Inquiry allows more access for more students to take part in science.

Scientific literacy: To give citizens greater access and input to important socio-scientific issues.

Bigger toolbox: To provide more skills and a larger knowledge base for students.

Increased accessibility: To be participants in democratic decisions and processing that involve scientific ideas.

My project is out and about.  I introduced the idea to the students before break and they seem interested in the idea.  One student didn’t think it was a good idea to change grading practices, that I should stick to the old method. (The irony is that he would be one of the ones to most likely benefit based on his learning style.)

I am going to let it run longer than anticipated.  I believe that it needs to in order to have any impact, let alone have enough points graphed to provide a reasonable amount of feedback for the student.  This will end by midterms.

JP

Jennie and I have been hard at work on our pre/post survey. The goal is to identify some of the factors that motivate students in science class to do well.  Check it out fellow monkeys (it wraps so copy=>paste): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm

=vCkgxI_2boWz0Nkbl5Umm8Uw_3d_3d

ACTION RESEARCH PLAN

2. Write an area-of-focus statement.
3. Explain its connection to reform-based science education.

If our goal is to teach students science, then our assessments should reflect that.

This study attempts to addresses the following central aspects of reform-based science education…

Transparency in grading practice. When a student can clearly articulate the criteria by which their progress is measured as well as measure their own progress using the same set of criteria then they can own their learning and take responsibility for the outcome. Also, as students track their learning using graphic measures they can see areas of weakness and strengths as well as trends in their learning. This knowledge is empowering and gives the student the sense that they control their learning and that they ultimately can change it.

3. Define your variables.

4. Develop research questions.

à Will aligning summative assessments with grading practice more accurately reflect what a student knows and is able to do?

à Will student achievement increase if formative assessments are not used as criteria for grading?

à Will student achievement improve if a student can track his or her progress graphically?

à Will students feel empowered to improve their learning as a result of these measures?

5. Describe the intervention or innovations.

What are we doing? The goal is to identify a more accurate means of assessment…distinguishing between behavior (turning things in late, attending meetings, whatever), and meeting course goals. Students enter classes with a range of backgrounds and experiences and therefore start at different levels of understanding. Grades should be based on understanding and ability to work with the course materials, not on compliance. We have cudgeled ourselves into believing that we are providing equity by having students complete activities without providing differentiation. In other words, a student who already knows the material completes an activity that offers no challenges, nor stimulation. For the student who is learning the content, this activity could be a learning experience, but not for the former. On one hand we could provide different activities for different levels of learners, but the assessment is still a level experience and tied to course content. A true grade might suggest that a value of a “C” is for basic comprehension, and an “A” should be something above and beyond course expectations.

6. Describe the membership of the action research group.

The participants in my study will be all of my students. The argument we have not answered yet is if we need/want a control. We are not convinced that simply not engaging one class in the research will be enough to offer a point of comparison to those that do participate.

7. Describe negotiations that need to be undertaken. None needed.

8. Develop a timeline.

Phase 1 (August – November). Identify area of focus, review related literature, develop research questions, and reconnaissance.

Phase : January – Pre assessment, implement graphs

Phase 3: February – Post assessment, collect graphs

Phase 4

(Note: The main effort should be implemented in February, 2008).

9. Develop a statement of resources.

10. Develop data collection ideas.

The data for the research will be collected in several ways. The students will track their learning via a graph/chart that they will maintain. The chart goes from 0-4 on the y-axis, and a-? on the x-axis. Assessments, formal and not, activities, etc. are assigned a letter and scored to a value of 0-4…0 being a complete lack of ability, and a 4 being mastery and above and beyond material explicitly taught.

Data could also include pre and post evaluations of student mechanisms for determining their own understanding of material.

11. Describe your intentions or hopes for publication.

We would like to publish.

