MST PORTAL - Promoting Open, Reflective Teaching & Learning

My attendance at NECC in San Antonio was made possible through the HP Technology for Teaching Leadership grant award. Last year a team of five teachers from our school were awarded the Technology for Teaching grant and because of our success with implementing our Pond Partners project we were awarded the additional funding as part of the Leadership grant for year two. We now have 15 teachers on the project with 13 k-5 classrooms participating. Saturday and Sunday at San Antonio were spent in meetings with14 other schools awarded the Leadership grant to discuss and plan for the coming year.

Debra Reed, our district’s K-12 Science Curriculum Supervisor, and I mapped our course for next year. The biggest shift in year two of the grant is moving from project-based planning to an initiative based on systemic change for our elementary building. Here’s our draft from our initial planning sessions.

Focus of Team Initiative

Goal #1: Our most important initiative is to shift instructional practices in our school to become constructivist in nature using inquiry-based methods. Both problem and project-based experiences will be the foundation for long-term student-driven investigations centered on living environment concepts. All teachers and students should be involved in real issues that require creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving to generate possible solutions and share findings and learning experiences with stakeholders.

Goal #2: Our second initiative is to increase the use of technology to facilitate learning for both teachers and students. We believe that technology (goal #2) must serve pedagogy (goal #1). We believe the infusion of technology must enable teachers and students to research, create, communicate, and collaborate. This initiative will create the transformative process we are seeking in technology infusion for our teachers and students.

Initiative Objectives

As a result of our initiative, teachers will:

• Understand constructivist theory
• Implement inquiry-based lessons (5E) and experiences (including PBL)
• Integrate technology into lessons
• Involve students in real-world issues that require creativity and innovation
• Establish their own personal learning network
• Design pre/post and formative/summative assessments tied to NYS/National standards
• Use data to inform instructional practices
• Work in collaborative teams focused on student learning

What will change?

Our current state of practice reveals many teachers using traditional, teacher-centered (didactic) direct instruction, where students are passive receptors of knowledge. The change will be the systemic impact on instructional practices and student learning.

As a result of our initiative, students will:

• Develop and implement their own scientific inquiry investigations
• Collect, organize, display, and analyze data from investigations to make decisions and develop solutions
• Increase content understandings related to the living environment
• Use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively
• Create and share multi-media presentations to reflect information learned through the project
• Exhibit a positive attitude toward using technology

What will change?

The change will be the shift towards a student-centered environment where they take the lead and responsibility for their learning and are supported and guided by classroom teachers.

As a result of our initiative, systems of technology support, leadership and administration will:

• Facilitate and support collaborative technology-enriched learning environments conducive to innovation for improved learning.
• Support hardware/software/networking

Plan for Measuring Impact on Teaching and Learning

Guiding Action Research Questions

1. What is the effect of implementing inquiry-based instruction on student learning?
2. How does technology support learning?

Multiple Measures of Data

1. Student Learning
   1. How do the post test measures of participating classes compare to the control classes?
2. Perceptions
   1. How do students, parents, and teachers gauge the importance/value of learning through inquiry?
   2. How do students, parents, and teachers gauge the importance/value of using technology?
3. Demographics
   1. How is student learning affected within various demographic groups? (special ed., gender)
4. School Processes
   1. How does the collaborative nature of this initiative support the shift in instructional practice and school/district goals?
   2. How does this initiative support collaborative technology-enriched learning environments that are conducive to innovation for improved learning?

Student Measures

• pre/post content assessment
• open ended task (post)
• journals/learning logs
• inquiry investigations
• graphing & analysis of data collection
• multi-media presentations
• surveys
• post reflections

Teacher Measures

• survey on student learning
• reflections
• pre/post HP technology survey
• pre/post Klem South pedagogy & technology use survey
• peer classroom observations

Leadership, Technology Support, & Administration

• survey
• reflections
• classroom observations

What’s important to note about this initiative is that it is TEACHER DRIVEN with administrative support. Planning for this systemic change for our school is incredibly exciting, yet brought about some personal stress and uncertainty. Last year it was a tremendous amount of work to be the Lead Teacher on the grant with just 4 other teachers and three classrooms working on the year-long project. Now that I’ll be working with 14 other teachers and 13 classrooms, how will we not only implement the environmental science year-long project with k-5 students, but also attain the pedagogical changes in instruction? In my next blog post, I’ll share what happened when our team of teachers in San Antonio met to tackle the obstacles and create a workable plan to create cohesion, excitement, and success for all teachers on the grant.

Questions and feedback on our plan are welcomed as well as other examples of systemic changes driven from the classroom.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The team of teachers involved with the HP TfT Pond Partners grant recently reflected on both student and personal learning throughout the experience as we wrote our final report.

| View | Upload your own

Data Supporting Impact on Student Learning
When examining the data it is important to note that the three participating classrooms have high populations of students receiving special services. Taking this into account, the gains made through the hands-on, technology rich classroom environments are noteworthy.

2^nd graders in Eva Burns’ class and a control class were given two different assessments; a ten question multiple choice test and a scientific process design task. Results reveal that students in Eva’s class scored higher on several of the multiple choice questions, in particular the questions about seasonal changes, making observations, and identifying correct units of measure.The scientific design task revealed significant differences in the depth of student responses from Eva’s class. We feel the hands-on inquiry-based focus of this project was the factor resulting in students in her class demonstrating a deeper understanding of the scientific method.

