Alternative Physics Teacher Certification

By Daniel MacIsaac, Department of Physics and

Kathleen Falconer, Department of Elementary Education and Reading,

Buffalo State College, NY, U.S.A. 14217 <macisadl@buffalostate.edu>

This research was supported byNSF grants

9453610 and 0302097.

Professional associations of scientists, mathematicians, and educators including

•American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)•National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) •National Research Council (NRC)

have called for extensive reform in the teaching of science and mathematics (REFS 1a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j).

These reports critique US science and mathematics curricula as largely incoherent, excessively repetitive and unfocused – ‘a mile wide and an inch deep’ (REF 1i, p3). In response, National Science Foundation (NSF) funded a series of large five-year collaborative projects including

Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) at Arizona State University (ASU) (REF3a,b)

ACEPT’s Goals•to better prepare K-12 teachers in science and mathematics•to reform the preparation of science and mathematics teachers, K-20 •to "break the cycle"

•future teachers would be taught as they were expected to teach •constructivist•inquiry-based methods advocated by the AAAS, NCTM and NRC

Introduction: The Call for Reform

The RTOP was developed as a classroom observation instrument to provide a standardized means for detecting the degree to which K-20 classroom instruction in mathematics or science is reformed.

     RTOP draws on five major sources for its validity  

• The Horizon Research 1997-98 Local Systemic Change Revised Classroom Observation Protocol

• The "standards" in science and mathematics education [NCTM's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards (1989), Professional Teaching Standards (1991), Assessment Standards (1995) and NRC's National Science Standards (1996)]

• The principles of reform underlying the ACEPT project

• The work of ACEPT Co-Principle Investigators, particularly that of Tony Lawson and the ASU Mathematics Education group led by Marilyn Carlson

• Members of Evaluation Facilitation Group (EFG)

Normalized Gain vs. Avg RTOP on PCS PHS 110 Fall 1999

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Experimental 1 Experimental 2 Experimental3 Experimental 4 Control 1 Control 2Normalized GainRTOP

The correlation coefficient between Normalized Gain and RTOP is 0.88.

Could we use RTOP to help teachers develop a deeper understanding of the nature of reformed teaching by observing themselves and others using the RTOP?

Could we use RTOP as a philosophical and operational definition of how to teach science to modify undergraduate and graduate physics and physics education classes at BSC so the students develop a deeper understanding of the nature of reformed teaching?

We started to use RTOP training sessions as an explicit science methods activity for pre-service and in-service teacher education courses and in professional development workshops for in-service teachers. We also used RTOP as an implicit philosophy for modifying classes. While much time and effort has been poured into reform teaching, there has been a lack of research linking teacher self-knowledge, reform teaching and student achievement (REF 6). A review of the research lead us to believe that RTOP was appropriate for this purpose.

Reflection Upon Teaching: Using RTOP as a Tool for Teacher Self-

Reflection

Table OneMeans and Standard Deviations on DIRECT, CSEM and FCI for Summer 2003 Teacher Participants

DIRECT CSEM FCIM SD M SD M SD

Pre 18 5 17 6 22 7

Post 22 4 20 6 25 5

Max. Score29 30 30

Results from BSC Summer 2003 Graduate Physics and Physics

Education Classes

Table TwoHake Gain and Effect Size for DIRECT, CSEM and FCI for Summer 2003 Teacher Participants

DIRECT CSEM FCI

Hake Gain 0.4 0.3 0.4

Effect Size 1 0.6 0.5

Student One: “I intend to use the RTOP as a guide to good teaching practice. I will keep a copy of the instrument in the front of my lesson plan book and use it as I develop my lessons and activities throughout the year. To focus my personal use of the instrument I will look at the objectives under only one of the five sections per two-week period. For example, for the first two weeks I will focus on incorporating the first five objectives into my lesson plans. I will continue in this manner until all 25 objectives seem to be regularly incorporated into my lessons.”

Student Two: “One other benefit of the RTOP and the research surrounding the RTOP is that it does indeed serve as a source of ammunition against those stubborn Parents or administrators that believe wholeheartedly in traditional instruction in high schools. Last but certainly not least, the reformed teaching style is a radical change for students and fellow teachers alike, and some subversion and/or resistance to this change should not be a surprise.”

Student Three: “To become a reformed teacher, i.e., to inflate my scores on an RTOP evaluation, I need to divert from conventional teaching methods. This involves changing the focus of the class from me being “a teaching teacher” to my students as “learners”. This requires the students to take more responsibility for their own learning and understanding. To do this I need to provide experiences that guide students to an understanding of the material in a logical and efficient manner… including hands-on student-centered activities.”

BCS Graduate Student Comments on RTOP:

Yes, we can use use RTOP as a philosophical and operational definition of how to teach science to modify undergraduate and graduate physics and physics education classes at BSC

The teacher participants in the graduate physics education classes were very articulate in how they could and would use RTOP to change their instruction and how their students will learn.

