Monday, July 12, 2010

DRAFT OF FRAMEWORK DESCRIBING KEY CONCEPTS IN K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT







Date: July 12, 2010
Contacts: Sara Frueh, Media Relations Officer
Christopher White, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>


DRAFT OF FRAMEWORK DESCRIBING KEY CONCEPTS IN
K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT

WASHINGTON — The National Research Council today released a draft framework that proposes the science content and concepts students should learn for grades K-12. The independent, nonprofit Research Council is seeking comment on the draft from the science and education communities and the public. The final framework will serve as the basis for new science education standards, to replace those based on documents developed over 10 years ago.

"In the past decade, the community has learned important lessons from implementing the existing science education standards, and there is a new and growing body of research on learning and teaching in science that can inform the development of new ones," said Helen Quinn, chair of the 18-member committee that drafted the framework, and professor emerita of physics at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, Calif. "This draft framework will be revised based on input we receive, and a final framework, to be issued early next year, is intended to provide guidance to improve and update science education standards across the nation. We welcome feedback from those in the science and science education communities, who can help us ensure that the framework is of the highest quality and meets the needs of teachers and students."

The framework describes in broad terms the core ideas in science and engineering that students should understand and be able to apply, and the progression of ideas that students need to experience in order to comprehend them. The nonprofit education group Achieve, working with a group of state leaders, will use the final framework to develop new K-12 science education standards, which explain what students should learn in detail. The framework is also intended to be useful to others who work in science education -- curriculum designers and assessment developers, state and district science administrators, and teacher educators.

The comment period will run from July 12 through Aug. 2. During this time, the National Research Council will partner with the National Science Teachers Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Achieve, and the Council of State Science Supervisors to solicit feedback through meetings and focus groups. Individuals also can read the draft online and submit comments at www.nas.edu/BOSE.

After the comment period ends, the study committee will consider the submitted comments and make appropriate revisions to the framework. And as with all Research Council reports, the framework will undergo a rigorous, internal review process before its release, which is expected to be in early 2011.

The framework project is sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ]

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
Board on Science Education

Committee on Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards

Monday, June 14, 2010

Studying Engineering Before They Can Spell It


The following is a story that appeared in the NY Times on June 13 by Education writer Winnie Hu and is entitled, "Studying Engineering Before They Can Spell It." The article discusses some efforts currently underway to incorporate STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Education in the early elementary grades. At Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ the Partnership to Improve Student Achievement (PISA) is a partnership of 50 teachers from 22 schools from the districts of Bayonne, Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, Piscataway, Weehawken, and four non-public schools, together with Stevens Institute of Technology, Montclair State University, and Liberty Science Center, are providing teachers with deeper science content knowledge, research-based professional development, and experience with innovative science and engineering curricula and materials for Grades 3-5. The article by Ms. Wu presents some interesting strengths and challenges of attempting to do engineering education with students in the elementary grades. -Dr. Petrosino


GLEN ROCK, N.J. — In a class full of aspiring engineers, the big bad wolf had to do more than just huff and puff to blow down the three little pigs’ house.

To start, he needed to get past a voice-activated security gate, find a hidden door and negotiate a few other traps in a house that a pair of kindergartners here imagined for the pigs — and then pieced together from index cards, paper cups, wood sticks and pipe cleaners.

“Excellent engineering,” their teacher, Mary Morrow, told them one day early this month.

All 300 students at Clara E. Coleman Elementary School are learning the A B C’s of engineering this year, even those who cannot yet spell e-n-g-i-n-e-e-r-i-n-g. The high-performing Glen Rock school district, about 22 miles northwest of Manhattan, now teaches 10 to 15 hours of engineering each year to every student inkindergarten through fifth grade, as part of a $100,000 redesign of the science curriculum.

Spurred by growing concerns that American students lack the skills to compete in a global economy, school districts nationwide are packing engineering lessons into already crowded schedules for even the youngest students, giving priority to a subject that was once left to after-school robotics clubs and summer camps, or else waited until college.

Supporters say that engineering reinforces math and science skills, promotes critical thinking and creativity, and teaches students not to be afraid of taking intellectual risks.

