Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Teacher Research Experience OutcomesTeacher Research Experience Outcomes
Jay DubnerColumbia University’s
Summer Research Program for Science Teachers
Conference on Teacher Research ExperiencesApril 25, 2005
Kaye StormIndustry Initiatives for Science and
Math Education
Summer Fellowships For Teachers: Not a New Concept
• Many small programs initiated over the years by universities,
industry groups and STC programs.
• US Dept. of Energy sponsored TRAC program at 24 DOE labs in
the 1980s.
• The SWEPT Movement (Scientific Work Experience Programs for
Teachers) = attempt to initiate & unite 80+ local programs in the
late 1980s and early 1990s.
AcronymsSWEPT – Science Work Experience Programs for Teachers
RET – Research Experience for Teachers
SWEPTs and RETs
• Largest industry-based SWEPTs: Portland, OR, Atlanta, GA and IISME (San Francisco Bay Area) began about 20 years ago.
• NSF funded many SWEPTs in early 1990s, then turned to funding Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in the late 1990’s
• RET Network, loose affiliation of RETs, has convened working conferences 3 times. Website at http://www.retnetwork.org
Summer Research Program1990-2004
• 161 middle and high school science teachers + 30 placed at other NYC area academic research institutions
• 85% public schools• 56% women• 46% minorities
“Practice What You Teach”
“Practice What You Teach”
Columbia’s Summer Research Program for Science Teachers was established in 1990 to contribute to the improvement of science achievement of students by providing middle and high school teachers with experiences in the practice of science. Teachers become members of research teams.
NSF Supported FellowshipsEMSI, MRSEC and NSEC
RET Participants 1999-2004Environmental Molecular Sciences Institute (EMSI) 1999-2004 – 8 RETs http://www.cise.columbia.edu/emsi/
Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) 1999-present – 14 RETs http://www.cise.columbia.edu/mrsec/
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) 2002-present – 5 RETs http://www.cise.columbia.edu/nsec/
Student Outcome Studies1. Columbia’s Summer Research Program
– Collected data on largest cohort of Program participants – NYC public high schools
2. SWEPT Multi-site (NSF-supported)– 8 science teacher research programs from
around the United States– New York, Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, Idaho,
Washington State, Oregon & California
Comparison of SWEPT and Control Science Teachers (1)
(1) Data for 32 SWEPT teachers and 32 Control teachers participating in NSF-sponsored Multi-site Study 1998 – 2002
SWEPTTeachers
ComparisonTeachers
Undergraduate or graduate major or minor in biology, chemistry physics, earth science or math
94% 87%
Advanced degree 63% 62.5%
Hours course credit beyond highest degree
34 hours 54 hours
Years of teaching experience 7.5 13.2
Years of science teaching experience
6.5 11.8
Hours/week spent outside of class preparing for teaching
9.7 hours 9.25 hours
Assigned textbook covered in science course
60% 59%
Used textbook publisher’s tests rarely or never
68% 68%
Used textbook publisher’s tests sometimes
18% 26%
Used textbook publisher’s tests frequently
14% 6%
Instruments AdministeredMulti-site SWEPT Study
1999-2000• Pre-program survey*
• Post-program survey*
• Mentor survey*
• Student Attitudinal Survey*
• Student Cognitive Tests– Biology, Chemistry, Algebra & Geometry
* Surveys available at www.SweptStudy.org
Self-reported Changes in Attitudes and Classroom Practices of SWEPT and Control Teachers(Academic Year Following Program Participation)
Scale SWEPT Teachers Comparison Teachers
At time of entry into a
SWEPT
At the end of the
following academic
year
Change At the beginning of the academic
year
At the end of the
following academic
year
Change
Inquiry Goals & Objectives
244 250 6 258 232 -26 *
Inquiry Student Activities
247 257 10 249 235 -14*
Traditional Goals & Objectives
247 256 7 254 254 0
Traditional Student Activities
245 251 6 258 256 -2
Teacher Efficacy
240 255 15 247 252 5
Number of teachers
58 58
Data obtained from 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Pre- and Post-teaching Attitudinal Surveys of SWEPT and Comparison Teachers participating in NSF-sponsored Multi-site SWEPT study 1998-2002.
