final report on major activities - american physiological society

1

Final Report on Major Activities Marsha Lakes Matyas and Melinda Lowy American Physiological Society September 2001

Physiology Insights was a professional development program of the American Physiological Society between 1997 and 2001. Program activities were focused on two specific objectives:

Create ongoing working relationships among triads of faculty from the three groups noted above through research and curriculum development experiences and computer networks; and

Promote the adoption of national reforms for undergraduate content and effective pedagogical techniques among undergraduate faculty through curricular materials and inservice activities.

Toward this end, the project included three major types of activities, each targeting a different aspect of faculty development: research experiences; curriculum development experiences; and integrated learning local outreach workshops. Research and Curriculum Development Experiences The program offered summer research fellowships for teaching faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. These Physiology Insights fellowships provided opportunities to participate in an ongoing biomedical research project with an APS member and to develop inquiry-based, hands-on lessons to be used in the undergraduate classroom/lab. A copy of the most recent Physiology Insights Summer Research Fellowships application form is attached (Appendix A below). Each fellow actively participated in research for 7-9 weeks, working with an APS researcher, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows. Research experiences were active, hands-on engagement in either an ongoing research projects in the host researcher’s laboratory and/or an independent research project developed for the Physiology Insights fellow. Each fellow also attended a retreat focused on effective teaching strategies. 1998 Physiology Insights fellows attended the APS Summer Retreat, a week-long retreat for all APS summer research fellows, focused on effective teaching and learning. The 2000 Physiology Insights fellows attended the 2000 Human Anatomy and Physiology Society (HAPS) annual meeting, including the special NSF-sponsored theme workshops on Integrative Themes in Physiology.1

1 http://advan.physiology.org/content/30/4/204.abstract

2

Finally, fellows also developed an inquiry-based lab/lesson for use in their classrooms and for distribution via the APS Archive of Teaching Resources.2 Overall, six faculty members participated in the summer research fellowships program, including faculty from 2- and 4-year colleges and adult high schools. The participants, their institutions, and their research hosts are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Physiology Insights Summer Research Fellows and Hosts

Year Insights Fellow Research Host 1998 Jill Crowder

Milwaukee Area Technical College Milwaukee, WI

Jeffrey L. Osborn Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI

1998 Canzater Gilliespie Milwaukee Area Technical College Milwaukee, WI

Andrew S. Greene Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI

1998 Rita Hoots Yuba College Woodland, CA

Barbara A. Horwitz University of California – Davis Davis, CA

1998 James Miller Goshen College Goshen, IN

Richard S. Manalis Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, IN

2000 Turner Coggins Charles County Community College La Plata, MD

Adam Myers Georgetown University Washington, DC

2000 Sharon C. Roseman Lenoir-Rhyne College Hickory, NC

James Smith & Michael Aschner Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston-Salem, NC

In addition to their research host, Physiology Insights Summer Research fellows also had one or more teaching mentors; these mentors were faculty members whose primary field was physiology teaching (Table 2). The teaching mentors assisted fellows in the development of their lab/lessons.

Table 2 Physiology Insights Teaching Mentors

George Blevins, Ph.D., University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock Barbara Goodman, Ph.D., University of South Dakota School of Medicine, Vermillion Mary Anne Rokitka, Ph.D., SUNY at Buffalo Roy D. Russ, Ph.D., Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA Dee Silverthorn, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin

2 http://www.apsarchive.org

3

Integrated Learning Local Outreach Workshops The project also sponsored six Integrated Learning Local Outreach Workshops for faculty teaching at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. These workshops took place in a number of venues and with different specific content foci. However, certain guiding principles underlined each workshop. Specifically, each workshop involved 20-45 life science faculty members in multi-day workshops. Each workshop included activities/sessions on:

Content, including update(s) on current research findings; Pedagogy, including explorations of effective methods; and Curriculum Knowledge, including reform efforts and online and organizational

resources. Three of the five workshops (Fort Wayne, Charlotte, and Washington, DC) involved faculty who were fellows in the Physiology Insights summer research program. Each workshop is described below. San Diego: Physiology Insights at Experimental Biology 2000 (April 2000) At the APS annual meeting, Experimental Biology 2000, a series of sessions was coordinated along with a special Physiology Insights workshop to create a meeting-within-a-meeting designed for faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges. While Experimental Biology spanned four days, the Physiology Insights workshops covered two days of the meeting, allowing more 2- and 4-year college faculty to attend. Each participant received registration and meeting materials. Sessions included:

Research updates on cardiovascular physiology, obesity, physiological genomics, and the physiology and evolution of large saltwater fishes;

Pedagogy sessions on teaching physiology laboratories and creating interactive lectures;

Panel presentations on careers in physiology; A presentation on funding programs through NSF’s Division of Undergraduate

Education; Networking sessions with members of the APS Teaching Section; and Hands-on exploration of inquiry-based laboratories in cardiovascular

physiology. Publicity was sent to all 2- and 4-year college life sciences/biology departments in the regional area and to members of the Human Anatomy and Physiology listserv. Participants were provided with registration and invitations to selected sessions/meal functions. Interestingly, although the workshop was designed to attract faculty primarily from the San Diego area (since travel costs were not covered by the program), a number of faculty from other parts of the nation took the opportunity to attend Experimental Biology, based on their acceptance to the Insights program and the subsequent free registration. Each of the 20 participants in the program completed an exit survey; results are reported later in this final report.

4

Fort Wayne, IN: Inquiry Methods in Computer-Based Physiology Laboratories (June 2000) Physiology Insights Summer Research Fellow James Miller of Goshen College and his research host, Richard Manalis of Indiana University-Purdue University, Ft. Wayne, coordinated an Insights workshop in June 2000. This 3-day hands-on workshop focused on utilizing inquiry-based methods in computer-based physiology laboratories. Topics included:

An introduction to data acquisition, analysis, and presentation methods using commonly available software (e.g., PowerLab, Excel, PowerPoint);

Techniques for incorporating inquiry into computer-based labs; and Content topics related to the computer-based data acquisition labs.

Participants implemented what they learned by planning a laboratory activity, carrying it out, analyzing the data, and preparing a project report/presentation. Publicity was sent to all 2- and 4-year college life sciences/biology departments in the regional area. Participants were provided with materials and subsistence (for those traveling significant distances). Twenty-five faculty members from the regional area attended the workshop. Evaluation results are presented elsewhere in this report. Charlotte, NC: Physiology Insights at HAPS (June 2000) For the annual meeting of the Human Anatomy and Physiology Society (June 2000), a series of sessions was developed as part of the joint HAPS-APS-University of Texas, Austin undergraduate curriculum development project; this was an NSF-sponsored Integrative Themes in Physiology (ITIP) project. From these sessions, a three-day Physiology Insights workshop was developed, using the meeting-within-a-meeting format. This workshop was designed for faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges who are not HAPS members and would not normally attend the meeting. Sessions included:

Update sessions on cardiovascular pressure/flow relationships and pulmonary and renal pressure/flow relationships;

Teaching sessions on concept mapping, problem-solving, authentic assessment, misconceptions, and active learning in lectures;

Laboratory sessions on the “Elvis Experiments” (inquiry-based laboratory on Poiseuille’s Law), computer-based methods for learning membrane potentials, and physical models for teaching cardiovascular physiology.

In addition, participants chose from a variety of additional update sessions on the physiology of weight control, liver physiology, and physiological genomics. In addition to the immediate benefits of attending the workshop, participants were also invited to participate in the field test phase of the ITIP curriculum development project. Publicity was sent to all 2- and 4-year college life sciences/biology departments in the regional area. Participants were provided with registration and subsistence. Each of the 14 participants in the program completed an exit survey; results are discussed below.

5

Washington, DC: Online Resources for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (September 2000) In cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs, the APS developed and hosted a 2-day workshop in September 2000 on identifying and utilizing undergraduate life sciences resources online. The workshop focused on three main areas: identifying and using online resources, exploring exemplary online resources, and tools for developing your own online resources. Topics included:

an introduction to the range of resources available; techniques for critiquing sites in terms of, for example, content accuracy,

expectation of long-term availability, teaching materials offered, and ease-of-access;

tools for developing online materials and lessons for student use; tools for promoting student development of online resources; use of online resources in inquiry-based teaching; availability and use of scientific databases; and assessing impact of online activities on student learning.