“We still hear all the time that little kids can’t engineer,” said Christine Cunningham, director ofEngineering is Elementary, a program developed at the Museum of Science in Boston that offers ready-made lessons, for about $350 each, on 20 topics, and is now used in all 50 states, in more than 3,000 schools.

“We say they’re born engineers — they naturally want to solve problems — and we tend to educate it out of them.”

The Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition, which will distribute $4.35 billion in education stimulus money to states, favors so-called STEM programs, which stands for science, technology, engineering and math.

At the same time, Congress is considering legislation, endorsed by more than 100 businesses and organizations like I.B.M. and Lockheed Martin, to promote engineering education from kindergarten through 12th grade.

In Manassas, Va., which has a thriving biotech industry, the local school district has spent $300,000 on a children’s engineering program since 2008, equipping its six elementary schools with tool kits for projects like making musical instruments from odds and ends, building bridges with uncooked spaghetti and launching hot-air balloons made from trash bags and cups.

At the new Midway Elementary School of Science and Engineering in Anderson, S.C., kindergartners celebrated Groundhog Day by stringing together a pulley system to lift a paper groundhog off the floor.

But as these lessons have spread, some parents, teachers and engineers question how much children are really absorbing, and if schools should be expending limited resources on the subject.

Engineering is not a requirement in most states.

“Just giving kids an engineering problem to solve doesn’t mean it will lead to learning,” said Janine Remillard, an associate education professor at theUniversity of Pennsylvania who is not opposed, but believes that good teaching is essential to making any curriculum work well.

She pointed out that schools have long offered project-based learning, without calling it engineering, like building Lego robots or designing a cushion for an egg drop.

“Ideally, you want them to come away with knowledge that goes beyond that problem,” Professor Remillard said. “They could just go through the motions and end up with a robot that can do a particular thing, but the next problem they face will be a new problem. This is where good teaching comes in.”

William E. Kelly, a spokesman for theAmerican Society for Engineering Educationand former dean of the engineering school at Catholic University in Washington, cautioned that engineering lessons for youngsters should be kept in perspective.

“You’re not really learning what I would call engineering fundamentals,” he said of such programs. “You’re really learning aboutengineering.”

Here in Glen Rock, where students have long excelled at math and science, administrators and teachers decided to incorporate engineering into the elementary grades to connect classroom learning to real life, as well as to instill social skills like collaboration and cooperation that are valued in the work force, said Kathleen Regan, the curriculum director.

“At first, everybody was like: ‘Engineering? Kindergarten?’ ” recalled Dr. Regan, noting that one school board member joked that she must be married to an engineer (no; a lawyer).

But now, Dr. Regan said, the engineering lessons have become so popular that children are talking about their projects at the dinner table, and some of their parents have started researching engineering colleges.

Ms. Morrow and Jennifer Burke, who also teach classes for the gifted and talented, developed the engineering lessons and run them in all four elementary schools.

They plan multiday projects, often built around classic and popular stories like the Three Little Pigs, and take students step by step through the engineering process: design, build, test, evaluate.

“They have to have the thinking skills of an engineer to keep up with all the innovation that’s constantly coming into their world,” Ms. Morrow said.

First graders were recently challenged with helping a farmer keep rabbits out of his garden.

In teams of four, they brainstormed about building fences with difficult-to-scale ladders instead of doors and setting out food decoys for the rabbits. They drew up blueprints and then brought them to life with plastic plates, paper cups, straws and foam paper.

Then they planned to test their ideas with pop-up plastic rabbits. If the fences were breached, they would be asked to improve the design.

“It gets your brain going,” said Elizabeth Crowley, 7, who wants to be an engineer when she grows up. “And I actually learn something when I’m doing a project — like you can work together to do something you couldn’t do before.”

In the kindergarten class that was designing homes — none out of hay, wood or brick — for the three pigs, Ms. Morrow started the lesson by asking the 20 children sitting cross-legged on the carpet if they knew what engineers do.

“They can write poems?” one girl guessed.

“Well,” Ms. Morrow allowed, “they could write a poem about something they build.”

But if they were still unsure about the language of engineering, the students were soon immersed in its nuts and bolts.

