Preparing Teachers to Use Project-Based Science - CiteSeerX

Preparing Teachers to Use Project-Based Science: Lessons from a Four-Year Project James D. Lehman Department of Curriculum and Instruction Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 Melissa George Tecumseh Middle School Lafayette, IN 47905 Michael Rush, Peggy Buchanan, and Matt Averill Project INSITE Eagle-Union Community Schools Zionsville, IN 46077 Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching New Orleans, LA 30 April 2000

Abstract Calls for reform in science education stress the need for inquiry-based, integrative approaches that provide students with opportunities to solve authentic problems and appropriately use technology. Project-based science is an approach that aligns with the calls for reform. It is characterized by: (1) use of a driving question that is meaningful to the learners and anchored in a real-world context; (2) student-conducted investigations that result in the development of products; (3) collaboration among students, teachers, and the community; and, (4) use of technology to help students represent and share ideas. In Indiana, Project INSITE was a four-year teacher development effort designed to help teachers, primarily of grades 5-9, develop and integrate project-based science methods in their classrooms. The project featured a summer institute that involved: modeling of project-based science activities, teacher reflection, examples of "real-world" science, technology skills enhancement, and curriculum development. This paper reports on quantitative and qualitative aspects of the evaluation of Project INSITE. Findings confirm that Project INSITE was generally successful in: promoting positive teacher attitudes, fostering learner-centered classroom approaches, and leading to implementation of project-based science in many classrooms. Specific lessons from the project are shared.

Preparing Teachers to Use Project-Based Science

Lehman, et al.

Introduction Major reform initiatives in science education—such as Project 2061: Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Scope, Sequence & Coordination from the National Science Teachers Association, and Science Education Standards from the National Academy of Sciences—have stressed the need for strong science education for all students. For the most part, these reform documents have recommended a process or inquiry approach to science education, realistic problem solving for students, content integration rather than discipline segregation, and a supportive environment (Willis, 1995). Technology has often been viewed as an important component of these inquirybased science education reform efforts (Adams, Krockover, & Lehman, 1996; Converse, 1996). A constructivist view of learning underlies these calls for educational reform. At its core, the constructivist position argues that knowledge is not transmitted directly from one person to another but must be actively built up by the learner (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). While constructivism is often viewed from either cognitive (within the individual) or socio-cultural (within a community of learners) perspectives (Cobb, 1994), science learning can be seen to entail both personal and social processes (Driver, et al., 1994). As a result, most calls for reform in science education emphasize engaging students in inquiry, to promote active development of understanding by individuals, and having students collaborate in small groups, to promote communication and the development of shared meaning. In order to help students apply what they learn to real-world situations, it is argued that learning should be situated in authentic activity (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1991). As a result, reform efforts usually suggest that students engage in real-world problem-solving activities. Technology has been viewed as a unique agent that can anchor students’ learning and/or support or augment the construction of meaning (Cognition and Technology Group, 1991; Kozma, 1991). As a result, technology is often mentioned as an important element of reform efforts. A promising approach to science teaching/learning in schools that incorporates all of these elements of reform is project-based science. While the notions behind it are not new, projectbased science in its current form has developed relatively recently (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994). Project-based science is characterized by: (1) a driving question that is meaningful to the learners and that is anchored in a real-world context; (2) student-conducted investigations that result in the development of artifacts or products; (3) collaboration among students, teachers, and the community; and, (4) the use of cognitive tools, particularly technology, to help students represent and share ideas (Krajcik, et al., 1996). While particular projects can and do differ, these are the common elements. In a “typical” project, a group of middle school science students might tackle a driving question such as, “What is in our water and how did it get there?” The driving question, which is meaningful to the learners, provides a clear but broad framework that affords ample opportunity for student-generated investigations in real-world contexts. Students must generate questions, plan investigations, and evaluate their feasibility. Once particular investigations are determined, students do background research as well as collect and analyze data, such as the results of tests of water samples collected from a local reservoir or class members’ taps. In this process, they work together, collaborate with their teachers, and often communicate with knowledgeable members of 2


Lehman, et al.

the community who can assist with some aspect of the investigation. Science content is addressed as it arises naturally out of the context of the investigations. The results of the process are artifacts (e.g., water samples, test results, graphs, charts) and products (e.g., reports, multimedia presentations, portfolios) produced by the students. Technology plays an important role throughout the process as a tool for gathering information, analyzing and representing data, and for communicating the results. The project provides a pivot around which science learning, as well as learning in other subjects, can revolve.

Project INSITE: An Indiana Project-Based Science Initiative Project INSITE, Institute for Science and Technology, was a school-based project supported by the National Science Foundation and the Indiana Department of Education that embraced the ideals of science education reform and the specific instructional approach of project-based science. Deriving from earlier efforts that focused primarily on the use of telecommunications in the classroom (Buchanan, Rush, Krockover, & Lehman, 1993), the project described herein was a teacher-development program aimed primarily at teachers in grades 5 through 9 that operated from 1995 through 1999. It was designed to: (1) provide the pedagogical and philosophical foundations for improving science education; (2) develop a set of strategies to increase students' active learning of science; and (3) develop approaches to significantly enhance the roles of both students and teachers in order to create an environment to encourage creativity, critical thinking, and communication through the use of information technologies. The project involved a partnership of school districts (mostly in Indiana and led by the Eagle-Union Community Schools in Zionsville), Purdue University, businesses including Eli Lilly and Dow Agrosciences, and others. Each project year, 1995 through 1999, followed the same basic pattern. Several interrelated components were employed to foster teacher development and encourage implementation of project-based science in K-12 classrooms. These components were: • a summer institute for in-service and some pre-service teachers, • academic year implementation of project-based science units (with support), and • a summer follow-up in the following year (except for the final group of participants). The key teacher-development activity each year was a summer institute designed to introduce a cohort of participating teachers to project-based science and to help them develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to implement project-based science, with appropriate integration of supporting technology, in the classroom. Except for the final summer of the project (when an abbreviated institute was offered), the summer institute consisted of a three-week experience for teachers consisting of: • a project-based science activity designed to model the sorts of experiences the teachers would be encouraged to develop for their students, • mini-workshops to help teachers develop personal knowledge and skills related to technology use and relevant pedagogy, • field visits to businesses and other sites where teachers could observe science in action and interact with practicing scientists, and • development of project-based science curriculum units by teams of participating teachers for integration into their classrooms during the following academic year.

3


Lehman, et al.

To provide a framework for the curriculum development portion of the summer institute, each year of the project revolved around a different theme taken from the AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Projects designed by the teams of participating teachers were to: • relate to the year's theme and explicitly address state and national science standards; • be multi-week in duration and involve multiple school sites; • adopt a learner-centered, project-based approach consisting of use of an organizing driving question, student-generated investigations and research, interdisciplinary elements, and use of local resources; and • integrate technology as a tool for communication, information acquisition, data manipulation and representation, and presentation. During the academic year, teachers implemented their project-based science units. To provide ongoing support during the academic year, the project employed a teacher-in-residence who worked with the teacher cohort. In addition, follow-up meetings were scheduled during the academic year to keep participating teachers engaged in the project and communicating with one another. During the following summer, the teacher cohort returned for a one-week follow-up session during which the year's activities were debriefed and participants revised their project-based science units for final publication on the World Wide Web. In 1995, fifty-six participants consisting of in-service educators from seven Indiana school districts and a small number of pre-service teachers from Purdue University took part in the initial three-week summer institute. During the project's first year, participants developed project-based science activities centered on the science theme of "constancy and change." Project topics included: energy, environment and ecosystems, genetics, oceans, science in society, and the human organism. In 1996-97, the project's second year, sixty-three participants from eleven Indiana school districts and Purdue University took part in the project. Second-year participants developed project-based science activities centered on the science theme of "systems." Project topics included: plants, effects of chemicals in the soil on living populations, waste, weather, effects of outdoor activities on plants and animals, aquatic ecosystems, and space. In 1997-98, the project's third year, fifty-seven teachers from fifteen Indiana school districts and Purdue University participated. Third-year participants developed project-based science activities related to the science theme of "models." Project topics included: ecosystems, physics of motion, pollution, weather, plant and animal life cycles, and genetics. In 1998-99, the project's fourth year, a total of thirty-eight new participants from fifteen Indiana school districts as well as one Ohio and one Kentucky school district attended the summer institute. Fourth-year participants developed project-based science activities centered on the science theme of "scale." Project topics included: effects of watershed changes on the ecosystem, interactions of ecosystem components, how water shapes the earth, forces and motion, and population change. In 1999, the final year of the project, two extra groups of new participants were added in an effort to help the project reach its original goals for total numbers of participants. (Original plans did 4


Lehman, et al.

not call for any new participants in 1999.) One group of twenty-three participants was drawn from schools already participating in the project. A second group of fifty teachers from twentythree different Indiana school districts participated in an abbreviated one-week version of the summer institute in June of 1999. The added 1999 participants, dubbed the "benchmarks" group, used themes taken from throughout the Benchmarks for Science Literacy in the development of their projects. Project topics included: electromagnetism, matter, energy, forces and motion, water, the earth's crust, organisms, and ecosystems. This paper reports on summary results from all four years of the project. It provides an overview of the evaluation procedures, summer institutes, and academic year implementation activities. Lessons learned from the four years of the project are presented.

Methods and Data Sources The evaluation of the Project INSITE summer institute was designed to address the process and product categories of Stufflebeam's (1983) CIPP evaluation model with special focus on Kirkpatrick's (1979) scheme for evaluation of training. Guiding questions were developed within this framework. These included: What was the nature of the experience provided during the summer institute? What were participants’ perceptions of it? Did participants' attitudes toward science teaching and/or technology change as a result of the experience? Did participants acquire new knowledge or skills? Did participants' curriculum development efforts reflect the goals of the project? What evidence was there of project-based science in participating classrooms? and What were students' perceptions of project-based science activities? Data were collected from a variety of relevant sources to address the guiding questions. These included: pre- and post-institute questionnaires assessing participants' attitudes towards science teaching, attitudes towards computers, and technology usage; Likert-type surveys of participants' attitudes toward the institute; open-ended surveys of participants perceptions of the project; review of participant-constructed portfolios of their projects; on-site observations of the institute and participating classrooms, interviews with participants and staff facilitators; and surveys of students' attitudes toward project activities. Quantitative data were compiled, and, where appropriate, pre- and post-institute data were statistically compared. In addition, a qualitative analysis was undertaken during the 1998-99 year of the project. Field notes from classroom observations, transcripts of teacher interviews, teacher portfolios, and other evidence were analyzed via analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) to yield a qualitative description of activities in participating classrooms. The qualitative analysis is described more fully in that portion of the paper. Over the four years of the project, a total of 287 participants from 51 school districts and Purdue University participated in project activities. Approximately 73% of participants were female, and 27% were male. About 35% of participants were elementary teachers, 42% were middle or secondary school science teachers, 12% were teachers in other disciplines, and the remainder included specialists (e.g., media specialists, technology coordinators) and the pre-service teachers. Pre-institute questionnaires were administered to participants during an initial project orientation session that took place about six weeks prior to the beginning of the summer institute. Postinstitute questionnaires were administered at the end of the institute. Items on these 5


Lehman, et al.

questionnaires were used to assess participants' attitudes toward computers before and after the institute. The computer attitudes scale was adapted from the work of Anderson, Hansen, Johnson, and Klassen (1979) and had been used successfully in previous technology-related teacher development projects. The instrument consisted of 20 Likert-type items. Items were scored from 1 to 5 (strongly disagree to strongly agree for positively worded items and the reverse for negatively worded items) to yield a computer attitudes score of 20 (negative) to 100 (positive). The pre-institute/post-institute questionnaire was also used to assess participants' attitudes toward science teaching. These attitudes were assessed using items that were adapted from the work of Bratt (1973) at Purdue University. The instrument consisted of items that assessed 12 categories reflecting participants' views of science teaching. As finally adapted, the instrument consisted of 2 items per category, for a total of 24 items, that yielded scores in each category of 0 (negative) to 6 (positive) attitudes toward science teaching, where more positive scores were assigned to views that were considered more learner-centered and less teacher-centered. Participants' reactions to the summer institutes were gathered through the use of survey forms as well as through interviews with participants. An institute evaluation form, developed for the project, consisted of 15 Likert-type items as well as four open-ended items. Participants' perceptions of the project and its impact were gathered through the use of open-ended surveys and interviews. Students' perceptions of the project were collected through the use of a student reaction form, developed for the project, that consisted of two demographic items, eight Likerttype items, five semantic differential items, and five open-ended questions. This form was completed by students in participating classes after the conclusion of project activities.

