This website is best viewed in a browser that supports web standards.
Skip to content or, if you would rather, Skip to navigation.
The Refracted Image Newsletter
|
Volume 1, Issue 1 In this issue... |
Promoting |
First Summer Institute a Success
Project PRISM started its first summer institute with a splash as 59 elementary and middle level science teachers tried their hand at engineering a boat that would hold two team members traveling the length of a pool using only cardboard and tape for materials. This activity was a follow-up to the June 11th video conference where teachers explored the concept of density. Successful boats were those that carefully considered the mass/volume relationship in calculating displacement.
In addition to boat building, teachers were involved in collecting weather data, investigating pulley systems, and designing power-point presentations utilizing some of the new technologies as part of their summer coursework. Teachers earned 6 hours of graduate credit which is applicable to a Master’s degree in teaching science.
Brian Lynn and Jessica Fowler begin their journey (left) while Charley Burch and
Denise Henggeler (right) quickly end theirs.
Accountability Begins and the Beginning
By Kathie F. Nunley
The cry for accountability is louder than ever. Across this country communities, districts, and states are asking for more accountability in schools. States want districts to prove their validity in quantitative ways. Year-end state mandated exams are becoming the rule rather than the exception. Administrators and teachers are feeling increased pressure to bring test scores up and failure rates down. The classroom teacher is faced with the dilemma of teaching the curriculum without teaching the test per se. (Although teaching the test is not a problem, as long as the test is valid and reliable - but that's a separate article.) One of the biggest problems with the accountability cry is that it tends to focus down to the teacher, and then stops there.
Accountability for learning needs to go one step further - to the student. Amazingly, students have never been held accountable for day to day learning. End of unit tests or chapter tests have implied accountability, but as most classroom teachers can attest, that is a wild assumption. Students do not see the relationship between learning activities and accountable learning.
Ask a student to defend a homework assignment and then sit back and watch their shock! Why, it has never occurred to them that they were supposed to have learned from the assignment. They thought they were just supposed to "do" it.
Here's a typical first time oral defense of homework
Teacher: So tell me Sarah, what were some of the experiments which lead to the discovery of the double helix structure?
Sarah: "huh?"
Teacher: The homework from last night...I see here you did answer that question. I believe it was the first question in the section - what research helped lead Watson and Crick to their model of DNA?
Sarah: I don't know...I just wrote it down.
Teacher: Do you remember anything about what you wrote?
Sarah: No, I was just trying to get it done.
Teacher: Well tell me something, anything, that you learned from your homework?
Sarah: Well, I don't know...but I did it, doesn't that count?
Unfortunately, no one should be surprised by a conversation such as above. Somehow, in public education, the relationship between home activities and learning has not been clarified to students. Amazingly, as silly as it sounds, students do not know that are supposed to learn from daily schoolwork. They have become accustomed to getting credit for "doing" assignments with no accountability, so that is what they do.
All assignments in my classes require an oral defense. As people who have followed my work know, I consider oral defense the cornerstone to my teaching methodology. Accountability must begin at this level. When students realize credit is not given if learning does not occur, a paradigm shift begins. Their simple and innocent response of "You mean I did all that for nothing?" opens up the lines of communication about school, assignments and learning. Because, let's be honest - if they learn nothing from the activity, then it truly was done for nothing.
Kathie Nunley is an author, speaker, teacher and consultant. She is the creator of the layered curriculum model.
You can read more about her and her work at http://help4teachers.com.
What We're Learning From You
- Most of you are up and running on your technology
- The Beyond Question system is a "big hit" with both teachers and students alike
- "GIZMO"s can be powerful learning tools
- Utilizing the GLX takes more time and you are less comfortable using it than you are other technology applications. (We'll work on this next summer)
- The Science Teachers of Missouri professional development conference was a fun and worthwhile activity. (I enjoyed seeing everyone again)
- You can use the test bank that came with your textbook in the Beyond Question system streamlining the time it takes to prepare questions for formative assessment.
Calendar
Date Event Jan. 21, 2006 Video conference: Focus Feb. 23-25, 2006 Interface A Feb. 26-28, 2006 Interface B Apr. 8, 2006 Video conference July 5, 2006 2nd PRISM Summer Institute begins at noon
Administrators Academy Meets on Northwest Campus
On Thursday, October 6, 2005 administrators representing all of the 32 districts involved in the PRISM program met in the Student Union for a meeting designed to increase their knowledge of inquiry and science teaching. Recognizing that administrators play a pivotal role in changing instruction, the academy is designed to inform them about research and best practice related to science teaching. The program was conducted jointly by the PRISM senior staff and representatives from the Northwest Regional Professional Development Center.
The session began with a demonstration of the Beyond Question technology and discussion about how implementing the system can improve instruction through increased use of formative assessment and pre-assessment of student knowledge. Administrators also had opportunity to experience the difference between “activity” and “inquiry”. Administrators got a look at the simulation web site from Explore Learning when they worked with a density GIZMO as part of the instructional model.
Following lunch, administrators were lead through a discussion wherein they identified the types of evidence of inquiry they might see as they conduct “walk-through” evaluations of their science teachers. Academy members were asked to utilize the indicator list sometime prior to the follow-up meeting to be held on November 12th. On November 12th, teachers and administrators will meet in a joint video conference that will focus on indicators of inquiry-based teaching.