They tweaked their houses, adding ever more elaborate improvements to thwart the wolf. Then they huffed and they puffed.

And not a single house blew down.

photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Marshall, Petrosino, and Martin (2010)- Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions and Enactments of Project-Based Instruction

Abstract We present results of an investigation of preservice secondary mathematics and science teachers’ conceptions of project-based instruction (PBI) and their enactments of PBI in apprentice (student) teaching. We evaluated their thinking and implementations within a composite framework based on the work of education researchers. We analyzed survey responses, both qualitatively and statistically, from three cohorts of preservice teachers both before and after apprentice teaching. In addition we interviewed and observed a subset of these future teachers. We found that in general the preservice teachers held superficial views of PBI, as compared to the researcher framework. Participants reported time and curriculum restrictions as major barriers; however, teachers for whom enactment of PBI was presented as an explicit goal, and who were given support toward that end, were more likely to enact authentic implementations, regardless of previous reservations about PBI. Without this additional scaffolding, even teachers with high affinity for PBI were unlikely to implement it authentically.


Keywords Project based instruction Preservice teachers Teacher preparation Project based learning



Thursday, May 6, 2010

Meeting 26- May 5: Last Day of Class

Class to day was largely a lab day and an opportunity for the student groups to work on their projects. Dr. Petrosino spoke about the final examination day which is scheduled for Monday, May 17th from 2-5pm in SZB 316. Dr. Petrosino spoke about the importance of being "present" during the presentations and being an active audience in order to provide feedback and advice to the groups presenting. In a sense, there are 2 responsibilities--- one of course is in making a good presentation. Another is in being an active audience member. Both will be important for May 17th. Groups worked productively and very engaged throughout the lab period.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Dr. Stacy Klein-Gardner to visit University of Texas at Austin- Talk May 7

Dr. Klein-Gardner will visit UT's campus this week as the final speaker in the UTeach Project Based Instruction Lecture Series organize by Drs. Jill Marshall and Anthony Petrosino. The lecture series has brought nationally prominent scholars from around the country to speak to students, faculty and staff about issues relating to project based instruction in K-16 settings. Previous speakers have been Dr. David Hammer (University of Maryland), Dr. Ann Rivet (Columbia University), and Dr. Allan Collins (Northwestern University). Dr. Klein-Gardner is Associate Professor of the Practice of Biomedical Engineering and has worked extensively on technology learning environments in high content areas for teachers. Her research centers on designing and evaluating biomedical engineering modules for use in K-12 and college levels. Developing safe, hands-on, inexpensive ways to teach medical imaging.

Abstract:

The National Science Education Standards are explicit in their call for science teachers to create a learning environment that fosters scientific inquiry of authentic questions. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics states that "students must learn mathematics with understanding, actively building new knowledge from experience and prior knowledge."


These strategies are not supported by having students simply memorize rigid scientific facts in a teacher-centered classroom. Teacher must make use of problem-based instruction, such as is found in the Legacy Cycle, to make use of interdisciplinary studies, based in real world contexts. The Legacy Cycle is a research-based structure for designing instructional materials that has been effectively implemented through the Vanderbilt Bioengineering Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) and the Vanderbilt Instruction in Biomedical Engineering for Secondary Science (VIBES) programs. Use of the VIBES curriculum has shown an increase over traditional classroom instruction in student mastery of basic content as well as an increased ability to transfer knowledge to new areas. The Legacy-cycle based instructional materials developed by RET participants have been shown to increase student motivation over traditional classroom instruction. Additionally, teachers report that their students become more independent thinkers and learners while taking more ownership and responsibility for their own learning.


Education:
Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering, 1996,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

M.S. Biomedical Engineering, 1993,
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

B.S.E. Biomedical and Electrical Engineering, 1991,
Duke University, Durham, NC.




Monday, May 3, 2010

Meeting 25- May 3: Web Design and Manor Teacher Feedback

Today, Master Teacher Ms. Ekberg guided the students through the process of building the team's web pages. This is an important organizational activity to bring some uniformity to the project units the teams are in the process of designing. While most of our UTeach students are fairly well equipped with technology skills- this process still requires a non-trivial amount of instructional intervention.

