Learning Progressions for Describing Teachers Use of

1
Learning Progressions for Describing Teachers
Use of Curriculum Materials
Christina Schwarz, MSU Betsy Davis, UM David
Kanter, Northwestern Sean Smith, Horizon CCMS
KSI July, 2006
This material is based on work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No.
ESI-0227557. Any opinions, findings and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
2
What Do We Mean by a Teacher Learning Progression?

• Not a stage theory model of teacher development
• A learning progression that can help us
• Clarify beginning, middle, and end goals for
  teacher curriculum use
• Think about teacher use of CMs with and without
  intervention and guidance
• Think about what types of intervention and
  guidance are needed and when
• Think about the role of mediating factors such as
  context, teacher knowledge, skills, and beliefs

3
Session Rationale

• Why a teacher learning progression around CMs?
• CMs are important in teacher practice, and
  teachers use of CMs evolves and changes over
  time.
• Beginning teachers are highly dependent on CMs,
  and its important for them to know how to
  evaluate, select, and modify CMs in a principled,
  reform-based manner. Important to help beginning
  and experienced teachers develop a participatory
  relationship with CMs that enables effective
  curriculum modification, learning, and use.
• Lack of knowledge around teacher progressions
  hampers teacher educators from designing
  effective teacher education and curriculum
  designers from creating effective materials for a
  range of teachers along the continuum.

4
Session Goal

• Have a conversation and map out a tentative
  teacher learning progression or set of
  progressions for pre-service, beginning, and
  experienced teachers around curriculum materials
  use, including
• Curriculum evaluation/choice (including finding
  and evaluating CMs)
• Curriculum modification/planning
• Curriculum enactment
• Reflection with CMs (looking at student learning
  and outcomes)
• Learning with CMs
• Identity with respect to CMs (including
  professional role as teacher)
• Mediating factors Context (learning community
  and tools), teacher knowledge (content and
  other), pedagogical skills (management, etc.),
  and teacher beliefs.

5
Session Questions

• How do teachers interact with curriculum
  materials with and without support? What sorts of
  participatory relationships do they have with
  respect to CMs?
• How do those aspects change over teachers
  careers?
• What might we want teachers to know and be able
  to do with respect to CMs?
• How might we help teachers get there?
• What kind of research might we need to determine
  the answers to these questions?

6
Teacher Learning Progressions
7
Organization of Session

• Introduction (10 min)
• Presentation of findings from session organizers
  (50 min)
• Break (15 min)
• Small Group work on mapping out one dimension of
  LP (50 min)
• Sharing of LPs (30 min)
• Discussion (25 min)

8
Christina Schwarz, ETCM group at MSU

• Focus on helping pre-service elementary teachers
  learn to evaluate and modify curriculum materials
  for effective science teaching.
• Use P2061 criteria to guide pre-service teachers
  in evaluating materials (e.g. providing a sense
  of purpose, building on students ideas, engaging
  students in real world phenomena, etc.).
• Used criteria to evaluate materials
• Used criteria to evaluate and modify set of
  lessons taught in elementary classrooms
• Trials of implementation of approach in 3 methods
  sections -- iterations over 3 years. Year 2
  studied extensively.
• Analyzed scaffolded and spontaneous use of P2061
  and own criteria. Looked at attitudes towards
  P2061 criteria use and modification.

9
ETCM work
10
ETCM findings

• Pre-service teachers evaluations of materials
  based on strong intuitive notions of what makes
  good material. Often, a practical orientation --
  age appropriate activities that can be easily
  managed, fun, with hands-on activities, and
  provides clear science explanations for both
  teachers and students.
• Efforts to focus pre-service teachers on
  evaluating materials with P2061 criteria a
  challenge because the criteria did not match
  intuitive notions and the task sometimes seemed
  inauthentic, unnecessary, and sometimes
  destabilizing. Needed more support in modifying
  materials to meet criteria.
• Some indication that PSTs felt lack of power and
  knowledge for modifying materials, but were
  willing to consider modification when related to
  practical management concerns or to address
  concerns about age appropriateness.

11
Other ETCM Findings and Recommendations

• Better results when focusing on helping PST
  evaluate and modify CMs with an instructional
  framework that helped them see HOW they can
  modify curriculum materials and brings in an
  overall guideline for how to do this and an image
  for this kind of instruction.
• Engage Establish a problem. Ask a question.
  Elicit student ideas.
• Explore and Investigate Explore phenomena and
  students ideas. Ask students to derive patterns
  and explanations based on evidence.
• Explain Introduce scientific ideas. Compare
  student ideas.
• Apply Model concept use and application, coach,
  and fade.

