Harron, Petrosino and Jenevein (2019) Using Virtual Reality to Augment Museum-Based Field Trips in a Preservice Elementary Science Methods Course

The following paper represents about 2 years of work with pre-service elementary science teachers and the use of virtual reality in developing museum based activities. Great work by doctoral students Jason Harron and Sarah Jenevein on this research.

Harron, J. R., Petrosino, A. J., & Jenevein, S. (2019). Using virtual reality to augment museum-based field trips in a preservice elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4). Retrieved from https://www.citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-4-19/science/using-virtual-reality-to-augment-museum-based-field-trips-in-a-preservice- elementary-science-methods-course

Abstract: Positioned in the context of experiential learning, this paper reports findings of a virtual reality field trip (VRFT) in conjunction with an in- person field trip involving preservice teachers in an elementary science methods course to a local natural history museum. Findings included that virtual reality (VR) is best used after a field trip to encourage student recall of the experience, but only when done for a limited time to avoid VR fatigue. The types of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR would be good for in their science classrooms included the ability to visit either inaccessible or unsafe locations, to explore scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness different eras or events at varying temporal scales. Furthermore, this study uncovered potential equity issues related to VRFTs being seen as a viable alternative if students could not afford to go on field trips. Further research needs to be conducted to better understand the impact of VRFTs on student learning outcomes and take advantage of recent improvements in VR technology

  Harron, Petrosino, Jenevein - 2019 - CITE - Using Virtual Reality to Augment Museum-based Field Trips in a... by Tony Petrosino on Scribd

UTeach Engineering - Final Evaluation Report

  UTeachEngineering Summative Evaluation Report by Tony Petrosino on Scribd

Where Does a Tree Get Its Mass? - Petrosino, Mann, and Jenevein (2018)

Work on alternative conceptions of tree growth has extensively documented how students of nearly all developmental and educational levels share the “persistent intuitive conception ... that plants get their food from their environment, specifically from the soil; and that roots are the organs of feeding” (Driver et al. 2005, p. 30; Parker and Carr 1989). Soil acts as an anchor for the plant’s roots and provides the plant with water and small amounts of nutrients, but the soil itself is not the source of the carbon that adds mass to the organism. The mass of a tree, for example, is primarily carbon, which comes from carbon dioxide used during photosynthesis.

Petrosino, A. J., Mann, M. J. and Jenevein, S. (2018) Where does a tree get its mass?. The Science Scope. 41(9) 41-47. [acceptance rate32%]

Petrosino, Mann, and Jenevein (2018) by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

Fall 2017 Project Based Instruction Diary

This post contains two useful pieces of information about the Teach Project Based Instruction course. First, there is the enacted curriculum of the UTeach Project Based Instruction course taught by Dr. Anthony Petrosino and Max Shepard as the course teaching assistant. This is essentially a daily diary of what we actually did in class each day. The second part of this post is the course syllabus. Obviously, there is some discrepancy between the formal and enacted curriculum for any course. But we believe this information can be helpful to other UTeach Institute instructors attempting to enact PBI in their classrooms. -Dr. Petrosino

  Project Based Instruction- Daily Log Fall 2017 by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

  Syllabus Edc 365e_pbi_fall 2017(Tth) - Aug31 by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

What Universities Must Do to Prepare Computer Science Teachers: Networked Improvement in Action

I recently attended a workshop/conference in Boulder, Colorado for bridging computer science and engineering in teacher education.

It is clearer now than ever before. What universities must do to address the challenge of preparing significant numbers of qualified computer science teachers for the U.S. is to work together.

Last week, 60 representatives from 22 universities convened — along with key stakeholders from the broader computer science education and engineering education communities — at the University of Colorado Boulder. The challenge was to attract more STEM teachers from engineering majors and to significantly strengthen the preparation of computer science teachers. The meeting was planned by representatives from UTeach programs at Boise State University, CU Boulder, and Drexel, with support from the UTeach Institute at The University of Texas at Austin. In total, about half of the national network of universities implementing the UTeach secondary STEM teacher preparation model were represented. A couple of other universities learned of our meeting and we were thrilled to have them join.