The teacher participants in the summer 2003 courses learned significant amount of physics conceptual content during the graduate physics education classes as measured by the conceptual measures of E&M and mechanics (DIRECT, CSEM and FCI).

The undergraduate students are very positive about the reformed classes and their learning experiences.

Conclusion

Lesson Design and Implementation The creation of physics lessons that:1) respect student preconceptions and

knowledge2) foster learning communities3) explore before formal presentation4) seek and recognize alternative

approaches5) include student ideas in classroom

direction

Content (Propositional Knowledge) Teachers knowing their physics and

teaching lessons that: 6) involve fundamental concepts of

physics7) promote coherent understanding

across topics and situations8) demonstrate teacher content

knowledge (e.g. apparently "unrelated" questions)

9) encourage appropriate abstraction10) explore and value

interdisciplinary contexts and real world phenomena

Content (Procedural Knowledge)Physics lessons that use scientific

reasoning and teachers' understanding of pedagogy to:

11) use a variety of representations to represent phenomena

12) make and test predictions, hypotheses, estimates or conjectures

13) are actively engaging and thought-provoking and include critical assessment

14) demonstrate metacognition (critical self-reflection)

15) show intellectual dialogue, challenge, debate negotiation, interpretation and discourse

Classroom Culture (Communicative Interactions)

The use of student discourse to modify the locus of lesson control such that:

16) students communicate their own ideas in a variety of methods

17) teachers' questions foster divergent modes of thinking

18) lots of student, particularly inter-student talk, is present

19) student questions and comments shape discourse -- the "teachable moment" is pursued

20) there is a climate of respect and expectation for student contributions

Classroom Culture (Student-Teacher Relationships)

Lessons interactions where: 21) students actively participate

(minds-on, hands-on) and set agendas

22) students take primary and active responsibility for their own learning

23) the teacher is patient (plays out student initiatives, and is silent when appropriate)

24) the teacher acts as a resource and students supply initiative

25) the teacher is a listener

Summary of RTOP for Physics Teaching

References1a. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, D.C.: AAAS. <http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm>, 1b. AAAS (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.<http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.htm>1c. National Council Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. <http://standards.nctm.org/>1d. NCTM (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.1e. NCTM (1995). Assessment Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM <http://www.nctm.org/standards/buyonline.htm>.1f. NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. <1g. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309053269/html/>.1h. NRC (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309064767/html/>.1i. NRC (1999). Designing mathematics or science curriculum programs: A guide for using mathematics and science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309065275/html/>. 1j. NRC (1999). Global perspectives for local action: Using TIMSS to improve US Mathematics and Science Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. <http://books.nap.edu/books/0309065305/html/>.2a. Seymour, E. (1996). Guest comment: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. American Journal of Physics, 63, 199-202. 2b. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: The Research Corporation.2c. Sadler, P.M. & Tai, R.H. (2001). Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation. Science Education, 85(3), 111-137.3a. ACEPT is described at <http://acept.asu.edu/> and the NSF CETP collaboratives maintain a continuing centralized electronic archive at <http://ecept.net>. ACEPT goals have been largely supplanted by the more recent and much larger AzTEC, see <http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/index.htm>, with most ACEPT participants continuing in AzTEC.3b. Wyckoff, S. (2001). Changing the culture of undergraduate science teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, XXX (6). Describes ACEPT, limited value of lecture in teaching physics, interactive engagement. 4. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R., Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-003. The RTOP rubric form, training manual and reference manual containing statistical analyses, (and eventually streamed video vignettes of physics teaching practices) are all available from <http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/>. 5. Lawson, A. E., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M. P., Falconer, K. F., Hestenes, D. O., Judson, E., Piburn, M. D., Sawada, D., Turley, J., & Wyckoff, S. (2001). Reforming and evaluating college science and mathematics instruction: Reformed teaching improves student achievement. Journal of College Science Teaching, in press. Discusses links between RTOP scores and student achievement gains for six physical science and four university physics classes, amongst many others. 6. Linn, R. L. (2000) Assessments and accountability, Educational Researcher; 29 (2), 4-16.

D.L. MacIsaac and K. A. Falconer. "Reforming physics instruction via RTOP," Phys. Teach. 40 (8), 479-485 (Nov 2002).

The RTOP was developed as a classroom observation instrument to RTOP was developed, refined, and validated over a period of two years. In its present form, the RTOP is a highly reliable instrument with strong predictive validity (REF 4, 5). To date, RTOP has been used in over 400 K-20 science and mathematics classrooms to provide a precise quantitative reading of the degree to which teaching is reformed. RTOP both operationally defines and assesses reformed teaching in the classroom (REF 4).

In the evaluation of ACEPT, RTOP scores were found to strongly correlate with student conceptual gains (REF 5, Figure 1) showing that reformed teaching is also effective teaching.