Thursday, April 8, 2010

Manor New Tech HS Not Using Textbooks

Below please view a recent broadcast of Manor New Tech High School in Manor TX. Manor New Tech uses Project Based Instruction as it's primary teaching pedagogy and many of it's mathematics and science teachers are graduates of the UTeach Program at the University of Texas at Austin and have taken this Project Based Instruction course. In addition, Manor New Tech is where our current students do their field experiences. The following story is from a local television affiliate. -Dr. Petrosino

Manor New Tech High School has already taken the idea and run with it. The high school is a public high school and has the same subjects like other high schools. However they do not use textbooks to teach kids the curriculum.

Every classroom has several computers that students use. They gather in groups of 2 to 4 to learn about a specific project that falls under requirements of the states standards.

"The main format here is project base learning," Manor School Superintendent Andrew Kim said. "So all of our instructions are through projects hands on activities that are front loaded to kids. Mainly our students have open access to various sites through the internet to gather info they need to create an answer to complex assignments."

Manor New Tech High School has been open for three years with zero drop outs. This year they will have their first graduating class, many moving on to four year universities.


Manor New Tech, built on the New Technology Foundation model of project-based learning, is strikingly different from what is found in traditional secondary education classroom settings. MNTHS student population is made up of applicants accepted through a blind lottery. As a result, the student population at MNTHS is diverse in all aspects, including the two largest subpopulations of young men and young women of color. Additionally, the project-based learning environment sets up an atmosphere where learning is student-driven, engaging, and meets the needs of a wide variety of academic abilities.

Updated: Wednesday, 07 Apr 2010, 10:31 PM CDT Published : Wednesday, 07 Apr 2010, 5:35 PM CDT

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Class Meeting 18- Wednesday, April 7: Anchored Instruction (cont) Contextualization/Design Priniciples

The first part of today’s class involved an activity to place the size of various objects along a line. From a football field that is 100 meters to the diameter of a hydrogen atom which is 1x10-10 meters. Students split into two groups. One group was given no hints, while the other group was reminded of their work on Monday in interpreting the Richter scale reports of Sunday’s earthquake. When the students presented their results, we found that the opposite of what we expected happened. In fact, the students who were told the hint about recalling the Richter scales, more often represented their data linearly, while the students who were NOT told the hint more often represented their data logarithmically.

Professor Petrosino then showed differences between the linear and logarithmic scales. He opened up discussion on logarithms, specifically we all learned about that at one point or another, but that information might not be as active as we would like. Students then talked about how we are trained to think or visualize things linearly, and how the group that was given the hint thought that because their experiments with the Richter scale on Monday ended up in messy understandings of logarithmic scales, that meant that they might want to show the data through a simpler linear scale.

Professor Delgado then linked this to the problems presented in the Bransford et al. (1990) articles and how this example showed how instruction that is anchored can changes how one approaches a problem. Students then engaged in a discussion about the Bransford et al. (1990) example, which Dan and Heather saw as just issues of semantics. Diane related it to her group’s field experience, about how hard it was to anchor something without giving a direct hint about what they wanted students to do in terms of finding the surface area and volume of an object.

Then, Professor Petrosino presented a paragraph of text that seemingly didn’t make a lot of sense. But after he uttered the phrase, “Doing laundry”, students seemed to understand the paragraph. Professor Petrosino connected this to the idea of activating/stimulating prior knowledge. The inability for students to create a mental model when reading the text makes them frustrated, but after the image of doing laundry is activiated, the paragraph makes more sense.

The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important bu complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell, After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated. However, that is part of life. (p. 722)

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.

Students ended the class by reflection on the design of the anchor instructional parts of the field experience. Students came together in their field-experience groups to talk about the design principles of their anchor videos, and how they might have or not met the 6 design principles. The Geometry group talks about their hypothetical anchor, since they did not get a chance to create their own project. And, the GeoGebra group discussed their anchor and ways in which it could it have been better. Before class ends, students get an Anchor Video rubric to talk about on Monday.

Jenny Chiu from the UC-Berkeley was a visitor to our class today.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Class Meeting 17- Monday April 5: Anchored Instruction Introduction

Today’s class introduced the idea of Anchor Instruction. Professor Petrosino started with looking at the differences between the initial reports of yesterday’s earthquake in Baja, Mexico with later reports. He showed news footage that initially reported an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 on the Richter scale, and then later footage that changed the magnitude to a 7.2 on the Richter scale. Students then worked in groups to try to understand what these differences in numbers actually meant. Professor Petrosino emphasized that the connect of mathematical thinking to real world events like this were crucial to empowering our students to be “informed citizens”. After students talked over their interpretations of the Richter scale, Professor Petrosino moved on and told students to wait until Wednesday to present their conversations.