PRISM congratulates these dedicated principals and other administrative representatives for their commitment to improving science instruction in their districts and buildings.
How Can Instructional Technology Affect Science Inquiry Teaching and Learning?
From EdThoughts, "What We Know About Science Teaching and Learning" (used with permission)
The past decade of research on instructional technology has resulted in a clearer vision of how technology can affect science education. Combined with research findings that build a strong case for inquiry-based science, technology is shaping science teaching and learning in profound ways.
"Teaching that reflects the current inquiry standards can be made even more effective by the appropriate se of technology"
Studies show that the greatest impact occurs in an environment where students are using the technology to investigate questions or problems of interest to them. In other words, they are directly involved in doing science. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) advocate inquiry as both a means to learn content and an essential ability to do science, much in the same way it is performed by scientists.
The science as inquiry standards of the NSES describe students' appropriate developmental use of technology as a tool for conducting inquiry.
- Grades K-4: Children develop skills in the use of computers and calculators for conducting investigations (p. 122)
- Grades 5-8: Students should be able to access, gather, store, retrieve, and organize data, using hardware and software designed for these purposes (p. 145)
- Grades 9-12: A variety of technologies, such as hand tools, measuring instruments, and calculators should be an integral component of scientific investigations. The use of computers for the collection, analysis and display of data is also a part of this standard (p. 175)
- Technologies with extraordinary capabilities are becoming increasingly available to teachers and students. Despite these powerful teaching and learning tools, the role of teachers as inquiry guides for student learning will become more important, not less. Technology is helping teachers come closer to the national goal of reaching all students with inquiry-based science content and processes that reflect the connected and digital world within which students are growing up.
The use of technology has little impact on student learning science if teaching does not move toward more student-centered, inquiry based science. Teaching that reflects the current inquiry standards cane made even more effective by the appropriate technology. In a technology rich, inquiry-based classroom
- Technology is viewed as an essential tool forgathering, storing, manipulating, analyzing and displaying data
- Students of all abilities and diverse backgrounds are engaged and motivated
- Rich multimedia science content that meets all students' distinctive learning needs is available
- Online resources are used to broaden and extend students' own hands-on activities and locally grounded inquiry
- Students are immersed in data -- both their own data and data collected by scientists or exchanged with other students, classes or schools
- Technology is used to augment communication by expanding audiences, creating powerful visuals and sounds through display media, and creating networks for exchange of information and collaboration.
A variety of technologies can promote the practice is listed above. For example, visualization tools and simulations software allow students to "see" and "manipulate" objects and phenomena that would be difficult or dangerous hands-on experiences in the real world. Microcomputer based labs and handheld data collection devices allow students to devote more time to experimental design and interpretation rather than spending excessive time doing data collection. The Internet allows students to experience communication as scientists do through collaboration, access to data bases, and researching scientific findings. These and other technologies help students refine their understanding of science concepts and build new knowledge.
References:
Krueger, A. and Sutton, J., editors. 2001. EdThoughts: What we know about science teaching and learning. McREL publication: Aurora, Colorado.
This article used by permission of McREL.
From the Director's Desk
Teaching and learning with technology
A key part of the first year of the PRISM project has been the effort to implement technology into the classrooms of the teachers in the program that is rooted in the vision of the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) and the National Science Education Standards (NSES). Both documents refer to educational technology as a means for providing access to modern digital content (Internet) as well as a vast array of tools for modeling, visualizing, collecting and analyzing data and enhancing communication. This was the basis for the technology selected and placed in PRISM classrooms. The GIZMOs are superior examples of technology that allows students to visualize concepts. It also allows students to interact with models of concepts that may not be possible given the materials and supplies available in most classrooms. I am delighted to hear from you that your students are not only learning from the simulations but having a great time in the process. Likewise, the GLX unit is designed to provide better data collection and analysis tools for your students as they learn science concepts allowing them to concentrate their efforts in the higher thinking domains.
At a recent meeting in St. Joseph which many of you attended, there was an indication that for Missouri classrooms, the science and technology strand may be more strictly interpreted so that only those lessons that teach the working of the technology (not the application) will satisfactorily meet the state standards, particularly in addressing strand 8 of the GLEs. This could have broad implications for Missouri teachers especially since the ShowMe Standard goals 1 and 2 specifically reference technology use. We need to be aware of this interpretation and monitor our efforts to meet both the ShowMe Standard goals and GLE's as we continue to develop the PRISM program.
My best wishes to you all as you celebrate the fall holidays-
Marilyn
The vision of PRISM II is to create a sustained partnership between higher education and local school districts that will build a cadre of highly qualified individuals capable of teaching science effectively and sharing what they know and do with other teachers. They will utilize research-based instructional strategies to develop student understanding of the concepts and skills of science and mathematics, initiating and sustaining the changes envisioned by No Child Left Behind.
PRISM teachers are committed to a program of sustained professional development through summer institutes, school year classes that meet via distance learning and participation in mentoring and coaching activities.
- About Northwest
- Maps and Directions
- Terms of Use
- Campaign-Related Activities
- Bearcat Alert
- Northwest Missouri State University
- 800 University Drive - Maryville, MO 64468
- 660.562.1212
- © 2007 Northwest Missouri State University. All rights reserved.