RESULTS:
The stated goal was to see if an
informational and collaborative model of science department leadership rather
than a directive model improve the implementation of higher order thinking
skills.
The science teachers have all
looked at these goals and tried to implement higher order thinking skills in
the curricula with varying degrees of success.
For example, teachers have
attempted to infuse higher order thinking questions in their midterm and final
exams. Yet, when this was done last year without support or time to
collaborate, the students performed much poorer than expected. One teacher in
Earth Science reported an average score in the 60 percent range after being
asked to change the multiple-choice questions to less vocabulary. The chemistry
teachers reported a drop in scores after implementing a final exam from a
different test bank with higher order thinking questions on concepts, rather
than formulaic word problems.
There have been instances in which
teachers have implemented discussion of social issues and decision-making using
science. Yet, in some cases, students have done research on the Internet,
presented a viewpoint, (perhaps copied from others), made a poster, and
finished. When asked to write an essay or to evaluate sources, teachers
reported difficulty on the part of students, since the activity did not
stimulate new learning, or deepen an understanding of science concepts and
their uses.
The hope was that by directly
assisting teachers in implementation and collaboration of these types of
activities, there would be a direct link to increased student performance.
This was done mainly by focusing
science department meetings on specific professional topics: anticipatory
sets/starters, open ended questions, assessment models, science and society
ideas, group sharing of lab results. (The last professional topic of personalizing
instruction was not addressed in this goal). The model for the meeting was one
of collaborative; the chair shared specific ideas and pulled examples from
other teachers’ activities of good practice. Teachers shared what they did (or
didn’t) do, and any concerns and ideas.
Time was also given for teacher
collaboration throughout the year for teams of teachers in a subject, with
these higher order thinking goals in mind, as well as a focused collaboration
day with the middle school science teachers.
There was also individual
consultation with teachers on midterm exam questions, and especially on project
assignments and ideas.
The reflections here are based on
analysis of web sites showing lesson plans and previous year’s lesson plan
books, classroom observations, analysis of midterm exams, and an anonymous
teacher survey.
Although not all teachers used
schoolnotes regularly, some posted their individual topics and assignments
daily, or in their classrooms. Several classroom observations, especially of labs
and project discussions assisted in analyzing teachers’ curriculum.
The results as listed are extremely
subjective, since they are based on my interpretation of lesson plans, and
ideas, and not on daily direct classroom observation. Most of the results are
from October to March, so they may not truly reflect the depth of
understanding, and higher order thinking schools that often occurs later in the
school year.
However, some trends are worth
noting.
In every case, given the nine
teachers observed, all results are significant with a .05 t-test. This is
likely, showing the small amount of change needed to affect such a small sample
size.
Looking at the data, it appears
that the teachers who changed the most were those that were newest to the
system, and the ones with the highest degree of collaboration. In other words,
newer teachers who sought out assistance and collaboration changed from the
previous year the most. The chemistry teachers were given a day to collaborate,
and made significant changes, especially in exam questions and in projects. Two
teachers were different from previous years, so it is likely that there would
be a higher degree of change for those teachers. The biology teachers had a
high degree of collaboration in the previous year, yet the two experienced
teachers were able to affect change on the others.
Some other interesting notes from
the data: There were several teachers who did NOT regularly attend the
department meeting discussions of topics. Yet, one teacher showed changes anyway!
The survey results did not always
match up with the observed data. Again, since the data collected is very
subjective, it may not really show up as much. However, it is true that, like
students, teachers will remember the things they changed the most, as opposed
to activities that stayed the same.