Additionally, Ms. Ekberg also reviewed with the students in class the survey responses from the Manor New Tech High School teachers (site of our field paced experiences a month or so ago).

PBI_05_03_10WebPage


Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Meeting 24- Wednesday, April 28: Authentic Inquiry and Preservice teachers

Today’s class started with students filling out class evaluations of the instructor, Professor Petrosino. After that was finished, Professor Petrosino led a discussion about the two articles that students read for today, Windschitl (2004) and Petrosino (2004). Professor Petrosino opened up a discussion about his article detailing how a teacher he observed in Tennessee, Mr. San Jacinto, was able to run a classroom as a real research group, in which the students contributed to ongoing work in astronomy with variable stars.

Next, students used the framework from the Windschitl article to assess the inquiry in their end-of-term projects individually. Then, they got together as a group to discuss various aspects of the inquiry they saw. Then, Professor Petrosino opened a discussion in which students reflected upon this framework for inquiry, and talk about the axis of the Windschitl, how it could be interpreted as moving from student–centered to teacher-generated, generative to cookbook, following Bloom’s taxonomy of higher-order to lower-thinking, or “constructivist” to “direct”.

Finally, class ended with Ms. Ekberg passing out a rubric for the final presentations and students being given a chance to work collectively or ask questions regarding their end-of-term projects.


Petrosino2004


Windschitl 2004 Inquiry


Picture: Dr. Mark Windschitl

Monday, April 26, 2010

Meeting 23- Monday April 26: Grant Writing

Ms. Ekberg started class by introducing the various parts involved with writing the grant for the End-of-Term Project. She gave a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of what is required in a grant, and how to think about and present this. One group of students from this course will be selected to have their projects actually funded, with each student in the group being promised $1000 towards their future schools in order implement this project in their first years of teaching.

Then, students were given time to work together in their groups on the project, as Ms. Ekberg and the other instructors checked-in to help out with each group’s questions. Students were discussing the various aspects of the End-of-Term Project due in the next week: the grant proposal, the rubric, the detailed calendar, final lesson plans, and formative assessments.



CheckList;Work Sheet


PBI_4_26_10_Grants



Thursday, April 15, 2010

AERA Presentation: Playing the Game of Story Problems: Situated Cognition in Algebra Problem-Solving

The following is research that will be present at the Annual American Educational Research Association Conference in Denver, Co in May, 2010.

Walkington, C., Sherman, M., & Petrosino, A. (2010, May). 'Playing the game'of story problems: Situated cognition in algebra problem-solving. Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Abstract: Several justifications have been presented in the literature for teaching mathematics in contexts relevant to students; first, embedding mathematics in relevant contexts may help students to apply what they learn in school to the real world. Second, using relevant contexts may provide a bridge between what students already understand and the content they are trying to learn. In the present study, we examine these justifications using algebra story problems on linear functions. In a series of 24 clinical interviews, students from a low-performing urban school were presented with algebra problems, some of which were personalized to the ways in which they described using mathematics in their everyday lives. We found that students rarely activated real world knowledge when solving all types of story problems, had consistent issues with verbal interpretation of stories, and engaged in non-coordinative reasoning where they bypassed the intermediate step of understanding the problem situation before trying to solve the problem. However, some students engaged in sophisticated situation-based reasoning, while others seemed to accept that a lack of sense-making was part of the larger system of school mathematics.



Class Meeting 20- April 14: Walkington Presentation-Story Problems vs PBI/Concept Mapping/End of Semester Project Planning

Today’s class started with a presentation by doctoral candidate Candace Walkington, who was also a former teaching assistant for the PBI course and now a professor at Colin Community College. Professor Walkington presented her current work exploring how high school Algebra I students respond to story problems. She found that students often disconnected their own prior knowledge to the mathematics at hand, and often “stopped thinking” when engaged in solving multiple choice problems.

For the second half of the class, Ms. Ekberg presented students with the various aspects of the end-of-course exam. She showed the parts of the website that contained all the documents that students would use, such as the Buck Institute planning framework and Anchor Video storyboard pages. Then she allowed students to get into their groups to discuss how they would work on the various aspects of the end-of-term project over the next few weeks.



