skip to main content

Title: Understanding High School Chemistry Teachers as Both Learners of Chemistry and Pedagogy: Comparing Artifacts from Different Roles in Professional Development
Within high school classrooms, chemistry teaching is generally not aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards. This could be attributed to the complexity of reasoning across different representational levels and the instructional challenges teachers face when communicating such information. To enhance high school teachers’ chemistry knowledge and instructional quality, our research consists of a professional development (PD) program. Known as the VisChem Institute (VCI), our program leverages the cognitive learning model and foregrounds sensemaking using molecular visualizations. The VCI positions teachers as learners of chemistry and of pedagogy as they initially storyboard phenomena at the molecular level and later create their own VisChem-inspired learning design activities. Prior PD research has typically evaluated participants’ conceptual understanding or pedagogical knowledge independently. Fewer studies, however, have qualitatively analyzed the relationships between artifacts produced by teachers as both learners of chemistry and of pedagogy to understand their overall experiences. Our exploratory investigation seeks to answer these research questions: (1) How do high school chemistry teachers’ storyboards and learning design activities change throughout the VCI? (2) To what extent and in what ways are high school chemistry teachers’ storyboards and learning design activities connected? Inductive and deductive coding of storyboards and activities incorporates principles from more » model-based instruction and the cognitive learning model that informed the PD design. While early findings suggest that participants have improved the quality of their storyboards by including more details such as the influence of bulk water, epistemic practices of modeling require further analysis as evidenced by teachers’ learning design activities. Specifically, participants may view a VisChem visualization as a medium for knowledge transmission as opposed to a tool for student-centered sensemaking. Results and implications for PD and chemistry teaching will be presented. « less
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1908121
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10233476
Journal Name:
ACS Spring 2021 Meeting and Expo
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. COVID-19 is not only an obstacle which educators must surmount but also a source that further exacerbates the difficulties educators already face. For example, the literature has shown that isolation (i.e., one person teaching chemistry within a single high school) is an enduring difficulty educators experience. We fear that the pandemic has magnified high school teachers’ struggles, resulting in further siloing and the inhibiting of collegial interactions, access to professional development (PD) opportunities, and instructional reform. Our work aims to support high school teachers by redesigning a face-to-face PD program to one that is remotely-delivered. Our reflections of our PD’s transformation highlight the importance of conceptualizing theory-informed design principles for effective teaching and learning first, then modifying the delivery with appropriate tools and technologies. Namely, because our PD program leverages the cognitive learning model, we had to reconsider ways to more effectively prime the perception filter, reduce cognitive load, and link new ideas to prior knowledge for effective teacher learning of both chemistry and pedagogy in online/remote settings. We subsequently discuss the strengths, areas for improvement, and insights based on our experiences and our participants’ mid-institute feedback. We hope our rationales for how and why the VCI had been redesignedmore »inspire fellow teacher educators to explore new ways of maximizing teachers’ access to high-quality PD and mitigating the enduring challenges they face.« less
  2. Objective Over the past decade, we developed and studied a face-to-face video-based analysis-of-practice professional development (PD) model. In a cluster randomized trial, we found that the face-to-face model enhanced elementary science teacher knowledge and practice and resulted in important improvements to student science achievement (student treatment effect, d = 0.52; Taylor et al, 2017; Roth et al, 2018). The face-to-face PD model is expensive and difficult to scale. In this paper, we present the results of a two-year design-based research study to translate the face-to-face PD into a facilitated online PD experience. The purpose is to create an effective, flexible, and cost-efficient PD model that will reach a broader audience of teachers. Perspective/Theoretical Framework The face-to-face PD model is grounded in situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship frameworks. Teachers engage in learning science content and effective science teaching practices in the context in which they will be teaching. There are scaffolded opportunities for teachers to learn from analysis of model videos by experienced teachers, to try teaching model units, to analyze video of their own teaching efforts, and ultimately to develop their own unit, with guidance. The PD model attends to the key features of effective PD as described by Desimonemore »(2009) and others. We adhered closely to the design principles of the face-to-face model as described by Authors, 2019. Methods We followed a design-based research approach (DBR; Cobb et al., 2003; Shavelson et al., 2003) to examine the online program components and how they promoted or interfered with the development of teachers’ knowledge and reflective practice. Of central interest was the examination of mechanisms for facilitating teacher learning (Confrey, 2006). To accomplish this goal, design researchers engaged in iterative cycles of problem analysis, design, implementation, examination, and redesign (Wang & Hannafin, 2005) in