|
TEACHER |
Pre % Open Ended Essays
on Exam(bypts) |
Post % Open Ended Essays
on Exam(bypts) |
|
Earth1 |
10 |
13 |
|
Earth2 |
15 |
15 |
|
Bio1 |
20 |
20 |
|
Bio2 |
20 |
20 |
|
Bio3 |
10 |
20 |
|
Bio4 |
10 |
20 |
|
Chem1 |
5 |
10 |
|
Chem2 |
5 |
20 |
|
Phys1 |
25 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
t-Test: Paired Two
Sample for Means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre % Open Ended Essays
on Exam |
Post % Open Ended Essays
on Exam |
|
Mean |
13.33333333 |
18.66666667 |
|
Variance |
50 |
32.25 |
|
Observations |
9 |
9 |
|
Pearson Correlation |
0.669265767 |
|
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference |
5.3333333 |
|
|
df |
8 |
|
|
t Stat |
-5.994149175 |
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail |
0.000162755 |
|
|
t Critical one-tail |
1.859548033 |
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail |
0.000325509 |
|
|
t Critical two-tail |
2.306004133 |
|
|
TEACHER |
Pre # Science/Issues
Projects |
Post # Science/Issues
Projects |
|
Earth1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Earth2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Bio1 |
3 |
4 |
|
Bio2 |
2 |
4 |
|
Bio3 |
1 |
1 |
|
Bio4 |
1 |
1 |
|
Chem1 |
2 |
4 |
|
Chem2 |
2 |
4 |
|
Phys1 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
t-Test: Paired Two
Sample for Means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre # Science/Issues
Projects |
Post # Science/Issues
Projects |
|
Mean |
1.777777778 |
2.777777778 |
|
Variance |
1.444444444 |
2.194444444 |
|
Observations |
9 |
9 |
|
Pearson Correlation |
0.811312423 |
|
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference |
1 |
|
|
df |
8 |
|
|
t Stat |
-6.92820323 |
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail |
6.05201E-05 |
|
|
t Critical one-tail |
1.859548033 |
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail |
0.00012104 |
|
|
t Critical two-tail |
2.306004133 |
|
|
TEACHER |
Pre # Lab Shares |
Post # Lab Shares |
|
Earth1 |
0 |
1 |
|
Earth2 |
0 |
1 |
|
Bio1 |
5 |
5 |
|
Bio2 |
3 |
5 |
|
Bio3 |
0 |
1 |
|
Bio4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Chem1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Chem2 |
1 |
1 |
|
Phys1 |
6 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
t-Test: Paired Two
Sample for Means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre # Lab Shares |
Post # Lab Shares |
|
Mean |
1.777777778 |
2.333333333 |
|
Variance |
5.444444444 |
5.25 |
|
Observations |
9 |
9 |
|
Pearson Correlation |
0.950806522 |
|
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference |
0.555555 |
|
|
df |
8 |
|
|
t Stat |
-4.588312383 |
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail |
0.000891249 |
|
|
t Critical one-tail |
1.859548033 |
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail |
0.001782499 |
|
|
t Critical two-tail |
2.306004133 |
|
|
TEACHER |
Pre% Days Spent on HOTS
Skills(est) |
Post % Days Spent on
HOTS Skills(est) |
|
Earth1 |
24 |
28 |
|
Earth2 |
14 |
15 |
|
Bio1 |
35 |
37 |
|
Bio2 |
25 |
34 |
|
Bio3 |
|
|
|
Bio4 |
|
|
|
Chem1 |
30 |
42 |
|
Chem2 |
21 |
35 |
|
Phys1 |
44 |
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
t-Test: Paired Two
Sample for Means |
|
t-Test: Paired Two
Sample for Means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre% Days Spent on HOTS
Skills |
Post % Days Spent on
HOTS Skills |
|
Mean |
27.57142857 |
36.71428571 |
|
Variance |
96.28571429 |
240.5714286 |
|
Observations |
7 |
7 |
|
Pearson Correlation |
0.920023535 |
|
|
Hypothesized Mean
Difference |
9.143 |
|
|
df |
6 |
|
|
t Stat |
-6.418798879 |
|
|
P(T<=t) one-tail |
0.000337517 |
|
|
t Critical one-tail |
1.943180274 |
|
|
P(T<=t) two-tail |
0.000675034 |
|
|
t Critical two-tail |
2.446911846 |
|
SURVEY GIVEN TO SCIENCE DEPARTMENT TEACHERS AT APRIL 13th Meeting
NAME (Optional):
HERE ARE SOME HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR DEPARTMENT MEETINGS THIS YEAR.
