A Professional Development Program for Science Teachers: Classroom Connectivity for Math and Science

1. A Professional Development Program for Science Teachers: Classroom Connectivity for Math and Science Vehbi A Sanalan, The Ohio State University Karen, E. Irving, The Ohio State University Stephen J. Pape, University of Florida Douglas T. Owens, The Ohio State University Louis Abrahamson, Better Education Foundation Christy Kim Boscardin, CRESST-UCLA Sedat Ucar, Cukurova University Sukru Kaya, Gazi University Melissa L. Shirley, The Ohio State University The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University.  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

2. Changing conception of science competence(National Research Council, 1996) • Conceptual understanding • Evidence-based reasoning • Fluency in scientific inquiry and process skills • Understanding the nature of science • Broad science knowledge base TI Navigator slides adapted from a presentation by Eileen Shihadeh, Texas Instruments

3. Changing roles for teachers include • Thinking beyond skills-based conceptions • Setting norms for discourse • Fostering scientific reasoning • Using problem solving and inquiry to support knowledge construction • Developing scientific competence more broadly defined • Using formative as well as summative assessment • Differentiating instruction

4. CCMS Project Overview • Interdisciplinary professional development and research project • Algebra I and Physical Science • Classroom connectivity technology • Summer Institute – training • T3 conference follow-up

5. The TI-Navigator™ Connected Classroom • Create a collaborative learning environment • Engage in formative assessment by way of immediate feedback • Enhance classroom management of TI graphing technology • Quick Poll provides teacher understanding by receiving impromptu feedback The TI-Navigator System allows the teacher to:

6. Professional Development • Week-long summer institute • Follow-up workshops at T3 Conferences • Web-based training • Online discussion forums • Telephone interviews

7. Summer Institute • “You have to walk the walk to talk the talk” • Model is used in T3 PD program • Based on the lessons learned • Teachers teaching other teachers • Research support for teacher-driven and learning-focused PD programs

8. Summer Institute (cont.) • Important components: • Focus on student learning in physical science • Extensive hands-on practice • Curriculum specific applications • Focus on both the technology and the pedagogy • Experienced teacher instructors • Teacher’s technology ability level

9. Summer Institute (cont.) • Treatment group in 2006, control group in 2007 • Five days, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm • Daily Debriefing sessions • Pedagogical discussions about; • Self regulated learning • Formative assessment • Lesson projects and presentations

10. Summer Institute (cont.) • 21 Physical science, physics and chemistry teachers • 11 different states • 15 different schools • 11 female, 10 male • 9 teachers first year, 12 teachers second year

11. Demographics

12. Technology Use

13. Professional Development

14. Institute Evaluation After the institute

15. Results Teachers; • feel positive about using the technology in their teaching • show appreciation for the institute contents • Have confidence in their Navigator use skills • Are satisfied with their overall experience in the summer institute

16. Future Directions • Ongoing analysis of data from one-day workshops, telephone interviews and observations. • Studying about the effects of PD on teachers’ implementation of the technology. • Seeking a relationship between teachers’ use of the technology and student achievement.

17. Thank You! http://ccms.osu.edu