEM teachers served students well when they became classroom teachers. The fact that all DUETS graduates have been teaching since they graduated in high-need, urban communities is a testament to their preparation for teaching as the majority of novice teachers in urban schools leave within a year of teaching.

DISCUSSIONTo prepare STEM teachers for urban or high-need schools, more than just content and basic instructional strategies have to be learned. Students in urban schools have difficulty relating to science and math, which historically does not have a context that is congruent with urban students and their communities. Preservice teachers need to have significant experiences, practicums, and student teaching in high-needs, urban schools and communities to foster their understand the urban context. They need these experiences to allow for the development of cultural competency. Teachers need to become more culturally competent to allow them to understand the realities of urban communities and to build the kinds of relationships with their students that are crucial for enabling culturally diverse students to engage in learning (Ladson-Billings, 1997; Ford, Moore, & Harmon, 2005; Milner, 2005). Cultural competency involves learning about oneself as a cultural being, learning about those who are culturally different, and learning culturally responsive instruction, and multicultural curriculum. Traditional teacher preparation programs may include a course on multicultural education, but that is not sufficient for developing cultural competency. Fostering the development of cultural competency needs to be intentional and evident within all education and content courses (Ladson-Billings, 1997; Moody, 2004; Silva & Moses, 1990). Culturally responsive pedagogy requires using students’ culture in teaching and the curriculum. Culturally congruent instruction is built upon knowledge about cultural learning styles and cultural assets. A multicultural curriculum contains multiple perspectives and includes multicultural content and materials. Culturally responsive teaching emphasizes

the development of meaningful relationships with students and recognizes the importance of relationships in the learning process (Ladson-Billings, 1997; Moody, 2004; Ford Moore, and Harmon, 2005; Milner, 2005). Likewise, it is important for the incorporation of culturally responsive pedagogy in STEM courses (Johnson & Kean, 1992; Johnson & Kean, 1982; Matthews, 2003) The role of mentors is a much overlooked and underemphasized support for students, but especially culturally diverse students. Mentors act as guides and coaches for students as they deconstruct their own experiences, those of culturally diverse students, and the urban community. Mentors should have authentic and significant experiences in urban schools. The lack of culturally diverse preservice teachers is very evident in STEM majors. While great efforts have been done to recruit culturally diverse students in STEM, much more effort needs to be done to retain students. One of the most effective strategies for retention is the creation of a community of color for culturally diverse students. It provides a safe sanctuary for students where they can be heard and understood. It affords students the opportunity to learn about themselves, and to make sense of what is going on in their lives. (Silva & Moses, 1990; Ladson-Billings. 1997, Moody, 2004; Ford, Moore, and Harmon, 2005). The success of the DUETS Program has given much insight into the recruitment of culturally diverse STEMS teachers, the preparation of all STEM teachers for urban classrooms, and the need for culturally responsive STEM curriculum and instructional practices.

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools14

REFERENCES Ford, D.Y., Moore III, J.L., & Harmon, D.A. (2005). Integrating multicultural education and gifted education: A curricular framework. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 125-132.

Johnson, J. & Kean, E. (December, 1992). Improving science teaching in multicultural settings: A qualitative study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(4) 275-287.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn’t add up: American students’ mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 697-708.

Matthews, L.E. (2003).Babes overboard! The complexities of integrating culturally relevant teaching into mathematics instruction, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(1), 61-82.

McNair, R.E. (January 2000). Life outside the mathematics classroom : Implications for mathematics teaching reform. Urban Education, 34(5), 550-570.

AbstractWith the publications of the National Science Educa-tion Standards (NSES), How People Learn (NRC, 2000), and How Students Learn Science (HSLS) (NRC, 2005), educators are developing inquiry strate-gies that are effective as well as engaging. Under-standing the principles that are identified in these publications enables the science educator to be more effective and to help students improve their under-standing of science. The key to being an effective science educator is to understand how students learn science. Knowledge of how students learn has raised the awareness to the forms of pedagogy that involves inquiry. Educators are learning from research in the areas of neuroscience and education to improve their skills in the classroom. Professional development at both the pre-service and in-service levels will enable educators to focus on student learning along with the pedagogy utilized.

KeywordsInquiry, Pedagogy

INTRODUCTIONWith the publications of the National Science Educa-tion Standards (NSES), How People Learn (NRC, 2000), and How Students Learn Science (HSLS) (NRC, 2005), educators are developing inquiry strate-gies that are effective as well as engaging. Under-standing the principles that are identified in these publications enables the science educator to be more effective and to help students improve their under-standing of science. Professional development in the past has focused on how educators deliver the content instead of focusing on student learning. The key to being an effective science educator is to understand how students learn science. Educators must engage the prior understanding of students, provide experi-ences of “doing science” for deeper understanding of the content, and provide opportunities for students to assess their own learning (NRC, 2005). The most common strategy to help students to accomplish these principles is to do investigations using inquiry. De-fining inquiry has resulted in many different varia-tions that have confused science educators in how

to approach it in their classrooms. The NSES (NRC, 1996) have provided science educators with the tools to assess their “inquiry” strategies and to implement effective inquiry strategies. With publications such as Exemplary Science in Grades 9-12 from the NSTA Press, educators gain confidence that their efforts will be effective in improving achievement and interest in science.

INQUIRYThe NSES provided a very formal definition of “inquiry” focusing on how scientists approach their research of the natural world and the use of evidence to provide explanations. This definition also applied to the science classroom to include the activities used by students to gain in their understanding of scien-tific ideas (NRC, 1996). Other perceptions regarding “inquiry” included the art and spirit of imagination as well as the wonderment of the investigation (Ll-wellyn, 2007; Hammerman, 2006). All perceptions regarding inquiry included the importance of the students’ interests as well as what the teacher is trying to cover in the curriculum.

Is All Inquiry Equal?

Misconceptions about inquiry by science educators have resulted in them not recognizing that inquiry can take many forms. The NSES identified five features of inquiry to guide in the development of science classroom activities. The features were placed on a continuum to help the science teacher understand the amount of learner self-direction and the amount of direction from the teacher or material (Table 1). Table 1 serves as a tool for the teacher in determining the degree of inquiry associated with any classroom activity. Educators can use the information in Table 1 to com-pare their use of inquiry found in classroom investiga-tions. Bell, Smetana, and Binns (2005) also defined four levels of inquiry by focusing again on what is given to and expected by the student (Table 2).

Constructing Inquiry-based Lessons in Teaching ScienceCarolyn A. Hayes

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

15

16

Table 1. Essential Features of Classroom Inquiry and Their Variations

Table 2. Modified Version of the Four-level Model of Inquiry. How much information is given to the student? (Bell, Smetana & Binns, 2005)

Level of Inquiry

Question? Methods? Solutions?

Confirmed X X XStructured X XGuided XOpen

These levels of inquiry can be further defined as:• Confirmed Inquiry: Students confirm a science

principle through an activity in which the results are known in advance.

• Structured Inquiry: Students investigate a teacher-presented question through a prescribed proce-dure.

• Guided Inquiry: Students investigate a teacher-presented question using student-designed or student-selected procedures.

• Open Inquiry: Students investigate topic-related questions that are student formulated through student-designed or student-selected procedures.

Understanding the different levels of inquiry as well as the NSES inquiry features table guides science educators in developing a curriculum through which students are more actively involved in the inquiry pro-cess. Educators can assess their classroom activities by comparing them to both the NSES essential fea-tures table and the table of the four levels of inquiry. From my experience as a high school biology teacher, using guided inquiry can provide many opportunities for students to be actively involved in inquiry. Figure 1 is an example of how guided inquiry can be utilized in a science classroom. Students are involved in the many steps that lead to more questions and more inquiry.

Inquiry Classroom PedagogyMy experience in incorporating the different levels of inquiry has included using the 5E Learning Cycle, laboratory modifications, questioning techniques, and assessment and metacognition for students.

5E Learning CycleThe 5E Learning Cycle (Bybee, 2002) includes en-gagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation. These stages are directly related to the five features of inquiry as presented by the NSES. In my biology classroom, I developed activities that focused on a problem that was related to the biology con-tent and to the interests of the students. The students were able to use their creativity to design different

Figure 1. A Heuristic for Teaching and Learning Science through Guided Inquiry (How Students Learn, 2005)

approaches in solving the problems presented. As a result, the students were able to ask questions of me but also of their peers. They were able to compare their results with others to determine the effectiveness of their evidence. Throughout the process, I was able to ascertain what knowledge students brought to the activity, to provide them with an avenue to “do sci-ence,” and to provide them the opportunity to reflect on what they discovered and learned about the biol-ogy content.

Laboratory ModificationMany laboratory manuals that are associated with a science textbook utilize investigations that confirm science content. Students are provided with the exact equipment and material needed, specific instructions, and a worksheet that outlines what data should be col-lected. These laboratories, when performed by stu-dents, may not always turn out the way they should. The effective science educator will turn these aberra-tions into teachable moments. Having the students reflect on their steps, as well as the materials used, provides a means to study the science content.

Approaches to modifying the laboratories can be selected to help the students be better skilled in the inquiry features as presented in the NSES. It is impor-tant when doing the modifications to select an activ-ity with goals other than teaching specific skills. For example, if you want students to make decisions on what questions to investigate, remove the introduc-tory questions from the laboratory handout. Instead, provide a discrepant event and let the students decide on the question/s to investigate. If you want students to think about what procedures should be used to in-vestigate a given question, remove the student proce-dures all together. Just provide what materials would be available for the experiment. If you want students to learn how to select appropriate data and how to organize the data, remove any data charts that appear on the laboratory hand out. This step provides for a variety of data tables as well as increases communica-tion among the students.

These modifications will require students to discuss their prior knowledge, ask questions that spark ideas, reduce student frustration, make students responsible for communicating their lab work in a clear manner, and structure an experience so students must be men-tally engaged in the lab when students cannot invent laboratory procedures.

Inquiry QuestionsScience educators may find with focused practice how the type of question used can impact how stu-dents think. Selecting a different type of question can push the student to think at a higher level of inquiry. Llewellyn (2007) identified four types of questions that science educators can utilize to help the student become an independent thinker instead of relying solely on their science teacher for information. These questions include:

• Clarifying Questions: Ask the student to be more specific about a response given to the teacher or why the data presented is important to the ques-tion.

• Focusing Questions: Ask the student to provide an example to a response to another question.

• Probing Questions: Ask the student what might happen is she tried to modify an element in an investigation.

• Prompting Questions: Ask the student what might happen to a new suggestion provided by the teacher. This also serves as a guiding question.

Using verbs such as “does,” “how can,” “how come,” and “what if” allow for more possibilities in respons-es than questions that start with “why.” These types of questions are open-ended, allowing the student to not worry about the correct answer. Using this strategy provides the educator a method of determining how the student is processing the science content.

Assessment and Metacognition of Student LearningAssessment of inquiry is found within both formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment can be either planned (a quiz or written assignment) or through interactive assessment (using questions in a student discussion). Using concept mapping or minute papers, for example, provide both the educa-tor and student information on what was learned from an activity. The development of rubrics provides the scoring on the expected outcomes of students. Table 3 provides an example of a balanced scoring rubric.

CONCLUSIONWhy use inquiry? Using the NSES inquiry features chart and principles of how students learn science has impacted two areas: student achievement and attitudes toward science.

17

Using the guide

Using the guided inquiry approach in an honors biology class has resulted in improvement of student achievement. A statistical analysis of the quantitative data assessing lessons using the 5E Learning Cycle resulted in a significant difference when compar-ing didactic approaches to the inquiry approach. In addition, the qualitative data illustrated that students preferred to work in groups, to see and touch materi-als, and to have the opportunities to communicate student ideas (Hayes, 2005). Hayes (2005) conducted a study on the relationship of the NSES to middle school girls’ attitudes toward science. Those middle school girls who were engaged in inquiry strategies demonstrated increased student-student interactions, increased student-teacher interactions, more inter-est in science, and positive attitudes toward science. Other positive results from the utilization of inquiry are presented in the NSTA publication Exemplary Science in Grades 9-12: Standards-Based Success Stories (edited by Robert E. Yager). Science teachers can learn from these successful models to build upon their inquiry pedagogy and improve student skills.

Dr. Carolyn A. Hayes ([email protected]) is a part-time curriculum specialist at Indiana University School of Medicine. She has more than 30 years of bi-ology teaching experience in Indiana public schools. She is active in NSTA and HASTI and has held many leadership positions in both organizations. Hayes has written, directed, and produced science videos focusing on inquiry and elementary science activities. She has presented several sessions at both state and national science conferences focusing on inquiry, as-sessment, elementary science activities, and neurosci-ence and student learning.

18

Table 3. Example of a Balanced Scoring Rubric. Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (NSTA Press, 2008, p. 114)

19

REFERENCES Bell, R.L., Smetana, L., & Binns, L. (2005, October). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher.

Bybee, R. (2002). Scientific Inquiry Student Learning and the Science Curriculum: Learning Science and the Science of Learning. NSTA Press: Washington, DC.

Hammerman, E. (2006). 8 Essentials of Inquiry-based Science, K-8. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA..

Hayes, C. (2005, June). The effects of the National Science Education Standards on the attitude toward science in middle school females. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Hayes, C. (2005). Inquiring minds want to know about enzymes. Exemplary Science in Grades 9-12 (pp. 25- 32). NSTA Press: Arlington, VA.

Hayes, C. (2003). The story of enzymes. The Hoosier Science Teacher, 28(4), 102-111.

Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire Within. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Luft, J., Ell, R.L., & Gess Newsome, J. (2008). Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. NSTA Press: Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

AbstractScientific literacy is a challenge for many high school students. In light of this difficulty, we created a course combining biology and literature to offer to incom-ing high school freshmen. This paper presents some of the ideas and strategies that we have used over the last six years, as well as some of the challenges that we have faced. These ideas can be adapted for use in a stand-alone classroom, or they can be used for co-operative projects between two different classrooms.

KeywordsTeaching, Pedagogy, Science, Biology, Literacy, Reading, Project Based Learning, PBL, Group Work

INTRODUCTIONThe idea for this class was originally driven by the decision of our high school to have some classes par-ticipate in the New Tech national model for learning. Among other emphases, this model encourages joint classes as a way to help students broaden their experi-ences and make connections between different subject areas. When we joined the New Tech network, some of the more common combinations were math and science classes or English and social studies classes. Ours was the first (as far as we know) to pair biology with literature. This combination may seem odd at first glance, but it feels very natural in practice. In-troductory science classes require proficiency in both reading and writing, and science topics offer plenty of ideas for research papers and reading assignments.

In the years that we have taught this class, our stu-dents have scored well above the overall school aver-age on the Indiana tests for both biology and English, showing positive results from these methods.

Why incorporate biology and literature?There were several factors that led us to try this out. First was the high failure rate in both subjects for freshmen in our high school. If we were able to truly integrate the subjects, then a double-length class would give the students more time working with each subject.

