Changes in Student and Teacher
Attitudes and Behaviors in an
Integrated High School Curriculum
Presented by:
Nicolle Gottfried & Catherine Saldutti
Background
Design of an integrated, standards- & inquirybased 2-year Biology and Chemistry program
Use of research-based best practices
In cooperation with: teachers, students,
Teachers College, Columbia and The
Rockefeller University
Piloted in 2 Public Schools in New York City
Teachers of varying levels of experience
Students representing diverse needs
Background, cont.
Evaluation of the pilot test included many
data sources:
Classroom Observations
Interviews of teachers, administrators and
students
Written student and teacher reflections
Review of student work and Regents test
scores
Pre- and post-participation questionnaires
including an attitudinal battery
Our Approach
Multiple sources of data designed to provide
a mosaic of understanding
To be used both formatively and summatively
All data were collected by EduChange and
Gottfried, and reported anonymously
Data Analysis
Data analyzed in aggregate, by teacher,
school and ethnicity
Qualitative data and observations reported as
notable trends, quotes and describable
behavioral changes
Quantitative data (e.g. survey responses and
reflections) have been categorized, analyzed
and reported as percentages and means
These data are compared to reasonable
matched non-participant normative data for
New York City students, when available
Key Findings
Student and teacher attitudes toward program
participation change over 2-years in a predictable
pattern
Model of Student and Teacher Attitude Change
100
80
60
Teacher
Student
40
20
0
Fall 1st
Year
Spring 1st
Year
Fall 2nd
Year
Spring
2nd Year
Key Findings, cont.
Students in the program perform on par or better than matched
counterparts on the Regents Living Environment (biology)
exams
Teachers improve relative to “best practices,” in parallel to
student improvements
Students demonstrate very sophisticated conceptual learning,
habits of mind relating to science, and how to facilitate their own
learning
“When I felt confused, I tended to just tune everything out.
When I’m confused now, I should ask questions in class.”
Additional Questions?
Contact:
Nicolle Gottfried (nmgottfried@sbcglobal.net)
Catherine Saldutti (catherine@educhange.com)
Assessing Discrete Inquiry Skills
Using a Classroom Laboratory
Rubric: Six Student Case Studies
Presented by:
Catherine Saldutti & Nicolle Gottfried
Six Case Studies
6 students who had participated in both years
of the pilot program and had most of the
requested labs available (rubric-based,
teacher-selected)
2 high-achieving student in laboratory writeups
2 mid-achieving students
2 low-achieving students Represent School A
and School B
Study Focus
All lab write-ups assessed using a 4-point rubric
designed to address performance levels of inquiry
habits
Same rubric criteria and performance levels over 2
years, with several opportunities to revisit these
inquiry habits in different laboratory contexts
Case Studies: Evaluation of a portfolio of lab writeups, Fall 2002-present
Focused on 3 of 18 rubric criteria
Criterion #1: Understanding the
Purpose of the Experiment
Performance
Levels
Insufficient
Evidence
Approaches
Standard
Achieves
Standard
Understanding
the Purpose of
the Experiment
1B. Does not
explain the main
purpose clearly
OR does not use
own words
1B. Explains the
main purpose of
the experiment
clearly in own
words
(Introduction)
(Introduction)
(Introduction)
1B. Explains the
main purpose of
the experiment
clearly in own
words, including
how we will know
if the purpose
has been
achieved
(Introduction)
Criterion
Exceeds
Standard
(Achieves
Standard plus…)
1B. Identifies 2
or more
additional
purposes for
conducting the
experiment
(Introduction)
Criterion #2: Understanding the
Design of the Experiment
Performance
Levels
Insufficient
Evidence
Approaches
Standard
Achieves
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
(Achieves
Standard plus…)
4. Predicts 1 or 2
sources of error
but does not
provide logical
explanations
4. Predicts once
source of error
when conducting
the experiment,
explaining it
logically
4. Logically
predicts 2
sources of error
when conducting
the experiment
4. Proposes 2 or
more ways to
ensure that the
experiment is
conducted safely
and accurately
Criterion
Understanding
the Design of the
Experiment
(Materials and
Methods)
Criterion #3: Analyzing and
Interpreting Data
Performance
Levels
Insufficient
Evidence
Approaches
Standard
Achieves
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
(Achieves
Standard plus…)
4. Offers 1 new
experimental
question or
purposes that is
not directly
related outcomes
of this
experience
4. Offers 1 new
experimental
question or
purposes directly
related to
outcomes of this
experience
4. Offers 2 new
experimental
questions or
purposes directly
related to
outcomes of this
experience
4. Takes one of
the new
experimental
questions and
outlines a design
for a new
experiment
Criterion
Analyzing and
Interpreting Data
(Analysis and
Discussion)
Preliminary Findings
A longitudinal assessment system that culls out discrete inquiry
habits of mind, regardless of the laboratory context, helps
students improve over time
Purpose
More detailed descriptions
Tighter connections
Error
Notion of inherent error is difficult
Requires a “cognitive leap”
Further Experimental Questions
Questions loosely related to the lab at first
Mid & high-level students move toward connections to
results
Additional Questions?
Contact:
Catherine Saldutti (catherine@educhange.com)
Nicolle Gottfried (nmgottfried@sbcglobal.net)