Results and Discussion Description of the Summer Institutes The 1995 through 1998 summer institutes each took place over three weeks. In 1999, an abbreviated one-week institute was offered. Each institute was divided into three phases with each phase corresponding to about one week of the regular summer institutes. The first phase of the institute involved a modeling activity designed to introduce participants to project-based science supported by integration of technology. The second phase of the project was devoted to exposing participants to "real-world" science. The third phase of the institute was devoted to curriculum development. During weeks two and three of the regular institutes (as well as part of the week 1 modeling activity) participants developed their technology and pedagogy skills by working with team members and participating in mini-workshops on relevant topics. During the first week of the institute, participants were introduced to the institute in the form of a modeling activity. Teams of participants were formed, and they developed investigations related to a guiding question developed by the project staff, "What is in our water, and how did it get there?" The purpose of this modeling activity was to have participants: (1) engage in projectbased science activities as learners; (2) analyze the components of a project-based science activity in terms of the roles of the teacher, students, and technology; and (3) develop a driving question based on the AAAS Benchmarks theme to guide the project. Teams planned their own investigations and used available science materials (e.g., collection bottles, water test kits) to conduct them. In addition, they used technology to conduct research (e.g., Internet search), 6


Lehman, et al.

tabulate the data (e.g., spreadsheets), and prepare a presentation about their investigation (e.g., Powerpoint). Professor Gerald Krockover, a Purdue University science educator, coordinated the modeling activity. A team of facilitators, most of whom had been participants in a previous institute, worked with the participants to assist them through the activity. At the conclusion of the modeling activity, participants reflected on the process in which they had participated from the point of view of both learners and teachers. This process allowed them to develop, in a relatively short period of time, an understanding of project-based science, its benefits and limitations, and key elements of the approach. Week 2 was devoted to observations of the scientific community as well as to developing participants' technology knowledge/skills. A series of site visitations or field trips was arranged to give participants the opportunity to see and interact with practicing scientists. Site visits were made to Indianapolis area sites such as: Dow Elanco's agroscience research center, Eli Lilly Research Laboratories, the National Weather Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. When not making site visits, participants could take part in mini-workshops that covered a variety of topics related to technology (e.g., Excel, Powerpoint, HyperStudio, Internet usage) as well as pedagogy (e.g., cooperative learning, alternative assessment). During week 3, teams of participants planned their own project-based activities for the coming academic year. Professor Sandra Abell, Purdue University science educator, coordinated the curriculum development phase of the project. Participants brainstormed possible topics within the year's science theme that might be explored in their own classrooms. The most popular topics were selected, and teams were formed through participant self-selection. Each team of participants then developed its own driving question and began planning the nature of the activities to be implemented during the following academic year. Table 1 displays a sampling of the driving questions that were developed throughout the project. By the end of the institute, each team had developed preliminary plans. These plans were posted to the Project INSITE Web site at: http://www.projectinsite.org. To evaluate the summer institute, we looked for evidence of changes in participants' attitudes toward science teaching and toward technology. We also examined teachers' perceptions of the summer institute. Information about these evaluation measures follows.

7


Lehman, et al.

Table 1. Sampling of Participant-Developed Driving Questions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

What are energy's effects on people and people's effects on energy? What are the physical and chemical characteristics of soil, what lives in the soil, and how do the living and nonliving things interact? What is humans' impact on the oceans and the oceans' impact on humans? What effects do chemicals we put in our soil have on the living population? How does waste affect our world and our lives? 3, 2, 1 . . . Blast off! How do we get there? What makes things stop and go? What pollutes our environment and how does pollution affect us? How do we affect the life cycles of plants or animals in our environment? How do Indiana aquatic ecosystems work? How and why do things fly? How do changes in our watershed affect the ecosystem? How does water shape our earth? What are the causes and effects of weather? How do forces change motion? What are the causes and effects of population change? Why do organisms look or function the way they do? What animals live in our community and why do they differ? How do the physical conditions in an ecosystem affect the organisms living there?

Participants' Attitudes Toward Science Teaching and Technology To meet the goals of the project, it was important to convey to participating teachers, most of whom were unfamiliar with project-based science, a view of science as an active, learner-centered enterprise. The modeling activity of the summer institute was intended to show participants this approach. In addition, readings and other materials provided to participants reinforced this point of view. Were these approaches successful in affecting participating teachers' attitudes toward science teaching? Each year of the project, a pre-institute/post-institute questionnaire was used to assess participants' attitudes toward science teaching. These attitudes were measured using items adapted from the work of Bratt (1973) at Purdue University. The science attitudes instrument yielded individuals' attitudes toward science teaching broken down according to 12 categories. More positive responses were those that indicated more learner-centered attitudes towards science teaching. Negatively worded categories (the even numbered categories) were scored in reverse so that a higher number consistently indicated better (more learner-centered) attitudes toward science teaching regardless of the category. Values could range from 0 (negative or more teacher-centered attitudes) to 6 (positive or more learner-centered attitudes). [Note: the 1995 instrument used additional items not included in subsequent years; means were adjusted to make the scale consistent across years.] Table 2 summarizes the pre-institute and post-institute means for each year of the project.

8


Lehman, et al.

Table 2. Participants' Science Teaching Attitudes Means, Pre-Institute and Post-Institute

1.

2.

3.

4.

Statement Describing Science Teaching Category The idea of teaching science is attractive to me; I understand science and I can teach it. I do not like the thought of teaching science. There are certain processes in science which children should know, i.e. children should learn how to do certain things. There are certain facts in science that children should know.

Science teaching should be guiding or facilitating learning; the teacher becomes a resource person. 6. Science teaching should be a matter of telling children what they are to learn. 7. In education and teaching, the needs of students and teachers should be more important than the subject matter. 8. In education and teaching, covering subject matter, i.e. science, should be more important than the needs of the students. 9. Educational programs should find teachers and students working together for mutual benefit so that both learn something. 10. Teachers should be the authority in the classroom; they ought to be there to teach and the students should be there to learn from them. 11. Students and teachers alike are responsible for the learning that takes place in a classroom; students should have as much say about the learning activities and their evaluation as the teacher. 12. The teachers should be the sole determiners of activities; they should plan and evaluate each day's work.

1995 Pre Post

1996 1997 1998 1999 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

3.12

3.24

3.76 3.70 3.85 4.09 3.66 3.64 3.31 3.88 *

4.32

4.28

5.33 5.34 4.84 5.05 5.18 4.44 5.10 5.48 †

4.30

4.24

4.05 4.00 4.53 4.67 4.55 4.14 4.59 4.34

1.97

2.42 *

2.50 2.84 3.21 3.63 3.52 3.33 3.35 3.69 * *

3.95

4.05

4.24 4.56 4.61 4.89 4.79 4.31 4.79 4.77

3.19

3.50 *

3.33 4.40 4.38 4.87 4.09 4.44 4.18 4.73 * *

3.40

3.52

4.22 4.60 4.39 4.20 4.15 3.56 4.16 4.17 †

3.24

3.48 *

4.13 4.54 4.11 4.42 4.06 4.00 4.34 3.91

4.08

4.19

4.45 4.59 4.56 4.84 4.68 4.81 4.83 4.84 *

2.29

2.63 *

1.98 2.72 2.84 3.49 2.24 2.61 3.00 3.27 * *

4.19

4.33

4.87 4.76 4.88 4.98 4.73 4.81 5.00 5.07

2.95

3.33 *

3.10 3.78 4.00 4.82 3.82 4.41 3.82 4.80 * * *

5.

* denotes statistically significant gain (p .05)

† denotes statistically significant decline (p .05)

9


Lehman, et al.

The data in Table 2 indicate that participants' science teaching attitudes were relatively consistent across the years of the project. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare the pre-institute and post-institute means in each category. With the exception of 1998, participants tended to show unchanged to somewhat more learner-centered attitudes toward science teaching after the institute when compared to before. In each year except for 1998, several of the shifts in category responses showed statistically significant gains. The 1998 results, which showed several significant declines, were an apparent anomaly. Looking at the data in Table 2, one can see that after three of the five summer institutes, participants' attitudes toward category 4 (i.e. There are certain facts in science that children should know) became more positive. Because category 4 was considered a negatively worded category, this means that participants actually came to disagree with statements indicative of this position more after the institute than before. This was a desired outcome, because the institute promoted a view of science as a process that student should engage in rather than an established body of facts to be acquired. After three of the five summer institutes, participants attitudes toward category 6 (i.e. Science teaching should be a matter of telling children what they are to learn) also became more positive. Again, because this was a negatively worded category, it means that participants came to disagree with statements indicative of this position more after the institute than before. This also was indicative of more learner-centered attitudes toward science teaching. Similar results were obtained for category 10 (i.e. Teachers should be the authority in the classroom; they ought to be there to teach and the students should be there to learn from them). Again, this suggests a more learner-centered perception of the science classroom. Finally, after every summer institute, there was a clear increase in participants' attitudes toward category 12 (i.e. The teachers should be the sole determiners of activities; they should plan and evaluate each day's work). This increase was statistically significant (p .05) every year except for the anomalous 1998 (p = .06). The participants growing disagreement with this position indicates that they were embracing the ideals of project-based science, where students have a significant role in determining what projects they pursue in the science classroom. Because the project also focused on integrating the use of technology in project-based science, the pre-institute/post-institute questionnaire was also used to assess participants' attitudes toward computers. The computer attitudes scale was adapted from the work of Anderson, Hansen, Johnson, and Klassen (1979) and had been used successfully in previous technology-related projects. The instrument consisted of 20 Likert-type items. For individuals, a total computer attitudes score was obtained by scoring the individual items (5 points for strongly agree, 4 points for agree, and so on for positively worded items and the reverse for negatively worded items) and then totaling the item scores. This yielded a computer attitudes score of 20 (negative) to 100 (positive). Table 3 summarizes the computer attitudes results from throughout the project.

10


Lehman, et al.

Table 3. Participants' Computer Attitudes, Pre-Institute and Post-Institute Year

Pre-Institute Mean (SD)

Post-Institute Mean (SD)

t-value

Prob. (t)

1995

85.28 (8.83)

86.04 (7.64)

1.60

0.1157

1996

85.07 (8.85)

87.54 (7.92)

2.47

0.0172*

1997

88.48 (6.77)

88.88 (6.82)

0.54

0.5869

1998

84.42 (10.12)

86.51 (7.94)

1.60

0.1196

1999

85.06 (8.05)

86.18 (8.49)

1.24

0.2214

* Denotes statistically significant at p=.05 level or better

The data in Table 3 indicate that participants had positive attitudes toward computers both before and after the summer institute (corresponding to an average response between agree and strongly agree for positively worded questionnaire items). Computer attitudes were somewhat more positive after the institute when compared to before in every year of the project. However, paired samples t-tests revealed that this increase was statistically significant only in 1996. The fact that participants' attitudes were positive prior to the summer institute indicates that participants had little room for improvement. This, coupled with the relatively short duration of the institute, probably contributed to the lack of statistically significant gains in most project years. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of consistent, if minor, gains suggests that the summer institute was relatively effective with regard promoting positive views of technology and its uses in the classroom. Data were also collected to ascertain if participants learned to use particular technologies as a result of the institute. In the first two years of the project, a simple before and after checklist was used ascertain those technologies/applications with which participants were familiar. A more refined scale was used in later years to ascertain levels of participants' familiarity with various technologies. The use of these instruments showed that participants reported becoming more familiar with the word processing programs used in the summer institute (ClarisWorks, Microsoft Works, Microsoft Word), presentation software (Microsoft Powerpoint), multimedia authoring (HyperStudio), and web browsing and web page development (Claris HomePage). Participants' self-ratings suggested that they acquired technology knowledge and skills as a result of the institute. Their own use of technology as part of institute activities and in their classroom projects confirmed this perception. Participants' Perceptions of the Summer Institute Participants' reactions to the summer institutes were gathered through the use of several survey forms as well as through interviews with participants during the summer institute. At the end of the institute, an End-of-Training Survey and a Summer Institute Evaluation Form were completed by participants. In general, participants tended to have positive reactions to the institute and to the ideas presented in it.

11


Lehman, et al.

The End-Of-Training Survey gathered information concerning participants' attitudes toward the project, project-based science, and the use of technology. A portioin of the results of this survey are summarized in Table 4. As these data show, at the end of the institute, participants tended to be: satisfied with Project INSITE, enthusiastic about it, and relatively confident in being able to carry out project activities. Most participants thought the project fit their own and their school's philosophy. Participants tended to rate themselves as comfortable with project-based science and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with technology use. The Evaluation of the Summer Institute form consisted of 15 Likert-type items and 4 open-ended items. This instrument was also used to obtain participants' reactions to the institute. Likert-type items were scored 5 points for strongly agree, 4 points for agree, and so on; negatively worded items were scored in reverse. Means for each item were calculated by averaging all scores for that item. The means for items across all years of the project are summarized in Table 5. As the data in Table 5 illustrate, participants generally agreed with positively worded items and disagreed with negatively worded items. Except for responses to some items in the project's first year and, to some extent, the second year of the project, when procedures were still being worked out, participants were quite positive about the summer institute. For example, the mean for item 5 (i.e. The topics of this institute were dealt with in sufficient depth) showed disagreement in 1995 but agreement in subsequent years. Significantly, through all four years of the project, there was consistent agreement that: the science and technology content was useful (item 2), the institute instructors were effective and helpful (item 7), participants' knowledge of technology improved because of the institute (item 8), the hands-on activities were helpful and appropriate (item 9), and the training helped participants gain knowledge and grow professionally (item 14). In all four years, the participant group as a whole agreed that the Project INSITE summer institute was one of the best educational experiences they had had. Participants also had the opportunity to respond to four open-ended items concerning the best/most useful part of the institute, the worst/least useful part, comments, and suggestions for improvement. Major themes that emerged from the responses to the open-ended items across all the years of the project are shown in Table 6 in order of frequency. Participants liked the opportunity to learn about and use technology, to collaborate with colleagues, and to learn about and develop a project-based science unit. Participants generally liked the site visits to see "real" science, the workshops provided, the opportunity for hands-on activities, and the facilitators. Interestingly, site visits to see science in action were rated among the least useful as well as most useful aspects of the institute. Some participants viewed these site visits from the perspective of relevance to their personal classroom projects, rather than as an opportunity to develop an understanding of real-world science, and so rated them poorly when the content was not a good fit with their own interests. Participants also cited the lack of time and some problems with workshops (e.g., insufficient depth on some technology topics) as negatives. In addition, personality clashes contributed to isolated, but troublesome, group dynamics problems during each year of the project. The participants, in experiencing some problems with group dynamics, got to see first-hand some of the problems that can arise with group work in the classroom. So, in that sense, this negative accomplished a goal of helping the participants to see some of the problems that can arise when problem-based science is used in the classroom.