A related concern was the struggle that many of our students have with reading comprehension, particu-larly with scientific texts. Combining with a litera-ture class would bring the expertise of the language arts teacher into the science classroom, resulting in more effective use of reading strategies. Additionally, knowledge of the common use of important word roots in scientific terminology is important in build-ing vocabulary, and the high frequency of these terms in science offers a natural opportunity to learn and practice them.

Although many students are interested in science for its own sake, some students are not so enthusiastic. Having a literature connection enables students to ex-plore and consider social issues. One example is our DNA project. Students still learn about the structure and function of DNA, but they do this in the context of writing a persuasive essay about some type of genetic engineering. Students who may not care much about the structure of DNA may care a great deal about genetically modified food. These sorts of con-nections can increase student interest and motivation.

READING STRATEGIESThere are many reading strategies out there. The spe-cific one you use is probably not as important as your willingness to stick with it. Usually it takes us two or three times with a particular reading strategy before students have enough familiarity to use it well, so do not give up if it does not go well the first time. Here are some of our favorites:

• “Say Something”: Divide in groups of two. One student reads a section of text. At the end of the section, the other student says something about the text. Then the reader has a chance to respond. The students switch roles for the next section and continue to the end of the article.

• “Agree / Disagree / Wonder”: Students read an article, then write down something that they agree with, something they disagree with, and a ques-tion that they have. They then discuss these in groups of three or four. This works well for issues

Integrating Biology and LiteratureChris Hiller and Sally Nichols

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

20

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

on which students have a variety of opinions.

• “Reading by Colors”: Divide into groups of three to five students. Read individually through a sec-tion of text, highlighting in yellow any unfamiliar words. Share the list with the group, and define all of the vocabulary as a group, looking them up if needed. Read individually through the same sec-tion, highlighting in green any connection that you have to the text. Share with the team. Finally, the group should write a one-sentence summary of the section. This is good for informational texts. (We use an abbreviated version with our 9th graders.)

As previously stated, these are just a few of many possible strategies. Use one of these or develop anoth-er that you like better. The main thing is to do it and stick with it. We usually do each strategy two to three times to learn it, then we can mix them up and choose whichever strategy seems best suited for our texts.

SAMPLE PROJECTSAt the heart of our instructional philosophy is our commitment to project based learning (PBL). Projects allow us to truly incorporate the two disciplines of lit-erature and biology. In each project, our goal is for the students to create an end product that uses the knowl-edge and skills from both areas. As we help students to gain the abilities they need to complete the project, we may focus on English at some points and biology at others, but the goal of completing the project pro-vides the focal point to tie everything together.

Salad Dressing Project: This is not necessarily an easy project from the teacher perspective, but the students love it. Each year, it is at or near the top of the students’ list of favorite projects, and it is one of the projects that they almost always talk about. The connections to biology and literature are less obvious than in some other projects, so a short explanation is given with each of the content pieces.

In the project, students (two per group) create a properly emulsified salad dressing and a promotional brochure to go with it. The biology content includes: organic molecules (related to nutritional information); polar and non-polar molecules, types of bonds (par-ticularly hydrogen bonding); familiarity with metric system (Students are asked to put recipe measure-ments in grams or milliliters, as well as cups and teaspoons.); and the scientific method (Students study

existing recipes, then try out different combinations and amounts of ingredients to try to come up with a tasty dressing.). The literature content includes: basic research (Students research existing dressings to get ideas.); descriptive writing (The brochure includes a detailed description of their dressing, including flavor, smell, texture, and appearance.); biographical writing (Each student writes a short “about the chef” section for the brochure.); layout and presentation (Students have to make an attractive layout with headings, images, and text.); and process writing (Brochures include the recipe and instructions for mixing.).

Designer Babies Project: This project grew out of two desires. One was a general desire to help students learn about areas of biology that will be relevant to their lives even if they do not pursue science as a field. Because genetic engineering and testing are becoming increasingly common, this seemed like an important topic to tackle with our students. The second desire was to find a novel that could introduce our students to the idea of point of view, and Jodi Pi-coult’s novel, My Sister’s Keeper, fit perfectly. It tells the story of a family whose youngest daughter was genetically selected to be a tissue donor for her older sibling. Each chapter gives the perspective of a spe-cific character in the story, and we assign each student to read a specific character’s chapters. Students are then placed into different groups. One group is made up of students who read the same character. The stu-dents discuss their readings to ensure understanding. The second group consists of one student represent-ing each character of the story. This group provides each student and opportunity to share what happened in his section, and the whole group can put together the story. This story also provides a perfect introduc-tion to the benefits and risks that are inherent in many applications of genetic engineering and testing. After we read and discuss the novel, students are asked to topics and write about them.

The project goal is for students to write persuasive essays about some topic related to genetic engineer-ing or genetic testing. The biology content includes DNA structure and function, protein synthesis, and basic knowledge of some methods of genetic engi-neering. The literature content includes research and citation methods, writing mechanics and organization, and novel reading (My Sister’s Keeper provides an introduction to some of the ethical issues involved in genetic engineering and testing.).

21

MRSA Project: This project also serves a dual pur-pose. First, it is another way to help students gain important real-world knowledge. In this project, students learn about the characteristics of MRSA and how it has become increasingly common over the past 15 years. We then look at the increase in antibiotic re-sistance among other types of bacteria and talk about factors that contribute to this problem. Second, this project serves as a perfect introduction to the topic of evolution because it is an example of a population changing over time in regard to selective pressure. The idea for the project product came after we had a MRSA “scare” at our school where several students came to school with masks and gloves after hearing that another student had been diagnosed with MRSA.

The project goal is for groups of three students to create a brochure and public service announcement for the school nurses, who may use the materials to educate the community in case of a MRSA scare at school. The biology content includes: characteristics of bacteria; antibiotics (basic understanding of how they work and how bacteria can resist them); muta-tions and variations in a population; selective pressure and survival of the fittest; introduction to evolution; and lab work with plating, incubation, and viewing results from bacteria exposed to different levels of antibiotics. The literature content includes research and citation, scientific writing, use of graphs or charts to communicate information (in brochure), and script writing (for public service announcement).

These specific projects may not work for every classroom. They are just some ideas that have worked for us. The main thing is to try to find projects that re-quire students to not only learn the material, but to put their knowledge to use in different contexts. A good project will have a great deal of scaffolding, including article reading, labs, research, lectures, and opportuni-ties for student creativity.

CONCLUSIONSince the beginning our experiment with Bio-Lit, we have had the opportunity to share our ideas and expe-riences at several conferences and workshops. At this point, there are more than 45 Bio-Lit classes around the country. One of the most rewarding parts of this has been to hear from other teachers as they have either customized some of our projects for their use or have come up with their own ideas. In fact, some of our current projects have incorporated feedback

from other classrooms so that it is hard to keep track of which ideas were originally ours and which came from other teachers.

Although a stand-alone science class may not have the time to fully incorporate a literature component, there are still ways to use some of these ideas. Stu-dents could write a paper with fewer research or citation requirements. They could use some of the reading strategies for certain articles or book texts. Even better, there could be a short-term cooperative project between two separate classrooms. Although this might be difficult to manage, our experience has shown that the results of such an integration can have very positive results, both for student achievement and for connections to real-world issues and topics.

Chris Hiller and Sally Nichols are currently in their seventh years of co-teaching their Bio-Lit class at Decatur Central High School in Indianapolis, IN.

22 Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

AbstractWith the new advanced cognitive demands that are placed on today’s children, it is imperative that we advance the quality of instruction to meet these higher demands. Proficient inquiry-based instruc-tion provides one approach to begin to address these new challenges. Clear expectations are provided via EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol) to guide teachers in their transformation toward in-structional practice that is more aligned with the new expectations provided by Common Core State Stan-dards for Mathematics and Next Generation Science Standard.

KeywordsInquiry-Based Instruction; Mathematics Education; Science Education; Student Achievement

INTRODUCTIONThe Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide a new, rigorous framework outlin-ing what students need to know and be able to do (Achieve, 2013; National Governors Association Cen-ter for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Despite clear standards and perfor-mance expectations, CCSSM and NGSS do not detail how teachers need to go about facilitating experiences tied with these standards and expectations. This paper summarizes the presentation given at the 2012 Mid-west Regional Noyce Conference along with some updated insights. The goal of this paper is to provide specific guidance in how to assist in teacher transfor-mation related to the development of student mastery relative to CCSSM and NGSS. Two specific goals include: identifying teacher factors that lead to in-creased student achievement and measuring/improv-ing teacher performance relative to these factors.

Teacher expectations are undergoing a radical shift in terms of the expectations that we have for our stu-dents. To illustrate this shift, the performance expec-tations for high school life science, as stated in NGSS, include 50 percent higher order, 44 percent middle level, and 6 percent lower level (Marshall, 2012). This

is in direct comparison to a state that was recognized as an A- according to the Fordham Institute ratings (Gross et al., 2005) for its science standards which had expectations in high school life science as 10 percent higher order, 8 percent middle level, and 83 percent lower order (Figure 1). Or, more poignant, 94 percent of the NGSS expectations are high or middle level vs. 18 percent of the previous state science stan-dards being at the high or middle level expectation.

Clearly, the bar for minimum achievement has been significantly raised for all students. This suggests that teaching needs to be altered so that student achieve-ment can be maximized relative to the new expecta-tions. Stating such a goal is simple, but the challenge will be to find the means to achieve the goal. What trajectory facilitated by the teacher can potentially lead us to success relative to this goal? No magic bul-let exists that will transform this gap between what we seek and where students currently are performing.

Keys to Improving Learning: Ways to Transform Teacher PerformanceJeff C. Marshall

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

23

Figure 1. Cognitive Demand Comparison of NGSS High School Life Science va. SC 2005 High School Life Science Standars (Marshall, 2012)

Level 1: Remember; Level 2: Understand; Level 3: Apply; Level 4: Analyze; Level 5: Evaluate; Level 6: Create

24

On one hand, many scoff at raising standards when so many already lack mastery achievement in the previ-ous setting. However, this also may be seen as an op-portunity to engage the disengaged, invigorate those who previously did not see purpose, and challenge the scores of students in each school who are bored. Instead of listing, explaining, and describing, students are now asked to design an experiment, model a com-plex phenomenon, and analyze real-world data. The move from perfunctory learning to learning that has substance, depth, and relates to the real world has the potential to challenge and enliven all learners if the instruction is facilitated properly.

Why Inquiry?Effective teachers use many instructional techniques, but inquiry-based instruction is vital to achieving success with CCSSM and NGSS. Effective inquiry in mathematics is detailed in the eight standards of prac-tice that are to be united with the content standards. In science, NGSS uses performance expectations that weave practices, core ideas, and cross-cutting con-cepts together. Effective inquiry-based instruction is achieved with the concepts, and content is fused with the practices (e.g., engaging in argument from evi-dence, planning, and carrying out investigations).

Metric for Proficient Inquiry-Based InstructionThe Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol (EQUIP) was developed and tested over a five year process and is used by teachers, educational leaders, and researchers who desire to measure the effectiveness of inquiry-based instruction (Marshall, 2009; Mar-shall, Smart, Lotter, & Sirbu, 2011). EQUIP is framed on four overall constructs: curriculum (What guides the teaching and learning?); instruction (What do I lead?); discourse (How do we interact?); and assess-ment (How does instruction influence achievement?). There are 19 indicators divided among these four constructs that provide insights into a given teacher’s instructional practice (Marshall, Horton, Smart, & Llewellyn, 2008). Further, these insights via a de-scriptive rubric allow teachers, departments, schools, and projects to target specific areas of improvement. As we know, effective instruction is complex and multidimensional. EQUIP seeks to look solely at one specific aspect of instruction—the components surrounding and relating to inquiry-based instruc-tion. While things such as classroom management and content knowledge of the teacher are vital to the classroom, they are not measured by this instru-

ment. Specifically, effective classroom management is necessary but not sufficient for effective classroom instruction. Further, mastery of content knowledge is critical, but its importance becomes more pronounced when teaching more complex concepts or concepts where numerous alternative conceptions exist.

The entire instrument can be found at the Inquiry in Motion website (www.clemson.edu/iim), so the instrument will not be repeated here. However, several aspects of the instrument are shared below. First, for each indicator, reviewers have four options: Level 1 (Pre-Inquiry)—no inquiry present; Level 2 (Developing Inquiry)—more confirmatory but begin-ning components of inquiry seen; Level 3 (Proficient Inquiry)—effective inquiry-based instruction has been facilitated; and Level 4 (Exemplary Inquiry). Frequently, individuals feel that because there are four levels the goal is always to attain Level 4. How-ever, the real target is Level 3 and above. Many of the goals advocated in NGSS and CCSSM seek a Level 3—proficiently facilitated inquiry where students are deeply engaged in learning fundamental mathematics and science concepts. Each of the four constructs will be briefly detailed below.

CurriculumThe curriculum construct contains four indicators that focus on the various curriculum issues associated with inquiry-based instruction. Two examples include: 1) standards and 2) organizing and recording informa-tion. For the standards, the goal is to unite both the content standards with the practices detailed in NGSS or CCSSM. When practices become united with content, learning becomes meaningful to the learner and the goals of the teacher become purposeful and relevant. For organizing and recording information, the focus becomes the degree to which students are given flexibility to organize data, thoughts, and ideas in non-prescriptive ways.

InstructionThe instruction construct is comprised of five in-dicators focusing on how instruction is facilitated in the classroom. Instructional strategies and order of instruction are examples of the indictors within the instruction construct. Specifically, instructional strategies explore whether students were engaged in investigations that helped develop conceptual un-derstanding. On one end of the continuum (Level 1), teachers predominantly lecture to cover content. At

the other end (Level 4), students are deeply engaged in the investigation, and the efforts promoted strong conceptual understanding. The order of instruction is a critical indicator for inquiry-based instruction. For proficient order of instruction, the teacher has students explore concepts and ideas before explanation occurs, and both the students and teacher are involved in the explanation.

DiscourseThe discourse construct focuses on the interactions and environment that is established to promote in-quiry-based instruction. This construct contains five indicators and probes the depth and quality of the interactions that are facilitated in the classroom. Spe-cifically, for proficient, are students asked to justify and provide evidence for conjectures? Further, are students challenged to think and interact up to at least the application and analysis levels?

AssessmentThe final five indicators are found within the assess-ment construct which focuses on how assessments of student knowledge and understanding are facilitated to promoted inquiry-based learning. One key involves how prior knowledge is used in the classroom. For proficient inquiry-based instruction, teachers need to be regularly assessing students’ prior knowledge and then adjusting instruction based on the data gathered via the assessment. When teachers assess for prior knowledge but do not change instruction based on the findings, as frequently is seen during observations, the purpose of gathering the information in the first place is defeated.