Highlighted speakers included representatives from the Cold Spring Harbor DNA Learning Center, the American Society for Microbiology’s Microbe Library, the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial at University of Texas – Austin, the Human Genome Project, and the BioSciED Net project. Publicity was disseminated to all 2- and 4-year college life sciences/biology departments in the regional area. Participants were provided with materials, and subsistence (for those traveling significant distances). Due to the online nature of the workshop, registration was limited. Each of the 16 participants in the program completed an exit survey. Chicago, IL: Teaching Physiology – Updating Pedagogy and Content (September 2000) Three APS/HAPS members who also are founding members of the national Physiology Education Research Consortiuum (PERC) coordinated a three-day Insights workshop in Chicago, Illinois in September 2000. Coordinators included Joel Michael of Rush Medical College, Mary Pat Wenderoth of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Harold Modell of the National Resource for Computers in Life Sciences Education (NRCLES), Seattle. This 3-day hands-on workshop focused on:

Content updates from the frontiers of physiological research, including a discussion of “what belongs in your course.”

Updates on physiology pedagogy. Participants learned how to apply a general models approach to teaching physiology and to diagnose and deal with misconceptions.

Sharing, brainstorming, and discussions among colleagues.

6

Publicity was disseminated to all 2- and 4-year college life sciences/biology departments in the regional area. Participants were provided with materials and subsistence. Twenty-three faculty members attended the workshop. Each participant in the program completed an exit survey. Orlando, FL: Physiology Insights at Experimental Biology 2001 (April 2001) The APS replicated and expanded its successful outreach to 2- and 4-year college faculty at the APS annual meeting, Experimental Biology 2001. As in the previous year, a series of meeting sessions was coordinated along with a special Physiology Insights workshop to create a meeting-within-a-meeting designed for faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges. Feedback from the previous year’s participants was used to refine the schedule, including a kick-off social gathering where fellows could meet each other and discuss issues on teaching and learning. Each participant received registration and meeting materials. Sessions included:

Updates on research in endocrinology and protein-coupled receptors; Pedagogy sessions on teaching physiology laboratories and creating interactive

lectures; Panel presentations on careers in physiology; A presentation on funding programs through NSF’s Division of Undergraduate

Education; Networking sessions with members of the APS Teaching Section; and Hands-on exploration of inquiry-based laboratories in cardiovascular

physiology. Publicity was sent to all 2- and 4-year college life sciences/biology departments in the regional area and to members of the Human Anatomy and Physiology Society listserv. Overall, the project involved faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges in three different program models: a summer research program; a meeting-within-a-meeting workshop; and a separate faculty development workshop. In all three venues, professional development focused on the development of both content knowledge and teaching skills, as well as on building connections between the teaching and research communities.

7

Evaluation: Major Findings

As described in the previous section, Physiology Insights developed and implemented multiple models for faculty professional development. These included a summer research program; a meeting-within-a-meeting workshop; and a separate faculty development workshop. Each of these models was evaluated for its effectiveness. The program used a combination of evaluation methods to provide both formative and summative evaluation, using an external evaluator – Horizon Research, Inc. – where appropriate. Specifically, the external evaluator:

Conducted the formative and summative evaluation of the summer research program, using surveys, observations, and interviews;

Developed survey forms to collect workshop exit data for the Local Outreach workshops;

Analyzed data for two of the first three Local Outreach workshops (Fort Wayne and Charlotte); and

Scanned in data from the Local Outreach workshops in Chicago and Washington, DC and stripped out identifying information.

Internally, the project staff:

Analyzed the exit data from the Local Outreach workshops; Developed and administered a follow-up survey on the Local Outreach

workshops; and Analyzed the follow-up data from the Local Outreach workshops.

Results from the evaluations of the summer research program and the workshops are provided below and in the Appendix B. Summer Research Program Evaluation Results The results of the Physiology Insights Summer Research Program evaluation are included in the Horizon Research report in Appendix B (below). Overall, the program had a positive impact on the Summer Research Teachers (SRTs), including the Insights fellows. As stated by the external evaluation team (see Appendix B):

The preparation provided by the New Frontiers and Insights programs appears to have had a positive effect on teachers’ ability to integrate new content knowledge into their classroom instruction and to use a number of reform-oriented strategies. Helping SRTs transition between preparedness and classroom practice was a challenge the program intended to meet primarily through providing a context for exploration of the recommended pedagogy in conjunction with application of content knowledge. Two such contexts were provided: (1) Exploration of APS-

8

developed, physiology-based inquiry laboratories during the Retreat; and (2) “Translation” of SRT summer experiences into an inquiry-based lesson for middle school, high school, or undergraduate level students. Based on evaluation survey responses, the vast majority of SRTs felt that they had gained a better understanding of the integration of content and pedagogy in the classroom, and believed they could integrate their summer research experiences into a classroom lesson for their students.