This meeting built on the CSforAll movement, which after decades of reports recommending high school CS education for all US students, is finally making headway. Federal agencies and STEM and CS education organizations (UTeach included) have been broadening participation in CS by integrating industry expertise into classrooms, training in-service teachers, integrating CS into existing STEM courses, and implementing introductory CS courses like AP CS Principles and Exploring Computer Science.

In-service teacher professional development has been key to the explosive growth of K–12 CS education offerings, but the role of universities in the preparation of computer science teachers is absolutely critical if we are going to address the current shortage of CS teachers at scale and with any kind of lasting impact. Yet there are precious few exemplars on which to model new programs. Partly this has been a chicken and egg problem. For example, the UTeach program at UT Austin has had an undergraduate pathway to CS certification for more than ten years. But with so little demand for CS teachers at secondary schools throughout the state, very few students were recruited and prepared. Now that the demand for CS teachers is increasing, UTeach Austin and other UTeach partner universities are ramping up and expanding their efforts.

There was widespread consensus among our group at CU Boulder last week that a variety of pathways were needed in order to recruit and prepare excellent CS teachers. All the universities in attendance described either new pathways that had been implemented within the last two years, or pathways currently under development. These included:

• Undergraduate, four-year degree plans that add teaching to a CS major. (YES, CS majors CAN be recruited into teaching.)
• Undergraduate, four-year degree plans that add a CS concentration to a math major with teaching.
• Undergraduate CS certificate programs that any teaching major could add (not clear if this can all be done in four years, however).
• Post-baccalaureate pathways designed for career-changers or new graduates with no teaching background. These pathways included streamlined preparation lasting between 1 and 1.5 years, designed to lead to a full CS teaching certification/credential.
• Post-baccalaureate pathways designed for in-service, fully credentialed teachers. These pathways could lead just to additional CS credentials or also to a Master’s degree. These pathways might comprise a series of micro-credentials intended for in-service teachers to add over time and leading to various levels of expertise, and ultimately to full CS teaching certification in states that offer it.

There was also widespread agreement that, in addition to the development of various pathways leading to both adequate CS content and pedagogical preparation, the following considerations are critical to successful implementation:

• Attention to the integration of computational thinking into the preparation of ALL future STEM teachers.
• Attention to proven strategies for recruitment of students/professionals into pathways, especially developing partnerships between colleges of education/teacher preparation units and CS departments and advisors.
• Attention to informing CS research faculty about high school teaching, so that CS majors are exposed to this career possibility.
• Attention to providing adequate support, including financial, to students pursuing these pathways.
• Attention to further development of the CS education research community.
• Attention to issues of equity and diversity both from a pedagogical perspective and also as a teacher workforce concern. Broadening participation in CS should include explicit strategies to attract and prepare a diverse CS teaching corps.
• Attention to the unique needs and issues of capacity of rural schools and districts.
• Creative solutions to the need for adequate CS education field placements.

UTeach programs at universities across the nation are well-positioned to develop and implement these CS teaching pathways. The UTeach STEM Educators Association, made up of 45 UTeach programs and affiliated organizations, is a robust networked improvement community that promotes and supports university-based, secondary teacher preparation in STEM. TheUTeach program model has been proven effective and has already been customized to meet the unique needs of undergraduate STEM majors and future STEM teachers. Further customization to bolster recruitment and preparation of CS teachers is not such a huge lift. Additional funding, however, will be necessary to design and successfully launch new pathways, particularly with regard to hiring clinical and research faculty with CS expertise, developing coursework, and recruiting and supporting students.

In the months following this meeting, a UTeach CS Education Working Group will be developing a white paper to be published this summer. A follow-up meeting is also planned for May 24, in conjunction with the annual UTeach Conference in Austin, Texas. If you are interested in joining us to continue these discussions about how colleges and universities can work together to design and develop excellent CS teaching preparation pathways, contact Kimberly Hughes.

Petrosino Discusses Computer Science and Colleges of Education at NSF Workshop in NYC

Screen shot of NetLogo Interface

I recently received an NSF award for work with cloud computing with colleagues Walter Stroup (UMass- Dartmouth), Uri Wilensky (Northwestern) and Cory Brady (Vanderbilt). The project will help pre-service teachers develop more fully participatory and socially-supported approaches to classroom learning, using authentic STEM practices in group-centered learning environments. The work is of particular importance to those who prepare pre-service teachers for the classroom, because most programs don’t use this type of approach in teacher preparation. As part of the project I was invited recently to NYC for an NSF workshop on computer science and Colleges of Education. Here is a little write up on that meeting. -Dr. Petrosino

   Petrosino Computer Science by Anthony Petrosino on Scribd

Happy UTeach Day in Austin, Texas!