phase one of the project before studying its effect. Data Three small pilot groups of teachers engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous components of the larger online course which began implementation with a 10-week summer course that leads into study groups of participants meeting through one academic year. We iteratively designed, tested, and revised 17 modules across three pilot versions. On average, pilot groups completed one module every two weeks. Pilot 1 began the work in May 2019; Pilot 2 began in August 2019, and Pilot 3 began in October 2019. Pilot teachers responded to surveys and took part in interviews related to the PD. The PD facilitators took extensive notes after each iteration. The development team met weekly to discuss revisions. We revised all modules between each pilot group and used what we learned to inform our development of later modules within each pilot. For example, we applied what we learned from testing Module 3 with Pilot 1 to the development of Module 3 for Pilots 2, and also applied what we learned from Module 3 with Pilot 1 to the development of Module 7 for Pilot 1. Results We found that community building required the same incremental trust-building activities that occur in face-to-face PD. Teachers began with low-risk activities and gradually engaged in activities that required greater vulnerability (sharing a video of themselves teaching a model unit for analysis and critique by the group). We also identified how to contextualize technical tools with instructional prompts to allow teachers to productively interact with one another about science ideas asynchronously. As part of that effort, we crafted crux questions to surface teachers’ confusions or challenges related to content or pedagogy. We called them crux questions because they revealed teachers’ uncertainty and deepened learning during the discussion. Facilitators leveraged asynchronous responses to crux questions in the synchronous sessions to push teacher thinking further than would have otherwise been possible in a 2-hour synchronous video-conference. Significance Supporting teachers with effective, flexible, and cost-efficient PD is difficult under the best of circumstances. In the era of covid-19, online PD has taken on new urgency. NARST members will gain insight into the translation of an effective face-to-face PD model to an online environment.« less
  3. As the importance to integrate engineering into K12 curricula grows so does the need to develop teachers’ engineering teaching capabilities and knowledge. One method that has been used to aid this development is engineering professional development programs. This evaluation paper presents the successes and challenges of an engineering professional development program for teachers focused around the use of engineering problem-framing design activities in high school science classrooms. These activities were designed to incorporate the cross-cutting ideas published in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and draw on best practices for instructional design of problem-framing activities from research on design and model-eliciting activities (MEAs). The professional development (PD) was designed to include the following researched-based effective PD key elements: (1) is content focused, (2) incorporates active learning, (3) supports collaboration, (4) uses models of effective practice, (5) provides coaching and expert support, (6) offers feedback and reflection, and (7) is of sustained duration. The engineering PD, including in-classroom deployment of activities and data collection, was designed as an iterative process to be conducted over a three-year period. This will allow for improvement and refinement of our approach. The first iteration, reported in this paper, consisted of seven high school science teachersmore »who have agreed to participate in the PD, implement the problem-framing activities, and collect student data over a period of one year. The PD itself consisted of the teachers comparing science and engineering, participating in problem-framing training and activities, and developing a design challenge scenario for their own courses. The participating teachers completed a survey at the end of the PD that will be used to inform enhancement of the PD and our efforts to recruit additional participants in the following year. The qualitative survey consisted of open-ended questions asking for the most valuable takeaways from the PD, their reasoning for joining the PD, reasons they would or would not recommend the PD, and, in their opinion, what would inspire their colleagues to attend the PD. The responses to the survey along with observations from the team presenting the PD were analyzed to identify lessons learned and future steps for the following iteration of the PD. From the data, three themes emerged: Development of PD, Teacher Motivation, and Teacher Experience.« less
  4. As K-12 engineering education becomes more ubiquitous in the U.S, increased attention has been paid to preparing the heterogeneous group of in-service teachers who have taken on the challenge of teaching engineering. Standards have emerged for professional development along with research on teacher learning in engineering that call for teachers to facilitate and support engineering learning environments. Given that many teachers may not have experienced engineering practice calls have been made to engage teaches K-12 teachers in the “doing” of engineering as part of their preparation. However, there is a need for research studying more specific nature of the “doing” and the instructional implications for engaging teachers in “doing” engineering. In general, to date, limited time and constrained resources necessitate that many professional development programs for K-12 teachers to engage participants in the same engineering activities they will enact with their students. While this approach supports teachers’ familiarity with curriculum and ability to anticipate students’ ideas, there is reason to believe that these experiences may not