Candace Walkington- Problems vs PBI

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Lecture: Approaching Curriculum and Instruction as Design: Melding scholarship and practice

Title: Approaching Curriculum and Instruction as Design: Melding scholarship and practice
When: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
Where: SZB Dean's Conference Room
Who: Dr. Ann McKenna- Northwestern University/National Science Foundation


In this talk I will present examples of my curricular development efforts in engineering design education and illustrate my aim to embed scholarship as a central component of curricular design. For example, while curricular development involves practical elements such as defining learning goals, identifying appropriate pedagogical approaches to meet the goals, and implementing ongoing assessment for iterative refinement, there are also fundamental questions that should be explored to inform this process. In particular, one of my research projects is investigating the role of disciplinary knowledge in the process of design. Using the adaptive expertise framework, with a specific focus on computational and analytical knowledge, this project is documenting the type of evidence students¹ use in the process of innovation. Specifically, I am exploring how students apply mathematical reasoning when developing design solutions, with an ultimate aim to better understand how the curriculum can support developing the type of computational skills that is a substantial part of the engineering profession. This talk will also present an overview of this research and describe some of the current findings.


Biography: Ann McKenna is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering as well as a Professor in the School of Education and Social Policy in the Learning Sciences (by courtesy). She holds undergraduate (BS) and graduate degrees (MS) in Mechanical Engineering as well as a PhD in Engineering Education from the University of California at Berkeley (Chair: Marcia Linn). McKenna's research interests center on understanding the cognitive and social processes of design teaching and learning; the role of adaptive expertise in engineering education; engineering faculty pedagogy and conceptions of teaching and learning; creativity and innovation in design/education; investigating institutional strategies and practices that contribute to recruiting and retaining female and underrepresented faculty and students in engineering. Related to both her teaching and research interests, Prof. McKenna is the Director of the Certificate in Engineering Design program in the Segal Design Institute and is co-founder and co-director of the Northwestern Center for Engineering Education Research (NCEER). In my opinion, McKenna has a solid STEM background, enjoys national status in engineering education, has worked extensively with engineers and had achieved a solid publication record. She is currently on leave from Northwestern and is serving as a rotator at the National Science Foundation.




McKennaTalk

Monday, April 12, 2010

Class Meeting 19- Anchored Instruction

Today’s class started with Professor Petrosino’s sharing a quick agenda for today, discussing the results of the UTeach Survey, finishing the discussion about Anchored Instruction, doing an activity based on a Jasper video, and then ending by talking about the final project.

Professor Petrosino had students watch an Adventures of Jasper Woodbury anchor video entitled, “Rescue at Boone’s Meadow.” As the video finished up, Professor Petrosino had students work in small groups of 3-4 students to answer the tasks presented by the anchor video:

-What is the quickest way to move the eagle from Boone’s Meadow to Cumberland City?

-How long will that take?

-And, how did you figure out the answer?

Students then worked in groups for about 10 minutes, actively talking about ways to solve the tasks. Then, Professor Petrosino then had students switch gears to think as teachers, analyzing their own conversations in terms of

1) Content Specific Discourse

2) Technology

3) Assessment

4) Motivation

After a quick discussion on what they noticed, the class watches a video about using the Jasper anchor videos in the classroom, specifically focusing on a specific classroom’s approach to using Jasper in a real classroom. Professor Petrosino then introduces the Jasper Analog videos, were companion problems that were used after students had solved the main problem. These Analog videos were used to develop expertise beyond just factual knowledge, building on conceptual and transfer knowledge as well.

Professor Petrosino then ended the talk on Anchored Instruction by passing out a literature review of studies that have used Anchored Instruction. Then, students were given a list of the TEKS standards covered by the Jasper video they just engaged with. Students can use these documents in their own planning and exploration of Anchored Instruction, and to justify the use of these videos within their own instruction since the TEKS standards covered are extremely exhaustive.

Finally, Professor Petrosino ends class by reminding students that on Wednesday, doctoral candidate Candace Walkington will give a short presentation on the importance of context in mathematics education. And, Professor Petrosino gives a short preview of how this work will come together for the final project, mentioning the deliverables that will be required.