Dr. Michael Marder- Executive Director

Happy UTeach Day in Austin, Texas!

The City of Austin Council Meeting on May 18th, 2017 will declare May 18th UTeach Day. Yep, that's our day!
The proclamation portion of the evening starts at 5:30pm. Dr. Michael Marder and Dr. Larry Abraham will receive the proclamation and I am hoping we can pack the chamber with all those who have supported us along the way!

The City Council meeting is in the Council Chamber at City Hall, which is at 301 West 2nd Street, between Lavaca and Guadalupe.

You may park in the public area of our underground parking garage; the entrance is on the west (Guadalupe) side of the building; you may park on the P1 or P2 level. When you enter the building, security staff will be at a table in front of the Council Chamber, and will validate your parking ticket, so parking won’t cost you anything.

The Proclamations section of the Council meeting will be announced by the Mayor, beginning no earlier than 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 18th.

PBI UTeach Class Summaries- Spring 2017

The following is a class by class summary of the enacted curriculum of my UTeach Project Based Instruction class that was conducted during the Spring 2017 semester. I would like to thank my teaching assistant Sneha Tharayil for helping put this summary together and to the course Master Teachers Denise Ekberg and Daniel Fitzpatrick for their time and effort throughout the semester.  -Dr. Petrosino

Spring 2017- Petrosino EDC 365E Class Summaries

Class #3-01/24/2017

·       Class began with Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Ekberg providing students with their field placements. Email Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Ekberg with any issues regarding class conflicts or parking.

·       Sneha then reviewed how to navigate the Canvas website for the course and where to find materials

·       We then rearranged ourselves into a discussion circle to discuss the Petrosino (2004) article which discusses a case study of an experienced teacher implementing a project-based instruction and assessment in astronomy with a university-affiliated high school classroom. The students in this classroom, who were amateur astronomers, were actually contributing to scientific research

o   Some important questions/points from the discussion:

§  How do we design curriculum to help facilitate experiences in which students actually participate as scientists (i.e. “being scientists)?

·       Perhaps some fields, like astronomy, may have some spaces which lend itself more easily to amateur contributions than others

§  How do instruments/tools/resources influence the feasibility of implementing and facilitating authentic scientific experiences?

§  Grades does not equal assessment à while the teacher in this case study didn’t necessarily seem to “care” about grades or a grading scheme, it did not necessarily mean he didn’t care about assessments. Assessment transcends grades

·       Should “effort” be counted toward grades?

o   Science doesn’t always “work”

o   Depends on the type of effort?

o   Skills vs. results?

§  Working towards getting results vs. practicing skills

o   In class vs. out of class?

o   Sort of a grey/nebulous area

o   Effort can be embedded within some of the requisite activities in themselves

o   How does one quantify effort? Is it binary?

§  Takeaway: This was an expert teacher who had a status in his school. It was a nice snapshot of the time (late 1990s) which demonstrate the elements of PBI in a practical setting. It was a real school, with real students (from multiple grade levels), that were working on projects that were authentic and relevant to students. The setting resembled lab groups (not lab “class”) that featured formal and informal relationships, which facilitated the interpersonal characteristics (relationship building, etc.) that are important to an optimal learning environment.

·       Class #3-01/26/2017

o   We began with a debriefing of the first planning meeting at the school site yesterday.

§  School seems to have a large population of high SES

§  Spectrum of mentor teacher familiarity with PBI, some newer to it, and others more familiar with it

§  Next steps

·       Observations of class

·       Unpack TEKS

·       When teaching the PBI unit, the unit will unfold over at least 2-3 days

§  Some students are feeling unsure as to what exactly they need to do?

§  Students then debriefed within their own “teaching/field experience” teams.

·       Group 1: Andrew, John

·       Group 2: Clara, Steve, Kyle

·       Group 3: Emily, Yubin

·       Group 4: Abdul, Mica, Amy

·       Group 5: Mirna

·       Group 6: Miranda

o   We then watched an Edutopia video about an alternative high school here in Austin, Texas, Manor New Tech High School, an entirely project-based instruction school.

o   And another video: An Introduction to Project-Based Learning

o   Thoughts on the videos

§  How are curriculum and projects different, or the same?

