skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, May 23 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, May 24 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Kowalski, S."

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Video-based analysis of practice models have gained prominence in mathematics and science teacher education inservice professional learning. There is a growing body of evidence that these intensive professional learning (PL) models lead to positive impacts on teacher knowledge, classroom instructional practice, and student learning (Roth et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2017), but they are expensive and difficult to sustain. An online version would have several benefits, allowing for greater reach to teachers and students across the country, but if online models were substantially less effective, then lower impacts would undercut the benefits of greater accessibility. We designed and studied a fully online version of the face-to-face Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA) PL model (Roth, et al., 2011; Roth et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2017). We conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing online STeLLA to face-to-face STeLLA. Although we found no significant difference in elementary student learning between the online and face-to-face versions ( p = .09), the effect size raises questions. Exploratory analyses suggest that the impact of online STeLLA on students is greater than the impact of a similar number of hours of traditional, face-to-face content deepening PL, but less than the impact of the full face-to-face STeLLA program. Differences in student populations, with higher percentages of students from racial and ethnic groups underserved by schools in the online STeLLA program, along with testing of the online STeLLA model during the pandemic, complicates interpretation of the findings. 
    more » « 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 Desimone (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. 
    more » « less
  3. 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 as 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 
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)
    Traditional professional development (PD) seldom provides teachers with the science content knowledge and pedagogical skills necessary to teach in ways called for in current reforms (Wilson, 2013). In a review of the literature, Darling-Hammond et al (2017) specified that quality PD is content-focused, incorporates active learning, supports collaboration, uses models of effective practice, offers feedback and reflection, and is of sustained duration. Few PD programs meet these quality criteria, indeed most PD in the United States uses a short-term approach. The challenges are to (1) provide high quality PD (2) in a flexible, cost-effective format accessible to a wide audience of teachers. The first challenge is to “design effective professional learning programs based on the best theories of learning and employing the most effective media and technology available (Fishman, 2016, p. 47).” The second challenge may be addressed through online PD. Online PD has emerged as a viable means to provide the necessary accessibility and flexibility for teachers and to reach larger numbers of teachers (Nese et al, 2020). One clear strategy for designing effective online PD is to start from a high-quality in-person PD grounded in research and learning theory. While there are a growing number of online learning opportunities for science teachers, such as MOOCs (Kleiman & Wolf, 2016), access to online resources (Byers & Mendez, 2016), access to science webinars (Stiener et al, 2016), and just-in-time PD related to curriculum initiatives (Levy et al, 2016), these existing opportunities do not meet the criteria for effective PD. Thus, this paper set explores the development of Online Elementary Science PD (OESPD), a pseudonym, to understand how to effectively translate an effective in-person PD for science teachers into an online environment. Each of the three papers explores critical design features for quality online PD drawing on data from an overarching design-based research study that describes the iterative development of OESPD. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    We report measurements of the parity-conserving beam-normal single-spin elastic scattering asymmetries Bn on 12C and 27Al, obtained with an electron beam polarized transverse to its momentum direction. These measurements add an additional kinematic point to a series of previous measurements of Bn on 12C and provide a first measurement on 27Al. The experiment utilized the Qweak apparatus at Jefferson Lab with a beam energy of 1.158 GeV. The average laboratory scattering angle for both targets was 7.7∘, and the average Q2 for both targets was 0.024 37 GeV2 (Q=0.1561 GeV). The asymmetries are Bn=−10.68±0.90(stat)±0.57(syst) ppm for 12C and Bn=−12.16±0.58(stat)±0.62(syst) ppm for 27Al. The results are consistent with theoretical predictions, and are compared to existing data. When scaled by Z/A, the Q dependence of all the far-forward angle (θ<10∘) data from 1H to 27Al can be described by the same slope out to Q≈0.35 GeV. Larger-angle data from other experiments in the same Q range are consistent with a slope about twice as steep. 
    more » « less
  6. A beam-normal single-spin asymmetry generated in the scattering of transversely polarized electrons from unpolarized nucleons is an observable related to the imaginary part of the two-photon exchange process. We report a 2% precision measurement of the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in elastic electron-proton scattering with a mean scattering angle of θlab=7.9° and a mean energy of 1.149 GeV. The asymmetry result is Bn=−5.194±0.067(stat)±0.082 (syst) ppm. This is the most precise measurement of this quantity available to date and therefore provides a stringent test of two-photon exchange models at far-forward scattering angles (θlab→0) where they should be most reliable. 
    more » « less