For the next part of class, Professor Petrosino presented a slide show about Anchored Instruction. He introduced Anchored Instruction as a part of the PBL framework, connecting ideas with how to create Anchored Videos with the Bransford et al. article (1990) . Then, Professor Petrosino brought up some background history of the project mentioned in the Bransford et al. article and how the researchers were unable to obtain rights to using footage from Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. So, Bransford and his team created their own video called “The Golden Statuette” which eventually led to the Jasper series of videos. Professor Petrosino showed these videos to students to they could see not only the difference in production value, but how ideas in science, mathematics, and pedagogy could be infused into Anchor Videos

References

Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology, 115-141.


Anchored Instruction 2010

Picture: Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt- Fall 1990

Monday, March 29, 2010

Class Meeting 15 Monday, March 29: Debriefing About Field Experiences

Today’s course was mainly a debriefing on how the field-based experiences have gone for the students at Manor New Tech High. Almost all students have had the opportunity to start on their field-based Projects, so today was a way for students to check-in with each other as well as the instructors. Additionally, the Biology and the Geogebra groups completed a field trip on Saturday.

First, students broke up into groups of 3 to 4 with someone they co-taught with. Students were prompted with the question, “What have you been thinking?” in order to give them space to talk about things. After talking to each other for 15 minutes, Ms. Ekberg took up specific comments from each group about what they were thinking. Students mainly reflected on issues in scheduling their placements and communication between group members.

Then, students engaged in a more scaffolded reflection piece to think about their field experiences related more to content and the PBL-framework. Building a 3-column chart of Positives, Delta (changes), and Takeaways, students individually reflected on 4 ideas: A. Discipline/Deportment, B. Content/Processes for you, C. Content/Processes for your students, and D. Connections to the PBL framework. Teddy Chao then took up ideas from this reflection, which showed that students had many takeaways that dealt with Discipline/Deportment and Content/Processes, but were still struggling with ways in which to connect student learning of the content to their projects and the PBL framework.

Class then ended with Professor Petrosino introducing a formal reflection activity that students will turn in on April 9.

During the course of the class Ms. Ekberg, Dr. Delgado, Teddy Chao, and Dr. Petrosino all took over leadership roles in terms of leading discussion.


Picture: Field trip to the Blanton, Saturday March 27, 2010

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Day 2 of UTeach Institute PBI Workshop/Field Based Experience at Blanton Museum and McKinney Falls

Today, some of our student teachers took their high school students from Manor New Tech High School on two field trips that serve as culminating events for Projects. Only the Biology groups and Geogebra groups had a field trip component built into their Projects. Yet students who were neither enrolled in Biology nor Geogebra volunteered to come along on the field trips.

The Biology group took their students to McKinney Falls State Park. Since this Project involves the growing conditions necessary for growing native Texas rice, high school students were able test out take the various experiments and hypothesis they’ve generated in class in an outdoor setting. This trip was heavily coordinated and planned by Ms. Ekberg, the master teacher.

The Geogebra group took their students to the Blanton Museum of Art. Their Project involved creating a mathematical language to describe specific works of art in order to thwart art thieves. Geogebra students worked in groups to tour the museum and build mathematical descriptions of pre-chosen works of art. Matthew Chalker, one of the Teaching Assistants for the course, coordinated and planned this experience for the students.

Overall, the trip was well attended by Manor New Tech students, parents, and teachers, PBI students, instructors, as well as a number of visitors in town to learn more about the PBI course for UTeach replication sites. Because of this, the ratio of adult to student sometimes seemed 1-to-1, making the overall experience of the trip very engaging for students. On Monday, the two PBI sections will come together to debrief on the field trip.

Day 1 of UTeach Institute PBI Workshop

On Friday, March 26 a workshop on the UTeach course Project Based Instruction was conducted on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. Over 25 educators from UTeach Replication sites visited the university for a 2 day work shop led by Ms. Denise Ekberg, Dr. Cesar Delgado and Dr. Tony Petrosino. An incredible amount of coordination was done by the UTeach Institute to make the visit a success.

An agenda was previously published on this website a few days ago. However, a brief summary of the day follows:

1) Opening Remarks
2) Modeling the reading of a difficult article by current UTeach students. In this case, Krajcik and Blumenfeld (2006) on PBI
3) Course overview, philosophy and key points
4) Presentation of Year End Project by former PBI students
5) Technology resources for PBI
6) General Questions and Answers
7) Overview of Replication efforts for PBI

See PowerPoints that were presented at the end of this post.







Saturday, March 27, 2010

McKinney Falls Field Component- March 27, 2010

On Saturday, March 27, 2010, UTeach Project-Based Instruction pre-service teachers took 9th grade biology students from Manor New Tech High to McKinney Falls State Park. Students collected data for their 2-week long project on designing a sanctuary for an endangered species: Texas Wild Rice (Zizania texana). The driving question for the field experience was: “Could McKinney Falls State Park be a suitable habitat for a Texas Wild Rice sanctuary?” A team of seven PBI pre-service teachers worked together to design the project. In the field, they divided into four sub-teams in the morning and four different sub-teams in the afternoon in order to collect data in different places at McKinney Falls. The teams were observed by a PBI professor, a PBI master teacher, other UTeach master teachers, and participants in a PBI Workshop (which included professors, instructors, and master teachers from other universities that are replicating the UTeach Program).