12


Lehman, et al.

13

1997

1998

1999

1. Overall, I would rate my satisfaction with the Project INSITE training as: A. very dissatisfied B. somewhat dissatisfied C. undecided D. somewhat satisfied E. very satisfied 2. Overall, I would rate my enthusiasm for Project INSITE as: A. very unenthusiastic B. somewhat unenthusiastic C. undecided D. somewhat enthusiastic E. very enthusiastic 3. Overall, I would rate my personal confidence to conduct Project INSITE activities as: A. very unconfident B. somewhat unconfident C. undecided D. somewhat confident E. very confident 4. I would rate Project INSITE's fit with my school's educational philosophy and goals as: A. very poor fit B. somewhat poor fit C. undecided D. somewhat good fit E. very good fit 5. I would rate Project INSITE's fit with my personal teaching style as: A. very poor fit B. somewhat poor fit C. undecided D. somewhat good fit E. very good fit 6. After the Project INSITE training, I would rate my own comfort level with the project-based approach to science learning as: A. very uncomfortable B. somewhat uncomfortable C. undecided D. somewhat comfortable E. very comfortable 7. After the Project INSITE training, I would rate my own comfort level with the use of technology to support teaching and learning as: A. very uncomfortable B. somewhat uncomfortable C. undecided D. somewhat comfortable E. very comfortable

1996

Survey Item

1995

Table 4. Frequencies of Participants' Responses to End-of-Training Survey Items

2 5 8 25 15

1 9 4 26 22

0 3 1 20 32

1 5 0 17 14

1 1 4 14 24

1 1 5 21 27

2 7 3 30 20

1 2 0 17 36

0 1 1 22 13

1 2 2 16 23

2 4 5 28 16

2 7 3 33 17

0 2 1 37 16

0 6 4 23 4

1 1 3 22 17

1 2 12 15 20

0 2 9 27 23

0 2 10 21 22

0 2 1 18 16

0 0 2 21 21

1 4 11 18 16

0 1 3 26 32

0 0 3 22 31

0 0 1 15 21

0 2 1 17 24

0 2 5 25 23

0 0 10 37 15

0 0 3 31 22

1 1 4 23 8

0 0 3 21 20

5 3 22 20 5

1 2 14 32 13

0 1 11 26 18

3 0 12 12 10

0 0 5 26 13


Lehman, et al.

Table 5. Evaluation of the Summer Institute Item Means Evaluation Item

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1. The objectives of the summer institute were clear to me. 2. The science and technology content was useful to me. 3. The content was clearly presented.

2.94

3.63

3.95

4.05

3.87

4.06

4.10

4.41

4.54

4.40

3.20

3.71

4.04

4.05

3.87

4. Too much information was covered for the amount of time. 5. The topics of this institute were dealt with in sufficient depth. 6. The institute did not seem well organized to me. 7. The institute instructors were effective and helpful. 8. My knowledge of the use of educational technology improved because of this institute. 9. The hands-on activities were helpful and appropriate. 10. I had sufficient opportunity to practice hands-on skills. 11. I did not have enough time to do everything that I wanted to do. 12. After this institute, I feel frustrated.

2.80

2.52

2.61

2.70

2.47

2.83

3.31

3.25

3.43

3.71

2.04

2.21

1.80

2.16

2.00

4.30

4.03

4.30

4.22

4.42

4.17

4.11

4.04

4.41

4.18

4.02

3.87

4.41

4.33

4.42

2.48

2.90

3.46

3.16

4.13

4.19

3.74

3.84

3.84

2.71

2.67

2.56

2.30

2.56

2.27

13. I do not expect this experience to have any impact on my classroom practices. 14. This training helped me to improve my knowledge and grow professionally. 15. Overall, this summer institute was one of the best educational experiences I have had.

1.44

1.60

1.45

1.49

1.44

4.39

4.16

4.50

4.27

4.56

3.76

3.34

4.04

4.00

3.93

Where: a mean of 3.00 indicates undecided; means greater than 3.00 indicate agreement, and means less than 3.00 indicate disagreement.

14


Lehman, et al.

Table 6. Common Themes from Participants' Summer Institute Evaluation Comments The best/most useful part of the summer institute was... • Learning about / using technology • Collaboration / interaction with others • Learning about project-based science method • Developing a project-based unit • Site visits / field trips to see science in action • Workshops / training provided • Facilitators • Hands-on activities / processes The worst/least useful part of the summer institute was... • Site visits / field trips to see science in action • Not enough time • Workshops / training provided • Group work • Confusion about goals / expectations I would like to comment about... • Good job by facilitators / staff • Good lunches • Problems with group work / group dynamics • Problems with some staff / facilitators • Unclear expectations / guidelines • Insufficient time for everything • High stress level In order to improve Project INSITE, I suggest... • Devote more time to technology training • Establish clearer goal / expectations in the beginning • Provide more time for project development • Resolve group dynamic difficulties • Change site visits / field trips

15


Lehman, et al.

Classroom Implementation of Project-Based Science Activities During each year of the project, participating teachers implemented project activities in their classrooms during the academic year. Refer back to Table 1 for examples of the driving questions that provided the foundation for student projects in the schools. Evaluation of the academic year activities involved: collection of participants' perceptions of the projects, review of participants' project portfolios, classroom observations, and collection of students' reactions to project activities. To collect participating teachers’ opinions about the project, open-ended questionnaires were administered at the end of the summer institute (to establish a baseline) and again at follow-up meetings during the academic year. Portfolios were collected from project teams after the completion of projects, usually in the spring. Classroom observations were made during project activities. Student data were collected after the completion of project activities in the participating classrooms. The portrait that emerges from across all four years of the project is a varied one. There was not one model for a Project INSITE project. Indeed, it was a goal of the institute to have teachers develop and have ownership of their own projects. This variability was manifest in a number of ways. For example, projects varied widely in their duration with a reported range of only one week to an entire school year. The 1995 and 1996 participants reported modal project durations of about 4 weeks. The 1997 and 1998 participants reported modal project durations of about 10 weeks. The last group, in 1999, reported modal project durations of about 6 weeks. Thus, most participants did successfully conduct multi-week projects. In addition to being multi-week in duration, projects were designed to involve multiple schools. However, interschool cooperation proved to be the exception rather than the rule. Most participants reported great difficulties in attempting to collaborate between different schools. Scheduling and communications problems tended to interfere with cross-school interchanges. Although some interschool collaboration was reported, it was far less evident than intraschool collaboration. Collaboration within schools was widely reported, with 70 - 90% of participants from 1997 through 1999 reporting that they worked with other teachers. Among the most successful projects were those where a relatively large team of teachers from the same school worked closely with one another throughout the project. In 1995-96, six teachers from one high school in northeast Indiana participated in the project. This team produced a project, dealing with soil chemistry and ecology, that was judged to be one of the best that year based on the teachers' own perceptions, classroom observations, the project portfolio, and interactions with the teacher-in-residence. The teachers, who comprised the entire science department of this small high school, were happy with the success of the project-based science approach that in the following year they completely revised the school's science curriculum to base it entirely around on project-based science. In 1996-97, eight teachers from a middle school in moderate-sized community collaborated closely. As a result of their close collaboration, the entire middle school became involved in their project on waste. They had a highly successful experience. In 1998-99, a team of six teachers from one middle school in Indianapolis collaborated extensively on an ecology project. There too, the entire school became involved in the project, and the teachers' reports as well as

16


Lehman, et al.

observation suggested that this project was very successful. In each of these cases, the project was successful from the standpoint of apparent impact on the school, teachers' perceptions, and from the evidence obtained through classroom observations and in project portfolios. Although this level of collaboration was encouraged in Project INSITE, it was not often realized. In many cases, only small teams or even individuals from schools attended the institute. The success of projects involving larger number of participants from one school, such as those given above, suggests that it is important to continue to encourage this level of commitment when teachers participate in professional development experiences. Participants' perceptions of the project and of their own project activities were gathered through the use open-ended questionnaires that were administered to participants at academic year followup meetings. Items on these questionnaires asked participants about their feelings concerning project-based science and use of technology, expected and actual uses of technology, perceived advantages and disadvantages, perceived impact on students, and so forth. Participants were also asked to comment on their feelings about project-based science and their confidence in using this method. Many of these comments reflected greater confidence and feelings of success after they had implemented projects in the classroom. Example comments from participants' survey forms included: • "I feel very comfortable using the project based science activities. The students were interested in what they were doing and excited about learning." (1995-96 participant) • "Last summer on the last day of training I didn't think there was any way I would be able to get sixth graders into project based science. It has taken about ten weeks to get through the obvious getting to know middle school for the students. During this period we've done several mini-projects which served as background information. Much to my amazement the student have, for the most part, been wildly enthusiastic about everything we've done." (1995-96 participant) • "I am certainly more positive about project-based science now than I was last summer... The children’s ability to accomplish the objectives has made a believer out of me." (199697 participant) • "Project based science has changed my entire teaching style. It has empowered me to try things I’ve never before considered. It has definitely empowered my students!" (1996-97 participant) • "I didn't know what project-based science even was until I went through Project INSITE…To me, science was very blah, now it's exciting." (1997-98 participant) • "Feelings about technology have changed for the better. I feel much more confident and learned a lot of technology with Project INSITE. The most important thing is that I'm not afraid of it anymore – I feel confident enough to sit down and learn anything." (1997-98 participant) • "I love this way of teaching -- I really got to know the students and their capabilities. This Project INSITE made me realize even more the need for project-based science." (1998-99 participant) • "I wasn't sure about this at first, but I love it now! I'd like to do two projects next year. It has made me look more closely at all of my science units." (1998-99 participant)

17


•

Lehman, et al.

"I have just started to alter my teaching style after 27 years of teaching. I realize students can teach me if I can motivate them to think of an investigative question." (1999 participant)

Participants were also asked to identify project benefits, both for their students and for themselves, as well as advantages and disadvantages of project-based science. Similar themes emerged from across the years of the project, and these are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Common Themes from Participants' Perceptions of Project Benefits, for Students and for Teachers, as well as Disadvantages Commonly Cited Benefits and Disadvantages Student benefits • Interest/enthusiasm/motivation • Learning about technology • Ownership/responsibility for own learning • Collaboration/cooperative learning skills • Learning science/scientific processes • Improved thinking skills • Improved attitudes toward science/school • Enjoyment/makes learning fun • Improved confidence/self-concept • Generally improved achievement Teacher benefits • Learning new teaching methods/teaching better • Learning more/better use technology • Teaching enjoyment/personal satisfaction • Becoming more of a facilitator/learner-centered teaching • Collaboration with others • Learning more about science • Seeing students' success • Learning/learning along with student • Improved personal confidence Disadvantages • Not enough time/time-consuming • Problems with technology/access to technology • Lack of sufficient materials and supplies • Problems covering content/interferes with regular curriculum • Classroom management problems • Difficulties with group dynamics • Poor collaboration/support of team members

18


Lehman, et al.

Comments from participants addressed many of these themes. With regard to benefits for students, some representative comments from participants included: • "It has made me more of a believer in the power of student engagement through the use of inquiry based instruction and technology, both of which are natural motivators." (1995-96 participant) • "I find students who don’t participate in school actually wanting to do something." (199697 participant) • "Students have a better grasp of the complexity of research. Students feel more confident in their science and technology skills. Students enjoyed facilitating younger students in project-based science." (1997-98 participant) • "They feel empowered. Many of them wrote on their evaluations that Project INSITE makes them feel 'smart.' I believe it is because they were in charge of their own learning." (1997-98 participant) • "The benefits to the kids experiencing this project are considerable. 'Escaping the textbook,' getting into the field, learning with new technology. Collaborating with others, and DOING real science." (1998-99 participant) • "They have taken ownership of their learning. Their pride in their work is evident. They have learned a lot, especially from the mistakes that were made! They each learned at their own level. They think science is 'cool', 'awesome', 'cooperation', 'intriguing'! Some have improved their ability to work with others." (1998-99 participant) • "They learned to divide roles and work together even if some people in their groups don't do anything." (1999 participant) • "They have learned how to create a HyperStudio stack with digitized pictures." (1999 participant) • "I saw uninterested students brought to life in this project." (1999 participant) Comments from participants regarding the benefits of the project for themselves included: • "It has made me more aware of how science should be done. Getting kids to lead the way was really different." (1995-96 participant) • "The driving questions really helped me change my focus from teacher-initiated to studentdriven. I think any time our students can take more responsibility for their learning then we are better teachers." (1996-97 participant) • "I feel that my role changed from 'teacher' to facilitator." (1997-98 participant) • "My teaching is more as facilitator rather than lecturer. I have 'let go' of the students allowing them control of their learning." (1998-99 participant) • "My teaching has changed because now we are all learning from each other instead of me lecturing and being the only one giving facts. . . I now realize, more than ever, that project activities, that are based on the essential skills and science standards, are the most motivating way to teach students. I have really grown during this INSITE project." (199899 participant) • "I have learned more about computer skills and applications. My teaching plan incorporates computers more often." (1999 participant)

19


Lehman, et al.

