arkansas capacity building science partnership grant: beyond traditional professional development...
TRANSCRIPT
Arkansas Capacity Building Science Partnership Grant:
Beyond Traditional Professional Development Models
2008 Math Science Partnership Regional Conference
Chicago
March 10-12, 2008
Welcome!
Southwest-B ERZ
Central ERZ
South Central ERZ
Southwest-A ERZ
Western ERZ
Southeast ERZ
Northeast & Central ERZ
Northwest ERZ
Northwest ERZ
Lincoln Cons. SD
Prairie Grove SD
West Fork SD
Act 37 established Education Renewal Zones in 2004 for Arkansas
7 Guiding Principles
• Trust
• Common Goals
• Parity
• Commitment of Resources
• Ongoing Dialogue
• Shared Knowledge Base
• Public and Private Accountability
Arkansas Capacity Building Science Partnership Grant
Research Case Study
Arkansas Capacity Building Science Partnership
AbstractParticipating teachers attended a two-week summer institute dedicated to the content of the identified areas, the understanding of state frameworks, teaching skills in the area of science, and the use of technology in teaching and self-reflection. Follow-up training included three days of subsequent visitations by a Southern Arkansas University Professor per semester for each of the 21 participants in order to assess the science coaches progress and/or to model content instruction using available materials in the participant’s own laboratory. Participants received instruction in both the content and process of science as well as appropriate instructional practices in the science classroom.
Schedule of Activities
Training Day Date Topic Laboratory1. M 6/25 Pretest & Skeletal Owl Pellets2. T 6/26 Cardiovascular Hearts and Blood3. W 6/27 Living Laboratory Little Rock Zoo4. Th 6/28 Living Laboratory Museum of Discovery5. F 6/29 Respiratory Spirometry Experiments
Urinary Kidneys, Macro & Micro6. M 7/16 Muscle Cat
Nervous Brain, eye, and ear7. T 7/17 Digestive Food Chemistry, Cat8. W 7/18 Living Laboratory Logoly State Park9. Th 7/19 Endocrine Dissection Survey
Reproductive Mitosis & Meiosis10. F 7/20 Immune Dissection Cont.
Post Test
University of Louisville’s validated Diagnostic Teacher Assessments in Mathematics and Science
(DTAMS) instrument for measuring gains.
• Pre-test and post-test for teacher/participants using a nationally normed exam (DTAMS) were employed to measure gain in content knowledge along with gain in pedagogical content knowledge.
Impact on Teachers
Note: any test with a significance level lower that 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
VARIBLE (SCALE) Mean St. Dev. T-value Sig. Level
Declarative 0 1.224 0 ns 7Inquiry 0.524 1.364 1.76 0.047 8Schematic 1.667 2.198 6.47 0.001 16Pedagogical 1.095 1.609 3.12 0.003 13Matter 1.095 2.095 2.4 0.013 12Motion & Force -0.524 0.814 -2.95 ns 2Energy 1.619 1.658 4.48 0 16STS 0.524 0.981 2.45 0.012 10TOTAL 3.286 3.258 4.62 0 17
Teacher raw score levels on the pre- and post-tests
RAW SCORE PRETEST POSTTEST
0-10 8 1
11-15 5 10
16-20 3 2
21-25 4 5
25-35 1 1
Impact on Students
• To measure the indirect impact of project participation on student knowledge of science, project staff requested that participants provide Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) results for their science students for the years 2006 and 2007. These data represented n=383 students in 2006 and n=493 students in 2007. For each student the National Percentile Rank (NPR) for both science and mathematics were recorded.
• For each year’s data the difference Sc_NPR – Ma_NPR was computed. The mean of these differences were computed. For 2006 the mean difference was -7.366 with a standard deviation of 19.03 and for 2007 the mean difference was -2.379 with a standard deviation of 19.26. This means that the science percentile rank of these teachers’ students rose approximately 5 percent relative to mathematics. The hypothesis test that these two means represent populations with equal means versus the alternative hypothesis that the 2006 mean is a smaller number was conducted via the standard t-test for the difference in means. The test statistic was t= -3.82 (p-value = .00007). Thus the documented increase in science knowledge controlled by mathematics was highly statistically significant.
Impact on Students
Evaluator’s Note:• The major success in this evaluation, from an
evaluator's point of view, was that this project's director contracted with the evaluator at the initial stages of the project's inception rather than at the time that some kind of evaluation report had to be written. As a result, this project has a clear view of the evaluation components and all staff have an understanding of the necessity for clear, accurate, and timely reporting of the various data that are the integral part of documenting the successes that the project is experiencing.
• The major challenge of this and other MSP projects which this evaluator is engaged in is collection of student testing data. School principals, district administrators, and teachers seem to think that either federal privacy legislation means that they don't have to provide access to this information or they feel threatened by the fact that someone is going to look at and report on "their" data. Either way, the result is that obtaining such data has taken a lot of staff time and effort that should not have been necessary.
Evaluator’s Note:
Challenge&
Opportunity
Contact Information:
Dr. Roger C. GuevaraDirector Education Renewal Zone
Southern Arkansas University
870-235-5014 Office
Disclaimer: The instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in this presentation are not intended as an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.