More Like this

1. Board 110: Work in Progress: Elementary Students’ Disciplinary Talk in a Classroom with an Explicit Engineering Decision-making Scaffold

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--32188  

   Batrouny, Nicole ; Miel, Karen ; Wendell, Kristen ( June 2019 , ASEE Conferences)

   While engineering grows as a part of elementary education, important questions arise about the skills and practices we ask of students. Both collaboration and decision making are complex and critical to the engineering design process, but come with social and emotional work that can be difficult for elementary students to navigate. Productive engagement in collaborative teams has been seen to be highly variable; for some teams, interpersonal conflicts move the design process forward, while for others they stall the process. In this work in progress, we are investigating the research question, what is the nature of students’ disciplinary talk during scaffolded decision making? We explore this research question via a case study of one student group in a 4th-grade classroom enrolled in an outreach program run by a private university in a Northeastern city. This program sends pairs of university students into local elementary schools to facilitate engineering in the classroom for one hour per week. This is the only engineering instruction the elementary students receive and the engineering curriculum is planned by the university students. For the implementation examined in this study, the curriculum was designed by two researchers to scaffold collaborative groupwork and decision making. The instruction was provided by an undergraduate and one of the researchers, a graduate student. The scaffolds designed for this semester of outreach include a set of groupwork norms and a decision matrix. The groupwork norms were introduced on the first day of instruction; the instructors read them aloud, proposed groupwork scenarios to facilitate a whole class discussion about whether or not the norms were followed and how the students could act to follow the norms, and provided time for students to practice the norms in their engineering design groups for the first project. For the rest of the semester, an anchor chart of the norms was displayed in the classroom and referenced to encourage consensus. The researchers designed the decision matrix scaffold to encourage design decisions between multiple prototypes based on problem criteria and test results. Instructors modeled the use of this decision matrix on the third day of instruction, and students utilized the matrix in both design projects of the semester. Data sources for this descriptive study include students’ written artifacts, photos of their design constructions, and video records of whole-class and team discourse. We employ qualitative case study and microethnographic analysis techniques to explore the influence of the intentional discourse scaffolds on students’ collaborative and decision-making practices. Our analysis allowed us to characterize the linguistic resources (including the decision matrix) that the students used to complete four social acts during decision making: design evaluation, disagreeing with a teammate, arguing for a novel idea, and sympathizing with a design. This research has implications for the design of instructional scaffolds for engineering curricula at the elementary school level, whether taking place in an outreach program or in regular classroom instruction. 

   more » « less
2. Initial Steps in Developing Classroom Observation Rubrics Designed Around Instructional Practices that Support Equity and Access in Classrooms with Potential for “Success”

   https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221140963  

   Wilson, Jonee ( November 2022 , Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education)

   Background: The field of mathematics education has made progress toward generating a set of instructional practices that could support improvements in the learning opportunities made available to groups of students who historically have been underserved and marginalized. Studies that contribute to this growing body of work are often conducted in learning environments that are framed as “successful.” As a researcher who is concerned with issues of equity and who acknowledges the importance of closely attending to the quality of the mathematical activity in which students are being asked to engage, my stance on “successful learning environments” pulls from both Gutiérrez’s descriptions of what characterizes classrooms as aiming for equity and the emphasis on the importance of conceptually oriented goals for student learning that is outlined in documents like the Standards. Though as a field we are growing in our knowledge of practices that support these successful learning environments, this knowledge has not yet been reflected in many of the observational tools, rubrics, and protocols used to study these environments. In addition, there is a growing need to develop empirically grounded ways of attending to the extent to which the practices that are being outlined in research literature actually contribute to the “success” of these learning environments. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore one way of meeting this growing need by describing the complex work of developing a set of classroom observation rubrics (the Equity and Access Rubrics for Mathematics Instruction, EAR-MI) designed to support efforts in identifying and observing critical features of classrooms characterized as having potential for “success.” In developing the rubrics, I took as my starting place findings from an analysis that compared a set of classrooms that were characterized as demonstrating aspects of successful learning environments and a set of classrooms that were not characterized as successful. This paper not only describes the process of developing the rubrics, but also outlines some of the qualitative differences that distinguished more and less effective examples of the practices the rubrics are designed to capture. Research Design: In designing the rubrics, I engaged in multiple cycles of qualitative analyses of video data collected from a large-scale study. Specifically, I iteratively designed, tested, and revised the developing rubrics while consistently collaborating with, consulting with, and receiving feedback from different experts in the field of education. Conclusions: Although I fully acknowledge and recognize that there are several tensions and limitations of this work, I argue that developing rubrics like the EAR-MI is still worthwhile. One reason that I give for continuing these types of efforts is that it contributes to the work of breaking down forms of practice into components and identifying key aspects of specific practices that are critical for supporting student learning in ways that make potentially productive routines of action visible to and learnable by others, which may ultimately contribute to the development of more successful learning environments. I also argue that rubrics like the EAR-MI have the potential to support researchers in developing stronger evidence of the effectiveness of practices that prior research has identified as critical for marginalized students and in more accurately and concretely identifying and describing learning environments as having potential for “success.” 

   more » « less
3. Assessment for Learning: Helping Children Build on What They Know

   Baroody, A. J. ; Pellegrino, J. W. ( January 2023 , American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting)

   Wiebe, E. N. ; Harris, C. J. ; Grover, S. (Ed.)