DATA AND RESULTSAn executive summary report released to all princi-pals of schools that have been participating in a pro-fessional development effort to bring inquiry-based instruction into science and mathematics classrooms has shown significant growth in both teachers and stu-dents of participating teachers. As of summer 2013, data show a clear difference among the virtual con-trol group (students from other districts with similar demographic composition), the control group (non-participating teachers from participating districts), and the study group (participants in the Inquiry in Motion program). Specifically, the data show that the students of teachers who participate in the Inquiry in Motion program significantly outperform students of non-participating teachers on the Measures of Academic

Progress (MAP) Test (Northwest Evaluation Associa-tion, 2004, 2005). All participating groups also exceed the performance of students from the virtual control group. These trends are seen for student performance in both science content and science process (Figure 2). Data are based on 421 teachers of 29,725 students.

In addition, classroom observational data of partici-pants (n > 700), as measured using the EQUIP (Elec-tronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol), shows a signifi-cant increase in the quality of inquiry-based learning facilitated during the last five years. With several teachers involved in the second/third year of the pro-gram, we see continued improvements and sustained higher performance in participating schools.

To put things in perspective, the average student growth per year is 2.56 RIT scores for Concepts and Processes and 3.16 RIT scores for General Science Content Knowledge. Students of participating teach-ers on average exceed the scores of students of the virtual control group teachers by .6-1.9 RIT scores or about an additional 2-7 months of academic growth.

CONCLUSIONWith the added cognitive demands of the new expec-tations and standards laid forth by NGSS and CC-SSM, students need significant and frequent opportu-nities to explore concepts before explanation occurs. Specifically, if we are asking students to analyze, model, and justify, then they must be active partici-pates in the learning process. Inquiry-based instruc-tion provides one venue for students to demonstrate mastery of these goals and standards. Results show that when teachers become proficient in facilitating

25

Figure 2. MAP Growth ABOVE Expected for Students of Participating Teachers (5 Years of Analysis)

inquiry-based instruction that learners outperform the comparison groups of similarly matched students. EQUIP is one mechanism to help guide and facilitate intentionality toward more proficient inquiry-based teaching and learning. EQUIP is available as a .pdf or as an app for iPads via the Inquiry in Motion website (www.clemson.edu, then select research and evalua-tion tab).

Jeff Marshall received the Presidential Award of Excellence for Mathematics and Science Teaching; was nationally board certified in AYA Science; and continues to consult, research, write, and present work on inquiry teaching and learning in science edu-cation. He has taught at the middle and high school levels and currently works with both pre-service and in-service teachers at Clemson University. His book, entitled Succeeding with Inquiry in Science and Math-ematics Classrooms, recently was released by ASCD and NSTA. Marshall ([email protected]) is director of the Inquiry in Motion Institute (www.clem-son.edu/iim) and is an associate professor at Clemson University in Clemson, SC.

26

REFERENCESAchieve. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/

Gross, P., Goodenough, U., Lerner, L., Haack, S., Schwartz, M., & Schwartz, R. (2005). The state of the state science standards. http://www.edexcellence.net.

Marshall, J.C. (2009). The Creation, Validation, and Reliability Associated with the EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol): A Measure of Inquiry-Based Instruction. Paper presented at the National Associa-tion of Researchers of Science Teaching Conference: Orange County, CA.

Marshall, J.C. (2012). The Keys to Improving Learning: 19 Ways to Transform Teacher Performance. Paper pre-sented at the Midwest Noyce Conference: Indianapolis, IN.

Marshall, J.C., Horton, B., Smart, J., & Llewellyn, D. (2008). EQUIP: Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol. http://www.clemson.edu/iim.

Marshall, J.C., Smart, J., Lotter, C., & Sirbu, C. (2011). Comparative analysis of two inquiry observational pro-tocols: Striving to better understand the quality of teacher facilitated inquiry-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 111(6), 306-315.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Prac-tices, Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004). Reliability and validity estimates: NWEA achievement level tests and Measure of Academic Progress. http://www.nwea.org.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2005). NWEA Reliability and Validity Estimates: Achievement Level Tests and Measures of Academic Progress. Lake Oswego, OR.

AbstractWe examine key components of project-based learn-ing (PBL) and explore how 21st Century skills such as critical thinking, communication, and collaboration are embedded in a sample Algebra 2 PBL unit. PBL-related resources are provided to inspire readers to design PBL units of their own.

KeywordsProject-based Learning, Inquiry, 21st Century Skills.

INTRODUCTIONOver the past two decades, various reform documents (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) have emphasized the importance of students’ understand-ing of mathematics content and also the ways in which students engage in the learning of mathematics. These documents advocate for student engagement in authentic problem solving. Dan Meyer (2010) states traditional mathematics textbooks often present math problems that do not engage students in reasoning and problem solving. Instead, problems are usually presented such that a compelling problem is broken down for the student, paving a smooth straight path from one step to another. In this paper, we focus on a driving question: How can teachers support students in deeper, more meaningful learning of mathematics? One curricular and instructional model that focuses on increasing the range of students’ interests as well as their conceptual understanding of mathematics content is project-based learning (PBL). PBL is an inquiry-based instructional approach that reflects a learner-centered environment and concentrates on students’ application of disciplinary concepts, tools, experiences, and technologies to answer questions and solve real-world problems (Krajcik & Blumen-feld, 2006; Markham, Larmer, & Ravitz, 2003).

PROJECT-BASED LEARNING We embrace the Buck Institute for Education’s defini-tion of PBL: In project-based learning, students go through an extended process of inquiry in response

to a complex question, problem or challenge. While allowing for some degree of student “voice and choice,” rigorous projects are carefully planned, managed, and assessed to help students learn key academic content, practice 21st Century Skills (such as collaboration, communication, and critical think-ing), and create high-quality, authentic products and presentations (BIE, 2013).

Some of the general core principles and practices of PBL are:

1. There is a professional culture of trust, re-spect, and responsibility among the learners themselves and the teacher in a PBL environ-ment.

2. PBL units focus on 21st Century Skills as well as academic standards such as the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

3. Scaffolding activities in PBL units include student-centered instruction to increase rel-evance and rigor.

4. PBL units are designed to connect learning to other content subject areas and to the post-high school world.

5. PBL units infuse technology as a tool for com-municating, collaborating, and learning.

6. PBL units draw in partnerships with com-munity institutions such as higher education, businesses, and non-profit agencies.

Doing Projects Compared To PBLThe traditional notion of doing projects usually places them at the end of a unit, after the teacher has taught a series of lessons and students have been pushed through homework assignments, lectures, and read-ings. Students then demonstrate their understanding of the content by completing a culminating project (see Figure 1). Practice problems, lecture, textbook activities, and class discussions are examples of what might happen in a traditional math classroom when the content is being presented.

In a PBL classroom, the project is not at the end of the unit. Instead, an entry event launches the project at the beginning of a unit and students are pulled

Making Math Matter: Project-based Learning in MathematicsJean S. Lee, Catherine A. Brown, and Sarah Leiker

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

27

Figure 1. Timeline of Doing Projects

28

through the curriculum by a driving question and authentic problem that creates a need to know the content of the unit (see Figure 2).

The same elements found in a traditional classroom such as practice problems, textbook activities, and class discussions are integrated into the unit in re-sponse to students’ “need to knows” based on the entry event. Lectures might be replaced with students investigating, building, and researching concepts so inquiry is taking place. Articulating how this works is perhaps best illustrated by an example PBL unit titled “Interest in Interest,” an Algebra 2 PBL unit created by Crystal Collier, an Indiana teacher. The timeline for this project is presented in Table 1. We also include the project planning form for this unit as an appendix.

What follows is a presentation of some of the essen-tial elements of a PBL unit, illustrated by excerpts from “Interest in Interest”.

Entry Event A PBL unit is most often launched with an entry event that helps contextualize the problem and motivates students to engage in the content. Figure 3 illustrates an entry event that is in the form of a document—a letter written from a company asking for students’

help. Ideally, the problem is an authentic one and a representative of the company will present the chal-lenge either virtually or in person.

Figure 2. Timeline of PBL

Table 1. Project Calendar for “Interest in Interest” Algebra 2 PBL Unit

Day 1 Introduction of the project: Present the problem/challenge to the students. Review expectations of the project.

Day 2 Car buying criteria workshop: What criteria do we need to consider before picking a car?

Day 3 Car buying resources technology workshop: Show various websites on car information.Students revisit car choices based on Day 2 and 3 workshops.Students compile and augement their lists using Word or Excel.

Day 4 Affordability workshop: How much can I spend monthly on car payments based on my salary?Students refine car choices based on Day 2, 3, and 4 workshops.Students research auto loan rates and calculate monthly payment of cars.

Day 5 Quiz ReviewCompound interest workshop: Exploration of the impact of compund interest for savings, CD, and loan rates.

Day 6 Depreciation workshop: Compare Kelley Blue Book depreciation car values vs. continuous compound-ing values with 15% depreciation rate. Technology workshop: Use computer spreadsheet to plot points on graph to generate a possible function that models the data.

Day 7 Technology workshop: Use Excel and PowerPoint effectively.Develop PowerPoint slides for presentation.Review expectations of presentation.

Day 8 Group computer lab work time.Students practice presentations.Teacher checks in with groups’ progress.

Day 9 Final presentations.Day 10 Students assess the productivity of themselves and

peers.Class relfects and debriefs over the unit: Discuss recommendations for performance and project improvement.

An entry event should accomplish at least four things that are critical to a successful project: 1. Hook the students;2. Allow students to discern their role; 3. Lay out the project or problem to be completed or

solved; and 4. Provide information that will motivate the stu-

dents to ask questions and seek answers in honor of the standards and skills useful for formulating a response or solution to the problem.

Entry events may use documents, video, presenta-tions, or any other activity to engage students.

Driving QuestionAfter engaging students in the entry event, they should be able to articulate the problem statement or the Driving Question of the project. The Driving Question is an open-ended challenge or problem that focuses learners’ work and deepens their learning

by centering on questions and/or problems, signifi-cant issues, and debates. Teachers can guide students to define the problem statement within the Driving Question by having them reflect on the following framework: How do we as… (student’s role) create/ research/develop… (task) so that… (desired outcome).

The Driving Question for “Interest in Interest”, our example unit, is: How does income impact a con-sumer’s ability to make large purchases? This driving question requires the project designer to articulate a scenario that can be meaningful to students. Thus, the problem statement is: How can we, as recent college graduates, determine the best vehicle purchase for our income? The students conducting research for this PBL Unit are in an Algebra 2 class and come from an early college career setting. By framing their position as recent college graduates seeking a vehicle pur-chase, there is a dual layer of authenticity and adult connections made for the students.

After students articulate the Driving Question with the teacher’s guidance, students practice an essential problem solving skill by determining and recording what they will need to know in order to answer the Driving Question. This list becomes a living docu-ment for the duration of the project. Students add to this list and it is revisited daily through various for-mats to assess the progress of the class and to allow student voice to determine the next steps for inves-tigation which highlight the relevance of upcoming instruction.

Scaffolding InstructionWays in which the teacher supports students learn-ing (i.e., practice problems, textbook activities, class discussions, investigations, research, etc.) and the problem solving process are referred to as scaffolding techniques. Scaffolds are integrated into the instruc-tion of the unit as the students need the information so their learning becomes authentic and relevant. Equal-ly important, students’ learning of the context of the project should be well balanced with the content. For example, in the “Interest in Interest” Algebra 2 Unit, students need to choose the most affordable vehicle (context), and also master the concepts of exponential and logarithmic functions (content). Also important is that PBL encourages learning that is inquiry-based and in which the inquiry should lead learners to construct something new—an idea, an interpretation, a new way of displaying what they have learned. We

29

Figure 3. Entry Event of “Interest in Interest” Algebra 2 PBL Unit

30

Table 2. Anticipated Need-to-Knows

Anticipated Need to Know Scaffolding activities to address NTK

Assessment for assingmment/activity/action

Learning Outcomes addressed in assignment

How will this be graded? Rubric will be given to stu-dents and explained.

Students will be asked to rewrite the rubric. Students will demonstrate understand-ing of the rubric by being able to transfer it into “kit-friendly” language

I can explain, in my own words, the medithods by which I will be assessed in this project.

What is a case study? Students will be given a sample case study to review. We will discuss the structure and the methods used to generate and analyze relevant data.

Students will create an original case study utilizing methods similar to those used in the example.

I can generate accurate data and I can properly interpret my findings as part of a study.

What types of graphs do I need to include?

Students will have a workshop devoted to graphing and devel-oping meaningful graphs.

Students will be asked to use their case study to create at least 3 different graphs illustrating different savings strategies.

I can draw a graph to illus-trate how the banking product works over time given certain variables.

What is a professional presen-tation?

Students will have a workshop dedicated to developing a con-cept for their presentations and will receive feedback to help them develop that concept to a professional level.

Students will have to submit a rough draft or outline of their presentation with a prototype copy of the original marketing material to be presented.Students will be given the op-portunity to revamp if needed to implement feedback. Students will demonstrate a mastery understanding of pro-fessional presentation through the execution of their own presentations and materials.

I can present my ideas in a clear, concise and professional manner.

How do I use Excel? Students will have a workshop designed to teach them how to make use of excel to generate data and to create graphs for their project.

Students will have an assign-ment focused on graphing and using excel to create graphs. Their graphs must be accurate and relevant to the case study.

I can use excel to create a variety of graphs illustrating various logarithmic and expo-nential functions.

How do I use PowerPoint? Students will have a workshop where they learn to embed objects in PowerPoint to create a presentation of their Case Study.

Students will use their Pow-erPoint as the focal point of their presentations of their case study.

I can create a PowerPoint slide show that engages the audience in my case Study.

What math will I need to know?

Students will have two to three workshops on exponen-tial functions and logarithmic functions. These topics will be addressed in context to the project.

Students will take quizzes and a test to determine the level of learning they have achieved on these learning goals.Students will also demonstrate their learning through the final presentation by present-ing accurate data which they are able to properly interpret. Students will also be able to answer questions from the panel regarding their findings and support their answers with mathematical data.

I can accurately solve and interpret logarithmic and expo-nential equations.

provide an example of how Crystal Collier anticipated some of the “need to knows” her students would have, and how she planned to support students’ learning. These “need to knows” are not exhaustive, but merely examples to indicate the level of detail required in the PBL unit planning process.

21st Century SkillsLearners need to do much more than remember infor-mation in a PBL environment—they need to use high-er-order thinking skills. They learn to work as a team and contribute to a group effort. They must listen to others and make their own ideas clear when speaking, be able to read a variety of material, write, or other-wise express themselves in various modes, and make effective presentations. These skills, competencies, and habits of mind are often known as 21st Century Skills. Various 21st Century Skills include: commu-nication, creativity, use of technology, group process and collaboration, problem solving and critical think-ing, and task- and self- management (Markham et al., 2003, pp. 25-27). In the Algebra 2 Unit, collaboration, presentation, digital age literacy, and critical thinking and reasoning are explicitly taught and assessed; time management and investing thinking skills are encour-aged by project work, but not taught or assessed. Learners work independently and take responsibility when they are asked to make choices. The opportu-nity to make choices, and to express their learning in their own voice, also helps increase learners’ educa-tional engagement.