§  The traditional idea of lesson planning stems from a modernist perspective (notably championed by Ralph Tyler in the 1930s)

·       It’s somewhat reductionist in that views instruction as a composite of its components

§  Postmodern perspective: the classroom is more organic, more spontaneous, where it’s collective dynamic that is ever evolving

·       When a project begins, the project will evolve from its originally planned components—it is dynamic, and reactionary

·       It is not necessarily controllable, but is preparable

·       Every successful project requires cycles of iterations; it is retrospective and reflectives

Class #4-01/31/2017

·       We began class with small group 3-2-1 discussions of the Marshall, Petrosino & Martin (2010) article, “Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions and Enactments of Project-Based Instruction.” Small groups discussed their thoughts on the following questions:

o   What 3 things did you learn from the article?

o   What 2 things would you like to know more about?

o   What 1 thing do you wish the article discusses that it didn’t?

·       Students wrote the main points of their discussion on large post-it papers to share with the class.

o   Some lingering questions from the small group discussions (The 1 thing):

§  What is the distinction about the difference between PBI and Inquiry-based lessons?

§  What varying degrees of PBI implementation do you get from varying degrees of results/understanding?

§  What counts as “authentic” implementation of PBI?

·       How does one reconcile the time investment designing a PBI unit with the real time demands as a teacher?

o   Petrosino: A teacher is not necessarily committed to only one type of a pedagogy in their practice. A teacher should have and employ a “back of tricks,” wherein they use several modes of pedagogy

Class #5-02/02/2017

·       Sneha led class today

·       We began class by first jigsawing into mixed groups of Science/Math readings to share with each other the salient points from the specific readings

·       Working in the same small groups, we then explored the following question:

o   What does good teaching and bad teaching look like according to each of these authors?

§  Groups identified the authors’:

·       implicit or explicit assumptions that positioned their paper

·       the main assertions

·       Summary of notions of what good and bad teaching looks like according to each author.

·       We had a large group discussion on these authors’ perspectives of what good and bad teaching looks like and the importance of looking at our own values and presumptions which drive our own notions of this question.

·       For the rest of class, students worked in their field experience teaching teams to work on brainstorming and planning for their PBI units.

·       We ended with students reflecting on the following two exit-ticket questions:

o   What was something that stuck out to you from the readings or something you contended with from it? Why?

o   Based on the readings, can PBI be a pedagogy for equity? Why or why not?

Class #6 – 02/07/2017

·       Reading Set 2

o   Whole group discussion on Wiggins and McTighe on backwards design and Baron article.

·       (Sneha out to collect data for research project)

Class #7 – 02/09/2017

·       Denise and Daniel (Master Teachers) led class today

·       We worked on unpacking the TEKS standards.

o   Students worked in their teaching teams to develop comprehensive concept maps (using the whiteboards and post-its) to unpack the content standards they were to address in their PBI lessons/units.

o   These concept maps could help identify a driving question.

Class #8 – 02/14/2017

·       We began class by discussing in small groups the readings from Reading Set 2, listed below. Small groups discussed two major take-aways from each reading. Under each reading are some common themes emergent in the class’ discussion:

o   Luft

§  Rubrics for assignments are helpful for teachers, students, and administrators; they force prioritization

§  Holistic vs. analytical rubrics pros/cons:

·       Holistic rubrics are good for open-ended projects while analytical allows for specific assessments on strengths/weaknesses

§  Four steps to creating a rubric: 1. Know learning goals. 2. Determine Structure 3. Levels of Performance 4. Sharing with students

o   Kitchen

§  Performance tasks allow for higher-order thinking

§  Facilitating a level of cohesion between teammates and with the teacher are essential.

o   Walker

§  Skill vs. creativity

§  It is important to create real-life problems with opportunities for self-correcting

o   IDEA Bank

§  Open ended vs. structured performance-based assessments: both have purposes and uses

·       Structured assessments are good for techniques

·       Open-ended assessments allow for synthesis/application

o   Doane

§  Students should be working on problem areas rather than making good grades

§  Learning goals should be oriented toward student improvement, higher order thinking, and problem-solving

o   Miscellaneous thoughts/questions:

§  As an instructor how do you encourage students to not just check checkboxes on a rubric and promote creativity? (i.e. help students avoid falling into formulaic use of the rubric)

·       Students signed-up to leading future reading discussions.