   Efforts to improve instruction frequently focus on fostering meaningful learning—learning based on conceptual understanding—as opposed to knowledge memorized by rote. Consistent with Dewey’s (1963) principle of interaction, fostering meaningful learning entails identifying what children already know and do not know and building on the former to learn (moderately) new knowledge (Claessens & Engel, 2013; Fyfe et al., 2012; Piaget, 1964; Vygotsky, 1978). A learning trajectory (LT) approach to instruction—which includes conceptually and research-based and goals, a research-based learning progression of successive developmental levels, and research-based teaching activities to promote each level—epitomizes such an effort (Clements & Sarama, 2008; Confrey et al., 2012). Formative, classroom-based assessment—ongoing assessment to guide and monitor student learning (Black et al., 2003; Cizek, 2010; Author, 2018a)—is an integral aspect of the LT approach (Daro et al., 2011). In contrast to more commonly used summative assessment strategy (e.g., a unit test given at the end of an instruction unit to assess whether unit content has been mastered and grade progress), formative assessment serves to identify what developmental level a child has already achieved and the next developmentally appropriate level on which instruction should begin (Author, 2018a). Moreover, children are regularly assessed during instruction to gauge whether they–individually or collectively–have mastered a developmental level before instruction proceeds with the next higher level. In sum, “the LT approach involves using formative assessment (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; Shepard et al., 2018) to provide instructional activities aligned with empirically validated developmental progressions (Fantuzzo, Gadsden, & McDermott, 2011). Although research has shown that LT-based instruction is more efficacious, research is needed to evaluate the add-on value of the formative assessment components of LT-based instruction on student outcomes and the professional development of teachers. This presentation will highlight future lines of research that would provide insight into underlying theory and more productive strategies. Because LTs “need to be supplemented with consideration of obstacles that the student must overcome,” much needs to be learned about the obstacles posed by the content itself, instructional materials, and teachers (Ginsburg, 2009). 

   more » « less
4. Who Gets to Read What? Tracking, Instructional Practices, and Text Complexity for Middle School Struggling Readers

   Northrop, L. ; Kelly, S. ( January 2019 , Reading research quarterly)

   In this study, the authors used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 to examine the instructional time allocation and instructional practices in eighth-grade English language arts classes for struggling readers, as measured by track level. The authors also analyze the titles and text complexity of the last three books assigned to students. The authors found that track level continues to be a significant predictor of what happens instructionally in the classroom. Struggling readers placed in low-track classes spent a larger portion of class time on skills and strategy instruction, completing worksheets, watching videos, and reading aloud than students in grade-level classes. Students in high-track classes spent more time on literature analysis, comprehension instruction, and group projects and were more frequently assigned homework than students in grade-level classes. Although there was considerable overlap in the text complexity and the text titles of books assigned at each track level, students in low-track classes read less challenging texts than students in grade-level or above-grade-level classes. Regression models controlling for a variety of student, teacher, and school variables, including student achievement, show that these adjustments in class time allocation, instructional practices, and text complexity go above and beyond what would be expected based on student achievement alone. 

   more » « less
5. What influences students’ abilities to critically evaluate scientific investigations?

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273337  

   Heim, Ashley B. ; Walsh, Cole ; Esparza, David ; Smith, Michelle K. ; Holmes, N. G. ( August 2022 , PLOS ONE)

   Pamucar, Dragan (Ed.)

   Critical thinking is the process by which people make decisions about what to trust and what to do. Many undergraduate courses, such as those in biology and physics, include critical thinking as an important learning goal. Assessing critical thinking, however, is non-trivial, with mixed recommendations for how to assess critical thinking as part of instruction. Here we evaluate the efficacy of assessment questions to probe students’ critical thinking skills in the context of biology and physics. We use two research-based standardized critical thinking instruments known as the Biology Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking in Ecology (Eco-BLIC) and Physics Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking (PLIC). These instruments provide experimental scenarios and pose questions asking students to evaluate what to trust and what to do regarding the quality of experimental designs and data. Using more than 3000 student responses from over 20 institutions, we sought to understand what features of the assessment questions elicit student critical thinking. Specifically, we investigated (a) how students critically evaluate aspects of research studies in biology and physics when they are individually evaluating one study at a time versus comparing and contrasting two and (b) whether individual evaluation questions are needed to encourage students to engage in critical thinking when comparing and contrasting. We found that students are more critical when making comparisons between two studies than when evaluating each study individually. Also, compare-and-contrast questions are sufficient for eliciting critical thinking, with students providing similar answers regardless of if the individual evaluation questions are included. This research offers new insight on the types of assessment questions that elicit critical thinking at the introductory undergraduate level; specifically, we recommend instructors incorporate more compare-and-contrast questions related to experimental design in their courses and assessments. 

   more » « less