12
Other ETCM Findings and Recommendations

• Providing several experiences evaluating,
  modifying, and enacting CMs in the pre-service
  stage may be very important, as well as
  discussing related issues. (When can and should I
  modify? What if my CT or principal tells me I
  have to stick to the book and worksheets?)
• Important to match the PST communities with
  one-another so that they see this practice in
  action. Have CTs discuss CM evaluation and
  modification to make this invisible task more
  explicit.
• Create tasks or cases related to curriculum
  evaluation and modification in teacher education
  courses that are engaging and authentic for PSTs.

13
End Goal for PSTs

• Where do we want PSTs to be at the end of their
  methods courses?
• Knowing that CMs can be a useful resource, but
  they need to be evaluated and carefully modified
  to meet learning goals and student needs
• Having gained experiences and skills in
  evaluating, modifying, and enacting of CMs in a
  principled, reform-based manner
• Having gained experience working with a community
  (colleagues, developers, teacher educators) in
  evaluating and modifying CMs. And to a greater or
  lesser extent, enacting CMs and reflecting on
  that enactment.

14
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM
Preservice teacher education (several studies
have been published) Example research question
What is the basis for preservice elementary
teachers critique of instructional materials in
science? Participants Preservice elementary
teachers at UM Example data sources work on
critique adaptation assignments Longitudinal
study (ongoing no studies have been
published) One overarching research question How
do new elementary teachers knowledge and
practice change over time? Specifically were
interested in inquiry-oriented science teaching
and related dimensions. Participants 7
elementary teachers, UM preservice through sixth
year of teaching, nationwide Multiple data
sources interviews, log files, reflections, etc.
bd
15
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM
bd
16
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about

• Preservice teachers evaluation and modification
  of CM (AB) (see Davis, 2006, Science Education
  Forbes Davis, 2006 ASTE / submitted)
• The preservice elementary teachers held a
  sophisticated set of criteria for critiquing
  instructional materials for example, they paid
  attention to scientific inquiry and instructional
  goals.
• Even with explicit support, the preservice
  teachers did not engage in substantive critique
  about how scientific content is represented.
• The preservice elementary teachers critiqued and
  modified curriculum materials dealing with
  socioscientific issues in ways that reflected
  their own orientations toward meaningful science
  learning and their developing understanding of
  inquiry-oriented science.

bd
17
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about

• Preservice teachers learning from and with CM
  (E) (see Smithey Davis, 2004, ICLS Dietz
  Davis, in progress)
• Since this is very specific to supports we use in
  CASES, we wont discuss this today.
• When responding to narrative images of inquiry,
  half of the preservice teachers studied reported
  agreement with instructional decisions of the
  image teacher as the only rationale for
  identifying with them. The other half also
  considered issues of similarity of circumstance
  and whether or not they could relate to the image
  teacher.
• Also when responding to narrative images of
  inquiry, the preservice teachers reflect on five
  common themes (including identity, students
  ideas, and teacher modifications to CM), while
  also reflecting on some themes that are specific
  to particular narratives (including inquiry and
  learning goals).

bd
18
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about

• Preservice teachers curricular role identity
  (F)(see Forbes Davis, 2006 ASTE / submitted
  for review Forbes Davis, in progress)
• In critiquing and adapting CM dealing with
  socioscientific issues, the preservice teachers
  SMK, informal reasoning about socioscientific
  issues, and their role identity mediated their
  efforts.
• They adopted a value-neutral approach to
  practice.
• They were attuned to standards and learning
  goals. The challenge was to navigate
  conceptually-oriented goals and SSI-oriented
  ones.
• Curricular role identity development is tied to
  preservice teachers practicum experiences. Many
  rarely interact, or observe cooperating teachers
  interact, with CM and dont perceive CM a
  fundamental part of classroom-based practice.
  This is a function of what materials are
  available.
• Preservice teachers view CM as always helpful for
  inexperienced teachers but less so for
  experienced teachers, except in cases where the
  teachers are learning to use new CM or teaching
  unfamiliar content.

cf
19
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about

• Beginning teachers evaluation and modification
  of CM (AB)(talk to Forbes, Stevens, Beyer,
  Smithey, and/or Davis for different slants on
  this)
• In general, beginning elementary teachers do
  engage in critique and adaptation of existing CM.
  They draw from a variety of resources but
  experience a tension between an
  investigation-orientation and a text-orientation.
  This tension is constructed and articulated
  differently by each teacher.
• Time or experience isnt the only factor in
  change. Context matters in how beginning teachers
  critique, adapt, and use CM.
• The teachers have a wide variety of science CM to
  work with.
• Their available CM influences the development of
  their science teaching practice over time.
• Having and using a stable set of CM over time may
  help promote the development of PCK and
  pedagogical design capacity.
• Some beginning teachers show increasing
  sophistication with regard to the criteria along
  which they critique instructional representations
  in CM and consider inquiry practices supported by
  the CM.