be authentic enough to support teachers in developing a rich understanding of the “doing” of engineering. K-12 teachers are often familiar with the materials and curricular solutions, given their experiences as adults, which meansmore »that engaging in the same tasks as their students may not be challenging enough to develop their understandings about engineering. This can then be consequential for their pedagogy: In our prior work, we found that teachers’ linear conceptions of the engineering design process can limit them from recognizing and supporting student engagement in productive design practices. Research on the development of engineering design practices with adults in undergraduate and professional engineering settings has shown significant differences in how adults approach and understand problems. Therefore, we conjectured that engaging teachers in more rigorous engineering challenges designed for adult engineering novices would more readily support their developing rich understandings of the ways in which professional engineers move through the design process. We term this approach meaningful engineering for teachers, and it is informed by work in science education that highlights the importance of learning environments creating a need for learners to develop and engage in disciplinary practices. We explored this approach to teachers’ professional learning experiences in doing engineering in an online graduate program for in-service teachers in engineering education at Tufts University entitled the Teacher Engineering Education Program (teep.tufts.edu). In this exploratory study, we asked: 1. How did teachers respond to engaging in meaningful engineering for teachers in the TEEP program? 2. What did teachers identify as important things they learned about engineering content and pedagogy? This paper focuses on one theme that emerged from teachers’ reflections. Our analysis found that teachers reported that meaningful engineering supported their development of epistemic empathy (“the act of understanding and appreciating someone's cognitive and emotional experience within an epistemic activity”) as a result of their own affective experiences in doing engineering that required significant iteration as well as using novel robotic materials. We consider how epistemic empathy may be an important aspect of teacher learning in K-12 engineering education and the potential implications for designing engineering teacher education.« less
  5. Objective Over the past decade, we developed and studied a face-to-face video-based analysis-of-practice PD model. In a cluster randomized trial, we found that the face-to-face model enhanced elementary science teacher knowledge and practice, and resulted in important improvements to student science achievement (student treatment effect, d = 0.52; Taylor et al., 2017: Roth et al., 2018). The face-to-face PD model is expensive and difficult to scale. In this poster, we present the results of a two-year design-based research study to translate the face-to-face PD into a facilitated online PD experience. The purpose is to create an effective, flexible, and cost-efficient PD model that will reach a broader audience of teachers. Perspective/Theoretical Framework The face-to-face PD model is grounded in situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship frameworks. Teachers engage in learning science content and practices in the context in which they will be teaching. In addition, there are scaffolded opportunities for teachers to learn from model videos by experienced teachers, try model units, and ultimately develop their own unit, with guidance. The PD model also attends to the key features of effective PD as described by Desimone (2009) and others. We adhered closely to the design principles of the face-to-face model asmore »described by Roth et al., 2018. Methods We followed a design-based research approach (DBR: Cobb et al., 2003: Shavelson et al., 2003) to examine the online program components and how they promoted or interfered with the development of teachers’ knowledge and reflective practice. Of central interest was the examination of mechanisms for facilitating teacher learning (Confrey, 2006). To accomplish this goal, design researchers engaged in iterative cycles of problem analysis, design, implementation, examination, and redesign (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Data We iteratively designed, tested, and revised 17 modules across three pilot versions. Three small groups of teachers engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous components of the larger online course. They responded to surveys and took part in interviews related to the PD. The PD facilitators took extensive notes after each iteration. The development team met weekly to discuss revisions. Results We found that community building required the same incremental trust-building activities that occur in face-to-face PD. Teachers began with low-risk activities and gradually engaged in activities that required greater vulnerability (sharing a video of themselves teaching a model unit for analysis and critique by the group). We also identified how to contextualize technical tools with instructional prompts to allow teachers to productively interact with one another about science ideas asynchronously. As part of that effort, we crafted crux questions to surface teachers’ confusions or challenges related to content or pedagogy. Facilitators leveraged asynchronous responses to crux questions in the synchronous sessions to push teacher thinking further than would have otherwise been possible in a 2-hour synchronous video-conference. Significance Supporting teachers with effective, flexible, and cost-efficient PD is difficult under the best of circumstances. In the era of COVID-19, online PD has taken on new urgency. AERA members will gain insight into the construction of an online PD for elementary science teachers/ Full digital poster available at: https://aera21-aera.ipostersessions.com/default.aspx?s=64-5F-86-2E-15-F8-C3-C0-45-C6-A0-B7-1D-90-BE-46« less