RubricRubrics help students understand the expectations of the project and prepare them for how they will dem-onstrate their learning for public scrutiny and critique. The rubric is designed so that the PBL unit not only has students demonstrate content mastery, but soft skills (i.e., 21st Century Skills) as well. Even though various soft skills may be encouraged, Larmer, Ross, and Mergendollar (2009) recommend novice PBL practitioners to identify no more than two soft skills if those skills are explicitly being taught throughout the unit and assessed as outcomes in the projects. The ex-ample rubric in Figure 4 illustrates the various criteria students must meet: content mastery, the 21st Century Skill of critical thinking and reasoning, and presenta-tion skills.

RESOURCESWe list a variety of resources in Table 3 that we have found useful as we design PBL units for mathemat-ics. Some resources provide sample PBL units; these units may be brief ideas or very detailed units. Other resources provide sample videos to support practi-tioners to implement PBL units. Research studies are also showcased in some resources to help investi-gate the effectiveness of PBL, while other resources provide implementation tips and/or strategies for PBL practitioners. Lastly, the column marked “ideas that drive design” are resources that contain problems/challenges that may inspire a PBL unit topic.

Jean S. Lee ([email protected]) is the associate direc-tor of the Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellow-ship Program and an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Indianapolis. Her primary research interests are analyzing mathematics classroom discourse and the impact of implementing project-based learning. Currently, she supports pre-service and in-service teachers in designing and im-plementing project-based learning units, and prepares STEM teachers who will teach in high-need middle and secondary science and mathematics classrooms.

Catherine A. Brown ([email protected]) is a Professor of Mathematics Education, Head of Division of Education and Director of the Center of Teaching and Learning at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus. Her primary research interest

31

Figure 4. “Interest in Interest Algebra 2 PBL Rubric

32

throughout her career has been the professional development of teachers of mathematics. Since 2009, she has been leading the PBL Academy, (originally Math Matters), an initiative in the southeastern coun-ties of Indiana to introduce project-based learning (PBL) techniques to educators at all grade levels.

Sarah Leiker ([email protected]) is a School Development Coach for New Tech Network and supports schools in creating a positive school culture and implementing engaging and rigorous cur-riculum. She joined New Tech Network in 2011, after finding her desire to contribute to the educational revolution in 2008 at Columbus Signature Academy

(CSA) in Columbus, Indiana as a facilitator of math-ematics. She is excited to continue the educational revolution through her role as a School Development Coach to assist educators in developing a school culture that empowers students & staff, ensure teach-ing methods that engage students through the use of Project and Problem Based Learning, as well as en-able learning through the use of technology.

Acknowledgements:Thanks to Crystal Collier for letting us showcase her Algebra 2 PBL unit. Any inquiries on the unit should be sent directly Crystal Collier ([email protected]).

Table 3. Various PBL Resources

Sample PBL Units Sample Videos Research Tips for using PBL

Ideas that drive design

Buck Institute for Education http://www.bie.org

X X X

Project-based Learning Hand-book (Markham et al., 2003)

X X X

PBL Start Kit (Larmer et al., 2009)

X X X

Edutopiahttp://www.edutopia.org/proj-ect-based-learning

X X

Indiana Collaborative for Project-based Learninghttp://www.rose-prism.org/moodle/

X

The PBL Academyhttp://iuemoodle.educ.indiana.edu/moodle/

X

Curriki PBL Geometryhttp://www.curriki.org/wel-come/resources-curricula/curriki-geometry-course/

X

Innocentivehttp://www.innocentive.com

X

Mathalicioushttp://www.mathalicious.com

X

Emergent Mathhttp://emergentmath.com/my-problem-based-curriculum-maps/

X

33

REFERENCESBuck Institute for Education [BIE]. Project Based Learning for the 21st Century. 2013. http://www.bie.org/ about/what_is_pbl/

Buck Institute for Education [BIE]. Project-Based Learning Starter Kit: To-the-Point Advice, Tools and Tips for Your First Project. Author. Novato, CA. 2009Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSSI]. Common core state standards for mathematics. 2010. http:// www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics. Krajcik, Joe S., & Blumenfeld, Phyllis. (2006). Project-based learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge, NY. 2006. pp. 317-333).

Larmer, John, Ross, David, & Mergendollar, John R. PBL Starter Kit: To-the-Point Advice, Tools, and Tips for Your First Project. Buck Institute for Education. Novato, CA. 2009.

Markham, Thom, Larmer, John, & Ravitz, Jason. Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards- focused project based learning (2nd Ed.). Buck Institute for Education. Novato, CA. 2003.

Meyer, Dan. Ted Talks: Dan Meyer: Math class needs a makeover. 2010. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_ math_curriculum_makeover.html

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author. Reston, VA. 2000.

National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. Common core state standards initiative: Mathematics. 2010. http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics.

AbstractProblem–based learning (PBL) engages first year high school chemistry students through meaningful con-text. We designed a PBL lesson based on chemistry learners’ interests, curriculum standards and context. The PBL project is a forensic chemistry unit, whereas, the students must be certified on various labora-tory techniques and then are given a crime scene to investigate as a team. The crime scene includes an unknown liquid, unknown white powder and an ink sample to identify. Student teams then present their evidence and identity of the unknowns at a mock “court” day.

KeywordsProblem-based learning, PBL, chemistry, forensic, laboratory, unknown liquid, white powder

INTRODUCTIONProblem-based learning is founded on the idea of stu-dents becoming engage by doing relevant and reality based curriculum. Chemical forensic analysis from a crime scene fits the criteria. Students work in groups of three to four and collect data for analysis of a white powder, clear liquid, and an ink sample by complet-ing seven different experiments/tests. To identify the liquid three tests are performed: they are melting point, chemical indicators, and solubility. The liquid is identified by using a FTIR spectroscopy, measuring the density, and boiling point. Paper chromatogra-phy is used to match the unknown ink. The students are first trained for each test and then later become a certified “expert” in three or four of the specific tests. When the certification is completed the forensic team receives their “official” crime case to analyze. Students gather and compile data for identifications of unknown samples in the crime. Students are given a “court” data to present their team’s findings via a power point presentation.

PBL USING CHEMICAL FORENSIC ANALYSISHigh school chemistry students meet the problem for the PBL unit by reading a letter from the director of the local crime lab. In the letter it explains to the stu-dents why their help is needed. We present the local

crime lab being overwhelmed with samples and are developing pilot programs for high school students to test samples. The students define the problem by re-searching laboratory techniques which can be used to identify white powders, clear liquids and ink samples (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows a more detailed timeline of the project the students will complete. With the guidance of the instructor they determine seven dif-ferent experiments.

Station 1: DensityStudents measure the density of 3.0 ml of their un-known liquid sample. They first weigh an empty graduated cylinder and record the mass. Then they measure 3.0 ml of sample and weigh the cylinder again. The mass of the liquid is found by taking the difference in the mass. Students then use the density equation and divide by the 3.0 ml volume to find the density of the liquid. They compared their density to a list of known densities.

Station 2: Fourier Transform Infrared SpectroscopyA Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR) was borrowed from Purdue University through the Science Express Program. The Science Express Pro-gram allows high schools to borrow specialized lab equipment for free. Students are trained on the instru-ment and run liquid unknown samples with

Problem Based Learning: Forensic ChemistryKylee List and Linda Monroe

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

34

Figure 1. Overall Project Design and Flow

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

teacher supervision. They identify peaks and record the wavenumbers of prominent peaks, then compare their spectrum to the spectrums of known samples.

Station 3: Boiling PointStudents measure the boiling point of their unknown liquid using a hot water bath. Special care was taken to make sure that each unknown had a boiling point under 100 º C. Students suspended a test tube with unknown sample into a beaker of water. They heated the beaker of water slowly while monitoring the temperature of the test tube. Once the unknown liq-uid began to boil, they recorded the temperature and compared it to a known set of data.

Station 4: Melting Point Students place a small amount of unknown powder into a mortar and pestle and grind until it is a fine powder. Then they load a capillary tube with a small amount of sample and place in the melting point ap-paratus. The digital melting point apparatus was also borrowed from Purdue University through the Science Express Program. The students then record tempera-ture when the sample has melted and compare results

to the reference sheet and find a possible match.

Station 5: Chemical IndicatorsStudents are given a white powder to analyze. They place a small sample of unknown into a well plate. Add 1 to 2 drops of several different chemical indica-tors and stir. Students will record the color changes (if any) and compare results to the reference sheet to find a match. Station 6: Solubility TestIn three separate test tubes measure 10 ml of distilled water, ethyl alcohol and cyclohexane. Students place a pea size sample of unknown white powder into each and shake for 3 minutes each. Record the data as soluble, slightly soluble or insoluble for each. Stu-dents then compare the results to the reference sheet to find a possible match(s). This test is not definitive, but does narrow the possible matches.

Station 7: Paper ChromatographyStudents are given an ink sample to analyze using pa-per chromatography. Students use water is the mobile phase to separate the different colors in the ink. They

35

Figure 2. Timeline for Project

PBL Event Forensic Time FrameMeet the problem Hook the letter from the crime lab director 15 minDefine the problem Discuss the chemical analytical techniques

to determine unknown substances25 min

Plan for and information gathering Students research techniques 1 class dayInformation gathering (groups) Students are trained to do the experiments

and collect data2 class days

Information gathering (individually)

Students choose three or four of the experiments to become experts and earn certifications

2 class days

Share information Receive crime case to analyze sample 2 class daysDetermine the best-fit solutions Compile data to determine the identity of

unknown samples from the crime scene2 class days

Prepare for presentation Prepare PowerPoint with data from each experiment to provide evidence

2 class days

Present the solution Students present the evidence and con-clude the identity of unknown liquid, white powder, and ink at the “court date” based on their analysis

1 class day

Debrief the problem and the process

Instructor reveals the identity of the un-knowns

Same day as “court day”

36

then compare their findings to known chromatogra-phy samples.

CONCLUSIONAfter the students gather all the data, they present their findings at a “court date” as if they were real fo-rensics scientist. Students are partially scored on their accuracy in determining the identity of the unknown substances. Each student has a role and must fulfill their role in order to have success. The project, as a whole, covers an area in the curriculum that can often be hard to engage students. This alternative approach allows students to learn about chemical and physical changes, properties of matter, and density in a new and exciting way while covering the state standards related to these topics. The Indiana State Standards covered include:

• C.1.1 Differentiate between pure substances and mixtures based on physical properties such as density, melting point, boiling point, and solubil-ity.

• C.1.2 Determine the properties and quantities of matter such as mass, volume, temperature, den-sity, melting point, boiling point, conductivity, solubility, color and designate these properties as either extensive or intensive.

• C.1.3 Recognize indicators of chemical changes such as temperature change, the production of a gas, the production of a precipitate, or a color change.

• C.1.26 Describe physical changes and properties of matter through sketches and descriptions of the involved materials.

• C.1.27 Describe chemical changes and reactions using sketches and descriptions of the reactants and products.

Students have had great success with this project and the students show a high level of engagement. We have had very positive feedback from students in regard to this lab activity; students really seem to enjoy what they are studying. In today’s society, it is becoming harder and harder to engage students. This project is successful because it both engages students and covers the needed curriculum.

Kylee List has been teaching high school chemistry-and integrated chemistry-physics for 6 years. She received her B.S. in Chemistry from Butler University in Indianapolis and her teaching certification and M.S. in Education from Indiana University Purdue University in Indianapolis. She has been a mentor teacher for the Woodrow Wilson Program and the GK-12 Initiative, and continues to pursue excellence in science education. Linda Monroe has been teaching college prep and AP/Dual credit chemistry for 25 years. She received her B.S. in Chemistry from Indiana University, Bloomington and her M.S. in Chemistry from Purdue University, West Lafayette. She has presented at sev-eral Hoosier Association of Science Teachers which is the state conference for NSTA. She has been recog-nized as a master teacher by being rewarded the IPL Golden Apple Award, 2006 and Pearson Outstanding Teacher, 2008. She has served on numerous local, state and national science boards.

Special thank you to the chemistry staff at War-ren Central High School in Indianapolis, Ind.: Trent Bodine, Georgia Watson, and Sherri Nelson

REFERENCEProblem-based Learning, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, http://www.imsa.edu

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

AbstractSupporting beginning secondary science teachers is important if they are going to build their beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge. One way to support beginning science teachers is through science-specific induction programs. In this chapter, a point is made about the need to support beginning science teachers. Then data are shared about the impact of a science-specific induction program on the beliefs and PCK of beginning teachers. From this data, it can be concluded that science-specific induction programs can help beginning teachers strengthen and sustain their beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge. Such programs keep them from swimming, instead of sinking in their first years of teaching.

KeywordsBeginning Teachers, Science Teachers, Teacher Development

INTRODUCTIONThose in science teacher education tend to focus on one of two areas when it comes to teacher development. One area pertains to the preparation of new teachers. In this area, there are discussions that range from the courses that support new teacher learning to how new teachers develop. This research is ultimately conducted to guide the conceptualization and enactment of preservice programs. The other area of research pertains to the professional development of teachers, which often focuses on teachers who are in the classroom full time. Research in this area is often situated within courses, institutes or programs that are developed to specifically enhance a science teacher’s ability or skills to teach or work with colleagues.

What is missing in this two-phase approach is attention to the most difficult and challenging time in a teacher’s career – the first years of teaching. Preservice science teacher educators often consider this to be a period of time that is not their responsibility. After all, most would reason that they have prepared good teachers and their preparation will enable them to survive the first years – just as

everyone does. With this faulty assumption, science teacher educators are actually missing an important opportunity to evaluate the quality of their teacher education program, and to support their teachers in ways that will allow them to strengthen and sustain their abilities, knowledge, and skills.

Science teacher educators who are focused on the professional development of part of a teacher’s career often assume that the first years of teaching are difficult and they should be supported by the school in which the teacher works. Unfortunately, this position suggests that new teachers developed ways of teaching that are inconsistent with their preservice teacher education program. In this area, professional development specialists then have the task of providing programs that will bring the experienced teachers back to the abilities, knowledge and skills they developed during a preservice program.

By working with new teachers after they graduate and before they participate in science teacher professional development programs, science teachers can experience a seamless transition from their preservice program to their first experiences with professional development programs. If science teacher educators have the goal of strengthening the abilities, knowledge and skills of science teachers, then they must actively work with science teachers when then need their science education training the most – during their first years. After all, this is a significant and memorable time in the careers of every science teacher.

Over the years, my colleagues and I have worked with and studied early career science teachers. Our goal in this chapter is not to reiterate this work, but our goal is to suggest why science teacher educators should be involved with induction teachers. Throughout the rest of this chapter, I will describe our experiences pertaining to new science teachers. The different areas that are described pertain to supporting new science teachers in order to strengthen and sustain their beliefs about teaching, and their pedagogical content knowledge.

