Hana Berger

1. An Evidence–Based CPD Program on Knowledge Integration in Physics - The Contribution of a Computerized Environment Hana Berger Ph. D. Advisors: Prof. Bat-Sheva Eylon Dr. Esther Bagno

2. Goal of the CPD Program Deliberate, systematic, diversified and routine integration of KI activities into physics lessons. KIRs

3. Theoretical Considerations Constructivist Situative (Social Constructivism) Learning Perspectives Spiral learning Ongoing interactions among participants Principles of learning hold as true for teachers as they do for learners Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999; Bruner, 1996; Greeno 1997;Edelson et al. 1996

4. Spiral Learning Revisiting previous ideas Extending knowledge based on previous ideas Depth Width Spektor-Levy, Eylon & Scherz 2004

5. The need for integrating computerized interactions with face-to-face meetings The usual 8 once-a-month meeting workshop is limited in supporting continuous spiral learning A computerized environment has the potential to cope with this problem Transforming The usual once a month meeting workshop To a 8 month workshop Nachmias, Mioduser, & Ram, 2000

6. Effort has to be invested in order to ensure effectiveness " Simply providing new media in itself, is unlikely to change the nature or form of teachers' professional interactions" Putnam & Borko , 2000

7. Advantages and Challenges of computerized interactions Unlimited time and space for interaction Multiple interactions among participants Text-based interactions Unwillingness or lack of skills to participate Different kinds of participation Lack of physical cues and gestures Johnson et al. 2002; Smith & Taylor, 1995; Harazim, 1989

8. Research Questions Q1. What actions can be taken in order to enhance a continuous, spiral and collaborative learning in a CPD program that integrates f.2.f. with computerized interactions? Q2. How do the actions described in Q1 enhance the spiral learning in the CPD program?

9. Sample and Method 16 physics teachers who participated in a year-long workshop that integrated monthly face-to-face meetings with computerized interactions (via a web-site) Data were gathered using qualitative methods archiving and analyzing teachers' computerized interchanges, transcripts of face-to-face meetings, semi-structured and in-depth interviews with the teachers, feedback questionnaires.

10. Findings - Q1 – actions • Presence Forum • Announcements, memorandums • Affective comments • Archive of Materials • Feedback questionnaires • Calls to perform in class and at home • “Smashing sentences” • “Hot Reflections” and feedback • “Hot Polls” • “Your comments” • Analysis of computerized interactions

11. Findings - Q2 – Actions’ influence Development of teachers’ knowledge about students’ reflections ”Smashing Sentences” Developmentof teachers’ knowledge about KIRs “Hot Polls”

12. Findings - Q2 – Actions’ influence Development of teachers’ knowledge about students’ reflections Step4:“Revealing” that students’ reflections may serve as didactic tools Step3: Careful analysis of students’ reflection Step2: Spontaneous Quoting of students’ reflections Step1:Externally Stimulated Quoting of students’ reflections Ignoring Students’ Reflections ”Smashing Sentences”

13. Findings - Q2 – Actions’ influence Development of teachers’ knowledge about KIRs Step4: Teachers perceive KIRs as teaching tools for KI Step3: Teachers generalize KIRs’ characteristics Step2: Teachers are acquainted with 2 KIRs Step1: Teachers are acquainted with the first KIR No poll about KIRs “Hot Polls”

14. Summary Actions enhance continuous spiral learning

15. Physics Teachers Learn about Implementation of Knowledge Integration Activities-The Contribution of a Computerized Environment Thank you