Land-Grant University Partnership with Rural Midwest Schools to Improve STEM Education

Gina Kunz, Gwen Nugent, Jon Pedersen, James

Houston, Irina Kalutskaya, ChaoRong Wu

June 3, 2015 SMTI National Conference

CSI: Coaching Science Inquiry in Rural Schools

• Research study by the National Center for Research on Rural Education (R2Ed) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln – Funded by the U.S. Department of Education – 2 PD elements: summer institute and technology-

delivered coaching – Randomized controlled trial (124 middle/high school

rural teachers from 109 schools) • Partnerships extended to state Educational

Service Units, currently exploring coaching models based on our study

CSI Research Study Research Question

What is the impact of professional development on guided scientific inquiry with follow-up coaching (treatment) versus no professional development (control) on (a) teacher inquiry knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and beliefs and (b) student inquiry knowledge, skills, engagement and science attitudes?

CSI Instructional Approach: Guided Inquiry Pedagogy

• Scientific inquiry knowledge and skills instruction infused with science content (e.g., physical, life, and earth science)

• Aligned with the science practices in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013)

• Student-centered • Teacher facilitated

Summer Institute • 8-day workshop in Lincoln, NE using evidence-

based strategies – Modeling by faculty, expert teachers, and coaches

with commentary – Teacher practice of new skills – Feedback from coaches, peers, and faculty

• Teachers provided with 6 – 8 week inquiry units

• Coaches were experienced science teachers – Nearly 100 years of classroom experience at both

middle and high school level

• Coaching sessions held 1-2 xs / week for about 45 minutes over 6 – 8 weeks

• Used WebEx for videoconferencing to conduct the coaching sessions

Coaching

E-Coaching Process

Research Study Results

• Based on student scientific inquiry abilities/practices specified in standards – Questioning – Designing and conducting a scientific investigation – Data collection, analysis and interpretation – Developing explanations – Communicating results

• Focus on teacher knowledge, self-efficacy and behaviors needed to elicit student skills

Study Outcomes

Teacher Results

63 treatment teachers 61 control teachers

Teacher Inquiry Knowledge

50

55

60

65

70

75

Baseline PtSumInst PostUnit

Perc

ent

Treatment Control

Teacher Self-Efficacy

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit EndYear

Perc

ent C

onfid

ence

Treatment Control

Teacher Instructional Practice

• Three observational instruments – Teacher Inquiry Rubric (project-

developed) – EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry

Protocol, Marshall, 2009) – Partial Interval Classroom Inquiry

Observation System (PICI; project-developed)

• 4-point rubric • Six constructs based on student scientific

inquiry abilities specified in standards (questioning, investigation, collect data, explanation, communication & application)

• Focuses on teacher behaviors needed to elicit student skills

Teacher Inquiry Rubric

Teacher Inquiry Rubric Results

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit

Ratin

g (4

-poi

nt sc

ale)

Treatment

Control

EQUIP Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol

19 indicators with overall construct scores targeting areas of reform or inquiry-based instruction that are linked to student achievement.

Instruction (How do I lead?) Discourse (How do we interact?) Assessment (How does instruction influence

achievement?) Curriculum (What guides teaching and learning?)

EQUIP Results

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit

Ratin

g (4

-poi

nt sc

ale)

Treatment

Control

Partial Interval Classroom Inquiry (PICI) Observation System for Teachers (PICI-T)

• Interval recording procedure: 15 sec intervals • Records whether teacher is presenting or not

presenting inquiry instruction during each interval

PICI-T Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit

% In

quiry

Inst

ruct

ion

Treatment

Control

Teacher Performance Ratings

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit

Ratin

g

TIR

Treatment Control

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit

Ratin

g

EQUIP

Treatment Control

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Baseline PtSumInst PtUnit

Perc

ent I

nqui

ry In

stru

ctio

n

PICI-T

Treatment Control

Student Results

~900 Treatment ~900 Control

Student Findings: MS Inquiry Knowledge

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

Baseline PTUnit

Perc

ent

Treatment Control

Student Inquiry Skills • Instrument: Student Inquiry Rubric (SIR)

– Four-level rubric investigating student’s inquiry practices (questioning, collecting data, investigating, developing explanation from evidence, communicating results)

– Adapted from instrument developed by NE ESU 3 – Completed by teacher for each student in the

study

Student Practice Skills: Inquiry Rubric Results

3.01

3.07

2.75 2.76

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

Ratin

g (4

-poi

nt sc

ale)

Treatment Control

High School Middle School

Partnerships continued • Follow up study was conducted with CSI teachers

(N=16) partnered in coaching the following year • PD team through an ESU in NE trying to figure out

practical ways to implement a modified version of peer coaching in science inquiry instruction

• Future studies need to explore active ingredients of coaching, the amount of training and practice needed to become proficient in delivery and in ability to become a successful peer coach

Contact Information Gina Kunz

gkunz2@unl.edu 402-472-2448

National Center for Research on Rural Education

216 Mabel Lee Hall Lincoln, NE 68583-0235 CSIRuralSchools.unl.edu

Suggested Citation:

Kunz, G. M., Nugent, G., Pedersen, J., Houston, J., Kalutskaya, I., & Wu, ChaoRong. (June, 2015). Land-grant university partnership with rural Midwest schools to improve STEM education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Science and Mathematics Teacher Imperative, New Orleans, LA.

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant # R305C090022 to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The opinions expressed are

those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.