Beginning Secondary Science Teachers: Strengthening, Sustaining, or SinkingJulie A. Luft

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

37

38

Working With New Science TeachersEight years ago, in a study funded by the National Science Foundation, we found and began following over 130 beginning secondary science teachers. For the next five years, we observed and interviewed the teachers to capture the change in their beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge. These teachers were also involved in different induction programs, which gave us new insights into how science specific induction support can impact the long term learning of a science teacher. From this comprehensive data set, we have written several research articles that describe our research process, and new teacher change and development (e.g., Bang & Luft, 2013; Luft, 2009; Luft et al., 2011; Ortega, Luft, & Wong, 2013). The next sections in this chapter are summaries and perspectives on our work with new science teachers in the areas of teacher beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge.

Beliefs of beginning science teachersTeacher beliefs have long been associated with teacher decisions. Beliefs, or “psychologically held understandings, premises or propositions about the world that are felt to be true” (Richardson, 1996, p. 103). These teacher beliefs often are a result of many years of personal experiences, including those as a student (Richardson, 1996). For example, personal experiences in a teacher-centered classroom may lead a teacher to believe in utilizing teacher-centered practices. Teachers that experienced verification science laboratory activities may believe verification laboratories are the only or best way to teach science. If preservice teachers experienced science in this manner, this influences what they think science is, and how science should be taught. While teacher beliefs impact teacher decisions, beginning teachers beliefs are often unstable. Simmons et al. (1999) found some teacher beliefs to be more stable depending upon years of experience. Luft (2001) supported this finding when she found new teachers had more pliable beliefs than their more experienced colleagues. While beliefs are unstable during the beginning of a teacher’s career, they become more difficult to modify over time. This can be attributed to a system where core beliefs are more central and difficult to change, while peripheral beliefs are more prone to influence (Rokeach, 1968) As a result, beginning teacher beliefs are malleable, but over time they become more stable as they form core beliefs about teaching science.

In our study of beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programs, it was found through quantitative and qualitative research, that beliefs can be influenced by different induction programs. In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the teachers in science-specific induction programs to the teachers in induction programs put on by their schools (no or little focus on science). The two science-specific induction programs of interest were an online program and a face to face program. The online program consisted of a web-site in which new teachers and their mentors could discussion teaching inquiry. The face to face program consisted of monthly meetings and monthly classroom visits, as well as online support and a trip to a local science teacher conference. A description of these programs can be found in Luft (2009).

In Luft et al. (2011), it was reported that the teachers in the science-specific induction program developed more student-centered beliefs during the first two years of participation in the induction program. After the induction program ended, the teachers’ beliefs returned to their original position. In other words, even though these teachers’ beliefs changed toward a more student-centered orientation during their induction program; two years later, they veered back toward the original beliefs that the teachers held when they first started teaching. For the teachers in the other induction groups, where induction was not science-focused, beliefs changed little. The finding that all of the participants’ beliefs fluctuated, but did not permanently shift supports the notion that teacher beliefs are malleable as reported by Simmons et al. (1999) and Luft (2001). In addition, this also supports the idea that some beliefs are difficult to change and change may be difficult to sustain (Rokeach, 1968).

Beliefs have a very definite role in teacher decisions. Although it has been shown that it is difficult to change beliefs, it is also very necessary to do so in order for student learning to occur. Teacher beliefs are related to teacher decisions, and it is important that teachers believe in the importance of student-centered instruction. New teacher beliefs are important to change, but more research is needed about how to support the development of these beliefs. Ultimately, if we don’t understand how to support new teachers’ beliefs towards more student-centered orientations, we will spend more time with in-service teachers trying to modify stable beliefs. These stable beliefs

may be inconsistent with the views we value in science teacher education.

The pedagogical content knowledge of beginning science teachersGood science teachers do many things to promote student learning in the classroom such as lead discussions, plan experiments, and design units. The teaching strategies should involve both subject-specific approaches and science-specific pedagogical strategies (i.e. inquiry). This includes having a repertoire of a wide range of approaches to teaching and learning and the ability to judge when a particular approach is appropriate for a particular situation and when it is not. Most often, it is the experienced teacher that is cognizant of the complexities of various teaching strategies that cause confusion in the learning of science concepts (Clermont, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994). Beginning science teachers, unlike their experiences counterparts, tend to rely on trial and error to help them survive the first years in the classroom.

A science teacher’s ability to develop and enact instruction to a particular group of students is based on a teacher’s knowledge, which is referred to as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). This unique knowledge draws upon content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge, and results in instruction that represents the content area to students (Shulman, 1986, 1987). van Driel, Beijarrd, and Verloop (2001) expanded on the composition of PCK in science by stating that this knowledge consists of 1) an understanding of student difficulties and/or misconceptions with topics related to the content that is taught and 2) instructional strategies that incorporate representations. Furthermore, they indicated that PCK is developed while teachers work in classrooms.

In our study of beginning science teachers, we looked at the development of PCK of 69 teachers over the course of their first three years in the classroom. A PCK interview was used to elicit how teachers’ transformed knowledge about content and students into lessons for students (see Lee, Brown, Luft, & Roehrig, 2007). The semi-structured interview occurred prior to the start of the study and after the end of each of the three subsequent years in the classroom. The areas of “Knowledge of Student Learning in Science” and “Knowledge of

Instructional Strategies” were captured as the teacher discussed what they considered to be their best lesson. Two researchers coded the responses independently as limited, basic, or proficient and then collectively to resolve any areas of discrepancy. A discussion of the development of this interview and the coding process, as well as the reliability and validity, can be found in Lee et al. (2007).

Table 1. Mean scores and standard deviations for PCK (N=69)

Time Mean SDBefore starting teaching PCK Category 1 Category 2

1.441.391.52

0.360.350.48

After a year of teaching PCK Category 1 Category 2

1.841.722.03

0.420.460.50

After two years of teaching PCK Category 1 Category 2

1.551.481.65

0.390.410.45

After 3 years of teaching PCK Category 1 Category 2

1.751.671.86

0.340.410.40

The overall PCK that the teachers held in this study tended to reside in the beginning categories: basic and limited (F(2.86, 214.46) = .31, p = .811, partial ƞ2 = .004) (see Table 1). As beginners, these new teachers relied on few instructional approaches, did not recognize students’ prior knowledge, made few accommodations for diverse learners, used few representations to present the subject matter, struggled to consider the use of inquiry in the lesson and did not change significantly over the year.

In a follow-up analysis, the overall PCK score was broken down into two categories: 1) Knowledge of Student Learning in Science and 2) Knowledge of Instructional Strategies. Category 1, Knowledge of Student Learning, includes students’ prior knowledge, variations to students’ approaches to learning, and students’ difficulties with specific science concepts. Knowledge of Instructional Strategies, Category 2, includes the teacher adopting scientific inquiry practices for teaching a lesson and the use of representations that are pedagogically effective.

39

40

There were no significant differences found in the development of PCK in either Category 1 or Category 2 (see Table 1). However, teachers’ scores in Category 2 showed the greater growth over the three years. Specifically, teachers moved from a limited to a basic level of PCK, which is characterized as adopting more inquiry-based instruction and adopting more representations to present the subject matter. This finding supports the conclusions of other researchers regarding the importance of working with students in order to improve one’s PCK (Lee et al., 2007; Loughran, Muhall, & Berry, 2008; van Driel, de Jong, & Verloop, 2002).

From this and other studies about beginning teachers’ PCK, it is clear that working in the classroom is important, and it is important to provide additional support to the beginning teachers in the area of instructional strategies. Clearly these areas, which are developed during a preservice program, need ongoing support in order to achieve high levels of proficiency. These collective findings add to a growing amount of data that suggest learning to teach does not just happen during one’s preservice program, but that learning to teach takes place over a period of time.

CONCLUSIONIn our work with beginning science teachers, we know that they come to the profession with different abilities and different instructional needs. These differences are captured in the previously mentioned sections, and they support the need to consider how preservice teachers are prepared when it comes to their teaching beliefs and PCK. Clearly, the only way recommendations for preservice education can be made are when we study new teachers. By looking at the performances and knowledge bases of new teachers, we are able to better understand how preservice and induction programs support teachers. In this chapter, it is clear that new teachers have a different pattern of development over time. Science teacher educators need to extend beyond their view of preservice and inservice teachers, and adopt a view of teachers that recognizes the important area of induction. By viewing teachers as progressing from preservice, to induction, and to early inservice, programs that prepare and support teachers can be developed and enacted by teacher educators. These programs ensure that early career teachers are supported in ways that allow them to perform beyond the training of their education program and

in a way that is appropriate for their phase in their career. By recognizing the important role of induction in a teacher’s career, we can build new and powerful ways to strengthen and sustain the beliefs and PCK of teachers.

AUTHORS’ NOTEThe authors of this chapter would like to recognize the following research assistants and faculty who helped with various parts of this study: Charles Weeks, Gillian Roehrig, Anne Kern, Sissy Wong, Krista Adams, Ira Ortega, Jennifer Neakrase, and Holly Crawford. This study was made possible by National Science Foundation grants 0550847, 0918697, 0732600, and 0632368. The findings, conclusions, and opinions herein represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of personnel affiliated with the National Science Foundation.

Julie A. Luft ([email protected]) is the Athletic Association Professor of Science and Mathematics Education, in the College of Education, at the University of Georgia, Athens.

40 41

REFERENCESBang, EunJin, & Luft, Julie A. (2013). “Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the classroom during their first 5 years.” Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2013. 29:4. pp. 118-126.

Clermont, Christian, Borko, Hilda, & Krajcik, Joesph. “Comparitive study of the pedagogical content know eldge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators.” 1994. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 31:4. pp. 419-441.

Lee, EunJin., Brown, Michelle, Luft, Julie A., & Roehrig, Gillian. “Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results.” School Science and Mathematics. 2007. 107:2. pp. 418-426.

Loughran, John, Mulhall, Pamela, & Berry, Amanda. “Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education.” 2008. International Journal of Science Education, 30:10. pp. 1301-1320.

Luft, Julie A. “Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programmes: The first year of teaching.” International Journal of Science Education. 2009. 31:17. pp. 2355-2384.

Luft, Julie A. “Changing inquiry practice and beliefs? The impact of a one-year inquiry-based professional development programme on the beliefs and practices of secondary science teachers.” 2001. Internation al Journal of Science Education. 23:5. Pp. 517-534.

Luft, Julie A., Firestone, Jonah, Wong, Sissy, Adams, Krista, Ortega, Ira, & Bang, EunJin. “Beginning second ary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2011. 48:10. pp. 1199-1224.

Ortega, Ira, Luft, Julie A. & Wong, Sissy. “Learning to teach inquiry: A study of an early career science teacher who works with English language learners.” School Science and Mathematics, 2013. 113:1. pp. 29-40. Richardson, Virginia. “The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach.” In John Sikula (Ed.), The handbook of research in teacher education (2nd ed.). Macmillan. New York: NY. pp. 102-119.

Rokeach. Milton. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco: CA. 1968.

Shulman, Lee S. (1986). “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.” Educational Researcher. 1986. 15:2. pp. 4-14.

Shulman, Lee S. “Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform.” Harvard Educational Review. 1987. 57:1. pp. 1-22.

Simmons, Patricia, et al. “Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions.” 1999. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 36:8. pp. 930-954.

van Driel, Jan, Beijaard, Douwe, & Verloop, Nico. “Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2001. 38:2. pp. 137-158.

van Driel, Jan, de Jong, Onno, & Verloop, Nico. “The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge.” Science Education. 2002. 86:4. pp. 572-590.

AbstractThe shortage of certified teachers in mathematics and science in Texas classrooms is a major concern and mirrors national trends. Dramatic increases in short-ages of teachers have stimulated the design of new certification programs that recruit and place teachers in classrooms as quickly as possible (Texas Center for Educational Research, 1999). While maintaining sev-eral of the characteristics of traditional certification programs, the Math and Science Scholars (MASS) Program streamlines the certification process, sup-ports preservice students through tuition remission and scholarships, and provides quality mentoring and early field experiences in K-12 classrooms with well-qualified teachers. The strategies in this model program are dramatically increasing the numbers of undergraudate majors in mathematics and sciene con-sidering high school teaching as a career.

*This paper was published online November 23, 2006, in the Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 389-411. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9026-3

Authors:Timothy P. Scott, Texas A&M UniversityJennifer L. Milam, Texas A&M UniversityCarol L. Stuessy, Texas A&M UniversityKit Price Blount, Texas A&M University-Corpus ChristiAdrienne Bentz, Texas A&M University

You may access the full paper at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10972-006-9026-3

42

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

Math and Science Scholars (MASS) Program: A Model Program for theRecruitment and Retention of Preservice Mathematics and Science Teachers*

Tim Scott

AbstractIn this paper, the author provides counter-narratives of academically and mathematically successful male African Americans as they recount specific pedagogi-cal practices of teachers that were influential to their achievement in mathematics, and to their academic success in general. The author connects the counter-narratives to the propositions of culturally relevant pedagogy to demonstrate that practicing the science of culturally relevant pedagogy is indeed just good mathematics teaching.

KeywordsCulturally Relevant Pedagogy, Mathematics Educa-tion

INTRODUCTIONThe discussion here1 is part of a larger, ongoing project, which is based in part on my experiences as a high school mathematics teacher and in part on my doctoral dissertation research (see Stinson 2004). Since completing my doctorate, I have, on several occasions, spoken and written about academically and mathematically successful African American male students (see, e.g., Stinson 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013). These presentations and publications are working in concert with a growing number of mathematics education researchers who are laboring to transform the discourse regarding African American children and mathematics from a discourse of deficiency or rejection to a discourse of achievement (see, e.g. the edited volumes Leonard and Martin 2013 and Martin 2009; and the special issue of the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, edited by Bullock, Alexan-der, and Gholson 2012). My specific contribution to this expanding body of knowledge has been to high-light—from a participative inquiry (Reason 1994), critical postmodern approach (Stinson 2009; Stinson and Bullock 2012)—how academically and math-ematically successful African American male students negotiate socio-cultural and -historical discourses that too often construct African American boys and adolescents as problems to be disciplined rather than untapped intellectuals who should be cultivated with

care.

MATHEMATICALLY SUCCESSFUL AFRICAN AMERICAN MALESThe four young African American men featured in my presentations and publications—Ethan, Keegan, Na-thaniel, and Spencer (pseudonyms)—were past high school students of mine during my 5-year tenure as a White mathematics teacher at a Black high school. Al-though I have discussed the “mathematics identities” (Martin 2000) of these four young men elsewhere, absent from the discussion is an exploration of spe-cific pedagogical experiences of these young African American men. During the extensive data collection of the study, I asked questions regarding the partici-pants’ learning experiences with teachers, and math-ematics teachers specifically. In their responses to these questions regarding their schooling experiences, however, I specifically requested that the participants refrain from speaking about being a former student of mine. In so doing, I was attempting to move our conversations away from our collective teacher–stu-dent experiences and into each participant’s broader sociocultural lived experiences, including experiences that I suspected might be characterized as racialized mathematics experiences (Martin 2006). In the dis-cussion that follows, I provide examples of “counter-narratives” (Solórzano and Yosso 2002) from the participants regarding specific pedagogical practices of teachers that they highlighted as being influential to their achievement in mathematics, and to their aca-demic success in general. I align the brief narratives with the three key criteria or propositions of culturally relevant pedagogy outlined by Ladson-Billings (see, e.g., 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 2009). My aim in connect-ing the propositions of culturally relevant teaching and the participants’ counter-narratives is to demon-strate that practicing the science2 of culturally relevant pedagogy is indeed just good mathematics teaching.