Please indicate the amount you have implemented in your curriculum this year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTICIPATORY SETS/STARTERS TO UNITS/LESSONS
1 2 3 4 5
less same a little more some more lots more
SHARING/USE OF LAB RESULTS
1 2 3 4 5
less same a little more some more lots more
ASSESSMENT (GRADING) DIFFERENTLY
1 2 3 4 5
less same a little more some more lots more
OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS
1 2 3 4 5
less same a little more some more lots more
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY IDEAS
1 2 3 4 5
less same a little more some more lots more
------------------------------------------------------------
How has using faculty/dept meetings changed how you implement any higher order thinking skills?
less same a little more some more lots more
1 2 3 4 5
|
TEACHER |
Starters |
LAbResults |
Assessment |
OpenEnded |
SciSociety |
Meetings Changed |
|
Teach1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Teach2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|
Teach3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
Teach4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Teach5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
Teach6 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
|
Teach7 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT/
REFLECTIONS
Overall, this goal has contributed
to the professional development of both myself as chair, but also to the
teachers as well. Since the purpose of the goal was to see if professional
development and collaboration could effect change better than a strictly
directive model, it shows that the goal has been met.
Student learning has been improved
in all the courses of science as a result of this goal. Because the teachers
specifically ask students to share their learning with each other, and share
their students’ learning with other teachers, the teachers report anecdotes of
a high degree of learning and interest in science areas. Teachers are
especially positive about projects, forums, and debates on topics that might
have been avoided several years ago.
This goal was developed and shared
with over 30 professional educators at Central Connecticut State University, as
well as with department members. The college community was presented with the
results of this goal as part of a poster project. Because most were interested
in the collaborative vs. directive model of leadership, the focus discussions
were around the department meeting model and the results that garnered from the
teachers. Feedback from these people indicates that a stricter division between
the “business” and the “professional” part of the meeting might have been
helpful.
Individual feedback from department
members was mixed. Some did not see the point of meeting to discuss issues, and
others just paid lip service to ideas, while going back to the classroom to not
change many things. However, all department members did express at one point or
another some positive attitude towards the concept of having their ideas on
topics listened to, or to “being treated as professionals”.
The survey shows that teachers will
respond to these ideas, if given a chance to collaborate and to develop them
slowly. It does point out a need for focused professional development. Science
teachers, especially, have a tendency to reach for professional development
that can be of immediate use, such s the latest lab activity, or technology,
rather than those focused on conceptual changes to curriculum and assessment.
In terms of personal reflection,
striving for this goal brought up many issues. In one sense, I was pleased to
try to focus discussion on professional topics, since I see that the “vision”
of science education is really my strength in terms of helpfulness to teachers.
However, it is difficult sometimes to bring up issues in a way that does not
make teachers defensive. There were some teachers that probably thought I was being
judgmental or critical when I brought up ideas that were different from their
own teaching practice. Because I presented ideas as discussion topics, instead
of starting with “research says we should teach science this way”, it may have
seemed as if I was presenting myself as an authority, negating the whole idea
of the informational collaborative model to being with. Models of adult
learning and professional development show that there is a fine balancing act
involved in presenting ideas contrary to an adult’s world view/
Although I know that there are
still 2 or 3 members of the department that view any observation of their
teaching as an intrusion, it still remains within my role as chair to try and
oversee this. I had thought that the idea of using schoolnotes to keep track of
topics was a good one. However, several teachers stopped posting in February
and March specific plans and assignments, instead just referring students to
chapters from the book, I am not sure whether my open ness to teachers that I
was monitoring school notes was an impetus for this.
I think that our system is unique,
in that we have some teachers who deep down really do not believe in the idea
of a curricular chair as we envision it. This is probably something that cannot
change unless there is enough reinforcement of the need to “submit” to such a
role.
But overall, I think the teachers
who collaborated with each other, shared lesson plans, projects, assessments
and ideas, found that they were able to improve student learning, in some small
part due to implementation of this goal. I see no reason why this should not
continue.
Note: This goal was approved in
October 2004. It clearly did not directly impact upon my four Physics classes
in any way. Regardless, I took it upon myself to take on another goal for
Physics. I was able to completely digitize my entire Physics curriculum. Every
set of notes, handouts, assignments, labs, homework examples, rubrics,
examples, visuals, videos, study guides and activities was posted on a web site
and updated daily throughout the school year. The response from the students
was quite positive. They helped each other find materials, use the website, and
overall were able to benefit greatly from this organization. Their response on
the annual student evaluation shows that for many, this part of the class made
them so responsible for their own learning, that they were able to succeed at a
higher level. I would suspect this had some impact upon the increased
enrollment in Physics for the following year.