Class #9: 02/16/2017

·       Today, Daniel Fitzpatrick and Denise Ekberg led class today. They addressed the following aspects of the field component of the class:

o   What to look for during classroom observations

o   How to plan a good formative assessment

§  Two-tiered items

§  Concept maps/graphic organizers

§  Surveys

o   Fitz and Denise showed some examples of interesting and detailed Concept Maps to unpack the TEKS

o   Multi-day Sketch

·       Students worked in their teaching teams to discuss and brainstorm for their multi-day sketch, consulting with the Master Teachers

Class #10: 02/21/2017

·       We started class with an activity:

o   Erathosthenes circumference of the earth problem

o   Groups of 3: One member serves as an observer, while the other two group members attempted to solve the problem

o   Discussion on activity:

§  What the observers observed; how participants felt

§  Reflection question: how would you grade the participants’ performance on this task?

·       Effort? Content knowledge?

·       Rubrics allow to capture multiple aspects of a learning task

§  Students then worked in groups to develop a rubric for the Erathosthenes circumference of the earth  problem

·       Due next week

Class #11- 02/23/2017

·       Today, Daniel Fitzpatrick led class to help coach students in developing their multi-day PBI units.

o   Students began by sharing some of their observations from their field Observation A

o   Multi-day sketch:

§  Daniel explained how to understand and complete the AHS lesson template

§  Most important part: be specific; list the tasks and have the corresponding resources or documents created for it, ready to be shared.

Class #12- 02/28/2017

·       Today Steve and Adul led class discussion on Reading Set #4

o   They began by asking some questions regarding the class’ own notions of formative assessments:

§  What does formative assessment mean to you?

·       Class ideas:

o   Quick

o   Informative

o   Low-stress

o   Continuous

o   Flexible

o   Pre/post assessment

o   Checkpoints

§  How have you implemented formative assessment in the past?

·       Some example: interviews; concept maps; 2-tiered systems

§  What are some difficulties you have with implementing formative assessments?

·       If data from the formative assessment isn’t used to inform instruction, then it’s useless

o   How does one know how to quickly interpret the results from a formative assessment?

o   How do you fix in real-time?

§  How would you incorporate the ability for students to assess themselves?

o   Abdul and Steve then gave us a quick summary of the readings

§  Wiggins: “assessments are a moral matter…”

·       Why is it a moral matter?

·       How do you stay true to the moral compulsion of assessing and using assessment constructively while still trying to negotiate the demands of being a classroom teacher? For example, how do you allow room and time for revisiting and revising when the curriculum is so fast-paced.

o   They then led the class in a group activity: working in pairs/group of three, each group were asked to participate in a different type of formative assessment on the water cycle. While one group took a justified multiple-choice question, another completed a T-chart, while another did an exit slip; while another group engaged in dialogue

§  Following this activity, we had a whole-group discussion about what the benefits and disadvantages of using  each of these strategies as well as when to use them.

o   Closing activity: Recall the formative assessment strategies students used during their field experience and how they might revise it based on the principles from the readings and the discussions in class. Was it a useful and what would you improve upon?

Class #13: 03/01/2017

·       Students worked on reviewing each other’s units and giving feedback on them

Class #14: 03/07/2017

·       Today Mica and Yubin led class discussion on Reading Set 5 which explored what inquiry means

o   They began by having small groups define in their own words what they understood of the four levels of inquiry

§  Summary of discussions on this:

·       Level 1: Confirmation (question, procedure, and answers provided)

·       Level 2: Procedural/Structured (Q & P)

·       Level 3: Guided (Q)

·       Level 4: Open (Q, P, A not provided)

·       Levels 1 & 2: Teacher driven; Levels 3 & 4: Student driven

o   Then students worked in their groups to analyze whether their own field-experience PBI lessons are inquiry-based units.

§  Discussion points:

·       What happens/how should a teacher intervene if students keep attempting but not making much progress toward the learning goal or acquiring the content concept?

o   Scaffolding should be used to build up to more independent levels of inquiry

·       Is level 4 of inquiry always the best?

o   The levels of inquiry do not equal the level of quality of teaching/instruction

o   Level 4 is not always the best and there is a factor of evaluating “when” a certain level of inquiry would be most appropriate.