CULTURALLY RELEVANT (MATHEMATICS) PEDAGOGY2

In her essay “But That’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ” Ladson-

Practicing the Science of Culturally Relevant Mathematics Pedagogy: Indeed, It Is Just Good Mathematics Teaching!

David W. Stinson

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

43

1 This proceedings paper is an abridged version of the keynote address delivered on April 9, 2010; updated references have been added throughout.2 I place culturally relevant pedagogy in the “greater than” category of science rather than the “lesser than” category of theory. In other words, culturally relevant pedagogy, I believe, is much more than just a theory.

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

Billings asks: If culturally relevant pedagogy is just good teaching, why is it that so little good teaching is occurring in classrooms populated by African Ameri-can students (Ladson-Billings 1995a)? This absence of good teaching for far too many African American children was one of the motivating factors for devel-oping a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. But in outlining the three broad propositions of culturally relevant pedagogy, Ladson-Billings cautions that her propositions are not intended to essentialize or dichot-omize notions of good teaching, but rather to provide a range or continuum of pedagogical practices or behaviors that teachers who practice (the science of) culturally relevant pedagogy exhibit (Ladson-Billings 1995c). She further argues that, although teachers who practice culturally relevant pedagogy “feel no need to name their practice culturally relevant,” she is compelled as a researcher and teacher educator to develop a means of making culturally relevant peda-gogy an accessible pedagogy “for those prospective teachers who do not share the cultural knowledge, experiences, and understandings of their students” (Ladson-Billings 1995c, 478). The three proposi-tions of culturally relevant pedagogy are: (a) students must experience academic success, (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural competence, and (c) students must acquire a critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings 1995c). In short, culturally relevant pedagogy promotes African American students’ suc-cess and achievement through cultural competence—when teachers assist students in developing a positive identification with African American culture—and through sociopolitical consciousness—when teachers assist students in developing civic and social aware-ness to work toward equity and social justice (Ladson Billings 2001). Here, I use the three propositions of culturally relevant pedagogy to provide a natural structure, so to speak, to presenting brief counter-nar-ratives by Ethan, Keegan, Nathaniel, and Spencer. As I do so, I provide details of Ladson-Billings’ proposi-tions, making explicit connections to the lived school-ing experiences of academically and mathematically successful African American male students.

Students Must Experience Academic SuccessStudents’ academic success—no matter the form used to measure it—is not an option for teachers who practice culturally relevant pedagogy. As Ladson-Bill-ings provides this first of her three propositions, she acknowledges the ongoing controversy surrounding student assessment generally and standardized testing

specifically, but she also acknowledges that, despite the controversy, standardized testing serves to rank and characterize both schools and students (Ladson-Billings 1995c). Therefore, she argues: “No matter how good a fit develops between home and school culture, students must achieve. No theory of peda-gogy can escape this reality” (Ladson-Billings 1995c, 475). Ladson-Billings reiterates the importance of measurable student academic success, stating, “It is not the teaching method or strategy that should be the criteria for good teaching, but rather the academic accomplishments of students” (Ladson-Billings 1998, 261). Culturally relevant pedagogy is not some “feel good” pedagogy, but rather a pedagogy that requires teachers and students to collectively strive toward measurable academic “levels of excellence” (Hilliard 2003). In other words, according to Ladson-Billings, the trick is getting students to choose academic excel-lence. Nathaniel provides a counter-narrative that exemplifies the importance of this proposition:

I had a [mathematics] teacher in eighth grade, an African American male, Mr. Richardson…he seemed really interested in our well being and seeing us [succeed]. He…wouldn’t accept us being mediocre, which I think is something really important. He…always wanted [us] to do our best and…to see us strive to succeed. …When he was at school, he was there for us; that was always the sense we got from him. That is the sense I got from the teachers who really, really seemed interested in being there; it is like, they were there for you and they let you know that too. (Nathaniel)

Students Must Develop Cultural CompetenceCoupled with students’ academic success is Ladson-Billings’s second proposition of culturally relevant pedagogy: Students must develop cultural compe-tence (Ladson-Billings 1995c). Cultural competence, simply defined, is when students develop an appre-ciation for and understanding of the significant his-torical and contemporary contributions that African Americans have made to the development and shap-ing of the United States. Ladson-Billings notes that teachers who practice culturally relevant pedagogy assist students in developing a positive identification with African American culture. Or said more directly, “culturally relevant teachers utilize students’ culture as a vehicle for learning” (Ladson-Billings 1995a, 161). Rather than relying on hypothesized theoretical concepts such as “acting White” or “raceless persona”

44

45

(Fordham and Ogbu 1886; Fordham 1988), cultur-ally relevant teachers assist students in “negotiating the academic demands of school while demonstrating cultural competence” (Ladson-Billings 1995c, 476). (For arguments of how academically successful Af-rican American male students negotiate sociocultural discourses, see Stinson 2008, 2013.) Ladson-Billings provides several examples of how teachers can bring African American culture into the classroom as a cata-lyst for learning, such as demonstrating how the lyrics of hip-hop music correlate with the figurative and technical aspects of poetry, inviting African Ameri-can parents into classroom participation as artists or crafts persons in residence, or using students’ home language as a point of transition to “standard” Eng-lish (Ladson-Billings 1995a, 1995c). Both Keegan and Ethan provide compelling counter-narratives that demonstrate how teachers, specifically African American teachers, assisted them in understanding that being an African American and an academically successful student were not contradicting identities:

In order to live in society and to be successful in society you don’t have to get rid of your Black-ness, but you can be successful by doing this, do-ing a, doing b, doing c. Teachers would instill that [message] and I would listen. I would say, “You know, that is so true.” I think that they taught me…how to [negotiate] into this [dominant] culture, but you don’t have to lose your culture. A lot of people think that you have to give up one to gain the other, [but] you don’t. (Keegan)

[Specifically] my African American teachers, they…aggressively try to employ the mentality that as an African American we did fit in, they ag-gressively tried to, not necessarily brainwash, but try to help us realize, put into our minds that we do fit in…we can do the same things that [main-stream students] do, or we can be educated, and achieve. (Ethan)

Students Must Acquire a Critical Consciousness Ladson-Billings’s final proposition is that students must acquire a critical consciousness. That is to say, teachers must encourage students to develop a socio-political consciousness in which students (and teach-ers) learn “to recognize, understand, and critique cur-rent social inequities” (Ladson-Billings 1995c, 476). Ladson-Billings asks, “If school is about preparing students for active citizenship, what better citizenship

tool than the ability to critically analyze the society” (Ladson-Billings 1995a, 162)? Within the context of mathematics teaching and learning, developing a sociopolitical consciousness is exemplified in the extensive scholarship of mathematics educators who practice teaching mathematics for social justice (see, e.g., the edited volumes Gutstein and Peterson 2013, and Wager and Stinson 2012). Spencer demonstrates a critical consciousness in his counter-narrative in which he critiques the injustices of racial stereotypes:

I am being a realist, noticing that those character-izations [White and Black stereotypes] are defi-nitely a part of our culture and they are definitely a part of society; you can’t, realistically speaking, you can’t really get away from them because they are out there and they are very prevalent in our society. That is just the pure realist in me. But on the other hand, I also know and understand that generalizations in practice don’t really work, and especially when it is so broad as to characterize a whole race of people. (Spencer)

CONCLUSION: LEARNING TO LIVE WITH TENSIONS

To recap, the three propositions of culturally relevant teaching are (a) students must experience academic success, (b) students must develop cultural compe-tence, and (c) students must acquire a critical con-sciousness (Ladson-Billings 1995c). So, two ques-tions come to mind. First: Is it really just that simple? My answer, paradoxically, is, well…Yes and No. Yes, it is just that simple, because, as noted earlier, Ladson-Billings claims that her three propositions of culturally relevant pedagogy are not intended to essentialize notions of good teaching, but rather to provide a continuum of pedagogical practices that teachers who practice culturally relevant pedagogy might exhibit. That is to say, the three propositions provide a matrix, so to speak, to determine if the multiplicity of pedagogical practices that a mathemat-ics classroom teacher undertakes in the course of her or his day might be mapped on-to one or more of the propositions. If a pedagogical practice is not a map-ping, she or he might want to rethink the practice. In other words, for a lack of a better description, the three propositions, I believe, provide teachers with an accessible pedagogical “measuring stick,” espe-cially for those teachers who do not share the cultural knowledge, experiences, and understandings of their students.

And no, it is not just that simple. Because I believe to practice the science of culturally relevant peda-gogy, a teacher must learn to happily practice her or his profession within a space of pedagogical ten-sions. Gutiérrez convincingly argues that teaching mathematics is not a neutral activity and that math-ematics teachers who wish to teach from an equity stance—which, here, I equate to a culturally relevant stance—need to embrace the tensions inherent in such a pedagogical philosophy (Gutiérrez 2009). In short, Gutiérrez suggests that teachers need to learn how to happily live with the tensions of (a) knowing your students, and not knowing your students; (b) being in charge of your classroom, and not being in charge of your classroom; and (c) teaching mathematics, and not teaching mathematics. Gutiérrez’s suggestions clearly resonate with my critical postmodern sensibil-ities, given that I believe that teaching is a continual journey in which “effective teachers” do not master teaching, but rather find themselves in a continuous state of growth and change (Mewborn 2003). Or said in another way, effective teachers—or, in this case, effective culturally relevant pedagogues—find them-selves in a continuous state of becoming. Becoming a teacher is a process that is never finalized or fixed, but rather a fluid process of continuous critical ex-amination of self, students, and curriculum in which old ways of thinking and acting are disrupted and transformed into new (more ethical and just) ways of thinking and acting (Gomez, Black, and Allen 2007).

David W. Stinson ([email protected]) is an associate professor of mathematics education at Georgia State University, Atlanta.

46

47

REFERENCESBullock, Erika, C., Nathan N. Alexander, and Maisie L. Gholson, eds. Proceedings of the 2010 Philadelphia and 2011 Atlanta Benjamin Banneker Association Conferences – Beyond the Numbers.” Special issue,

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education 5, no. 1 (2012).

Fordham, Signithia. “Racelessness as a Factor in Black Students’ School Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory?” Harvard Educational Review 58, no. 1 (1988): 54–84.

Fordham, Signithia, and John U. Ogbu. “Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the “Burden of ‘Acting White.’” The Urban Review 18, no. 3 (1986): 176–206.

Gomez, Mary Louise, Rebecca W. Black and Anna-Ruth Allen. ““Becoming” a Teacher.” Teachers College Record 109, no. 9 (2007): 2107–35.

Gutiérrez, Rochelle. “Embracing the Inherent Tensions in Teaching Mathematics from an Equity Stance.” De-mocracy & Education 18, no. 3 (2009): 9–16.

Gutstein, Eric, and Bob Peterson, eds. Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers. 2nd ed. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, 2013.

Hilliard, Asa G., III “No Mystery: Closing the Achievement Gap between Africans and Excellence.” In Young, Gifted, and Black: Promoting High Achievement among African-American Students, edited by Theresa Perry, Claude Steele and Asa G. Hilliard, III. 131–65. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2003.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “But That’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” Theory Into Practice 34, no. 3 (1995a): 159–65.

———. “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal 32, no. 3 (1995b): 465–91.

———.“Making Mathematics Meaningful in Multicultural Context.” In New Directions for Equity in Math-ematics Education, edited by Walter G. Secada, Elizabeth Fennema and Lisa Byrd Adajian. 126–45. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995c.

———. “Teaching in Dangerous Times: Culturally Relevant Approaches to Teacher Assessment.” Journal of Negro Education 67, no. 3 (1998): 255–267.

———. “The Power of Pedagogy: Does Teaching Matter?” In Race and Education: The Roles of History and Society in Educating African American Students, edited by William H. Watkins, James H. Lewis and Victoria Chou. 73–88. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.

———. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2009.

Leonard, Jacqueline and Danny Bernard Martin, eds. The Brilliance of Black Children in Mathematics: Beyond the Numbers and Toward New Discourse. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2013.

Martin, Danny Bernard. Mathematics Success and Failure among African-American Youth: The Roles of Socio-historical Context, Community Forces, School Influence, and Individual Agency. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000.

———. “Mathematics Learning and Participation as Racialized Forms of Experience: African American Par-ents Speak on the Struggle for Mathematics Literacy.” Mathematical Thinking & Learning 8, no. 3 (2006): 197–229.

48

Martin, Danny Bernard, ed. Mathematics Teaching, Learning, and Liberation in the Lives of Black Children-New York, NY: Routledge, 2009.

Mewborn, Denise S. “Teaching, Teachers’ Knowledge, and Their Professional Development.” In A Research Companion for NCTM Standards, edited by Jeremy Kilpatrick, Gary Martin and Deborah Schifter. 45–52. Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, 2003.

Reason, Peter. “Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 324–39. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

Solórzano, Daniel G., and Tara J. Yosso. “Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 8, no. 1 (2002): 23–44.

Stinson, David W. “African American Male Students and Achievement in School Mathematics: A Critical Post-modern Analysis of Agency.” Dissertation Abstracts International 66, no. 12. UMI No. 3194548 (2004).

———. “African American Male Adolescents, Schooling (and Mathematics): Deficiency, Rejection, and Achievement.” Review of Educational Research 76, no. 4 (2006): 477–506.

———. “Negotiating Sociocultural Discourses: The Counter-Storytelling of Academically (and Mathemati-cally) Successful African American Male Students.” American Educational Research Journal 45, no. 4 (2008): 975–1010.

———. “When the “Burden of Acting White” Is Not a Burden: School Success and African American Male Students.” The Urban Review 43, no. 1 (2011): 43–65.

———. “Negotiating the ‘‘White Male Math Myth’’: African American Male Students and Success in School Mathematics.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 44, no. 1 (2013): 69–99.

Stinson, David W., and Erika C. Bullock. “Critical Postmodern Theory in Mathematics Education Research: A Praxis of Uncertainty.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 80, no. 1-2 (2012): 41–55.

Wager, Anita A., and David W. Stinson, eds. Teaching mathematics for social justice: Conversations with educa-tors. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2012.

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

AbstractThis presentation focused on defining a three-tiered transformative approach to differentiating instruc-tion for diverse learners, which includes changing the organization of classrooms, improving the quality of learning activities, and creating a culture of recogni-tion that respects all learners. Using supporting evi-dence from instructional coaching studies, this paper identifies challenges facing STEM teachers at each tier of differentiation. While coached elementary and secondary teachers make significant gains in imple-menting this approach to differentiation, STEM teach-ers, in particular, make significantly less growth and less consistent growth. Implications for increasing STEM teachers’ knowledge and skills for differentiat-ing instruction for diverse learners are addressed.

