Improving gender, racial, and social
equity in elementary science instruction
and student achievement: The impact of a
professional development program
RHETA E. LANEHART
KATHRYN M. BORMAN
THEODORE BOYDSTON
BRIDGET A. COTNER
REGINALD S. LEE
ALLIANCE FOR APPLIED RESEARCH IN
EDUCATION AND ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
Overview of the Study
• Replication and Outcomes of the Teaching SMART
Program in Elementary Science Classrooms (US
DOE IES)


Design: Randomized Control Trial
Sample:
10 treatment; 10 control schools
 Approximately 300 teachers and 9000 students


Mixed method
• Purpose of the study

To document the efficacy of a professional development
program
Overview of the Teaching SMART Program
RESOURCES
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
• TS project staff
• Train the
trainer model
• 3 yr researchbased PD
model
• In-class visits
• Beginning,
Intermedia
te, and
Advanced
levels
• 100+ lesson
plans aligned
curriculum
and based on
standards
• science
supplies and
equipment
• Mirror
coaching
• Ongoing
technical
assistance
• Formal
evaluation
• 90 hours of
PD for Site
Specialists
• 60 hours of
PD for
teachers
SHORTTERM
OUTCOMES
• ↑ studentcentered
learning
• ↓teachercentered
learning
• Equity-based
teaching
strategies
IMPACT
More
students,
females and
minorities,
pursuing
STEM
studies and
STEM
careers
Focus of this Analysis
•
Evaluation

Equity
 Gender, racial, social
 Student attitudes toward science
 Science achievement data
• Definition of equity

•
all students, regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background,
disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science, should have
the opportunity to attain high levels of scientific literacy (NSES, 1996)
Teaching SMART Strategies to Promote Equity




Cooperative learning
Job roles
Student exploration
Open inquiry
Research Question
• To what extent does teacher participation in the
Teaching SMART professional development program
improve students’ outcome in science?
Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART improve
student science outcomes?
 Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART increase
students’ interest in science?
 Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART improve
achievement outcomes for female, low-income, or
minority students?

STEM Pathways: Science, Technology, Engineering &
Mathematics
• Status of historically underrepresented groups in the
STEM pathway

Passed over or opted out of the STEM pathway
• Status of females, minorities, and low income groups
pursuing STEM degrees

Not the same rate as men, White and Asian students, and
students with higher SES (Tyson, 2007).
Science Achievement
• Males outperform females at grade proficiency levels
•
•
for 4th, 8th, & 12th grade state science assessments.
Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students in
4th, 8th, & 12th grades are 4-5 times more likely to
have lower science scores on average as well as a
smaller percentage of students reaching grade
proficiency levels
Students on free/reduced lunches are 3 times more
likely to experience lower science scores
SEI, 2006
Science Achievement
NSF, 1999
Science Achievement
NSF, 1999
Attitude toward science and science achievement
• Social Capital (Bourdieu, 1977)
 Important
relationships forged during students’
academic career
• Agency (Foucault, 1980;Gramsci, 1971)
 Student
perceptions of their own power in
educational choices.
Measurement of Attitude and Achievement
• Performance gap and negative attitude toward science
Study of kindergarten children found that boys and girls
differed in their “motivational-related beliefs” about
science (Patrick, et al. 2009).
 A large racial/ethnic gap in science knowledge occurs
during the first 2 years of school among black children,
with scores 1 SD below that of white children (Chapin,
2006).
 Low SES students entering kindergarten have cognitive
scores 60% lower than high SES students(Lee & Burkham,
2002).

Statement of Purpose
• Evaluation
 Student
attitudes as indicated by student survey
responses
 Student achievement as indicated by student
responses on the PASS Multiple Choice
assessment
Data Collection
• Fall, 2005 (baseline), Spring, 2006, Spring, 2007, &
Spring, 2008
• Measure of Outcome
 Multiple
choice assessment
 Partnership for the Assessment of Standardsbased Science (PASS)
 Items for the multiple choice
n=28 for 3rd grade
n=29 for 4th & 5th
Sample
• 3rd grade cohort
 1037
•
•
students: 598 treatment & 439 control
Teachers
 249 teachers: 135 treatment & 114 control
Schools
 19 schools: 9 treatment & 10 control
School Demographics at Baseline
Attrition
• Overall attrition = 27.9%
• Differential attrition = 3.9%
Adapted from WWC, 2008
Item Response Theory (IRT)
IRT models for binary data
 Item
responses
1 = correct
0= incorrect
 Two parameter logistic (2PL) model
Measures latent traits: item difficulty & item
discrimination
BILOG_MG3 software
 Multiple choice scores scaled from -3 to +3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)
• Multi-level model used to analyze nested data