The students were involved in deciding where would be good places to collect data. When the students agreed upon a location, they documented latitude and longitude, described the shoreline, characterized the substrate, measured the streamflow, and conducted a variety of water quality assessments (including temperature, pH, Nitrate, dissolved oxygen, and a bioassessment of macroinvertebrates). They also compared and contrasted different types of plants and their adaptations to their ecological niches, described how different plant tissues perform different functions, discussed how Carbon and Nitrogen cycle through the ecosystem, and predicted how ecosystems may respond to changing resource bases (such as the effects of the introduction of a new organism or a shift in other parameters). After collecting data, each team presented their findings. They determined that McKinney Falls does not provide a suitable habitat for Texas Wild Rice.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Field Based Observation Documents

The following documents were created by Denise Ekberg and are being utilized as observations documents for the field based component of the course- specifically for the week following Spring Break.

Class Meeting 14: Wed March 10, 2010 Preparation for Field Based Teaching

Today in class we reviewed various units that are under development for the field based work for the week after Spring Break. One of our largest groups is one focusing on Geoalgebra. We use the Blanton Museum as a way of integrating art and geometry. We take students to the museum and ask them to see if they can find ways of utilizing mathematics into their field visit to an art museum. The attached picture is hopefully some evidence that I have paid attention to our resident expert on the topic.

There will be on classes on March 15 and 17 due to Spring Break.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

PBI UTeach Institute Workshop March 26-27

Here is the agenda for the upcoming Project-Based Instruction course workshop March 26 - 27 here in Austin.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Class Meeting 13: Mon March 8, 2010 Formative Assessment

Today, Ms. Ekberg starts the first part of the class by explaining what will happen this coming Wednesday. The Geogebra people will meet here in the Sanchez building, while the Biology, Chemistry, and Physics students will be meeting in Painter 4.14. Also, after class, there will be an opportunity to visit the Blanton Museum of Art for Geogebra students who might want to look through the artwork again.

Ms. Ekberg then presented a PowerPoint presentation on the purpose of formative assessment. Students got into their project groups to come up with three specific purposes of assessment. First, students worked in their individual groups for 10 minutes, then Ms. Ekberg pulled the whole group together to come up with fill in 2 categories she wrote on the board: Purpose (why?) and Technique (How?). As students shared their answers, Ms. Ekberg started to ask what the difference between summative and formative assessment might be. In order to help student better understand how to think of the differences between summative and formative, Ms. Ekberg changed the word “Formative” to “InFormative”.

Ms. Ekberg then introduced students to various assessment techniques, such as KWL charts, minute papers/muddiest points, concept maps, Problem/Process/Solution charts, student-generated test-questions based on incorrect student answers as distracters, and peer-evaluations. Ms. Ekberg explained Manor New Tech HS uses Know/Need to Know charts when introducing a problem, instead of KWL charts.

For second part of class, two student groups present their planning documents to the class. Ms. Ekberg discusses the use of peer-evaluation and how to generate and use rubrics, introducing tools such as Rubistar. She offers students 15 minutes to do some group planning, but the Geometry group is ready to present. So, Ms. Ekberg passes out rubrics for the class (yellow colored-ones for instructor/TA), so that everyone can offers feedback to the groups.

The geometry group is in the midst of a survivor game. The present their project which involves a flat piece of cardboard in which students compete for how much water they can carry with the water. Then, the Geoalgebra group presents on their project, which involves describing pieces of art from their Blanton Museum of Art field trip using mathematical language. Students and instructors fill out their rubrics to offer feedback to the groups before the class ends.

PBI_3_8_10_AssessField

Saturday, March 6, 2010

March 6- Engineering Curriculum Meeting/Pickle Research Center

On Saturday March 6- a number of people met at the Pickle Research Center (PRC) to work on the high school engineering curriculum project. The curriculum project is a part of the UTeach Engineering MSP grant funded by NSF. Dr. Petrosino attended the meeting and investigated some opportunities for incorporating engineering into the undergraduate sequence of College of Education courses (Knowing and Learning, Classroom Interactions, Project Based Instruction). Topics today centered on Robotics and Reverse Engineering.

The list of participants at the meeting and who made contributions to discussions on curriculum and incorporation of engineering into UTeach undergraduate courses included:

Audrey Moyers, McCallum HS, MASEE student
Nicole Howard, Reagan HS, MASEE student
Mark Barron, Eastside Memorial Green Tech, ESIT participant
Mike Evans, Bowie HS, ESIT participant, 2010 MASEE applicant
Martha Lee, AISD Secondary Science Coordinator
Theresa Dobbs, Sr. Program Coordinator, UTeach Engineering
Bill Humphries, Master Teacher/Research Fellow UTeach Engineering
Dave Allen, PI UTeach Engineering
Tony Petrosino, Co-PI UTeach Engineering