Class 3/9/2017

• Today, the student-teacher teams practiced a portion of their lessons in front of each other and their instructors to get some feedback to tweak their lessons before implementing their units in the classroom the week after spring break

SPRING BREAK (3/13/2017 – 3/17/2017)

Field Experience-PBI Unit Teaching (3/20/2017-3/24/2017; 3/27/2017-3/29/2017)

• Monday March 20, 2017

• Chemistry- Clara Dawson; Kyle Albernaz, Steven Tijerna (9:00am-10:30am)

• Students use the concept of balancing equations to create Rube-Goldberg machines
• Biology- Yubin Goh, Emily Smith (11:05am – 12:40pm)
• Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem
• Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017
• Algebra 1- John Langdon, Andrew Stepek (11:05am – 12: 40pm)
• Students learn how to derive a quadratic formula and use it to determine the flow rates of various water bodies.
• Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

• Tuesday March 21, 2017

• Algebra 2- Amy Gross, Abdul Bora, Mica Kohl (9:00am -10:30am)

• Students learn about log functions and apply them to buying a car and calculating the monthly payments of various financing plans for purchasing a car
• Biology- Miranda Grabowski (11:05am – 12:40pm)
• Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem
• Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017
• Biology- Mirna Gonazalez (3:00pm – 4:30pm)
• Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem
• Wednesday March 22, 2017
• Chemistry- Clara Dawson; Kyle Albernaz, Steven Tijerna (9:00am-10:30am)
• Students use the concept of balancing equations to create Rube-Goldberg machines
• Many of the teaching teams had a field trip experience incorporated into their units, and around which their units were centered. The field trip was interdisciplinary in nature and took students to the following sites to conduct various tests as relevant to the PBI units that incorporated it.  The field trip took students to the following sites: Pace Bend, Mansfield Dam, Inks Lake. The following teaching teams had incorporated into their units this field trip component:

·       Biology- Yubin Goh, Emily Smith (11:05am – 12:40pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

·       Algebra 1- John Langdon, Andrew Stepek (11:05am – 12: 40pm)

·       Students learn how to derive a quadratic formula and use it to determine the flow rates of various water bodies.

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

·       Biology- Miranda Grabowski (11:05am – 12:40pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

·       Biology- Mirna Gonazalez (3:00pm – 4:30pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Thursday March 23, 2017

·       Algebra 2- Amy Gross, Abdul Bora, Mica Kohl (9:00am -10:30am)

·       Students learn about log functions and apply them to buying a car and calculating the monthly payments of various financing plans for purchasing a car

·       Biology- Miranda Grabowski (11:05am – 12:40pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Friday March 24, 2017

·       Algebra 2- Amy Gross, Abdul Bora, Mica Kohl (9:00am -10:30am)

·       Students learn about log functions and apply them to buying a car and calculating the monthly payments of various financing plans for purchasing a car

·       Biology- Miranda Grabowski (11:05am – 12:40pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Biology- Mirna Gonazalez (3:00pm – 4:30pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Monday March 27, 2017

·       Chemistry- Clara Dawson; Kyle Albernaz, Steven Tijerna (9:00am-10:30am)

·       Students use the concept of balancing equations to create Rube-Goldberg machines

·       Biology- Yubin Goh, Emily Smith (11:05am – 12:40pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

·       Algebra 1- John Langdon, Andrew Stepek (11:05am – 12: 40pm)

·       Students learn how to derive a quadratic formula and use it to determine the flow rates of various water bodies.

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

·       Tuesday March 28, 2017

·       *Field Experience partner high school (Austin High School) had their English End of Course Examinations occurring this day so no PBI teaching teams were teaching on this day*

·       Wednesday March 29, 2017

·       Biology- Yubin Goh, Emily Smith (11:05am – 12:40pm)

·       Students used various water quality testing kits to determine the health of an ecosystem and its affects on the biodiversity of an ecosystem

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

·       Algebra 1- John Langdon, Andrew Stepek (11:05am – 12: 40pm)

·       Students learn how to derive a quadratic formula and use it to determine the flow rates of various water bodies.