KeywordsDifferentiation; Urban schools; Critical Pedagogy; Sociocultural theory; Teacher improvement

INTRODUCTIONDifferentiating instruction for culturally, linguisti-cally, economically, and learning diverse students is easier to conceptualize than to implement. Urban teachers, in particular, are challenged on a daily basis to reach a wide range of learners in the regular classroom. Economic disparities, high student mobil-ity rates, inadequate resources, and high variability in teacher quality define urban settings (Bartolomé, 2007; Cobbold, 2010; Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Even when students are pulled out of the regular classroom for special services with English as a Sec-ond Language or Special Education specialists, these same learners spend the majority of their school day with core academic teachers who may, or may not, be prepared to make appropriate choices for differentiat-ing instruction.

Research has also shown that minority students’ participation in the areas of science, technology, en-gineering, and mathematics (STEM) are poor, point-ing to a need to re-conceptualize STEM instruction to be more inclusive of and responsive to minority student populations (e.g., Crisp & Nora, 2012; Horn,

2012). Teachers’ instructional decisions are one important factor influencing minority students’ inter-est in STEM. In professional development studies using one-on-one instructional coaching, researchers found urban secondary STEM teachers the least able to innovate in instruction in comparison to both urban elementary (Teemant, 2013b) and secondary humani-ties teachers (Teemant, Cen, and Wilson, 2013). These studies found STEM instruction to be predominately whole-class, lecture-dominated, and worksheet-driv-en, with all students progressing in lock-step fashion through PowerPoint slides and worksheets. Baglieri, Bejoian, Broderick, Connor, and Valle (2011) ob-served that:Many teachers proclaim, “I can’t get to them all, so I just teach to the middle….” Such disparate comments all circle around an unexamined normative center, a center built on the desirability (and therefore expecta-tion) of all students being taught at the same time, in the same way, learning at the same rate, and demon-strating their knowledge and skills in the same way, presumably on the same examinations (pp. 2137-38).

The purpose of this paper is to describe necessary conditions for creating a more equitable learning environment for the full range of learners in STEM classrooms. These necessary conditions are captured by a three-tiered approach to differentiation, which build on critical (Freire, 1994) and sociocultural perspectives (Vygotsky, 1978). Challenges at each tier are identified for STEM educators using quan-titative and qualitative research outcomes from four instructional coaching studies (i.e., Teemant, 2013a; 2013b; Teemant, Cen, & Wilson, 2013; Teemant, Leland, & Berghoff, 2013). These studies were conducted under the auspice of a U.S. Department of Education National Professional Development Grant (T195N070233). Following a brief discussion of the theoretical foundations for differentiation, each tier of transformative differentiation is discussed with a STEM challenge identified and implications pre-sented.

THEORETICAL ORIENTATION The preparation of teachers for diverse student

49

Tailoring STEM Instruction for Diverse Learners: What Matters Most?Annela Teemant

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

populations in urban settings remains inadequately researched (Knight & Wiseman, 2005; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010). Nevertheless, models of culturally responsive teaching (e.g., Gay, 2000; Howard, 2006; Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamau-chi, 2000; Villegas & Lucas, 2007) are theoretically built upon sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978) and criti-cal perspectives (Freire, 1994). Sociocultural theory presents learning as an outcome of the teacher-student relationship, which is an active, dialogic, social, and culturally shaped space filled with rich assistance in the learning process from a more knowledgeable oth-er (Vygotsky, 1978; 1997). From a critical perspec-tive, McLaren (2007, p. 69) argues education captures “asymmetries of power and privilege” among minor-ity students, majority teachers, and society steeped in culture, politics, and history. Building on Freire’s (1994) critical pedagogy, Lewison, Flint, and Van Sluys (2002) identify four dimensions for teaching from a critical perspective: They call for a pedagogi-cal approach that (a) disrupts the commonplace, (b) interrogates multiple viewpoints, (c) focuses on socio-political issues, and (d) takes action to promote social justice.

Lewis, Enciso, and Moje (2007) argue that when criti-cal and sociocultural perspectives are taken together, the exploration of teacher and learner identity, power, and agency in the learning process is made possible. When differentiation is considered from this perspec-tive of identity, power, and agency, it expands differ-entiation beyond typical notions of providing alterna-tive content, products, processes, or environments for learning. Differentiation can become transformative with the goal of collaboratively and reflectively edu-cating for change (Ettling, 2012). Ideally, differentia-tion should be the antithesis of one size fits all teach-ing: It should strive to be responsive, pluralistic, and democratic.

THREE-TIER APPROACH TO DIFFERENTIATION

To realize a transformative approach to differentia-tion, teachers need to consider three pivotal changes. Figure 1 presents the three-tiered approach to dif-ferentiation informed by findings from three instruc-tional coaching studies (i.e., Teemant, 2013a; 2013b; & Teemant et al., 2013).

Change Classroom OrganizationRealizing the potential of critical sociocultural prac

tices requires teachers to move away from teacher-dominated, whole-class presentations of content and individual mastery assignments. A shift to small group configurations increases student talk, engage-ment, negotiation, the co-construction of meaning, and opportunities for peer or teacher assistance in the process of learning. A study by Teemant and Haus-man (2013) demonstrated that teacher use of collab-orative small group activities promoted significantly more student achievement among both native and non-native speakers of English. The verbal inter-actions that result from well-designed small group activities make academic concepts and language more accessible as students and/or the teacher question, construct, and demonstrate learning collaboratively. Vygotsky (1978) would describe such interactions as assisting students to move from being other-assisted to being increasingly self-regulated. In actuality, differentiation is only made possible when a teacher employs various types of small group for various purposes.

The challenge for teachers, especially STEM teachers, at this tier is classroom management. Teaching, mod-eling, and reinforcing routines, procedures, behaviors, and expectations are essential for making small group work productive. When instructional coaching urban teachers, Teemant (2013b) and Teemant et al. (2013) found that 100% of elementary teachers, 89% of sec-ondary humanities teachers, but only 25% of second-ary STEM teachers were able to use and consistently manage small group activity centers by the end of seven coaching sessions. In focus group discussions, STEM teachers shared that they lacked the experi-ence, skills, and confidence to manage students work-

50

Figure 1. A three-tiered approach to differentiation

51

ing in multiple small groups. This suggests STEM teachers would benefit from more explicit discussion and concrete techniques and routines for phasing in use of small group activities. Without this fundamen-tal shift to use of small group configurations, students are left passive and receptive in whole class settings rather than active, engaged, and discovery-oriented. Design Activities to Promote LearningThe next tier asks teachers to reflect on the design of learning activities. Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, and Yamauchi (2000) and Teemant, Leland, and Berg-hoff (2013) have identified six enduring principles of learning—or Six Standards—as pivotal for increas-ing achievement among culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse learners (Teemant & Hausman, 2013). Figure 2 defines each of the Six Standards for Effective Pedagogy.

Collaboration is the underlying principle of learn-ing for Joint Productive Activity. While small group collaboration among students promotes learning, Joint Productive Activity is even more powerful when a teacher is a full participant with students in the co-construction of understanding. As a teacher intentionally asks questions, elicits more student talk than teacher talk, and presses students to provide rationales for their thinking, the teacher engages in an Instructional Conversation. Such interaction focuses on sustained use of academic language, literacy, and concepts to learn, which concurrently addresses Lan-guage and Literacy Development. When the activity requires higher order thinking and provides students with (a) quality expectations, (b) assistance, and (c) formative feedback, the goal of Challenging Activi-ties is achieved. Contextualization is a principle of learning that asks teachers to build on what students already know or have experienced from home, school, or community. Finally, Critical Stance invites teach-ers to design activities that encourage the application of school learning to real-world contexts, problems, or injustices. Teachers consciously engaging students in naming experiences, reflecting upon them, and taking action within their sphere of influence as Freire (1994) advocates in critical pedagogy.

In designing high quality learning activities, teach-ers are encouraged to use at least three of the Six Standards in each activity to promote deeper learn-ing. Numerous studies have demonstrated that use of the Six Standards increases student achievement for

both native and non-native speakers of English (e.g., Doherty & Hilberg, 2007; Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003; Estrada & Imhoff, 1999; Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999; Teemant & Hausman, 2013).

While Teemant, Cen, and Wilson (2013) found that secondary teachers, in general, were able to signifi-cantly increase their use of each of the Six Standards with instructional coaching support, they uncovered unique challenges for STEM educators. For example, STEM teachers implemented each of the Six Stan-dards at a lower level than their elementary or other secondary colleagues. They struggled to contextual-ize their lessons thereby failing to build on students’ previous knowledge and experiences with academic concepts. STEM teachers were also less likely to engage their students in unplanned or planned con-versations about their learning. Therefore, they provided their students less assistance and feedback in the process of learning. These coaching findings suggest that STEM teachers would benefit from more in-depth consideration and prolonged support to radi-cally re-conceptualize their role as active participants with students in the learning process. The Common Core States Standards Initiative (2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (2013) are pressing STEM teachers to teach students to discuss, solve problems, and communicate findings (Johnson, 2010). Yet, STEM educators themselves are not positioned to easily take up these new instructional demands. Professional development targeting STEM educators needs to explicitly focus on the historical inadequacy of teaching as telling while simultaneously modeling use of the Six Standards in activity design.

Create a Classroom Culture of RecognitionTo be transformative, differentiation should explicitly build a culture of recognition within the classroom that knows, honors, and affirms students’ identifies as learners and people. Rodriquez (2012) describes five ways educators can affirm students in the teaching-learning process. Rodriquez calls for teachers to first build meaningful relationships with their students. Second, a culture of recognition includes tailoring the curriculum to reflect students’ experiences and knowledge. Third, teachers should use the students’ local community context to contextualize learning, including the social, political, historical, cultural, and economic issues. Fourth, teachers’ pedagogy should invite student voice and allow for choice. Finally, teachers are transformative by inviting student civic

engagement by applying school learning to the real world outside of school. The Six Standards represent one way of accomplishing Rodriquez’s pedagogical and transformative aspects of teaching.

Studies by Teemant (2013a, 2013b), Teemant, Cen, and Wilson (2013), and Teemant, Leland, and Berg-hoff (2013) demonstrate that elementary and second-ary teachers as well as STEM and non-STEM teach-ers alike need more time and instructional coaching to fully realize a culture of recognition in the classroom. In today’s era of high stakes accountability, coached teachers reported they felt pressured to follow pacing guides and ignore actual student development. Build-ing relationships, tailoring curriculum, and planning for civic engagement require a multi-year approach to professional development, especially for secondary STEM teachers.

CONCLUSIONCommon Core (2012) and Next Generation (2012) standards are placing new demands on STEM educa-tors at the same time there is mounting pressure to become more inclusive and responsive to historically marginalized students (Horn, 2012). The three-tiered critical sociocultural approach to differentiation presented in this paper calls for STEM educators to increase use of small group configurations, design high quality learning activities, and create a class-room culture of recognition that is pluralistic, respon-sive, and democratic. Instructional coaching findings suggest, however, that STEM teachers struggle with classroom management, providing meaningful assis-tance and feedback, and tailoring curriculum to con-text and learners. Despite positive STEM instructional coaching outcomes, more professional development innovation and research are needed to fundamentally transform and improve STEM teachers’ abilities to differentiate for historically marginalized students. Annela Teemant ([email protected]) is associate professor of second language education at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis.

52

Figure 2. The six standards for effective pedagogy

53

53

REFERENCES Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. “[Re]claiming ‘Inclusive Education’ toward cohesion in educational reform: Disability Studies unravels the myth of the normal child.” Teachers College Record. 2011. 113:10. pp. 2122-54.

Bartolomé, L. I., “Critical pedagogy and teacher education.” In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? Peter Lang. New York. 2007. pp. 263-286.

Cobbold, T. Reducing the achievement gap between rich and poor is a national priority. 2010. Retrieved from Save Our Schools: Fighting for Equity in Education website: http://www.saveourschools.com.au.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math

Crisp, G., & Nora, A. Overview of Hispanics in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (STEM): K-16 representation, preparation, and participation. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.hacu.net/images/ hacu/OPAI/H3ERC/2012_papers/Crisp%20nora%20-hispanics%20in%20stem%20-%20updated%20 2012.pdf

Doherty, R.W., & Hilberg, R.S. “Standards for effective pedagogy, classroom organization, English proficiency, and student achievement.” Journal of Educational Research. 2007. 10:1. pp. 24-35.

Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. G. “Five Standards and student achievement.” NABE Journal of Research and Practice. 2003. 1:1. pp. 1-24.

Estrada, P., & Imhoff, B. (1999). Patterns of instructional activity: Excellence, inclusion, fairness, and harmony in six first grade classrooms (Technical Report No. 3). University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE). Santa Cruz, CA. 1999.

Ettling, D. “Educator as change agent: Ethics of transformative learning.” In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA. 2012. pp. 536-551.

Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. New York. 1994.

Gay, G. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. New York. 2000.

Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). “Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations.” In M. Cochran- Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ. 2005. pp. 477-548.

Horn, I.S. “Strength in numbers: Collaborative learning in secondary mathematics.” The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. Reston, VA. 2012.

Howard, G. R. We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. New York. 2006.

Johnson, C.C. “Transformative professional development for in-service teachers: Enabling change in science teaching to meet the needs of Hispanic English language learner students.” In D. W. Sunal, C.S., Sunal, & E. L. Wright (Eds.), Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 classrooms. Information Age Publishing, INC. Charlotte, NC. 2010. pp. 233-252.

Knight, S. L., & Wiseman, D. L. “Professional development for teachers of diverse students: A summary of the research.” Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 2005. 10:4. pp. 387-405.

54

Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identify, agency, and power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, NJ. 2007.

Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. “Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices.” Language Arts. 2002. 79:5. pp. 382-392.

McLaren, P. Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In P. McLaren & J.L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? Peter Lang. New York. 2007. pp. 69-96.

NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. Washington DC. 2013.

Rodriguez, L. R. “’Everybody grieves, but still nobody sees’: Toward a praxis of recognition for Latina/o students in U.S. schools. Teachers College Record. 2012. 114:1. Advanced online publication. ID Number: 16209. Date accessed: 11/5/2011.

Saunders, W.M., & Goldenberg, C. The effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on the story comprehension and thematic understanding of English proficiency and limited English proficient students. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Santa Cruz, CA. 1999.

Teemant, A. “A mixed methods investigation of instructional coaching: Understanding teacher transfomation and sustainability.” Urban Education. 2013a. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0042085913481362.

Teemant, A. “Elementary and secondary teacher development in use of sociocultural pedagogy: A comparison study.” Manuscript in preparation. 2013b. Teemant, A., Cen, Y., & Wilson, A. Creating the conditions for (language) learning: A secondary mixed methods comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2013.