*Difference in the two change scores is significant at the p<0.05 level.
Achievement in Science of students of SWEPT and Control Teachers
(Second Year after SWEPT participation)
SubjectTest scores of students in
classes of SWEPT TeachersTest scores of students in classes
of Control Teachers
Pre-test Post-testPre-Post
Gain Pre-test Post-testPre-Post
Gain
Biology 266(235) 291(235) 25*(235) 263(128) 284(128) 21*(128)
Chemistry 282(122) 310(122) 28*(122) 275(43) 295(43) 20*(43)
* Difference in Pre-Post change scores is significant at the p<0.05 level.
Instruments AdministeredSummer Research Program
1993 – 2004
• Pre-program survey
• Post-program survey
• Mentor survey
• Spring implementation survey
Findings
Program has engaged teachers intellectually
Provided teachers with new avenues of professional & personal growth
Increased their appreciation for the process of scientific discovery
Enhanced their ability to converse the excitement and vitality of science to their students and fellow educators
2004 Teacher Survey Data 96% reported developing new or revised content to lessons and/or labs since
participating in Columbia’s Program*.
96% reported increasing hands-on activities in their classrooms and/or new laboratory exercises in response to their experiences at Columbia.
86% reported introducing new technologies in their classroom instruction (e.g.; chromatography, pipetting, PowerPoint).
70% reported reading scientific journals more frequently.
65% reported discussing science careers and related job requirements with their students.
57% reported increased requirements for formal written reports and/or oral presentation requirements.
57% reported assuming new leadership roles/responsibilities in their school/district/region.
•* 233 Lesson & lab plans referencing the National Science Standards on Program’s Web site
www.ScienceTeacherProgram.org
Impacts on StudentsImpacts on StudentsIn 1994, Columbia’s Summer Research Program began collecting quantitative student data from NYC public high schools (beginning with 1993 data)
- Study Group -- Students in science classes of Program teachers (Prior to program participation through completion of two summer program)
- Comparison Group -- Students in science classes of non-participating teachers from the same schools
0.12%0.15%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
Students Involved in
Intel Projects
Year of Program Participation
Intel Science Talent Search
Teachers
Control Group
0.12%0.15%
0.35%
0.16%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
Students Involved in
Intel Projects
PriorAfter 2nd Year
Year of Program Participation
Intel Science Talent Search
Teachers
Control Group
9.6%
3.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Percentage Students
Participating
Prior
Year in Program
Science Clubs
Teachers
Control Group
9.6%
3.2%
11.5%
2.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Percentage Students
Participating
Prior After 2nd Year
Year in Program
Science Clubs
Teachers
Control Group
33.6%
37.6%
30%
35%
40%
Pass Rate Percentage
Prior
Year of Program Participation
Science Regents Exam Pass Rates
teachers
control
33.6%
37.6%
42.1%
36.4%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Pass Rate Percentage
Prior After 1 yr
Year of Program Participation
Science Regents Exam Pass Rates
teachers
control
33.6%
37.6%
42.1%
36.4%
46.3%
34.6%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Pass Rate Percentage
Prior After 1 yr After 2 yr
Year of Program Participation
Science Regents Exam Pass Rates
teachers
control
33.6%
37.6%
42.1%
36.4%
46.3%
34.6%
48.3%
37.1%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Pass Rate Percentage
Prior After 1 yr After 2 yr 1st yearout
Year of Program Participation
3,481 Study Students13,670 Comparison Students
Science Regents Exam Pass Rates
teachers
control
Economic Impact
• Regents Diploma – Must pass 5 Regents including 1 Science Exam• NYC spends $10,469 per public school student (1)