The participants in my study will be all of my physics students.  The argument I have not answered yet is if I need/want a control.  I am not convinced that simply not engaging one class in the research will be enough to offer a point of comparison to those that do participate.  The classes are very different from one to the other and therefore not directly comparable.  I could be wrong about this, though.  Without cloning the students I will never have a direct comparison.  Will have to think about this more…

What am I doing?  The goal is to identify a more accurate means of assessment…distinguishing between behavior (turning things in late, attending meetings, whatever), and meeting course goals.  Students enter classes with a range of backgrounds and experiences and therefore start at different levels of understanding.  Grades should be based on understanding and ability to work with the course materials, not on compliance.  I think that we have cudgeled ourselves into believing that we are providing equity by having students complete activities without providing differentiation.  In other words, a student who already knows the material completes an activity that offers no challenges, nor stimulation.  For the student who is learning the content, this activity could be a learning experience, but not for the former.  On one hand I could provide different activities for different levels of learners, but the assessment is still a level experience and tied to course content.  A true grade might suggest that a value of a “C” is for basic comprehension, and an “A” should be something above and beyond course expectations.

I have begun to dabble on how to implement this in my class.  The modification of the quiz structure was simple enough, but it still needs more work.  As I’ve been moving through the year and working to maintain this new structure it has become increasingly difficult.  Separating topics inside of topics is not easy.  Our recent “unit” on circuits is an example.  I break it into series and parallel, and from there into the properties of voltage, current and resistance.  Ideally I could separate those items out, but I don’t see the logic in that.  Each is dependent on the others and the principal equation is Ohms Law.  As for the test on this material…I did not separate the ideas.  It was simply too difficult.  I will try again with the new unit.
Interesting note…My students know that the course is designed to prepare them for the Regents exam, but that I teach them physics anyway.  They find the Regents questions difficult and tricky.  I polled all of my classes about what type of mid term they wanted:  One that would allow them to demonstrate their understanding of concepts, or one that modeled the year end exam.  Almost everyone wanted the Regents style exam.  The reason was simple and was my motivation when I designed the mid term…They want to have a taste of test and conditions for what they will face in June.

There are still students, and parents, that believe grades are in part based on whether or not the teacher likes the student.  At the conference mentioned below the speaker, Debra Pickering, asked 100+ teachers to calculate a grade for an imaginary test.  The test was worth 100 points, and there were 20 questions.  The first 10 questions were basic, explicitly taught questions.  The next 6 were harder, and the last 4 for not explicitly taught, beyond the curriculum.  We were asked to assign a point value to each section.  She then gave the results:  The first 10 were correct, 3 out of 6 for the second batch, and none of the more difficult questions were correct.  Based on our distribution of points this imaginary student received grades ranging from 20-80%.  Out of this room full of 100+ teachers there was clear disagreement about how to grade and distribute points.  This got a lot of attention.

The project we have chosen revolves around the concept of assessment.  During the summer, teachers in my district we able to attend a workshop by Debra Pickering that focused on redefining assessment.  Essentially, it encouraged a separation in assessment of the knowledge the student had of the topic, and the behavior in the class.  Knowledge is easily defined, or it’s supposed to be, of what you want the students to learn (curriculum maps, course expectations, etc.).  The behavior part will vary.  This would include timeliness with work, homework grades, etc.  Pickering, et al, suggest that the grade at some point should accurately reflect the students’ knowledge and not be intertwined with their “behavior.”    This is a true measure of the student’s understanding, one not based on compliance.  

An example would be homework in the textbook.  Students are asked to read a section and answer some questions based on that reading.  Instead of collecting it…Some students did it (compliance) others did not (noncompliance).  So a student who may understand the material now has a “0” for a grade on that assignment for not turning it in, but that is not a measure of knowledge.  Instead, don’t collect the HW and offer a short quiz based on the material.  This is a more accurate measure of what they understand and reduces the compliance command

Thinking back to last class and the discussion about the presence of genuine inquiry in the science classroom I feel a bit lucky, and yet apprehensive. I have my Regents Physics courses which I struggle to provide inquiry with, but I also have an independent research group that is wide open. I can do whatever I want, modify things, and allow students to explore their own interests. I enjoy learning with them and I’m not afraid to tell them I don’t have the answer. There are no limits (except money) for what the students want to do and how they want to do it. Just last week one of my students showed me a draft of a paper that will be published in an astronomy journal with her name on it. I ran around school showing everyone who would listen to me…I was so proud. Her work with RIT has paid off, and it continues. And yet, I feel that I could do the same in physics but I struggle with it. How do I bring a class of 22 kids along on the same journey? Can I? I have some ideas, but I’m still struggling…