Finally, comments with regard to the disadvantages or limitations of this method included: • "I have observed the increased interest of students during project time, but I am still 'nervous' about the decrease in base knowledge that results because of time constraints when involved in projects -- am working on this mindset." (1995-96 participant) • "Access to the Internet remains difficult and a hurdle to overcome." (1996-97 participant) • "My concern is classroom management." (1997-98 participant) • "I am concerned about how to fit in all of the curriculum and still be able to do this." (1997-98 participant) • "I feel it is important to try project-based science with students. I felt it crucial before and after INSITE training. I found it harder than I thought to manage everything, though." (1998-99 participant) • "There were times that the appropriate technology was not available or not operating at the time." (1999 participant) To summarize, participants reported many student benefits including: high levels of student motivation, learning about technology, learning about science, development of collaborative learning skills, and student ownership of their learning among others. For themselves, the teachers cited the benefits of: learning a new instructional method, learning to use technology, learning the role of a facilitator, collaboration with colleagues, as well as general enjoyment or satisfaction among others. Disadvantages of project-based science included that it: is time consuming, can be subject to problems with technology and access to materials, may interfere with coverage of the regular curriculum, and may involve classroom management difficulties including student group dynamics. For the great majority of participants, the advantages were viewed as outweighing the disadvantages. Student Reactions To assess impact on students in participating teachers' classes, two approaches were taken during the project. In the first two years, students' attitudes toward science were assessed using a survey of student ideas about science and science learning developed at the University of Michigan (Stratford & Finkel, 1995). However, this instrument failed to provide any evidence of shifts in students' attitudes about science within the time frame of Project INSITE projects. Therefore, in the remaining years of the project, a Student Reaction Form was developed and used to gather students' opinions about the project. Each of these approaches is summarized here. From 1997-98 through the 1999 group, a Student Reaction Form developed by the evaluation team was used to gather students' reactions to the projects. This instrument consisted of two demographic items, eight Likert-type items, five semantic differential items, and five open-ended questions. The Student Reaction Form was administered by teachers to students in participating classes after the conclusion of project activities. A summary of the mean scores from this instrument for the three years it was used is given in Table 8; open-ended responses are summarized in Table 9 following.

20


Lehman, et al.

Table 8. Summary of Responses to the Student Reaction Forms Evaluation Item

1997-98 n=869

1998-99 n=883

1999 n=728

3.86

3.77

3.86

3.65

3.71

3.50

2.02

1.96

2.21

1.74

1.92

1.68

4.06

4.05

3.92

2.51

2.36

2.28

2.79

2.94

2.89

Likert-type Items 3. In this project, I feel like I learned a lot of science 4. In this project, I feel like I learned new things about using technology. 5. I would rather work by myself than work in groups. 6. I did not like the hands-on activities during the project. 7. Compared to what we usually do in school, I like this project better. 8. I do not really like studying science in school. 9. This project is okay, but it does not really relate to me and my life. 10. Because of this project, I am more confident in my ability to do science. Semantic Differential Items 11. Boring……….Exciting

3.40

3.44

3.51

2.38

2.38

2.26

12.

Challenging……….Too Easy

3.53

3.48

3.48

13.

No Fun……….Fun

2.17

2.09

1.99

14.

Worthwhile……….Waste

3.88

3.82

3.97

15.

Best……….Worst

3.65

3.62

3.75

Where: means of 3.00 indicate undecided, means greater than 3.00 indicate agreement, and means less than 3.00 indicate disagreement for the Likert type items, and, means of 3.00 indicate undecided, means greater than 3.00 indicate preference for the word on the left, and means less than 3.00 indicate preference for the word on the right for the semantic differential items

21


Lehman, et al.

Table 9. Common Responses to Open-Ended Items on the Student Reaction Form What did you like most about Project INSITE activities? • • • • • •

Hands-on activities, experiments, testing Group work / working with others Using technology (computers, software) Field trips / going outside Making products, building things Having fun

What did you like least? • • • • • • • •

Group work / group members Writing / journaling Doing research Nothing / liked everything) Time (not enough time, waiting) Doing hands-on activities, experiments Difficulties doing activities (e.g., bad weather, getting dirty) Making / doing the presentation

What was your favorite part or activity in the project? • • • •

Hands-on activities / experiments Using technology Creating things / making products Working in groups

List something you learned in the project. • • • •

Science content How to use computers / technology How to work with others Science skills

List some words that describe how you feel about the project. • • • • • • • • • •

Fun Exciting Happy Challenging Boring Good Cool Interesting Worthwhile Neat

22


Lehman, et al.

The data in Table 8 show that students agreed they learned about science (item 3) and technology (item 4). They disagreed that they preferred working by themselves (item 5) and that they did not like the hands-on activities (item 6). Students clearly liked the Project INSITE activities in comparison to their usual class activities (item 7). They tended to disagree that they didn't like studying science in school (item 8). They disagreed, but only slightly, that the project did not relate to them personally (item 9); since this item approached neutrality, it suggests students were not always convinced of the personal relevance of project activities. They agreed that the project made them more confident in their ability to do science (item 10). The semantic differential items (items 11-15) showed that students tended to view the project as: exciting, challenging, fun, worthwhile, and the best. Table 9 summarizes students' responses to the open-ended items on the Student Reaction Form. The most common responses are listed in order from most frequent to least frequent. Responses from year to year were very consistent. Student reported liking the hands-on activities, group work, and use of technology. Their most common dislikes were the group work or group members, having to write, having to do research, and not having enough time. Their overwhelming first choice as the favorite part of the activity was the hands-on activities and experiments; other selections were use of technology, getting to make things, and working in groups. When asked to name something they had learned, the overwhelming response from the students was to name something related to science content. The same words arose from each group of students, with "fun" and "exciting" appearing as the first and second most common responses each year. Comments from students on the Student Reaction Forms provided specific glimpses of the students' thinking about the projects. Example comments included: • "I liked doing a project where it was completely up to your group on how you wanted to do it. There was room for fun and creativity." (1997-89 student) • "It gave me another way to learn other than with textbooks. Also, I think I learned more like this than with a textbook." (1997-98 student) • "What I liked most about Project INSITE it was funner than just reading out of the book." (1997-98 student) • "I liked everything we did. Everything was fun. My least favorite thing could be that a few times my group didn’t get along because someone didn’t get their way." (1998-99 student) • "I loved working with computers. It was very interesting because I learned many new things. I had never made a website before so it was neat to actually see and perform this process." (1998-99 student) • "I really liked how Project INSITE let us do almost everything hands-on. I think this is a better way to teach science because the material is more likely to get implanted in your brain than if you’re studying from a textbook." (1998-99 student) • "I liked getting everything together and experimenting. I liked to see the results and liked being on a team." (1998-99 student) • "We got to learn with hands-on. And a lot of groups felt they learned a lot. I learned a lot about animals, PowerPoint, graphing and using the metric system. I like to share my opinions w/others & like to hear other people’s points of view, so I liked working in groups." (1999 student) • "I liked how you got to work your own way to find the driving questions." (1999 student)

23


Lehman, et al.

Qualitative Analysis To better examine the impact of the project in the classrooms of the participating teachers, a qualitative analysis was undertaken in 1998-99. The qualitative analysis is described below. Introduction Project-based instruction has the potential to enhance students' subject-matter knowledge and their thinking (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994). Krajcik et al. have identified several essential features of project-based instruction. I have summarized these features into three main categories. Project-based instruction (a) engages students in investigating authentic questions that drive classroom activities such as student-planned investigations; (b) results in student development of a series of artifacts, or products, that address the question, incorporate technology, and extend and amplify students' mental processes; and (c) involves collaboration between students, teachers, and community members. Methods The purpose of this section of the paper is to document evidence of these features of projectbased instruction in the classrooms of the participating teachers. The theoretical framework of cognitive constructivism (Cobb, 1994) guides this section. Cognitive constructivism generally focuses on what people learn, the processes by which they learn, and their performance insofar as it reflects their understanding. Because the section examines how and to what extent teachers assimilate or accommodate the pedagogical implications of project-based learning during a threeweek summer institute and transfer them into their classroom instruction, cognitive constructivism is fitting. I made observations of the teacher teams during the three-week summer institute and of the classroom environment during the subsequent fall and winter when projects were enacted. I visited 23 teachers from 17 participating schools in central Indiana. During both the summer institute and classroom visitations, I recorded field notes. For the summer institute, I recorded descriptions of activities and conversations the teachers were involved in. When I visited the classrooms, I wrote records that contained a description of each classroom, class activities, and teacher activities. In both cases, I also recorded my reactions and interpretations about my observations. Classroom discussions featuring teacher-student and student-student interactions were audiotaped and transcribed. When time allowed, I conducted informal, unstructured interviews of teachers and students that were also audiotaped and transcribed. These data collected during my visits to the schools served as the primary data sources. To analyze the data, I employed analytic induction (Goetz and LeCompte, 1984) in which I independently read and reread the data set to search for common patterns. Next, I analyzed the data using the features of project-based instruction outlined above. I used all other evaluation materials referenced in this paper (surveys and portfolios), e-mails, phone conversations as well as conversations with the teacher-in-residence as secondary data sources to support my findings.

24


Lehman, et al.

Findings Assertion One: Classrooms Were Engaged in Meaningful Investigations In all classrooms the driving questions formulated during the summer institute served as a basis for meaningful classroom investigations. Formulating Authentic Questions in Summer Institute The summer institute focused on understanding and formulating a driving question that fit the criteria for project-based science. Participating teachers were engaged in their own authentic investigations during the first week of the summer institute and later were involved in a three-step process of formulating driving questions that would guide the investigations in their classrooms. The teachers brainstormed a list of explorable topics within the stated school curriculum, selected a topic from this list, and formed six teams to develop appropriate driving questions. Each team chose a name to represent themselves and their topic; the six names were the Aquamorphs (A), Eco-Detectives (ED), Gems (G), La Nina (LN), Perpetual Inertia (PI), and Popcycles (P). Project INSITE staff assisted in the team meetings to help groups develop questions that would meet the components of driving questions outlined by Krajcik et al. (1994). Good driving questions are (a) feasible (students can design and perform investigations to answer the question), (b) worthwhile (containing rich science content, relating to what scientists really do and easily broken down into smaller questions), (c) contextualized (related to and important in the real world), and (d) meaningful (interesting and exciting to learners). The process of formulating a driving question was a thoughtful and time-consuming process. For instance, one group of teachers involved in the project chose to work on the topic of ecosystems. In an initial team meeting, the group put together a concept map that they continued to modify during subsequent meetings. The Earth's ecosystem was the central component and subcategories such as biodiversity, soil, economics, human impact, interactions, populations, and interdependence were added. After three one-hour long team meetings, the teachers refined the subtopics and generated a broad driving question (How do the various components of an ecosystem interact?) to address them. These sessions led one team member, a middle school math teacher, to comment: I didn't understand what an ecosystem was or how it works before I began this discussion. Now after doing the web, I do! (Field notes, 6/25) Because of the time dedicated to understanding and collaborating during the development of driving questions, teachers left the summer institute with questions and project plans for classroom enactment based on these questions that were feasible, worthwhile, contextualized, and meaningful. The questions were as follows: •How do changes in our watershed affect the ecosystem? (A) •How does water shape our earth? (G) •How do forces change motion? (PI) •How do the various components of an ecosystem interact? (ED) •What are the causes and effects of populations? (P) •What are the causes and effects of weather? (LN)

25


Lehman, et al.

Enactment of Investigations In most classrooms that I visited, activities suggested that children were or had been engaged in self-directed investigations to address these driving questions. I was especially interested in seeing how teachers were fostering student motivation to learn science and enhancing students' cognitive engagement with science content. My visits to the classrooms allowed me to see projects in various stages of enactment (see Table 10). For ease of description, I classified these stages as: pre-activities, investigative activities, or presentations. I will focus on each of these stages in the following section. Pre-activities In the summer institute, pre-activities were defined as activities that introduce the students to the process of doing "real" science allowing them to "get their feet wet." Ideally, the driving question provides the backdrop for pre-activities and may include group building activities, introduction to technology and science equipment, brainstorming sessions, pre-investigations, and reflections. In three schools I visited, I observed students engaged in pre-activities. At one elementary school, two teachers, Joan and Molly (pseudonyms), were collaborating with their second and third graders beginning an investigation of a school-site wetland for the driving question "How do changes in our watershed affect the ecosystem?" Joan and Molly had divided the children into mixed groups of second and third graders. Each group had previously chosen a small parcel of land. They were identifying the native plants that lived in that parcel by comparing them with information they had found on the Internet and writing down these findings in group journals. That each group of children was responsible for a particular section of the wetland habitat was particularly meaningful. One group, the Five Wetland Musketeers, told me they had identified rice cut grass, fairy aster, and creeping spike rush in "their spot." The feelings of ownership that were fostered in this activity were also evident in the second and third graders' responses to the final student surveys. When asked "What did you like most about the Project INSITE activity?" eleven out of the forty children stated that this pre-activity was their favorite part: I liked picking our spots in the wetland. (Ryan, 2nd grader) I liked most putting out the stake. (Jenna, 3rd grader) In other classrooms, pre-activities served not only as a means of developing ownership but also introducing students to planning and carrying out a "trial" investigation. With grant money, one middle school science teacher, Victor, was able to establish a nature center on school property over the summer with a wetland, marsh, pond, and flowing stream. A variety of plants and animals were quickly established by the onset of the school year. When I visited, his two classes of students were sharing results of the trial investigations that focused on the populations that were showing up in the nature center. Victor found that these investigations were helpful to students in various ways. Students became familiar with available science equipment, learned to use software programs, and improved their presentation techniques.