cf
20
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UM What have
we learned about

• Beginning teachers enactment of CM (C)(see
  Beyer, in progress)
• Since this is a case study of a single teacher,
  we wont discuss this today.
• In enacting the educative materials, one
  third-year, second grade teacher developed a more
  sophisticated understanding of scientific
  explanation, adopted learning goals for some
  lessons that emphasized this inquiry practice,
  and developed instructional practices to foster
  students explanation construction.
• However, she tended to emphasize the importance
  of learning factual content above the importance
  of generating explanations in some of her
  learning goals and in her instructional and
  assessment practices. She did not see this
  inquiry practice as an instructional strategy for
  facilitating students understanding of the
  science content nor did she see this inquiry
  practice as an educational goal in its own right.

cf
21
Betsy Davis and the CASES group at UMAn
Overarching Question
How can we make sense of longitudinal data
like these to make claims about a learning
progression?
cf
22
David Kanter, Northwestern

• In-service middle and high school Biology
  teachers
• Curriculum-driven, practice-based professional
  development(Learning and Teaching Human Biology
  graduate course)
• Concurrent with first enactment of project-based
  inquiry science (PbIS) I, Bio or Disease
  Detectives Biology curricula
• Split between beginning and experienced
  teachers,although none particularly experienced
  with pedagogy or content
• 12 weeks during school year, 3 hours, 1
  evening/week
• Co-taught with practicing teacher experienced
  with the curriculum

23

• PbIS curricula designed around big Biology
  content ideas support opportunities to figure out
  students initial ideas about the big ideas,
  support students changing their ideas, and figure
  out students final ideas about the big ideas
• Teachers learn in order to use pedagogical
  content knowledge content knowledge to plan and
  reflect on puzzling through their students
  conceptual change
• New big ideas added each week as we work toward
  enacting the next lesson
• Reflecting and planning is structured by
  organizer that requiresdesign/ identify/
  interpret ( reasoning)/ design (
  reasoning)when clarifying or changing students
  ideas about (stated) big idea

24
David Kanter, Northwestern
25
Big Science Ideas
Design/Plan

• Provide organizer

Identify
Interpret
Teaching Jobs
Design/Plan
26

• Use organizer for homework to reflect on enacted
  lesson that was (review during class)
• Use organizer for homework to plan to enact
  lesson that will be (review during class) with
  further planning support during class, prior to
  enactment.
• Planning and reflecting supported by content and
  conceptions readings and lecture for big ideas in
  each new lesson, video of other teachers
  enacting that lesson and personally experiencing
  that lesson.
• Weekly, use one organizer per lesson. Update one
  reflecting on lesson that was. Begin another
  to plan for lesson that will be.
• Flesh out organizer into paper for two lessons.
  Classroom video of teachers enactment provided
  to support this task.
• (Pre-service teachers in same methods type
  course complete papers based on observations in
  in-service teachers classrooms)

27

• Analyze organizer-structured papers. Compare to
  pre-measure administered for big ideas from
  target lessons.

• Chunk self-contained use of teaching jobsto
  clarify or change a big science idea(i.e. column
  on the organizer)
• Four (organizer-supported) qualities
• Content
• Connected
• Correct
• Justified

28

• GREEN CHUNK
• -Content focused
• -Connected
• -Correct
• -Justified

• YELLOW CHUNK
• -Content focused
• -Connected
• -INCORRECT (e.g over estimation best chunks are
  correct)
• -NOT Justified

ORANGE CHUNK (pick 2) -SHIFTS AWAY from
Content focus -Often UNCONNECTED -INCORRECT
(pedagogical) -NOT Justified

• RED CHUNK
• -NO Content focus
• -UNCONNECTED
• -INCORRECT (pedagogical)
• -NOT Justified

29
Teacher A
Teacher C
Teacher B
30

• Teacher Learning Progressions of Curriculum
  Materials Use
• Pre PREDOMINATELY RED OR ORANGE CHUNKS unable
  to identify relevant student comments/writings/act
  ions unable to make interpretations about what
  students ideas are let alone justify
  (reasoning) unable to suggest designs to
  clarify or change students ideas let alone
  justify (reasoning)
• Post FEWER RED OR ORANGE CHUNKS MORE YELLOW AND
  SOME GREEN CHUNKS able to identify relevant
  student comments/writings/actions able to make
  correct interpretations about students
  ideas (although over/under estimation
  possible) some justify (reasoning) able to
  suggest designs to clarify or change students
  ideas some justify (reasoning) ALTHOUGH
  DIFFERENCES AMONG TEACHERS/CONTENT