Integrated Learning/Local Outreach Workshops

The first workshop (San Diego Experimental Biology meeting) was considered a “trial run” by the project staff and was evaluated formatively with the evaluation survey administered and data analyzed by the project staff. The data indicated that all of the fellows gave good marks to the workshop, with an average overall rating of 3.9 (where 5 = Very useful and 1 = Not at all useful). Participants made suggestions on how to improve the program for future years; the large majority of these were logistical suggestions (e.g., earlier registration, opportunities for room sharing to reduce travel costs, orientation session for fellows, etc.) rather than suggestions for the content of the workshop. Subsequent workshops were evaluated using an exit survey developed by the external evaluation team at Horizon Research. The Horizon Research team scanned in data for each of the subsequent workshops, with the exception of the final Orlando workshops. They included the Charlotte and Fort Wayne workshops in their initial analysis; this report is included in Appendix B below. According to their results,

While the local outreach component of the Physiology Insights program is a new initiative, and only limited evaluation data have been collected to date, preliminary evidence suggest that its target audience is being impacted positively on a number of different levels…

Undergraduate educators viewed the physiology resources and materials presented at the Insights workshops as both applicable and transferable to their classrooms.

The vast majority of participants felt they had improved their content knowledge in physiology and gained resources on effective teaching strategies.

Data from additional workshops were analyzed by the project staff. In general, all of the workshops received good ratings on the exit (EX) surveys (Table 3). On average, participants gave high exit ratings on all of the workshop aspects, including both content knowledge acquisition items and teaching skills and resources items, with no item receiving less than a 4.1 average agreement score (Table 3). For the Orlando Experimental Biology workshop in April 2001, the staff again did a formative survey to gather basic feedback from participants. In response to feedback

9

from the previous year’s participants, an orientation session and luncheon at the beginning of the meeting was added. Participants rated this session as very useful (average rating of 4.5 on a 5 point scale). They also gave the special Physiology Insights workshop high usefulness ratings (mean = 4.5) but found the endocrinology refresher course, which focused strongly on the use of case-based learning in medical physiology, less useful because of its medical education focus (mean = 3.4). When asked to give overall usefulness ratings to other meeting activities, the participants rated the poster visits (mean = 4.25), exhibit visits (mean = 4.33), and other optional sessions (mean = 4.43) very highly. Workshop Follow-Up Survey Results In order to assess the longer-term impact of the workshops, each participant who attended one or more of the first five workshops received a follow-up survey in the spring of 2001, that is, 6-11 months after attending the workshop. The follow-up survey was done as an online survey and an incentive packet of teaching resources was offered to increase response rates. Overall response rate was 67% (N=60). First, participants were asked to rate their agreement with the exit survey statements about what they gained from the workshop in terms of content knowledge and teaching strategies. As indicated in Table 3, participants continued to rate most items very highly. They responded most positively to the statements on effective teaching strategies, inquiry-based teaching, teaching physiology concepts, and knowledge of teaching resources. Those who attended more than one (“multiple”) workshop did not show markedly different scores from those who attended only one workshop. The survey also asked participants to indicate whether they had used the information and resources provided by the workshops in their teaching. Each of the Physiology Insights workshops included information on effective laboratory exercises and/or lessons. In the months following the workshops, most of the participants used one or more of the laboratory exercises and/or lessons that were introduced during the workshop (Table 4). Percentages ranged from 42% to 83%. The lowest percentage (42%) was at the Fort Wayne workshop. This workshop focused on integrating technology into physiology laboratories; therefore it is not unexpected that adding technology integration might take additional time. Also, percentages were lower for the San Diego workshop that offered more content updates and fewer labs and lessons. Overall, however, this represents a positive infusion of effective teaching materials into the undergraduate curriculum by the workshop participants. Furthermore, among those who had not already used materials from the workshops, nearly all planned to use one or more labs and/or lessons that they learned about at the workshops. Participants were also asked whether they planned to use these materials again. Nearly all of the participants who had already used materials planned to use them again (94%).

10

Table 3

Participants’ Perceptions of Workshop Impacts, by Workshop

As a result of this workshop…

Average Agreement Rating3 on Exit Survey (EX) and Folluw-up survey (FU)

San Diego Fort

Wayne Charlotte Chicago Airlie

Multiple workshops

Total4

EXT FUP EXT FUP EXT FUP EXT FUP EXT FUP EXT FUP EXT FUP I gained skills in how to use authentic assessment in my courses.