26


Lehman, et al.

Table 10. Observed Activities during Scheduled Visitations. Teacher A1 Jackie

Observed Activity Small group meetings: collection and discussion of data; recounting of chat room forum with A2's class

A2 Sally

Small group meetings: brainstorming investigative questions

A3 Joan

Large group meeting: discussion of walking tour of wetland and plant identification Small group meetings: plant identification and journal writing

A4 Molly

Same as A3 (collaboration between classes)

A5 Pat

Large group meeting: teacher led hands-on water testing lesson

ED1 Ann

Large group meeting: students and teacher shared ideas, original and refined plans for investigations

ED2 Kathy

Small group meeting: compiling information and composing PowerPoint presentations Large group meeting: presentation of a group's completed PowerPoint

G1 Beth

Large group meeting: review of criteria for driving questions Small group meeting: choosing and refining driving questions, planning procedures

G2 Polly

Small group meetings: setting up investigations and collecting data

LN1 Stacey

Small group meetings: collecting data, writing up investigation

LN2 Tom

Small group meetings: constructing web pages

PI1 Jean

Large group meeting: PowerPoint presentations

27


Lehman, et al.

Table 10, continued. Teacher PI2 Terri

Observed Activity Same as PI1 (collaboration between classes)

PI3 Frank

Small group meetings: students engaged in testing and collecting data, reflecting on group participation

PI4 Nellie

Small group meetings: testing and collecting data

PI5 Cassie

Small group meetings: retesting, putting together poster

PI6 Meredith P1 Alex

Small group meetings: forces in the constitution

P2 Victor

Large group meetings: students giving PowerPoint presentation

P3 Leslie

Small group meetings: planning investigations, looking for background information in library and on the Internet Large group meetings: summarizing activities for the day

P4 Charlie

Small group meetings: students planning websites

P5 Mike

Large group meetings: students giving PowerPoint presentation

P6 James

Small group meetings: students planning investigations, looking up background information on the Internet

Small group meetings: students searching for background information on the Internet and designing PowerPoint presentations

Note: Teachers are identified by pseudonyms and letters that indicate driving questions and arbitrarily assigned numbers to distinguish group members from one another. A=Aquamorphs, ED=Eco-Detectives, G=Gems, LA=La Nina, PI=Perpetual Inertia, P=Popcycles

28


Lehman, et al.

Similarly, evidence of a classroom of fourth graders' engagement in pre-activities to explore the driving question "What are the causes and effects of weather?" was situated in the hallway when I came to see the children's investigations. A long table with student constructed barometers, rain gauges, and other weather instruments stood outside. (Field notes, 11/3) The teacher, Stacey, explained that she had assigned her students to make a weather instrument at home and use it to measure and record data for 7 consecutive days. Her rationale for using this activity was to inspire ownership in learning while helping children to understand the significance of recording and interpreting observations. A copy of the assignment was sent home to parents: I have provided the students with some do-it-yourself information on how to make these instruments. They are not too difficult and use items that can be found around the house. They are to choose only one that they would like to do. (Stacey, Portfolio) These three classrooms' pre-activities typified activities suggested by most project plans. During the summer institute, each teacher group had brainstormed ideas for pre-activities and written them in the group project plan. Several teacher portfolios documented that fostering student ownership as well as acquainting students with the investigative process was an essential component of the pre-activities. One teacher commented: I would like to plan more time next year for pre-activities. I feel the project would run more smoothly in the spring, after the students have knowledge of basic scientific tools, terminology, and hands-on experience. (Kathy, Reflection) In only one classroom I observed, pre-activities were used in a didactic rather than interactive manner. In this classroom, children were learning about water testing by testing water samples from home for the presence of chlorine and other chemicals. Although the students were sitting in large groups of eight to ten students, the students were testing as individuals rather than as groups. The teacher was dispensing information step-by-step rather than having the students seek out information to help themselves understand the science content. When asked about her pedagogy, this teacher showed me the preplanned water testing unit her school had purchased. This is how she planned to follow through with the INSITE activities in her classroom. Investigations I feel the most valuable lesson I learned from Project INSITE is that science is not a list of facts that are to be memorized but a process of how to do something or find something out. (Stacey, Portfolio) In twelve of the twenty-three classrooms that I visited, I observed students actively involved different stages of the investigative process. These stages were: (a) generating and refining investigative questions, (b) planning "fair" investigations, and (c) interpreting knowledge gleaned from the investigations. In all cases, students were engaged in authentic science, thinking for themselves, working together, and gaining science process and content knowledge. Generating and refining investigative questions. After students have spent time engaged in pre-activities and have begun to wonder about scientific phenomena, their curiosity is piqued and they can be motivated to ask questions. In this next section, we will see how students were encouraged to generate and refine investigative questions in the Project INSITE classrooms.

29


Lehman, et al.

Sally, a teacher in a rural town, was helping two classes of fifth and sixth grade students brainstorm possible investigative questions to address the driving question, "How do changes in our watershed affect the ecosystem?" After visiting and exploring the school-based pond ecosystem, each group of students focused their study on either a biotic or abiotic component of the ecosystem. One group, the Watermorphs, was interested in finding out more about the water in the pond. They spent some time generating questions based on their interests while the teacher prompted them with questions about feasibility of testing their ideas. After selecting one or two possible investigative questions, the groups were sent to one of the four computers in the class to find background material on the Internet. In another classroom, Beth, a 6th grade teacher in a rural school, was having her students refine their list of investigative questions that had been generated in an earlier class meeting. The questions were subsidiaries of the driving question, "How does water shape the earth?" The teacher used the criteria suggested in the Project INSITE institute. That is, she asked the students to think about whether their investigative question: (a) helped answer the driving question, (b) was testable, (c) used available equipment, (d) could be answered in the time given, and (e) was unique. One group, the Soil Suds, explored their eight possible questions using these criteria. The eight questions as recorded by the students were: How dose aset rain go thrue and eat lime stone? How much rain dose it take to cause a mude slide? How tall could grass get in five days? How dose wind blow? How many rocks are ther in the world? Where does a rainbow start? How much water can dirt or clay hold? How will (our city) change in three days? (John, Bobby, and Robby, Group notebook) After applying the criteria the students narrowed their question to "How much water can dirt or clay hold?" The students struggled because they had to think about whether the criteria applied to their particular question. Evidence of their struggle was recorded in their "Daily Reflections" that they kept in their group notebook: It was fun trying to thank of hard questions. (Bobby, 10/29) I felt made because it was hard thanking of questions. (John, 10/29) I felt mad because I thought and could not think of questions. (Ronny, 10/29) After beginning the actual investigation, John recounted that the struggle was worth the effort: We worked together on figuring out what are question was. I felt good because we got something done. (John, 11/2) In both of these classrooms, students were challenged to generate their own questions. Each teacher played a critical role in her respective classroom helping students through the struggle of refining their questions for investigation so that they were feasible and meaningful.

30


Lehman, et al.

Planning investigations. In an environmental education class for adult learners, struggles were evident as students began to design their experiments. These students had identified the questions they wanted to explore before my arrival, but were in the processes of planning and thinking about their investigations. The four students took turns explaining their written plans. One of these investigations involved large hissing cockroaches and the type of light they would prefer. The teacher, Ann, asked a series of prompting questions to focus the students about thinking about fair testing: Ann: Go back to your procedure. How will you separate the lights? Jason: We will use three chambers with holes between them so roaches can pass from chamber to chamber. Ann: What do you think will happen? Jason: If the bugs are given a choice between the different lights they will prefer the one that is most like their natural environment. Ann: Are the rest of you okay with Jason's hypothesis? Is it specific enough? (Field notes, 11/25) The students spent some time talking about Jason's hypothesis and the experimental plan. Ann encouraged the students to think about the difference between the manipulated conditions (different color of lights) and the controlled conditions (food, air, intensity of light) in the experiment. The students then applied these differences when they examined the other experiments they would be setting up with the hissing cockroaches. Interpreting results of investigations. The next three classroom examples are situations in which I observed students beginning to make sense of data that they were acquiring in their investigations. The range of investigations shows the breadth of applications of one driving question "How do forces affect motion?" in various classrooms and the content knowledge that can be gleaned from interpreting results. In one 6th grade classroom, students had selected their questions and generated fair testing situations. Their teacher, Frank, had assured me in a telephone conversation that "developing a fair test" was one goal of his instruction. Testing was underway when I arrived for my visit. It was obvious when I walked in the classroom that Frank, a first year teacher, had embraced project-based science in the summer institute. Investigations in various stages of completion were littered around the room. When students returned from lunch, they quickly resumed testing both inside and outside the classroom. In the classroom, one group tested whether different shaped cars traveled at different rates down plastic tracks. Outside, one group dropped water balloons from a ladder into a bucket of water to see how the dropping height affected the size of the splash while another group tested if the angle that a "stomp rocket" was projected affected the distance it flew. The outcome of Project INSITE in this classroom went beyond giving students the opportunities to formulate questions, design tests, and investigate. Students were learning content knowledge as well. For instance, in Frank's class, when asked to respond to the end of project survey question, "List something you learned from the project," approximately half of the students listed content-based responses: How the angle of take-off affects distance. (Jason, Survey)

31


Lehman, et al.

I learned that different aerodynamically shaped cars travel at different speeds down ramps. (Sally, Survey) The different weight of a water balloon affects the splash. (Katie, Survey) The angle at which an object is set off affects how far it goes. (Josh, Survey) That stomp rockets go the farthest at 45 degrees. (Kelly, Survey) Another classroom investigating this driving question was composed of 4th and 5th grade students in a multi-age classroom. The groups in this class had completed their investigations and were composing posters. During this time the students explained their projects to me. Some of the different projects were: (a) testing balloons filled with helium, hydrogen, and air to see how long they would stay in the air, (b) testing how water rushes down different tracks of bubble wrap, carpet, or sandpaper, and (c) trying different experiments to determine how shape affects an object's ability to float or sink. This last group, the "Sinkers," was not only proud of their discoveries, but had acquired knowledge of fair testing and Archimedes' principle in the process of investigating their question. The group of six students had found that when flat plastic blocks were taped together in different formations their ability to float was affected. The students explained that they could not use the formula, density equals mass divided by volume, to determine which configurations of blocks would float or sink. Instead, they had found that the distribution of mass and how much surface area was exposed to the water determined the configurations that would sink or float. This represents quite sophisticated thinking for fourth and fifth graders! Some of the most sophisticated constructing and testing occurred in a small rural high school classroom in southern Indiana addressing the same driving question, "How do forces affect motion?" The teacher, Nellie, encouraged her students to investigate questions they were interested in and guided them as they built a hot air balloon made of tissue paper, a Ferris wheel made of straws and spools, similarly designed rockets with different masses, and battery powered motor boats. Perhaps the most impressive demonstration in this classroom was when three female students explained how to manipulate sound quality using plastic canisters of various sizes and a speaker cone from an old radio. The students explained their interest in car stereos to me and how they learned to make different types of "woofers" by experimenting with sound in Nellie's class. In too many classrooms, teachers and textbooks "do science" for the students. In the twelve classrooms I observed that were involved in investigations, this was not the case. In these classrooms, students were asking their own questions, planning their investigations, collecting and interpreting data, and revising their experiments as needed. Teacher guidance was evident, but as a means of supporting students rather than doing the work for them. Presentations Besides engaging students in pre-activities and investigations, project-based science provides students with opportunities to communicate with an audience about their findings. Whether it be through oral or written means, presentations can motivate students and give their work meaning. In eight of the classrooms that I visited, students were creating or giving presentations to share the results of their investigations. Technology, particularly the use of software programs such as

32


Lehman, et al.