Teemant, A., & Hausman, C. S. “The relationship of teacher use of critical sociocultural practices with student achievement.” Critical Education. 2013. 4:4. Retrieved from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/ criticaled/article/view/182434.

Teemant, A., Leland, C., & Berghoff, B. “Development and validation of a measure of Critical Stance for instructional coaching.” Teaching and Teacher Education. 2013. Advanced online publication: doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.008

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. 2000.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. “The culturally responsive teacher.” Educational Leadership. 2007. 64:6. pp. 28-33.

Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 1978.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, Florida: St. Lucie Press.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., and Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Retrieved from the National Staff Development Council website: http://www. nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudytechnicalreport2010.pdf

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

How Loud Is too Loud?Project-based Inquiry as a Model for Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Science

Regina Toolin and Beth White

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools

AbstractOur nation’s teachers and students benefit when STEM content and research skills are grounded in Project Based Inquiry (PBI)—an approach to teach-ing science that focuses on authentic problem solving and turns students into citizen scientists by bringing relevance and meaning to the classroom and beyond. Research has shown that educators exposed to PBI principles through professional development oppor-tunities are likely to successfully implement inquiry-based practice in their science classrooms. This paper highlights a PBI-focused professional development workshop presented at the 2012 Midwest Noyce Regional Conference in Indianapolis. It summa-rizes the main tenants and current literature on PBI as it relates to teacher professional development and student learning, presents a PBI curriculum template for instructors, and discusses common challenges and strategies for optimizing project-based learning prin-ciples and practices in science classrooms today.

KeywordsProject-based inquiry (PBI), project-based learning (PBL), STEM, social justice, standards-based learn-ing, collaboration, problem solving, citizen scientists, science literacy, social action, advocacy.

INTRODUCTIONStudents recognize the local reporter talking with their instructor as they file into their 9th grade physi-cal science classroom. Class begins with an official introduction of this reporter who has come with one purpose: to ask the 9th graders to help study a local science dilemma that involves sound, geography, and equity in a neighborhood adjacent to a busy interna-tional airport.

The reporter presents the pressing challenge to the class via a Public Radio broadcast about a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funded program that is buying up and demolishing a whole street of one-story homes in the “unbearable” noise region of the air-port. While residents from approximately 120 of these homes have willingly moved, there are some who are accustomed to the noise and do not want to relocate.

A student volunteers to write notes on the Smart Board as the reporter fields questions from the class: How are noise levels measured? What agency is re-sponsible for collecting this data? Was there a simi-lar study conducted that we could replicate? How did the noise map get drawn? Who has been asked to relocate? What are their personal stories? If the mayor of the city lived on this street would this issue be different? What would it be like if our nation’s science class-rooms were transformed into investigative labs where students generate their own driving questions and use knowledge and research skills to solve real-world problems that positively impact society such as the one presented in the above vignette? This vision of a learner-centered classroom is known to many in educational circles as project based inquiry (PBI), an approach to teaching science that focuses on authen-tic problem solving and turns students into citizen scientists by bringing relevance and meaning to the classroom and beyond. With philosophical underpin-nings rooted in Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, and Frere, PBI allows students to work alongside instructors and experts in the field to build knowledge through per-sonalized, rich experiences.

These ideas and others were explored in an interac-tive, inquiry-based workshop called “Project-based Inquiry as a Model for Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Science in the Grade 7-12 Classroom” presented at the 2012 Midwest Noyce Regional Conference. A critical and creative project-based atmosphere that portrayed true-to-life vignettes about the airport neighborhood demolition was modeled so that participants could experience PBI first-hand. Throughout the workshop, opportunities and scaffold-ing were provided so that the audience could con-struct meaning about the dilemmas facing the FAA and local citizens from a variety of standpoints. The attendees, consisting of pre-service science teachers and teacher-educators, were enthusiastic to learn about the underpinnings of PBI and how they could integrate this approach into their own teaching practices.

55

This paper begins with a working definition of PBI and a review of current literature as it relates to teach-er professional development and student learning in the project-based environment. A PBI curriculum de-sign template is presented that provides a framework for instructors to explore science and society issues, pose relevant and meaningful questions for inquiry, and transform their classrooms into “think tanks” that investigate important, local dilemmas with the goals of science literacy, social advocacy, and action. We conclude by discussing common challenges and strategies for optimizing project based learning (PBL) principles in science classrooms today.

PRINCIPLES OF PROJECT-BASED INQUIRY

Project-based inquiry is a comprehensive approach to classroom teaching and learning that is designed to engage students in the investigation of authentic problems over an extended period of time. In the PBI classroom “students pursue solutions to nontrivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas, making predictions, designing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, communicating their ideas and find-ings to others, asking new questions, and creating artifacts” (Blumenfeld et al., 1991, p. 371). Science teachers who utilize PBI capitalize on finding chal-lenging projects that are collaborative, cooperative, and interdisciplinary in nature. Blumenfeld et al. (1991) describe two essential elements of inquiry sci-ence, both of which require a question or problem that serves to organize and drive activities; and these ac-tivities result in a series of artifacts, or products, that culminate in a final product that addresses the driving question. Students [and teachers] can be responsible for the creation of both the question and the activities, as well as the nature of the artifacts (p. 371).

PBI requires a commitment to iterative, incremental learning that leaves room for students to experience continual improvement, build knowledge, and re-spond to relevant and meaningful issues and questions over an extended time frame. Quality PBI science curricula integrates educational goals based on state or national standards in a way that allows students to work autonomously and build on prior knowledge, think critically, and get exposure to a wide cross-sec-tion of issues and science content.

PROJECT-BASED INQUIRY AND STUDENT LEARNING

Current reform efforts in STEM literacy promote a pedagogical shift that de-emphasizes direct-instruc-tion in favor of an approach that “make[s] science learning meaningful and more focused on learning science by doing science [author emphasis]” (Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008, p. 3). National STEM asso-ciations (e.g. American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Research Council and Na-tional Science Foundation) have a vested interest in understanding and promoting instructional approach-es that “emphasize the connection of knowledge to the contexts of its application” (Barron et al., 1998, p. 272). This review of the literature identifies a num-ber of important themes related to PBI and student learning; particularly the way in which PBI prepares students for 21st century careers and challenges.

Researchers have consistently found that inquiry-based classrooms provide deeper, more meaningful learning experiences with higher instances of motiva-tion, especially when it comes to traditionally under-served students (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Cuevas, Lee, Hart, & Deaktor, 2005; Geier et al., 2008; Kahle, Meece, & Scantlebury, 2000; Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008). Classroom atmospheres that rely on “constant teacher direction and passive student compliance lead to teacher “burn-out” as well as to student resistance to meaningful learning” (Kahle et al., 2000, p. 1021). This has been particularly acute for students from underserved schools (Brownstein & Destino, 1994; Griffard & Wandersee, 1998; Kahle et al., 2000; Teel, Debruin-Parecki, & Covington, 1998). Kahle (2000) found that “African-American students’ attitudes about and/or perceptions of science are positively influenced by inquiry-oriented teaching strategies that involve interactive, stimulating labora-tory experiences in a noncompetitive environment” (p. 1022).

Research suggests that PBI prepares students for 21st century careers (Cuevas et al., 2005). Embedded in the PBI design is an opportunity for students to “re-flect on, question, and analyze the enormous amount of digital, print, and media information that character-izes our complex technological society” (Cuevas et al., 2005, pp. 37–38). This pushes beyond traditional classrooms that emphasize the memorization of facts and figures and requires students to be self-directed.

56

57

It creates a forum for students to “question, hypoth-esize, design investigations, and develop conclusions based on evidence that gives all students the problem-solving, communication, and thinking skills that they will need to take their place in the 21st century world” (Cuevas et al., 2005, p. 338).

As with implementing any educational reform initia-tive, PBI has utilization challenges. Those schools that successfully adopt PBI have ample resources, including time, small teacher-to-student ratios, and flexible, committed educators and administrators (Barron et al., 1998; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Geier et al., 2008; Krajcik et al., 2008)—all of which un-derserved schools traditionally lack. Because PBI involves cognitively complex tasks where students develop original questions about local, place-based dilemmas (Geier et al., 2008), freedom to allow for sufficient time and space for learners to construct knowledge and refine skills is vital to its success. Due to the student centered and less prescriptive nature of this approach, some educators struggle with how to sequence STEM concepts with real-world problems (Barron et al., 1998). PBI professional development is a critical element in providing support to educators and administrators in planning, teaching, and broadening their content knowledge (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).

A GUIDE TO CREATING CONTExT AND CONTENT RICH PROJECTS

Drawing from research on PBI, one of the biggest challenges for teachers is to shift from thinking about isolated lesson plans and activities to a flexible curric-ulum and teaching approach that is driven by student needs, interests, abilities, and questions over an ex-tended period of time. As a consequence, PBI can be more demanding of a teacher’s planning and instruc-tional time and requires a structure that is organized yet flexible and adaptable to the needs and pursuits of students and colleagues (Toolin, 2008). The process of developing a PBI curriculum can be facilitated by support from professional development initiatives and curriculum resources such as the PBI planning template found in Appendix A. PBI plan-ning begins with an in-depth examination of project goals and utilization of the backward design process (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) whereby teachers con-sider the standards and enduring understandings that

frame the overall project and define what students are expected to know, understand, and do by the project’s completion. In the “How Loud is too Loud?” project-planning template example (See Appendix A), endur-ing understandings related to sound waves and energy transformations and their effect on humans define the big ideas that students will investigate. Developed next are the essential questions that cap-ture the essence of the enduring understandings and learning standards, which speak to student questions and interests. “How Loud is too Loud?” is the essen-tial question that drives the sound project and leads to other critical questions such as: What is “noise”? What is “sound”? How is sound measured? What makes sound loud? In turn, this line of questioning naturally leads to new questions that relate to issues of equity and social justice including: Who are the stakeholders? What do they have to say? To what extent do they have a voice in the decision making process? In this regard, many teachers find it helpful to coordinate with humanities, media specialists, or art instructors to unpack the social justice, history, and art for social change components of these projects.

The project-planning process is not complete without incorporating appropriate learning outcomes, con-cepts and skills that students will know and be able to do within the scope of this project. Integrating these specific learning objectives ensures compliance to state/district curriculum guidelines (e.g. some school districts require students to understand sound waves, propagation of sound, mathematical calculations, ter-minology, etc.) as well as the important skills required for developing scientific thinkers (e.g. engaging in the scientific process, measuring, graphing, reporting, etc.).

After initial goal setting, it is important to consider the modes of assessment that will closely align with the enduring understandings and essential questions previously discussed. Guiding questions for consid-eration when designing the actual project or other summative and formative assessments include: What projects, investigations and assignments will provide appropriate learning experiences as well as evidence that students are achieving the intended learning goals? Is this the kind of project that will involve data collection, processing, and analysis? Will it require statistics? What sources of technology will be needed? As we value authentic demonstrations

of proficiency, a final presentation to stakeholders is a major component of the assessment plan in “How Loud is too Loud?” Finally, in order to ensure success of the project goals, educators and students need to consider the availabil-ity of resources as well as time management strate-gies. Instructors should take inventory of materials that already exist such as free-use materials or appli-cations or materials and resources that can be bor-rowed. Students should be enlisted to determine what is needed and encouraged to generate ideas for how these can be obtained together. To effectively manage the implementation of a vast number of student proj-ects over time, teachers must be on board with every project and commit to guiding students through each phase. The establishment of milestones throughout a project is essential to help students readily complete project tasks so that teachers can provide frequent for-mative assessment and feedback. Teachers consider-ing PBI for the first time might have multiple student groups work on the same driving question. This al-lows groups to compare project plans and results and thus learn from one another (Toolin & Watson, 2010).

CONCLUSIONSuccessful examples of PBI are found in schools where educators and administrators believe in the basic tenants of PBI and are devoted to establishing a project-based culture in their educational communi-ties. Creating this sort of culture requires teachers, students, and administrators to value a certain level of “tinkering” and accept that this type of learning may look “messy” at times. While we recognize that many schools are not in the position to overhaul their entire school curriculum to adopt PBI, we recommend that the commitment to PBI be evident in artifacts from lesson and project plans to everyday discussions between teachers, administrators, and community stakeholders. Further, administrators who pledge support for resources, flexible scheduling, ongoing professional development, and interdisciplinary teach-ing make PBI a reality for any educational setting.

To garner such support, faculty may consider hav-ing students design and conduct original research on learning. Classes can decode, analyze, and synthesize literature on project-based and other forms of learn-ing. They may even design and carryout original experiments and create informational materials for those individuals who influence policy. Students can

become invaluable spokespeople for advocating the advantages of project-based pedagogy and the ratio-nale for moving towards PBI classrooms and schools. Most policymakers respond well to evidence-based research and student-initiated appeals. Imagine the kinds of careers our students would be prepared for if our nation’s science classrooms transi-tioned to PBI. Imagine a learning environment where students are given the opportunity to explore relevant, real-world issues that challenge their STEM content and research skills on a daily basis. Research has shown that with support from professional develop-ment and administration, educators can successfully implement inquiry-based practices into their cur-riculum and pedagogy. Through continued efforts to support schools as they adopt PBI principles and practices, students will have the opportunity to realize this vision and step into the role as citizen scientists as they gain the 21st century knowledge and skills that will inevitably transform their lives and the world beyond.

Regina Toolin ([email protected]) is an As-sociate Professor of Science Education in the College of Education and Social Services at the University of Vermont.

Beth White ([email protected]) is a Graduate Teaching Fellow in the College of Education and Social Services at the University of Vermont.

58

REFERENCESBarron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/62487307?account id=14679

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369–399.

Brownstein, E. M., and Destino, T. (1995). Scenes from a science classroom in an enrichment program. The Science Teacher, 62(2), 28-33.

Buck Institute for Education (2013). Project Planner. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/project_planner. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. doi:10.3102/01623737024002081

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the con text of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.

Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Challenges to meaningful learning among African-American females at an urban science high school (p. 22). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uvm.edu/ eric/docview/62558873/14281DC716441028A8/1?accountid=14679 Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019–1041.

Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.

Teel, K. M., Debruin-Parecki, A., & Covington, M. V. (1998). Teaching strategies that honor and motivate inner-city African-American students: A school/university collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(5), 479–495.

Toolin, R. (2008). Infusing technology into project-based inquiry: A study of the Urban Academy for Math, Science and Technology. In P. Fraser-Abder & R. J. Wallace (Eds.), Pedagogical Issues in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (Vol. 3). Schenectady, New York: The New York Consortium for Professional Development.

Toolin, R., & Watson, A. (2010). Students for sustainable energy: Inspiring students to tackle energy projects in their school and community. The Science Teacher, 77(4), 27–31.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J.(2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd Ed.). Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

59

Preparing Excellent STEM Teachers for Urban and Rural High-Need Schools, proceedings from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Midwest Noyce Regional Conferences,

may be accessed online at noyceconferenceindy.org/digital-proceedings/.