• Student takes 5 courses/year = $2,234 per course• On average, each teacher will see 1,000 students for the remainder of their career• 11% more passing Regents = 110 students• 110 students X $2,234 = $245,740 (2005 $)
(1) New York Times, December 1, 2004
2005 Summer Research Program Funding Sources
• Braitmayer Foundation• Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation• Howard Hughes Medical Institute• NASA New York Space Grant• National Institutes of Health• National Science Foundation• New York Times Company Foundation
Changing the World…
One Teacher
at a Time
IISME Summer Fellowship Program
• The oldest and largest teacher Fellowship program in
the country
• Has awarded 1,800 Fellowships in 20
years
• About 10% of placements have been
in university research labs
Assessing Impact
• Teacher and Mentor Evaluations
• Teacher Retention and Program Impact Study
• Tracking National Board Certification Rates of Program Alumni
• IISME Principal Study
Teacher Perceptions in August
Rated the program as “the Best” or “in the Top 10%” compared to other professional development activities
90%
Increased their knowledge of careers 95%Renewed their enthusiasm for teaching 93%Gained new perspectives on the subject area they teach 89%Increased interest in effecting educational changes 87%Felt revitalized by their Summer Fellowship experience 85%Rated their mentor support as “Very Good” or “Outstanding”
84%
Increased their knowledge of the subject(s) they teach 79%
Average Teacher Rating Over Past 4 Years
Teacher Retention & Program Impact Study
Study conducted in 2001 by Dr. Kathryn Sloane Weisbaum
Surveyed 734 teachers who held Fellowships from 1985-2000
100 non-respondents traced to assess whether non-respondents’ answers differed
58% return rate
Average Teacher Attrition Rates
Category of TeacherAverage Annual
Attrition RateIISME Fellows Leaving Education 2%IISME Fellows Leaving Classroom Teaching
4%
California and U.S. Teachers Leaving Classroom Teaching (1999)
8%
Roles Held Past 5 Years In Addition To Teaching
43% Department Chair or School Administrator
35% Professional Development or CurriculumDevelopment Specialist
19% Computer/Technology Specialist
How Did Fellowship Affect Decision to Stay in Teaching?
How did IISME encourage you tostay in teaching? *
Offered me a professional challenge 81%Gave me new perspectives on my role as teacher
64%
Increased my enthusiasm for teaching 59%Added income so I could stay in teaching 56%Gave me a breather to refresh for the fall 48%Affirmed my commitment to teaching 46%Offered me a professional support network 40%
Increased my awareness of benefits of teaching
27%
* More than one category could be selected.
Percent Selecting Item
Where Did the 58 “Leavers” Go?
18 (31%) Took job in industry
13 (22%) Retired
13 (22%) Currently unemployed or self-employed
6 (10%) Went back to school
4 (7%) Took job in education-related
field, religion or medicine
4 (7%) Did not report
National Board Certification Rates
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
IISME Alumni
California
Nation
IISME Service Area
Principals’ Perceptions of Fellowship Program
• Conducted December 2002 by Dr. Jennifer Benjamin as her Ed.D. dissertation
• Surveyed all public school principals whose teachers held IISME Fellowships in 2000, 2001 or 2002
• 80 respondents
Principals’ Perceptions of Fellowship Program
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
East
West
North
C o mparis o n o f Te ache r Pe rfo rmance Le v e lsPrio r To and A fte r IISM E Fe llo ws hip
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
D eveloping H igh Level Exemplary
P rior to IISM E
A fter IISM E
Principals Reported
• 66% of their teachers integrated more technology into their curriculum.
• 64% increased their content knowledge. • 56% provided more access to career
information and resources for their students.• 47% assumed more leadership roles.• 46% challenged themselves to a greater
degree intellectually and professionally.
More information available on IISME’s website:
www.iisme.org/SFOutcomesEvaluations.cfm