Three-level model with students nested within classrooms
(teachers) nested within schools.
 Mixed Model
 Yij (Scaled Multiple Choice Score) =
γ000 + γ001* FCAT + γ010* Gifted + γ020* Reading
Baseline + γ030* Math Baseline + γ100* Time +
γ101* Group*Time
+ γ102* Migrant * Time + γ110* Teacher Science Emphasis*
Time + γ120* Non-White*Time + γ200* Self-efficacy + r0 + r1 *
Time + r2 * Self-efficacy + u00 + u10 *Time + u20* Self-efficacy
HLM Variables
•
Level-1: Student


•
Time: Time-point of data collection: 0,1,2,or 3
Self-Efficacy: Composite variable of a factor loading derived from Likert scale
type student survey responses that conceptualized self-efficacy
Level-2: Teacher





Gifted: Average percentage of gifted students in a teacher’s classroom
Baseline Reading Score: Average value of students’ baseline reading score
Baseline Mathematics Score: Average value of students’ baseline mathematics
score in a teacher’s classroom
Teacher Emphasis on Science: Score on teacher survey based on responses
that conceptualized teacher emphasis on science in the classroom
Non-White: Average percentage of non-white students in a teacher’s
classroom
HLM Variables
• Level 3
FCAT Score
 Average school score on the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test for 5th grade science
 Group
 Treatment or control school
 Migrant Status
 Average percentage of migrant students at a school
 Female
 Average percentage of females at a school

Results
• HLM

Baseline
Average initial scaled MC score for the control schools was -0.05(p <
0.06)
 Scaled MC scores of the treatment schools were 0.03 units higher
(3%) than the control group (p = 0.50)
 Classrooms with a higher percentage of gifted students (0.60,
p<0.001), high baseline reading (0.0004, p<01), baseline math scores
(0.002, p<0.001)had higher scaled MC scores.
 Schools with higher student self-efficacy (0.22, p<0.001) and FCAT
(0.01, p<0.01)scores had higher scaled MC scores.
 Schools with a higher percentage of female students (-0.14,p=0.50)
had lower scaled MC scores.

Results
• Linear Growth
 Science
achievement outcomes
 Average rate of change for control schools was
-0.07 (p < 0.001)
Treatment schools’ average rate of change was
(0.09, p < 0.008) significantly higher than
control schools per unit change
Results
•
A positive rate of change for treatment schools and a
negative rate of change for control schools.
 0.02 Slope tx - (-0.07) Slope ctrl = 0.09 (treatment effect)
Results
•
Linear Growth

Students’ attitude toward science


Change in student self-efficacy was higher in treatment schools than control schools.
Schools with low student self-efficacy scores at baseline had lower scaled MC scores
overtime.
Results
• Linear Growth
o
o
o
Does teacher participation in Teaching SMART improve achievement outcome for female, lowincome, or minority students?
Classrooms in schools with a high percentage of non-white students (-0.18, 0<0.01) had a
decrease in scaled MC scores overtime.
However, classrooms in treatment schools with a high percentage of non-white students had a rate
of change in scaled MC scores equivalent to control classrooms with a low percentage of nonwhite students.
Results
•
Schools with a high percentage of migrant students (-0.72, p<01)
had a decrease in scaled MC scores overtime
o However, treatment schools with a high % of migrant students had a
rate of change in scaled MC scores greater than control schools with
a high % of migrant students.
Results
•
Schools with a high percentage of females had an increase in
scaled multiple choice scores (0.22, p=0.25).
o Treatment schools with a high percentage of females had the
greatest rate of change in scaled MC scores overtime.
Conclusions
• Teacher participation in the Teaching SMART
professional development program
 Improves science achievement outcomes
 Improves student attitude towards science
 Improves science achievement outcomes among
female, minorities, and low income groups.
Discussion
• The influence of teachers is a crucial element in
•
•
bridging the gap between students’ achievement and
initiating educational change (van Driel, et al.
2001).
Schools must be a catalyst for providing an even
playing ground for inequities in social capital.
Teaching SMART
Sustained duration
 Active learning opportunities
 Collaboration
 Standards based curriculum

Questions?
• Kathryn Borman, borman@cas.usf.edu
• Maressa Dixon, mdixon83@gmail.com
• Bridget Cotner, bcotner@cas.usf.edu
• Ted Boydston, boydston@cas.usf.edu
• Vanessa Hein, vhein@mail.usf.edu
• Rheta Lanehart, rlanehar@cas.usf.edu
• Reginald Lee, rlee@cas.usf.edu
Thank you!