Claris Homepage, PowerPoint, and Hyperstudio were being implemented in seven of the eight presentations. Two classrooms were involved with constructing web pages during my scheduled visit. In one of the classrooms, the Project INSITE teacher-in-residence, Matt, was assisting the classroom teacher, Tom, to instruct the students in his eighth grade social studies class to use Claris Homepage. Matt started with the basics: Open a new document, this is your title page. Type your team name at the top of your document. Make a table, two columns down and three rows across. This will be used as a chart with links to eventually link your other pages to. (Field notes, 11/10) By the end of the class period students were comfortably completing the links to pages that would report their group findings to the research project "What are the causes and effects of weather?" Thirty-eight of the 53 students participating in Tom's class reported in the end of project survey that constructing web pages was their favorite part of the project. I loved working with computers. It was very interesting because I learned many new things. I had never made a web site before so it was neat to actually see and perform this process. (Tammy, Survey) These products were later posted on the Project INSITE web site. In other classrooms students were using PowerPoint to either create or present the results of their investigations. In one of these classrooms, Kathy, a sixth grade teacher, was helping her students identify what would go on their slides. Kathy had the students outline the information gleaned from their investigations on paper templates before entering it into the computer. As they collaborated in small groups of two or three, students were rethinking the important steps in their investigations that helped them to answer the driving question, "How do the various components of the ecosystem interact?" After completing their templates, students entered the information into the PowerPoint program using laptop computers that Kathy had received for her classroom courtesy of a grant from an Indiana Department of Education. On the day I visited, I was able to see one of Kathy's student groups present their information using PowerPoint. One member of the group had been so intrigued by the PowerPoint program that he asked his father to help him and his group members complete the presentation at home. After impressing classmates with their presentation, this group circulated through the classroom during the period and helped other students with questions they had about PowerPoint. I also visited middle school students in a parochial school who had compiled the results of their investigations using Hyperstudio. The presentations took place in the school library, a small room in the basement of the school that housed a media system consisting of a computer attached to a television monitor. Three classes of students viewed the presentations. The students were required to include six components in their presentations: (a) a title screen, (b) a hypothesis, (c) an explanation of the experiment, (d) a graph of the data, (e) a picture or drawing, and (f) a conclusion. Ally, Josh, and Lauren's Hyperstudio presentation began with the title screen: How does the shape of an object affect its trajectory? On successive Hyperstudio cards enhanced with color, graphics, and sound, the students shared the other components of their investigation. For instance, they predicted that streamlined objects would travel farther in a

33


Lehman, et al.

shorter time and referred to how the shape of automobiles has changed from the early part of the century using pictures. The students explained how they tested their hypothesis by cutting and weighing clay and then forming it into different shapes: cube, carrot, spiral, and flat. Graphs displayed the results of the different tests including the finding that the streamlined objects went farthest. Similarly, Kate, Jean, and Megan explained their results to the question: What effect does the size of a parachute have on the rate of a falling object? The students tested different sized parachutes by dropping them from the church balcony and timing their descent. Digital pictures enhanced this presentation showing other students how to recreate the testing situation. Overall, these middle school students were excited about sharing their project ideas with their classmates. Summary of Assertion One Teachers carried the driving questions formulated in the summer institute into their respective classroom environments inspiring student-driven projects. I noted evidence of these projects in all classrooms that I visited in one of three aforementioned contexts: (a) pre-investigations, (b) investigations, and (c) presentations. These projects, for the most part, met the criteria of projectbased science, that is, they were investigations that were feasible, worthwhile, contextualized, and meaningful.

Assertion Two: Artifacts Conveyed Understanding Information gleaned from both teachers and students was assembled and presented in both artifacts and portfolios. These data represented teacher and students' work and emerging understandings of project-based science. Products of Project-based Science in the Summer Institute As stated earlier, one of the hallmarks of project-based science is the production of a series of products that address the investigative question, incorporate technology, and extend and amplify students' mental processes. These artifacts can be presented to and critiqued by others -students, teachers, parents, and community members -- in formal presentations as described in the culmination of the previous section, or in less formal settings embedded throughout the project. As a result of artifact development, learners can reflect on and revise their ideas, thereby enriching their knowledge. For the teachers involved in the summer institute, artifact development took place in two spheres. One sphere was in small group investigations that addressed the driving question "What is in our water and how does it get there?" The other sphere was the teachers' engagement in the exploration of the pedagogy of project-based science as they prepared their investigative plans for the following school year. In the first sphere, during their investigation of a local watershed, teachers created a series of artifacts that documented their progress. In the beginning of the project, each group of teachers presented their initial plan to their peers to be critiqued. This encouraged each group to reflect on and revise their plans. At the end of the project, each group created a PowerPoint presentation that documented their investigation noting the revised plan, hypothesis and predictions, procedure

34


Lehman, et al.

for collecting and analyzing data, and findings. These presentations included textual accounts and in some cases digital pictures, graphics, data tables, and information accessed from the Internet. In the second sphere, products were collected from both individual teachers and groups as they developed classroom plans. Individually, teachers wrote reflections, sketched concept maps, and made notes regarding various pedagogical topics such as authentic assessment, scoring rubrics, and cooperative learning. For example, many teachers expressed aspirations, questions, and concerns in their individual reflections: Giving kids complete freedom can be scary. I worry about keeping them on task. I worry about conflicts within groups. I also worry about the kid who refuses to cooperate. I know how to deal with this in a regular setting, but will that work in project-based education? (Mike, Reflection) Comments like Mike's were shared later in group sessions as a way to voice concerns about things such as cooperative learning and discipline. Often the ideas expressed were incorporated into concept maps generated during planning sessions. Institute pedagogical workshops provided ideas and an impetus to brainstorm possible solutions to alleviate some of these questions and concerns. These solutions were addressed in the written plan of each group. For instance, the Popcycles group included a series of "ice-breakers" as well as the construction of a class charter in their plan. The purpose of these activities was to introduce and hold the students accountable for cooperative learning within their groups. In collaboration with the assigned facilitator, the products of group planning sessions were presented to peers in a final presentation using PowerPoint and Claris Homepage. These plans can be viewed from the Project INSITE web site by accessing the "Scale" link. Artifacts Produced during Classroom Enactment Implementation of Project INSITE in the classrooms led to both students' and teacher artifacts. As noted in the previous section of this report entitled "Investigations," teachers provided a variety of opportunities for students to express what they were learning as they engaged in project-based science (see Table 11). Teachers collected and presented examples of these artifacts as well as their own reflections in portfolios at the completion of their project. Student artifacts took various forms: notebooks, journals, self-reflections and evaluations, written plans, model making, posters, and presentations. Typical of project-based science, the production of artifacts was embedded in the instruction and contextualized within the students' investigations. For instance, some teachers used pre-assessment concept maps or other types of graphic organizers to assess students understanding before beginning investigations. Many teachers used student journals and reflections to document the progress of students as they undertook their investigations and secured information. Digital and analog photographs, as well as drawings taken by students and teachers, added depth and completeness to written accounts. In addition, some classrooms utilized model-building as a means of constructing understanding. Functional models of weather instruments, simple machines, and aircraft served as artifacts in

35


Lehman, et al.

other classrooms. Students especially enjoyed the "hands-on" encounters with materials that this model-making provided. Well, our driving question was “What kind of boat will hold the most coffee beans.” And we got to make the boats out of Styrofoam, and we got cardboard, poster board, foil, and mud. I really enjoyed making the mud boat and trying to make it float. (Tammy, Survey) Finally, upon completion of their investigations, 21 out of the 24 teachers observed had students engage in some type of technology project -- using PowerPoint, Hyperstudio, or creation of a web page via Claris Homepage -- as a culminating project. A number of these projects can be viewed by accessing the Project INSITE web site. For 195 of the 837 students involved in the project, this use of technology was the most memorable part of their project. In most classrooms, these technology-based culminating projects detailed the students' investigations in a manner consistent with "the scientific method." That is, students explained their questions, hypotheses, procedures for gathering information, findings, and conclusions. Some teachers also had the students reflect upon their project by discussing their triumphs and pitfalls. Many teachers had students present their projects to a larger group, including other classrooms and parents, using the technology. Teachers used portfolios as a means to document the projects that occurred in their classrooms. Portfolios included both student artifacts, such as those described above, as well as teachers' reflections and ideas as they enacted the project. Because of the breadth of classrooms represented, these portfolios were important documentation of the: (a) curriculum targets addressed and met by project-based science, (b) active investigations that occurred, and (c) collaborative activities sustained during the project.

36


Lehman, et al.

Table 11. Classroom Products. Teacher A1 Jackie

Collaboration Student journals Chatroom conversation PowerPoint Presentation Portfolio

A2 Sally

Student journals Student theatrical presentation PowerPoint Presentation Posters Portfolio

A3 Joan

Student journals PowerPoint presentation Posters Portfolio

A4 Molly

Same as A3

A5 Pat ED1 Ann

Student journals PowerPoint presentation Research reports Posters Portfolio

ED2 Kathy

Student journals PowerPoint presentation Posters Portfolio

G1 Beth

Student journals Student reflections PowerPoint presentation E-mail dialog Research reports Posters Portfolio

37


Lehman, et al.

Table 11, continued. Teacher G2 Polly

Collaboration Student journals PowerPoint presentation Research reports Posters Portfolio

LN1 Stacey

Student journals PowerPoint presentation Webpages Research reports Posters Digital pictures Portfolio Webpages Research reports Portfolio

LN2 Tom

PI1 Jean

PI2 Terri

Student journals Hyperstudio presentations Research reports Poetry Posters Digital pictures Portfolio Same as PI1 (classroom collaboration)

PI3 Frank

Student reflections PowerPoint presentation

PI4 Nellie

Student journals PowerPoint presentations Student-made structures (rockets, hot air balloon, etc.)

PI5 Cassie

Student journals PowerPoint presentations Posters Classroom newspaper Digital pictures Portfolio

PI6 Meredith

Same as PI5 (classroom collaboration)

38


Lehman, et al.

Table 11, continued. Teacher P1 Alex

Collaboration Student journals Digital pictures E-mail dialog Portfolio

P2 Victor

Student journals PowerPoint presentations Portfolio

P3 Leslie P4 Charlie P5 Mike

Student journals

P6 James

Student journals Digital pictures PowerPoint presentation Portfolio

Webpages PowerPoint presentation Posting to website

Note: Teachers are identified by letters that indicate driving questions and arbitrarily assigned numbers to distinguish group members from one another. A=Aquamorphs, ED=Eco-Detectives, G=Gems, LA=La Nina, PI=Perpetual Inertia, P=Popcycles

Assertion Three: The Existence of Collaboration Teachers incorporated collaboration into the enactment of their project-based science activities. Small group collaboration within the classroom was more extensive than other types of collaboration.

Collaboration in the Summer Institute Collaboration on a project involves more than sharing work or dividing responsibilities. It requires exchanging ideas and negotiating meaning. Krajcik, Czerniak, and Berger (1999) define collaboration as "a joint intellectual effort of students, peers, teachers, and community members to investigate a question or problem" (p. 131). The Project INSITE summer institute was facilitated in this spirit. From the onset, teachers collaborated with other teachers, Project INSITE staff, and community members, first by engaging in a model investigation and later by designing their own classroom projects. The driving question "What's in our water and how does it get there?" kicked off the model investigations during the first week of the institute. Teachers designed plans, collected data in 39


Lehman, et al.

local watersheds, and analyzed results in small groups with Project INSITE staff serving as facilitators. The groups also built PowerPoint presentations to share their findings. Eleven of the thirty-eight participants in the summer institute claimed that these group experiences were the most valuable part of the institute. I enjoyed working with other teachers during the first week of this institute. I liked the idea of making a model presentation to be used for my faculty as well as for myself when directing my students on how to present their projects. (Sheila, Survey) The most valuable part of the institute was the group development of project during the first week and engaging in activity - as kids would do. (Martin, Survey) The best part was forming a collaborative team to work with, the model groups - going out and collecting data, and incorporating them into the classroom. (Ben, Survey) During the second week, the participants began to plan their classroom projects around the group-designed driving question as described in an earlier section of this report. For most groups, these experiences were positive and provided teachers with support, ideas, and confidence. For example, in one discussion of the GEMS group, a social studies teacher, Becky, was concerned with how the driving question "How does water shape our earth?" could be addressed from an interdisciplinary angle. Responding to this concern Polly, a science teacher, expressed in exasperation: I am not sure I can integrate social studies into my science classroom. I don't have any social studies materials. It's hard enough doing science without materials. Do we have to have chemical testing? (Field notes, 6/25) Other members of the group encouraged both Becky and Polly to look at the possibilities rather than the shortcomings of the project and mentioned community support as a means of gaining access to chemical tests and interdisciplinary links. The teachers valued these types of conversations. I also enjoyed being regarded as a professional, having other professionals listen to my ideas the opportunity to discuss, choose, and improve ideas with other teachers. (Sally, Survey) The group experiences also foreshadowed some of the difficulties that students would have collaborating during their project. Some groups struggled with too few or too many members, personality problems, or competing ideas. For instance, only four members were interested in working on the question "What are the causes and effects of weather?" During the formulation of their project, a tornado hit one of the four member's school resulting in significant damage and understandable distraction from the project. This led one of the La Nina team members to comment about the group. Four people is too small, especially if one or two members are not “team people” and do not contribute much. Our project is workable and I am pleased that I have a project I know will be a success. I do feel it would’ve been beneficial to have at least five people. It was extremely difficult to plan and I felt the project could’ve been better had I had more help with it from more people. (Stacey, Survey)

40


Lehman, et al.

Another group, Perpetual Motion, had nine members. Consequently, the group was overwhelmed by both competing ideas for topics to be addressed by their driving question, "How do forces change motion?" and content the students should "know" at the end of the unit. The group brainstormed a list that included the following topics: Scientific method, speed/velocity/acceleration, graphing/data tables, Newton's Laws, potential and kinetic energy, gravity, friction, terminal velocity, simple machines, mass versus weight, metric system (Field notes, 6/25) The teachers were unable to agree on the content to be emphasized by their driving question. Some thought that all the members had to address the same topics in the same way. Others wanted to be open to the children's interests and adopt a more flexible plan. Although this conflict arose when discussing science content, communication regarding interdisciplinary content and technology integration was strained as well. Toward the end the summer institute, the group members reconciled their differences and were able to present a coherent plan to their peers. Although the group dynamics were frustrating, the situation did provide an opportunity for Cassie and Meredith, two fifth grade teachers from the same school, to create a successful plan to collaborate during the following year. Meredith commented: I wasted valuable time being frustrated by the group process. The conflict within our group was overwhelming. However, this ended up being a strength as well, thanks to my “partner." As a result we grew as a team and created a new dimension to our relationship for affirming each of our roles and abilities. (Survey) Gaining an understanding of the role of a facilitator was an important outcome of the collaboration between teacher participants and the Project INSITE staff members. Each group was paired with a staff member who led group planning sessions. Staff members had an important role of facilitating the teacher groups by modeling the responsibilities the teachers would have when they implemented the project in their classrooms. Each staff member played a dual role -that of a collaborator who shared and debated ideas, negotiated meaning, and took risks as well as that of the instructor who organizes instructional events and keeps the group focused on the goal of the project (Krajcik et al., 1999). One Project INSITE facilitator, Ellen, led the GEMS in several brainstorming sessions to help the group plan their project around the driving question, "How does water shape our earth?" In the first meeting, Ellen encouraged the group to create a concept web to examine possible directions the student projects may take in the classroom setting. In later meetings she inspired the group to explore possible investigative questions, anticipate probable pitfalls in implementing project-based science in the classroom, and think about the knowledge each particular group of children would bring to the classroom. She kept a reminder on the chalkboard for herself and her group members to revisit at each planning session. The reminder stated: Things to look at... Group web Timeline/schedule Criteria for investigative questions Skills

41


Lehman, et al.

