Changes%20in%20Student%20and%20Teacher%20Attitudes%20and%20Behaviors%20in%20an%20Integrated%20High%20School%20Curriculum

1
Changes in Student and Teacher Attitudes and
Behaviors in an Integrated High School Curriculum

• Presented by
• Nicolle Gottfried Catherine Saldutti

2
Background

• Design of an integrated, standards-
  inquiry-based 2-year Biology and Chemistry
  program
• Use of research-based best practices
• In cooperation with teachers, students, Teachers
  College, Columbia and The Rockefeller University
• Piloted in 2 Public Schools in New York City
• Teachers of varying levels of experience
• Students representing diverse needs

3
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

4
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

5
Data Analysis

• Data analyzed in aggregate, by teacher, school
  and ethnicity
• Qualitative data and observations reported as
  notable trends, quotes and describable behavioral
  changes
• Quantitative 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

6
Key Findings

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

7
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 Im confused now, I should
  ask questions in class.

8
Additional Questions?

• Contact
• Nicolle Gottfried (nmgottfried_at_sbcglobal.net)
• Catherine Saldutti (catherine_at_educhange.com)

9
Assessing Discrete Inquiry Skills Using a
Classroom Laboratory Rubric Six Student Case
Studies

• Presented by
• Catherine Saldutti Nicolle Gottfried

10
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

11
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

12
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)
13
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
14
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
15
Preliminary Findings

• A longitudinal assessment system that culls out
  discrete inquiry habits of mind, regardless of
  the laboratory context, helps students improve
  over time
• Purpose
• More detailed descriptions
• Tighter connections
• Error
• Notion of inherent error is difficult
• Requires a cognitive leap
• Further Experimental Questions
• Questions loosely related to the lab at first
• Mid high-level students move toward connections
  to results

16
Additional Questions?

• Contact
• Catherine Saldutti (catherine_at_educhange.com)
• Nicolle Gottfried (nmgottfried_at_sbcglobal.net)