·       Unit had a field-trip component that occurred on Wednesday March 22^nd, 2017

Class 3/30/2017

• Today, Sneha led class discussion as Dr. Petrosino was out.
• We began class by debriefing the field experience from an overall perspective. Our conversation focused a lot on the struggle to negotiate the realities of the classroom and teaching with what is hoped for and expected. We also discussed some tips and strategies as to how to better deal with such struggles.
• We then discussed Reading Set 6 which examined how activity can be turned into inquiry. The following questions guided our discussion:

• Why inquiry (i.e. why is teaching through inquiry important or a best practice?)
• How do the inquiry frameworks proposed by Bell et al. (2005) who proposed four levels of inquiry, and Volkmann et al. (2003), who proposed an inquiry analysis tool, compare with each other? What are the benefits and omissions of both?
• Students then took some time to evaluate either their own PBI units that they just taught or the other examples from their readings, using the “Inquiry Analysis Tool” proposed by Voklmann et al. (2003).

Class 4/4/2017

·       Today, we began class with Dr. Petrosino going over the feedback from the midterm evaluation. The midterm evaluation asked the following questions:

o   What are some things you like about the class?

o   What are some things you find least helpful about the class?

o   What are some things you’d like to see on Canvas?

o   What are some suggestions you’d have to improve the class?

·       Students presented on their reflections of the field experience.

o   Students presented on the following themes of their field experience:

1.     Overview of the lesson

2.     Lessons learned about student thinking

3.     Lessons learned about implementing elements of PBI

o   The teaching teams presented in this order:

1.     Biology-Mirna, Miranda, Yubin, and Emily

2.     Chemistry- Clara, Kyle, Steven

3.     Algebra I- John and Andrew

4.     Algebra II- Abdul, Mica, and Amy

Class 4/6/2017

·       We began class with a  discussion of some overall reflections/debriefing of the presentation reflections from Tuesday:

o   PBI is really hard especially when negotiating the demands and expectations from multiple stakeholders

o   PBI takes more time to implement, and more time to plan for as well

§  Iterations of planning and implementation allow for refinement

o   Collaboration is difficult

o   PBI takes planning but cannot be scripted.

o   Need back-up plans

o   Negotiating the need to teach content richly and accurately while still making learning engaging for students

o   Important question to be posed:

§  What is the point or goal of PBI? Is it the driving question or the content?

·       John and Andrew then led today’s discussion on the readings (Reading Set 7) that were due for today

o   They divided students into 3 groups

o   Each group was posed a case scenario related to the readings

§  Teaching  a class with a large population of students living at the poverty line

§  Teaching evolution to a class with students of diverse faiths

·       Our class discussion in answering this seemed to center around the idea that it is important to emphasize the epistemology of science and approach this topic with the perspective of presenting evolution as a scientific theory (and less as a belief system), and the evidence scientists have found that form its base.

§  Making science (ecology and statistics) relevant to class with high-achieving, college-bound students

o   After some time to discuss in small groups, we came back together and shared out some of the salient points from the small group discussions.

§  Some big idea takeaway points from this discussion:

·       How do you reconcile the ethics of teaching, practicalities/logistics, and the best practices/theories of teaching PBI and do it well?

·       An underlying philosophy of PBI is exploring questions.

Class 4/11/2017

·       Class started with a visit from Fitz and Denise

o   They brought blank Thank-You cards to have PBI teaching teams write for their mentor teachers

o   They also went over preliminary portfolio sessions

·       We then worked on estimating and tabulating the number of hours spent on the field experience.

·       Students then shared their ideas about what driving questions and the final artifacts they’re thinking about for the PBI units they are developing for their final projects.

o   Clara and Steven: Biology unit that centers around applications on forensic science (students will engage in a mock trial of sorts and will use DNA analysis to defend or prosecute a hypothetical suspect)

o   Mirna and Kyle: Chemistry unit in which students will design their own battery

o   Miranda and Emily: Biology unit in which students will explore biodiversity by developing an environmental campaign

o   Amy, Micah, Abdul: Extending their field experience unit in which students will develop a financial portfolio that critically analyzes the finances involved in buying a car

o   John: ?

o   Andrew: ?

o   Yubin:?

Class 4/13/2017

·       We began with looking at some of the student data about the hours spent on field-experience.