Artifacts Resources Standards The group was frustrated when Ellen could not produce an immediate solution for their questions or concerns. However, by the end of the institute Ellen's modeling helped the GEMS to appreciate the pedagogy of project-based science, namely, teaching science by engaging learners in real-world problems rather than leading "cookbook" laboratories with single right answers. In response to the survey question, "I would like to comment about..." one GEMS group member singled out: ...the positive knowledgeable facilitators like Ellen that have helped put our entire project together. Their willingness to direct, instruct, encourage, and lead my group to complete a project that I can use was excellent and professional. (Beth) Besides group collaboration between institute participants and facilitators, community support was modeled by the Project INSITE staff as well. To address the driving question "What's in our water and how does it get there" project leaders scheduled three field trips to help acquaint participants with "real science" in action. The added benefit of these trips was that they provided background knowledge and examples of resources teachers could refer to when implementing the projects in their classrooms. Some of the scheduled field trips were to Eli Lilly, United States Weather Service, Twin Bridges Landfill, United States Geological Survey, White River North Water Treatment Facility, and Dow Elanco. Teachers enjoyed these trips and were encouraged by the work of real scientists and their work in a community setting: I really enjoyed visiting scientists in the field, observing how they work and what they do. It was a golden opportunity. (Sheila, Survey) They were also encouraged by how the facilitators handled difficult group members. Field trips were exceptional. Staff was very supportive when there were group dynamic problems - good modeling. (Jan, Survey) Group partnerships with peers, Project INSITE facilitators, and community members helped participants to appreciate the value of collaboration. Many times during the three-week institute teachers engaged in collaborative learning among themselves or with facilitators or community members. Successful partnerships maintained high levels of equality and mutuality; that is, participants all contributed knowledge and skills to the group's effort, and they worked to answer the same question. Situations that failed to create understanding or establish high levels of mutuality and equality helped teachers to appreciate the difference between physically working in groups and working collaboratively, and to carry this knowledge back to their classrooms. Collaboration during Classroom Enactment During enactment of the project in the classrooms, collaboration took many forms (see Table 12). The most predominant form of collaboration that I observed occurred within the classroom and was exemplified in teacher-student facilitation and within-class small group collaboration. In some cases, collaboration existed within a particular school. This was the case when two or more teachers from the same school had been trained by Project INSITE and were working together. Or, in some school communities, a Project INSITE participant was utilizing a school-based

42


Lehman, et al.

project site, such as an ecosystem or wetland, thus motivating other classrooms to get involved in the investigations and learn about Project INSITE. Collaboration with community experts via field trips, guest speakers, university students, or assistance from Project INSITE staff was also evident. Perhaps the least common form of collaboration was among teacher participants themselves. Although some classrooms communicated via e-mail and chat rooms or posted web sites to inform other Project INSITE classrooms of their progress in answering the driving question, sustained collaboration among teachers or students from different school sites was not evident. Collaboration Within the Classroom Collaboration within the classroom was exemplified by teacher-student facilitation and withinclass small group collaboration. In these cases teachers were actively working to create collaborative environments in their classrooms that were typified by their teaching approaches such as the establishment of student groups. During classroom visits, I noted most teachers acting as facilitators, collaborating with the students by helping them to think of questions, design investigative plans, analyze data, procure materials needed to follow through with their investigation, or provide instruction to master a particular skill such as using a balance, microscope, PowerPoint, or the Internet. For example, one group of fourth graders who were investigating the question "What are the causes and effects of weather?" had collected data for several weeks and the teacher was anxious for them to begin making sense of it. She led a discussion in which she had each group work together for about twenty minutes to answer these questions and write them in a group journal. How is data reflecting your hypothesis? What do you think about this? Why do you think it may be different? What might be some of the causes? (Field notes, 11/3) Besides teacher-student collaboration, I also noted that small groups were directing the projects in twenty-two of the twenty-three classrooms. In the fourth grade classroom noted above, the students were eager to share with me the preliminary results of their investigations. The students led me on a tour of their school. The tour meandered through the fourth grade wing visiting first a broom closet with plants and a humidifier, then a janitor's quarters with more plants and dehumidifiers, and finally the blacktop on the playground outside. When I spoke to the individual groups of students, all were familiar with their project plan and comfortable sharing information with me. Besides collaborating on investigations, some classrooms used large group collaboration as a means to critique each other's work. Victor, a middle school science teacher, had his students plan and present "trial investigations" before beginning the "real" investigations. Students' evaluations of their peers served as a starting point to improve the subsequent investigations. Victor noted: Upon completion of the trial projects, each team made their presentations to the class. During these presentations the class was encouraged to make positive criticism of the various groups. Most groups were not that well organized and read things off the screen. There were groups with personality problems and did not work well together. It was after these evaluations that we were ready to pursue the main investigative question. (Reflection)

43


Lehman, et al.

Grouping students effectively and encouraging students to evaluate the participation of their group members was an aspect of collaborative learning that was seen in many classrooms as well. Both teachers and students admitted that collaborative learning was a challenge because of the different interests, personalities, learning styles, attention spans, and maturity of the members of a group. Jackie, an elementary science specialist working with a classroom teacher, wrote: We (the classroom teacher and I) had originally thought that we would form the groups for the students, but when they started to brainstorm they had ideas of what they would like to do and many needed to live near each other to work on their activities. The groups turned out to be fairly well-balanced. One group seemed to us to be a rather dysfunctional mix but we decided to see how it would work out. (Reflection) Several teachers required students to keep notebooks in which they wrote daily reflections or filled out evaluations that documented the type of collaboration that occurred within their team. The following comments were included in these reflections and indicate the mixed feelings students had about working in groups. One of my group members didn’t do much work. (Laurie, 5th grader) Sometimes people wouldn’t cooperate, and we had to sort of push them to do something. (Justin, 7th grader) I liked everything we did. Everything was fun. My least favorite thing could be that a few times my group didn’t get along because someone didn’t get their way. (Eleanor, 6th grader) I learned that it might not be that easy to do a project like this by yourself. (Ashely, 7th grader) I liked working in groups more. It let you share your ideas. (Mario, 6th grader) That we work as a team in if you mess up your whole company will have to pay. (Austin, 6th grader) Student surveys also reflected students' ambivalence about working in groups. While 147 of the 837 students returning surveys indicated that group work was the best part of the Project INSITE activities, a similar number of students, 148, admitted that group work was their least favorite part. Jackie shared the following story about a group of fifth graders and their weekend plans to record temperatures in different community ponds. This story documented some of the common problems and frustrations encountered by a group of students taking responsibility for their own learning. The group really wanted to look at different ponds and measure some of the differences...I supplied the thermometers and we kept them in the classroom all day to made sure they read the same. We decided we would all do this activity between 1 and 2 PM on Sunday, October 18. Unfortunately, it was raining at this time but being the good scientists we were Kathleen met me at the school and we took the water and air temperature. Alex forgot until later in the day so his temperature was taken at 5:30, Dana was out of town and her father called me in the evening with a very upset daughter because she had forgotten about the afternoon's activity. I told them to go ahead and do it at that time and to be sure and also take the air temperature. Landon forgot totally. (Portfolio reflection)

44


Lehman, et al.

Table 12. Collaborative Activities. Teacher A1 Jackie

Collaboration Within-class small group collaboration Chat room forum with A2's class

A2 Sally

Within-class small group collaboration Chat room forum with A1's class School-based project site: pond

A3 Joan

Within-class small group collaboration Within-school collaboration: 2nd and 3rd grades Within-school teacher collaboration School-based project site: wetland

A4 Molly

Same as A3

A5 Pat

Teacher-student facilitation

ED1 Ann

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration

ED2 Kathy

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration School-based project site: forest, wetland, pond

G1 Beth

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Within-school teacher collaboration Outside-school teacher collaboration: College methods students Town-based project site: weathering in walking tour of city Field Trip: Wyandotte Cave

G2 Polly

Within-class small group collaboration Expert collaboration: Purdue Agronomy Department Posting PowerPoint presentations to Project INSITE website

LN1 Stacey

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Posting presentations to Project INSITE website

45


Lehman, et al.

Table 12, continued. Teacher LN2 Tom

Collaboration Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Expert collaboration: Teacher-in-residence, website instruction Posting webpages to Project INSITE website

PI1 Jean

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Within-school teacher collaboration

PI2 Terri

Same as PI1 (classroom collaboration)

PI3 Frank


PI4 Nellie


PI5 Cassie


PI6 Meredith

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Expert collaboration: Purdue University Physics Department

P1 Alex

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Field Trip: Local Park

P2 Victor

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration School-based project site: outdoor lab

P3 Leslie


46


Lehman, et al.

Table 12, continued. Teacher P4 Charlie

Collaboration Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Posting webpages to Project INSITE website

P5 Mike

Teacher-student facilitation Within-class small group collaboration Posting class information to Project INSITE website

P6 James


Note: Teachers are identified by letters that indicate driving questions and arbitrarily assigned numbers to distinguish group members from one another. A=Aquamorphs, ED=Eco-Detectives, G=Gems, LA=La Nina, PI=Perpetual Inertia, P=Popcycles

Like Jackie, many teachers admitted that getting the students to work cooperatively was difficult at times and that more time needed to be spent learning cooperative group skills. One teacher, Sally, mentioned that working cooperatively was an art that, if properly fostered in the classroom, could have magnificent results: When each member of the class was working together, this project afforded all of us, students and teachers, the opportunity to do something great! (Sally, Survey) Both teachers and students admitted that although frustrating, collaboration makes classroom projects more meaningful. Collaboration Between Classrooms During the enactment of the Project INSITE activities, many teachers attempted different forms of collaboration. Some teachers located at the same school structured times when students could meet and work together. Such was the case with members of the Eco-Detectives, Perpetual Inertia, and Aquamorphs groups. Some groups who were not situated at the same school site tried to communicate via e-mail or chat rooms using the Project INSITE web site. Teacher collaboration was more effective when teachers were at the same school, working on the same driving question. For instance, two fifth grade teachers who were members of the Perpetual Inertia group working side by side were able to team-teach and structure collaborative activities easily within their classrooms. One teacher addressed the science aspects of the question "How do forces affect motion?" while the other teacher emphasized the forces in the Constitution that affect the "motion" of democracy in our country. Another group of middle school teachers addressing the same driving question collaborated to plan a unit that integrated math, science, and language arts. Some teachers from different schools attempted to initiate and maintain collaboration via e-mail or chat rooms. For instance, James, a science teacher at Winner Middle School, initiated an e-mail conversation between his students and a fellow Popcycles group member's students:

47


Lehman, et al.

Hello Ann, My sixth grade Science students are learning about the visitors that we have here at Winner. We have a resident colony of about 35 cockroaches in a classroom on the first floor, but unfortunately our custodial staff in a surprising move cleaned them out. Since then we have been studying body structure, what makes them grow and what effect their presence has in our building. Student questions will follow, James The students' e-mail followed James': We are the students ... from Winner Middle School ... We call our group Bugs r Us. We are happy to be able to communicate with you concerning our favorite subject. We call our pet Chester. He was on loan from one of our curriculum specialists. He's gone home for the holiday's now. We sure do miss Chester! Tell us about your students. How old are they? What city do you live in? Did you do any dissection of your subjects? Are your students having fun doing their experiments? What have they discovered about roaches? Hope to hear from you soon. Sixth graders from Winner While James' and Ann's students were able to maintain an e-mail conversation and bridge such gaps as distance (James was in Ohio, Ann in Indiana), technology (James' inner-city students were thrilled just to print papers with their names on them let alone communicate via e-mail!), as well as age (James' students were middle-schoolers, Ann's were adults), this example was an exception. Many teachers expressed frustration at the inability to maintain collaboration between teachers from different schools. Some teachers pinpointed reasons such as lack of technology, inexperience with project-based science, or unresponsiveness of other group members as reasons for the failure of inter-school collaboration. For instance, Nellie, another teacher involved in the Perpetual Inertia group, wrote: Our team for Project INSITE did not follow through with plans set last summer. We were to send a video of clues as to our school and its location to all of the other schools involved with the "How do forces change motion?" driving question. Many schools produced the video and sent them out, but the other schools in our round-robin connection did not receive them. We also had plans to set up a symposium, or distancelearning activity with each other and this proved to be impossible for our school as no nearby colleges or industries were willing for us to use their technology. We were never able to post students' results on the INSITE web site because at the time our school did not have electronic mail capability. It seemed that many of the things that would have guaranteed success to this project backfired. (Portfolio reflection)

48


Lehman, et al.