31
Sean Smith, Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI)

• HRI was the external evaluator for an
  Instructional Materials Development project
  observed several teachers enacting the curriculum
  over 4 years.
• The materials
• InterActions in Physical Science (formerly known
  as CIPSConstructing Ideas in Physical Science)
• Year-long physical science curriculum targeting
  8th grade scaffolding of science concepts and
  science practices across units.
• Highly structured curriculum based on a learning
  cycle approachlessons within cycles within
  units.
• Instruction heavily based on scientific
  argumentation and explanation.
• Developed by team of physicists and physics
  educators from SDSU, U of Minn, and WMU.
• Designed with P2061 criteria in mind solicited
  P2061 feedback regularly during development.

32
Differences in Research Focus

• HRIs focus was on fidelity of implementation.
• To what extent was the teachers enactment
  aligned with the developers vision?
• What factors contributed to a high (or low)
  fidelity implementation?
• How did teachers change over time in their
  enactment, particularly in relation to
  curriculum-related PD?
• Focus of curriculum-related PD was on enabling
  teachers to implement with fidelity.
• Not about principles for evaluating and choosing
  curricula.
• Not about modifying the curriculum.

33
Teacher Support During Pilot and Field Test

• Extensive educative materials to accompany
  student materials.
• Week long summer workshop.
• 4 day long workshops during the year.
• Afternoon meetings every other week (pilot phase
  only)

34
(No Transcript)
35
Findings

• Findings are limited to enactment how using the
  materials changed teachers and how teachers
  changed the materials.
• How the materials changed the teachers and their
  classrooms
• All teachers made progress in terms of fidelity,
  some much more than others.
• Teachers spoke of major changes in
• Classroom culture from teacher dominated to
  collaborative from no student talk or disruptive
  talk to constructive, respectful talk among
  students.
• Who does the intellectual work in the classroom
  shift from teacher only to students and teacher
  sharing the load.
• The kind of intellectual work the teacher does in
  the classroom from information dispensing to
  facilitating, making sense of evidence, and
  anticipating, analyzing, and reacting to student
  thinking.
• Their relationship to the curriculum after the
  first year of enactment from an
  activity-by-activity approach to a unit- and even
  curriculum-level approach.

36
How Teachers Changed the MaterialsA Progression
of Sorts

• Managing classroom behavior and managing
  logistical aspects of the curriculum
• Teachers with no class control struggled. Those
  who could not manage the material and paper
  demands of the curriculum also struggled.
• These teachers implemented with the least
  fidelity no constructive discussions, no making
  sense of evidence.
• Managing the pedagogy InterActions involves a
  relatively sophisticated pedagogy that depends,
  among other things, on having certain kinds of
  discussions at certain points in the cycle.
• Teachers focused heavily on the what of the
  pedagogy, but not the why. More emphasis on the
  form of the pedagogy than the substance.
• Had discussions but these often did not build
  toward a conclusion, or teachers rushed to
  conclusion.
• A mechanical enactment at best.
• Managing the learning Some teachers eventually
  saw the why of the pedagogy, and became
  comfortable with pedagogy, as well as the scope
  and sequence of the curriculum.
• Had discussions guided by students ideas and the
  pedagogy.
• Did not rush to closure or short-circuit the
  inquiries.
• A purposeful enactment.

37
Create Learning Progression Along Dimensions

• Group 1 - CM choice and evaluation
• Group 2 - CM modification and planning
• Group 3 - CM enactment
• Group 4 - Reflection with CMs
• Group 5 - Learning with and from CMs
• Group 6 - Identity and CMs
• We acknowledge these categories overlap. Feel
  free to modify the framework.
• Mediating factors within these dimensions
  include context (learning community, tools),
  teacher knowledge (content, etc.), pedagogical
  skills (classroom management, etc.), teacher
  vision/beliefs/orientations.

38
Discussion Questions for LPs

• Where are teachers? (What do they know and what
  are they able to do? Unpack the information from
  these findings and your own.) Where are the
  teachers with and without scaffolding? What are
  some of the challenges and opportunities at those
  particular levels and foci?
• Where do we want teachers to be with respect to
  CMs? When?
• How can we help teachers get there? (e.g.
  educative CMs, teacher education, professional
  development)
• What research might we need to figure this out?

39
Share Learning Progressions Discuss Main Issues

• Share Learning Progressions
• Discuss main issues
• Where do we want teachers to be? When?
• What kind of experiences, scaffolding, or
  education is needed? (e.g. educative CMs, TE, PD)
  When?
• What should our next steps be?