·       Clara and Amy then led class

o   They began with a little activity that demonstrated the importance of different perspectives

o   We then discussed addressing misconceptions

§  Students did an activity to illustrate naïve notions about graphing and representation

§  We then had a whole class discussion about the different graphing representations and what naïve notions are present in the representations and some of the struggles with representing cognition

o   Students then worked in groups to discuss how they might develop a lesson to address some common misconceptions/naïve notions

o   Question posed: Is it beneficial or adverse to student learning if as a teacher to get something deliberately wrong?

§  Depends on what kind of classroom environment you are building up.

o   Small group and whole group discussion on interactive learning and lecturing.

·       Dr. Petrosino then did a debrief of some of the ideas and discussions that came up in the student-led discussion component.

·       Dr. Petrosino has provided on Canvas a supplemental reading on benchmark lessons.   

Class 04/18/2017

·       Dr. Petrosino began class with an interesting current event discussion about Public University General Fund Revenue Source History

·       Students took a survey for a study on pre-service teacher content knowledge.

·       Dr. Petrosino then gave a presentation on Benchmark lessons

Class 04/20/2017

·       Dr. Petrosino began with a brief introduction to his new NSF Grant-funded research on Group-Based Cloud Computing

o   PBI students are welcome to work with his graduate students to consider incorporating this technology into their final PBI units

·       Kyle and Mirna then led the reading discussion on “PBI and Equity”

o   They began with the following discussion questions:

§  What elements of PBI lend themselves towards helping equity issues?

·       PBI contextualizes the information

·       Hands-on helps ELL students

·       Learn concepts, then the formal/disciplinary language

·        

§  How does PBI have an advantage over the traditional classroom by way of equity?

·       Engage through culture

§  What are the downfalls of PBI in regards to equity issues?

·       Difficult to connect to all

·       Collaboration difficulty

§  How can PBI help ELL learners?

·       Working in groups with native speakers and non-native speakers

·       Peer review

·       Team-work

·       Sharing diverse experiences and bringing in diverse perspectives

·       Closer access to what people are saying

·       Different modalities of sharing information

·       Practice and rehearse speech and ability to articulate a thought and help students build confidence

§  Equity in math

·       Math requires vocabulary

·       Differences in how we read/write

·       Translation exercises

·       Context of word problems may not be relatable

·       Allow students to write their own word problems

§  Finally students discussed how their PBI unit lessons address equity

§  Main takeaways:

·       Equity is a design decision

Class 04/25/2017

·       We had a visitor from UTeach Outreach come in to class today to advertise a job opportunity with UTeach Outreach

·       Miranda and Emily led the class in the reading discussion on reading set 10 on Reading in Science and Math

o   Opening questions: what is science? What is math? What is language arts? Why are they separated?

o   Students then discussed the overlaps of learning cycles in reading and science

o   Textbook reading activity: pre-reading and post-reading an excerpt from scientific textbooks.

·       Dr. Petrosino then did a wrap-up of the notion of reading

Class 04/27/2017

·       Dr. Petrosino began class with a discussion on the revisionist nature of science and how should teachers approach this in the classroom

o   He contextualized this discussion in recent debate on recent emerging evidence on the first humans in North America

o   Some important questions that surfaced in the conversation:

§  What is science?

·       Knowledge?

·       Process?

·       Community?

§  What is evidence/data?

§   Where does peer review fall under this knowledge-process-community paradigm of science?

Class 05/02/2017

·       Dr. Petrosino began class by debriefing with the class about yesterday’s on-campus stabbing incident. He reassured students that the instructional team is here for them and are ready to accommodate their needs as they cope with this difficult event.

·       Dr. Petrosino then led a presentation and discussion on anchor videos and what the features of a good anchor video are.

·       We then watched a Jasper Video Episode and students engaged in the problem-solving spurred by this anchor video.

Class 05/04/2017

·       Today, being the last class day, the instructional team wanted to give students an opportunity in-class to work on and collaborate with each other on building their final PBI Unit websites and presentations. Students worked together on their projects and conferenced with Sneha, the TA, and with each other, as they tweaked and digitally curated their units.

·       Students will be presenting their final PBI units and websites during their final exam session on Monday May 15^th, 2017 from 2pm-5pm.

o   We expect to have other members of the STEM Education and the UTeach community also come, listen to, and evaluate students’ final units and presentations.