3^rd graders in Martha Erbland’s class and a control class were also given two different assessments; a 15 question multiple choice test and a scientific process design task. While the results of the test did not show significant gains, responses on the scientific design task from Martha’s students showed a much deeper understanding and application of the scientific method. Martha also stated that beyond these scores she has seen a marked improvement in her students’ questioning skills, ability to make connections across subject areas, and their understanding and interpretation of data.

4^th graders in Donna Hoffend’s class and a control class were given a fifteen question objective test. Results reveal no differences in student results between the classes. It is also interesting to note that 75% of current 4^th graders had the opportunity to work on a similar year-long project while in 3^rd grade. After lengthy discussions of the data, the team feels as though outside factors may have affected the results. Donna has students with multiple needs including students who receive weekly psychology and talk mentoring sessions. Coupled with the extreme academic needs and special education services, we were very pleased with the test results.

Impact on Instruction
One of our main objectives was to infuse technology into project lesson plans to engage learners, promote higher-order thinking skills, and provide authentic experiences. Through our individual professional development plans and our face-to-face meetings, each member was able to redesign lessons to become more constructivist in nature. Eva stated, “In the past, I gave my students all the information they needed to know. I told them what they would be learning. This year, I am able to give them the technology tools they need in order to find out what they want to know about. We used inquiry throughout the project and students were more motivated to learn because they had an invested interest in what we were learning about.”

The level of personal confidence with technology integration has soared for all participants. Donna noted, “Many of these new technological skills allowed me to create new and interactive lessons for my students.” Just looking at the pre and post data from our technology surveys reveals an incredible amount of growth in regards to the use of technology to support learning.

Another objective was to participate in a Professional Learning Community to reflect on improving student performance throughout the project. Chris reflected, “Perhaps the most important improvement to my teaching repertoire was the collaboration I had with team members. I learned how to redirect our focus based on the questions and interests of our students and the data collected from formative assessments.” This focus has afforded us opportunities to open our practice and learn from each other in ways we have never experienced before.

What’s Next?
Now we wait to see if we will be awarded a continuation and expansion of the grant for our school next year. If awarded, ten additional teachers will join and we’ll expand our focus to “Environmental Stewardship” K-5. If not, I’m sure this team of teachers will work on other problem and project-based learning experiences with their kids next year and encourage other grade level team members to join in.

While this was the most intensive project I have worked on in years, it was by far the most rewarding working as a collaborative team and seeing the kids present their findings, reflect using VoiceThread (in progress), and seek out new learning opportunities. Isabelle wrote on the Pond Partners wiki, “Fourth grade learned about potable water and how we waste it. I think we should also take into consideration how much garbage we throw out. Do you think we could all team up to try and recycle more? Are garbage dumps are getting full of things that we can recycle? Anything that has a 1 or a 2 on the bottom you can recycle. Lets all recycle!” I see a possible PBL topic for next year!

I’d love to learn more from other classroom teachers who are collecting and analyzing data to identify the impact of technology and/or PBL on learning for both students and teachers. Please share your ideas and suggestions. Thanks!

• Leave a comment... (0)

This past week I was lucky enough to work with data specialist Jennifer Borgioli to discuss possible data collection measures to measure the goals established for this newly established MST position.

MST Goals:

• Increase student opportunities to explore long-term science & math investigation
• Increase student performance in both science content and in using the scientific method
• Increase teacher confidence with technology integration

Since this is the first year I don’t have my own classroom, there are several challenges I’m working through. One is the difficulty in measuring an increase in student performance. Most of the time this year, students have visited the MST room for a series of 3-5 lessons as part of a larger unit in science. Recently for 5^th grade, the purpose of the lessons is to build background for a unit on the changing Earth (geology). I have data on formative measures which show some growth, but not as significant as what would be seen later in a unit. Since I’m not teaching an entire unit, nor am I working with all classrooms in the school, what is the best way to measure the increase in student performance?

The other piece to this is in regards to project and problem based learning experiences. Part of my focus this year has been directed at implementing an HP team grant with three classroom teachers (2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th grade). We have students investigating water quality at local ponds/stream through the year using various data collection measures. They have worked liked scientist collecting and analyzing data, developed their own inquiry questions, have had the opportunity to explore a topic in-depth, worked in collaborative settings, and will be presenting their findings to an authentic audience (Monroe County Water Coalition Meeting in March at the Brighton Town Hall). The way this learning experience is assessed is much different than the format of the NYS 4^th grade science test. What happens if the group of 4^th graders on this project does not perform as well on the NYS test as others in the grade level but has demonstrated a deeper understanding of living environment concepts through their experiences and tasks in the classroom?

One idea she shared by Jennifer was to interview a sample of students to gather information on their perceptions of learning. Examples: How well do you feel you learned about ___ through this project/problem? How do you feel this experience has helped you? How involved in learning do you feel you were during this project/problem?

From what I’ve researched on my own, the format of this instrument is intended to elicit students’ estimates of how much they gained from the class, and to relate their gains to particular aspects of the class pedagogy. Its particular focus is on what students gained from the class rather than asking students what they “liked” or “valued” about their classes.

I’m interested to hear more about how this type of data collection can be used to measure the identified goals. How can the questions be tweaked to elicit the most meaningful responses? How many students should be surveyed and how should the students be chosen? Also, what other less common forms of data collection can be used?

Now that I’ve had the opportunity to work in this position for 6 months, there are other unintended outcomes, not directly related to student performance, but rather to an increase in teacher confidence and use of student-centered practices such as inquiry and PBL. Should data be collected on these unintended goals? If so, what data collection measures would work best? Ahh…the challenges of learning how using data effectively!

• Leave a comment... (7)