In Nellie's case, lack of technological support seemed to cause the majority of the problems for her group. However, another teacher, Tom, readily admitted feeling overwhelmed by the requirements of the project. He believed that his classroom project's success depended upon eliminating some of the other commitments outside his classroom. Tom reflected: The ... thing that strikes me is that my team dropped the ball on our collaboration. Only two of us actually made it through the project, and we only e-mailed each other a few times to tell what we were doing at the beginning. I think we both got caught up in a time crunch and also just willingly forgot to do that part of the project. I hope to do a better job of that in the future and I do see it as a possible now that I am gaining experience as a teacher and project leader. (Portfolio reflection) These comments from Tom and Nellie reflect a common theme, namely, that inter-school collaboration was largely a failure. This problem has been noted in earlier years of project implementation and some measures by the Project INSITE staff had been taken. These measures included group planning during the summer institute, reminders via e-mail and newsletters, and two large group meetings during the school year to encourage inter-school collaboration. Despite this encouragement, teachers seemed overwhelmed by the complexity of project-based science, and rather than a support, collaboration was viewed as a burden. Collaboration with Community Resources In several cases, teachers integrated community resources into their projects. Several teachers invited guest speakers from local universities or businesses to visit with the children and share information regarding their area of expertise. One classroom exploring the driving question "How do forces affect motion?" invited a physics professor from Purdue University to visit. This encounter with an "expert" was memorable for the children and several indicated that it was the most valuable part of their Project INSITE experience. I liked it when Dr. Durbin came in and taught us about physics, I learned a lot from that. (Sandi, Survey) I actually listened when Dr. Durbin came in! (Dan, Survey) Field trips were another way that teachers incorporated community resources. Many teachers were fortunate to have outdoor labs or other types of exploratory sites close to school grounds to visit, while other teachers scheduled lengthier field trips at distant sites that proved to be valuable parts of the children's learning experience. Beth, a 6th grade teacher and member of the GEMS group, recounted her class' field trip to Wyandotte Cave in an e-mail: Hi Gems! I took all the sixth graders to Wyandotte Cave yesterday. What a wonderful trip and tour guide! She discussed how caves form through physical weathering, chemical weathering, and erosion. She also talked about how different types of rocks found in the cave. We saw great examples of different soil types and different formations in the cave. Not only was it a perfect Earth science field trip, but it also was perfect for history (the history of the cave), math and scale (how many years does it take a cave to form and how many years it takes a formation to grow a cubic inch) and life science (different bats in the cave and their hibernation patterns). I'm sure the visit addressed more than this, but these are the big ideas. If you ever have a chance, I would highly recommend this trip for you or your students.

49


Lehman, et al.

Many teachers echoed Beth's enthusiasm regarding the exceptional learning opportunities field trips presented to the students in their class. One teacher added that community resources were something she would like to incorporate more extensively into her classroom to help with the actual process of investigating. Rather than viewed as resources for content expertise, the collaboration could provide the extra hands necessary for assisting with student led investigations. Having more collaboration with the Parks department and the YMCA would really help the students to carry out their investigations. (Karen, Survey) Making use of community resources was clearly viewed by teachers as an asset to project based science. Collaboration with Project INSITE Teacher-in-Residence Most teachers involved in Project INSITE invited the Project INSITE teacher-in-residence, Matt, into their classroom to assist with a variety of tasks. Some teachers collaborated with Matt to help them plan their lessons. Other teachers invited Matt into the classroom to help students formulate questions and plan investigations. Matt also taught students in several classrooms to create web pages and PowerPoint presentations. Many teachers used Matt as a "sounding board" for their frustrations as well as successes in enacting problem-based science in their classroom. All teachers who used Matt's expertise were positive about the support he provided as they tried to implement the project. Matt will help keep me going. Has offered suggestions. He’s been willing to help in anyway. (Sally, Survey) Matt has a lot of knowledge to share and is very supportive. His involvement/assistance will/has really enhanced our project. (Meredith, Survey) Matt provides a feel of “importance” to the kids and genuinely helps the students, guiding them along in their projects. (Beth, Survey) Summary of Assertion Three Collaboration was modeled effectively in the summer institute. Teachers worked with peers, facilitators, and community members and left the institute understanding that project-based science is a collaborative effort to investigate a scientific question. As projects were implemented in the classrooms, some elements of collaboration were extensively integrated in the science activities while others were neglected. Teacher-student facilitation and student-student collaboration were integral elements of the investigative process in most classrooms. In addition, many classrooms from the same school worked together during their investigations. Experts from the community and the teacher-in-residence were used to enhance the depth of students' science understanding. Despite the commitment of teachers to these areas of collaboration, teachers from different schools who worked together during the summer institute addressing the same driving question in their classroom plans did not communicate extensively during enactment of the project.

50


Lehman, et al.

Qualitative Study Conclusions This qualitative report has documented features of project-based instruction as it was modeled in the Project INSITE summer institute and enacted in participants' classrooms. My findings argue that the goals of project-based instruction were, for the most part, met. In the summer institute teachers investigated authentic questions, collaborated with peers and community resources, and developed artifacts. Using this model, they subsequently designed classroom units focused around a driving question. In the classrooms, student groups planned and undertook investigations, utilized technology and community resources, and presented their findings. Various artifacts document this intellectual collaboration. Despite its challenges, teachers and students participating in Project INSITE benefited from project-based science in several ways. First, because students and teachers were pursuing authentic questions, they found the work interesting and motivating. Second, much learning took place. Students learned new ideas about how the world works; teachers gained confidence in student-centered pedagogical techniques. Third, both teachers and students developed a greater understanding of the process of science. Many teacher and student participants developed the ability to ask good questions, plan and design investigations, and make conclusions about everyday problems. Fourth, participants learned to work with each other and with their community to solve problems. Finally, Project INSITE encouraged both group and individual accountability in the production of artifacts, and it led to the development of technological skills of both teachers and students. Many, if not all, of these benefits are consistent with the vision of reform efforts in science education. Training more teachers to implement project-based science in their classrooms could facilitate a deeper understanding of this vision for both teachers and students. One fifth grader expressed his appreciation of project-based science: I really liked how Project INSITE let us do almost everything hands-on. I liked that we got to choose our own projects. I also liked testing how long it took the balloons to touch the ceiling. I think this is a better way to teach science because the material is more likely to get implanted in your brain than if you’re studying from a textbook. We got a chance to get along with our classmates and hear their ideas. It must have taken a smart person to come up with a cool science project idea like Project INSITE! (Brian, Survey)

Overall Conclusions and Lessons Learned Project INSITE brought a vision of project-based science to a total of 287 in-service and preservice educators over a four-year period from 1995 through 1999. Participating teachers, implementing project-based science activities in their classrooms, in turn, introduced thousands of K-12 students to project-based science. Based on the information collected throughout the project, this effort, to a large extent, was successful. The key professional development component of the project was its annual summer institutes. The summer institutes were successful in promoting positive attitudes toward computers and toward science teaching among participating teachers. Significantly, in every project year except one, participants’ attitudes toward science teaching became more learner-centered after the 51


Lehman, et al.

summer institutes, fulfilling a goal of the project. Several aspects of the summer institutes appeared to be especially important in their success. These factors included: • use of a modeling activity that was able to convey, in a relatively short period of time, the nature of project-based to teachers, many of whom had never been exposed to this method of teaching and learning; • use of a team of facilitators, most of whom had been successful participants in previous project years, to guide the project-based science experience and the subsequent development of a project-based science curriculum unit; and, • development, by teams of participating teachers, of ambitious project-based science curriculum units that were anchored in national science standards, long-term in duration, interdisciplinary, and that used technology as a tool integral to the process. Even in 1999, when an abbreviated summer institute was offered, positive results were obtained. This suggests that the core experiences of participating in a project-based science activity and creating a project-based science unit were central to the institute's impact. Participants' evaluations of the summer institute and its activities were consistently positive throughout the four years of the project, except for certain elements of the project in year 1 and, to a lesser extent, year 2. Participants agreed that the science and technology content was useful, the institute instructors were effective and helpful, participants' knowledge of technology improved, the hands-on activities were helpful, and the institute helped participants gain knowledge and grow professionally. Most participants felt the summer institute was one of the best educational experiences they had had. During the academic year, projects developed by teams of participants were implemented in K-12 classrooms. These projects were designed to: (a) relate to the year's theme and explicitly address state and national science standards, (b) be multi-week in duration and involve multiple school sites, (c) adopt a learner-centered, project-based approach consisting of use of an organizing driving question, student-generated investigations and research, interdisciplinary elements, and use of local resources, and (d) integrate technology as a tool for communication, information acquisition, data manipulation and representation, and presentation. While there was considerable variation in the projects themselves and the degree to which the projects were able to impact schools and students, there were many clear instances of very successful projects. Two factors emerged as particularly important in success of project implementation during the academic year: • the teacher-in-residence provided critical support and communication that enabled many teachers to implement project activities in their own classrooms; and, • among the most successful projects occurred in those schools where a large team of teachers attended the summer institute together, jointly created a curriculum unit, and subsequently worked together to implement it. Participating teachers' reactions to the project activities revealed that they felt that their students became more interested and motivated because of project-based science, learned about technology, developed personal responsibility for learning, acquired collaborative learning skills, and, of course, learned science and scientific processes. Participants felt the projects were of personal benefit because they helped them to learn new ways to teach, become more facilitative

52


Lehman, et al.

rather than directive in the classroom, learn to use technology in teaching, and just gain more enjoyment from teaching. Student reactions to the projects were generally quite positive as well. The students felt that they learned science, learned how to use technology, and became more confident about their ability to do science because of project participation. They indicated a clear preference for the Project INSITE activities when compared to usual schoolwork. Students reported liking the hands-on activities/experimentation, working in groups, and using technology. The words they most often used to describe their projects were "fun" and "exciting." Observations in participating classrooms confirmed that: (a) students and teachers pursued authentic questions that they found interesting and motivating, (b) students learned science, (c) both teachers and students developed a greater understanding of the process of science, (d) participants learned to work with each other and with their community to solve problems, and (e) Project INSITE encouraged both group and individual accountability in the production of artifacts and development of technological skills. Many, if not all, of these outcomes are consistent with the vision of reform efforts in science education that is advocated nationally. Thus, Project INSITE was successful in meeting its aims and promoting an approach to science education that can be successful in 21st century classrooms. Project INSITE represents one approach to in-service training of teachers in project-based science and technology. This model may be one that can be replicated in other settings to bring about the changes in science education that are needed.

References Adams, P. E., Krockover, G. H., & Lehman, J. D. (1996). Strategies for implementing computer technology in the classroom. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in Science Education (pp. 66-72). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Andersen, R. E., Hansen, T. P., Johnson, D. C., & Klassen, D. L. (1979). Minnesota computer literacy and awareness assessment. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. Bratt, H. M. (1973). A comparative study to determine the effects of two methods of elementary science instruction on the attitudes of prospective elementary teachers. Unpublisdhed doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1991). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. In M. Yazdani & R. Lawler (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and education, volume 2 (pp. 245-289). Norwoord, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Buchanan, P., Rush, M. J., Krockover, G. H., & Lehman, J. D. (1993). Project INSITE: Developing telecommunications skills for teachers and students. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 12(3/4), 245-260.

53


Lehman, et al.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20. Converse, R. E. (1996). Technology and the science program: Placing them in proper perspective. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in Science Education (pp. 49-56), Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1994). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press, New York. Kirkpatrick, D. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78-92. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based science instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill. Krajcik, J. S., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Ladewski, B. L., Bos, N. D., & Hayes, P. J. (1996). The casebook of project practices--an example of an interactive multimedia system for professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15(1/2), 119-135, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, April). Teachers and technology: Making the connection, OTA-EHR-616. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Stratford, S. J. & Finkel, E. A. (1995). The impact of scienceware and foundations on students' attitudes towards science and science classes. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching annual conference, San Francisco, CA. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Willis, S. (1995). Reinventing science education: Reformers promote hands-on, inquirybased learning. Curriculum Update, Summer 1995, 1-8. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

54

Preparing Teachers to Use Project-Based Science - CiteSeerX

Preparing Teachers to Use Project-Based Science - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents

Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology

Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use

PREPARING TEACHERS OF AGRICULTURE TO SOLVE ... - CiteSeerX

Preparing Teachers to Foster Algebraic Thinking - CiteSeerX

Preparing Student Teachers to Use Computers in Mathematics ...

Preparing teachers to teach science and ... - Semantic Scholar

Preparing Teachers to Teach Physics and Physical Science by Inquiry

Preparing Teachers to Infuse Computational Science into ... - Shodor

Preparing pre-service science teachers to teach socio ...

1 PREPARING TEACHERS FOR UNCERTAINTY Robert ... - CiteSeerX

1 PREPARING TEACHERS FOR UNCERTAINTY Robert ... - CiteSeerX

1 PREPARING TEACHERS FOR UNCERTAINTY Robert ... - CiteSeerX

Preparing Teachers to Support Inclusion: the benefits of ... - CiteSeerX

EmpowerICT: Preparing Teachers to Teach with Technology - CiteSeerX

Preparing future PE Teachers

PREPARING TEACHERS TO TEACH STATISTICS - International ...

Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate

Preparing Preservice Elementary Teachers to Teach ... - LearnTechLib

Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Teach with

Science teachers' use of online resources and the digital ... - CiteSeerX

Science teachers' use of online resources and the digital ... - CiteSeerX

Exploring the ProjectBased Economy

Who Is Responsible for Preparing Science Teachers? - JILA

PREPARING TEACHERS FOR REALISTIC MATHEMATICS ...