Elementary Science Notebooks: Helping Teachers with Formative Assessment

1. Elementary Science Notebooks:Helping Teachers with Formative Assessment Pamela R. Aschbacher California Institute of Technology This work is supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (REC 0106994). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

2. Why Science Notebooks? • Many science educators advocate integration of literacy and science to “keep” science in elementary school. • Writing-to-learn literature supports the idea of writing to support learning in the content areas. HOWEVER... • Few guidelines exist on what science notebooks should contain & how to use them effectively (portfolios redux). • Teachers, district science coordinators, administrators, and teacher educators are asking for help. • Our collaborative research to systematically explore models and provide evidence of what works.

3. Conceptual Framework •Activities focused on learning goals not just content coverage •NB contents (writing opportunities) should map to & reinforce scientific inquiry processes •NBs for formative assessment & learning: • Provide help to teacher in judging student work • Allow teacher to give feedback to Ss to improve learning & encourage their meta-cognitive skills • Provide teacher information to revise instruction •Empower teachers so they can continue w/o us

4. Design Part of large, complex 3-year study: • collaborative design research & • quasi-experimental design 12 teachers in 3 districts for 2 yrs (subset for this talk) Y1=develop ideas with other teachers Y2=baseline measures on 12 teachers and classes Y3=PD + outcome measures • Curriculum context: Hands-on inquiry unit on electric circuits @ grade 4

5. Data Sources • Teachers (both experienced & novice) • Unit content knowledge test (MC) • Teacher interviews & debriefing discussions • Student notebooks (FB, OTL)--10/class • Classroom observations • Students (n=240 in 2 years, 24 classes) • Science notebooks (content knowledge & inquiry process skills) • CAT6 • (Other measures not discussed in this talk)

6. Professional Development 2 workshop days (before & during unit) & 3 after-school study group meetings Information, hands-on practice, & discussion: • Content knowledge in unit • Explicit: “big ideas” & relationships between ideas; key lessons & essential learning goals • Reasoning about data to make knowledge claims supported by evidence • How notebook entries map to scientific inquiry • Assessing student work in notebooks & providing feedback • Revisiting ideas, revising practice

7. Notebook Rubrics • S’s conceptual understanding of simple, series, & parallel circuits • T’s feedback to student; • S’s response to FB • Research question is on science content • Data quality -- drawings clear & labeled so are meaningful • Data examples -- sufficient to make knowledge claim • Data organization -- to help develop claim • Claim relates to science content of unit • Claim answers or relates to research question • Evidence supports claim

8. Teachers’ Formative Assessment Focus • From ratings of student notebooks: • Frequency of FB to students • Quality of FB to students • Student response to FB • From coding of teacher interviews • Consistency of FB to students • Focus on student understanding > activities • Refer to NBs for evidence of student understanding • Use NB evidence to plan revisions to teaching

9. Related Classroom Practices(from observations) • Teacher is curious about student thinking vs uses responses to keep their attention or judge facts or procedure as right/wrong • Questions posed are deep, open ended vs shallow, fill-in-the-blank • T waits for S to explain vs cut off and/or finish for them (S doesn’t get to process her thoughts) • Information exchange is clear, accurate, precise vs vague, too general to use, confusing • NB entries seen as valuable to stimulate Ss’ thinking, look back to reflect, communicate vs just a task.

10. T1 (med CK, lo FAF):chatters, not curious, cuts off student, tells the “answer” • T: Why is it lighting this time? Let’s look on the floor because it probably fell down….I need you not to yell…So what has to happen for it to light?… • S: You have to • T: Show me. What did you do? You guys just did this, so tell me. Put it into words. • S: You have to put one wire around the • T: The side. One has to be on the bottom. Good job. One has to be on the side. Write it down. Write it down. Did you guys get it?

11. T2 (med CK, hi FAF):curious, lets student talk, clarifies T: I see someone’s that did light up. (pins drawing next to previous one on board). Explain what you did, because you got yours to light. S: We put the bulb on the bottom side of the battery and then we put it on the bottom side of the wire. T: Ok, but was anything else touching? S: (explains more) T: So the bottom of the bulb was touching the battery, and a wire was touching the bulb and the other end of the battery? Interesting.

12. Ss had better data quality when Ts had more content knowledge(Data Quality ratings averaged over 4 lessons) Content KnowledgeHI Med LO Formative Assessment Lo Med Hi

13. Ss understood concepts better when Ts had CK & used formative assessmentKEY:LOMED HI NB CIRCUIT CONCEPT SCORES (C,S,P)HI CK Med CK LO CK Formative Assessment Lo Med Hi

14. What Teachers Needed • Less is more; focus on learning> coverage • A curious, inquiry-approach to teaching (formative assessment in disguise): what ARE those Ss thinking? What evidence shows they understand? How can I make it better? • Knowledge of science content & unit (or teaching & FB will be wrong &/or nil) • Knowledge of scientific inquiry process -- e.g. questions; systematic, organized & accurate; reason w/ data to develop knowledge claims.

15. Challenges • Low priority for science in elementary school • Little incentive for deep improvement in instruction (including formative assessment); little PD in science • Curriculum inadequacies (e.g. lack: of clear learning goals, conceptual relationships, inquiry science process) • Perceived student inability or “resistance” to deeper thinking & writing (“they don’t want to write”) ---> Limits teacher improvement in: • content knowledge • assessing Ss • giving FB • using “data” to revise practice