Changes in Student and Teacher Attitudes and Behaviors in an Integrated High School Curriculum

Presented by:

Nicolle Gottfried & Catherine Saldutti

Background

Design of an integrated, standards- & inquiry-based 2-year Biology and Chemistry program

Use of research-based best practicesIn cooperation with: teachers, students, Teachers College, Columbia and The Rockefeller University

Piloted in 2 Public Schools in New York CityTeachers of varying levels of experience

Students representing diverse needs

Background, cont.

Evaluation of the pilot test included many data sources:

Classroom Observations

Interviews of teachers, administrators and students

Written student and teacher reflections

Review of student work and Regents test scores

Pre- and post-participation questionnaires including an attitudinal battery

Our Approach

Multiple sources of data designed to provide a mosaic of understanding

To be used both formatively and summatively

All data were collected by EduChange and Gottfried, and reported anonymously

Data Analysis

Data analyzed in aggregate, by teacher, school and ethnicity

Qualitative data and observations reported as notable trends, quotes and describable behavioral changesQuantitative data (e.g. survey responses and reflections) have been categorized, analyzed and reported as percentages and means

These data are compared to reasonable matched non-participant normative data for New York City students, when available

Key Findings

Student and teacher attitudes toward program participation change over 2-years in a predictable pattern

Model of Student and Teacher Attitude Change

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fall 1stYear

Spring 1stYear

Fall 2ndYear

Spring2nd Year

TeacherStudent

Key Findings, cont.

Students in the program perform on par or better than matched counterparts on the Regents Living Environment (biology) exams

Teachers improve relative to “best practices,” in parallel to student improvements

Students demonstrate very sophisticated conceptual learning, habits of mind relating to science, and how to facilitate their own learning

“When I felt confused, I tended to just tune everything out. When I’m confused now, I should ask questions in class.”

Additional Questions?

Contact:

Nicolle Gottfried (nmgottfried@sbcglobal.net)

Catherine Saldutti (catherine@educhange.com)

Assessing Discrete Inquiry Skills Using a Classroom Laboratory Rubric: Six Student Case Studies

Presented by:

Catherine Saldutti & Nicolle Gottfried

Six Case Studies

6 students who had participated in both years of the pilot program and had most of the requested labs available (rubric-based, teacher-selected)

2 high-achieving student in laboratory write-ups

2 mid-achieving students

2 low-achieving students Represent School A and School B

Study Focus

All lab write-ups assessed using a 4-point rubric designed to address performance levels of inquiry habits

Same rubric criteria and performance levels over 2 years, with several opportunities to revisit these inquiry habits in different laboratory contexts

Case Studies: Evaluation of a portfolio of lab write-ups, Fall 2002-present

Focused on 3 of 18 rubric criteria

Criterion #1: Understanding the Purpose of the Experiment

Performance

Levels

Criterion

Insufficient

Evidence

Approaches Standard

Achieves Standard

Exceeds Standard

(Achieves Standard plus…)

Understanding the Purpose of the Experiment

(Introduction)

1B. Does not explain the main purpose clearly OR does not use own words

(Introduction)

1B. Explains the main purpose of the experiment clearly in own words

(Introduction)

1B. Explains the main purpose of the experiment clearly in own words, including how we will know if the purpose has been achieved (Introduction)

1B. Identifies 2 or more additional purposes for conducting the experiment (Introduction)

Criterion #2: Understanding the Design of the Experiment

Performance

Levels

Criterion

Insufficient

Evidence

Approaches Standard

Achieves Standard

Exceeds Standard

(Achieves Standard plus…)

Understanding the Design of the Experiment

(Materials and Methods)

4. Predicts 1 or 2 sources of error but does not provide logical explanations

4. Predicts once source of error when conducting the experiment, explaining it logically

4. Logically predicts 2 sources of error when conducting the experiment

4. Proposes 2 or more ways to ensure that the experiment is conducted safely and accurately

Criterion #3: Analyzing and Interpreting Data

Performance

Levels

Criterion

Insufficient

Evidence

Approaches Standard

Achieves Standard

Exceeds Standard

(Achieves Standard plus…)

Analyzing and Interpreting Data

(Analysis and Discussion)

4. Offers 1 new experimental question or purposes that is not directly related outcomes of this experience

4. Offers 1 new experimental question or purposes directly related to outcomes of this experience

4. Offers 2 new experimental questions or purposes directly related to outcomes of this experience

4. Takes one of the new experimental questions and outlines a design for a new experiment

Preliminary Findings

A longitudinal assessment system that culls out discrete inquiry habits of mind, regardless of the laboratory context, helps students improve over time

PurposeMore detailed descriptionsTighter connections

ErrorNotion of inherent error is difficultRequires a “cognitive leap”

Further Experimental QuestionsQuestions loosely related to the lab at firstMid & high-level students move toward connections to results

Additional Questions?

Contact:Catherine Saldutti (catherine@educhange.com)

Nicolle Gottfried (nmgottfried@sbcglobal.net)