N/A 3.1 3.8 3.2 4.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.7 3.0 N/A 3.3 4.2 3.4

I gained skills in how to use inquiry-based teaching in my courses.

N/A 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.6 3.8 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.8 N/A 3.7 4.3 4.2

I gained resources on effective teaching strategies.

N/A 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 N/A 4.4 4.6 4.4

I gained skills in reflection that have been useful for my teaching.

N/A 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.5 3.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 3.5 N/A 4.0 4.4 4.0

I became better prepared to teach physiology concepts.

N/A 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.9 3.7 N/A 4.3 4.5 4.2

The varied experiences of the participants served as resources for learning.

N/A 3.9 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.2 N/A 4.1 4.6 4.2

I gained knowledge about new research in the field of physiology.

N/A 3.2 4.8 2.9 4.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.3 3.5 N/A 3.4 4.3 3.3

I became more knowledgeable about resources in physiology that will help me in my teaching

N/A 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.1 3.5 4.2 4.8 4.5 N/A 4.4 4.4 4.2

I gained understanding about recent innovations in the field of physiology.

N/A 3.4 4.3 3.4 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.5 N/A 3.9 4.1 3.4

I gained networking connection with teaching colleagues

N/A 3.8 N/A 3.8 N/A 3.7 N/A 4.2 N/A 3.5 N/A 3.6 N/A 3.9

Table 4 Use of Labs & Lessons

Workshop Percentage of respondents

Used one or more

Did not use them, but plan to use one or more

Did not use them; doesn’t plan to use any

San Diego 43% 43% 14% Fort Wayne 42% 58% - Charlotte 50% 50% - Chicago 69% 31% - Airlie 83% 17% - Multiple5 60% 20% 20% Total 57% 39% 4%

3 Where 5 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = No Opinion; 2 = Disagree; and 1 = Strongly Disagree. 4 Orlando data is not included in Totals. 5 Attended more than one workshop

11

Each workshop included one or more components where participants could attend content updates and/or explorations. Some workshops – Charlotte and San Diego – included a strong focus on content updates. It should be noted that the content sessions at the San Diego workshop were research sessions and symposia that may have had less connection to the undergraduate curriculum. Conversely, the Charlotte workshop provided specific content updates integrated with the labs and lessons presented. Just under half of participants used the content information they gained at the workshop in their teaching in the months following the workshop (Table 5). The highest percentage was the Charlotte workshop and the lowest percentage was San Diego, possibly reflecting the specificity of focus of the sessions, as described above. A significant percentage of faculty members attending the workshops had not yet used the content information they received but planned to do so in the future. All of those who used the content information in the months following the workshop planned to do so again.

Table 5 Use of Content Information


Used the content

Did not use it, but plan to use one or more

Did not use it; doesn’t plan to use any

San Diego 29% 29% 43% Fort Wayne 31% 38% 31% Charlotte 88% - 12% Chicago 50% 31% 19% Airlie 50% 33% 17% Multiple6 57% 1% 2% Total 49% 26% 25% Each workshop also included one or more components focusing on effective pedagogy. The Chicago and Charlotte workshops had especially strong pedagogy components. Overall, the faculty who attended the workshops were very likely to utilize the pedagogy that was discussed and/or modeled (Table 6). As expected, a large majority of the Charlotte and Chicago workshop participants used the teaching methods discussed/modeled during those workshops. Participants were less likely to use the pedagogy modeled at the Fort Wayne workshop; it is likely due to the fact that the pedagogy modeled there requires considerable investment in educational technology and, therefore, requires time to implement. Nearly all of the Fort Wayne participants were interested in implementing the pedagogies presented now or in the future.

6 Attended more than one workshop

12

Table 6

Use of Pedagogy/Teaching Methods


Used one or more

Did not use them, but plan to use one or more

Did not use them; doesn’t plan to use any

San Diego 57% 29% 14% Fort Wayne 38% 54% 8% Charlotte 75% 12% 12% Chicago 88% 12% - Airlie 50% 33% 17% Multiple7 71% 14% 14% Total 65% 26% 9% Summary The Physiology Insights program provided high-quality professional development opportunities for faculty at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. These activities were shown to have both short-term and long-term impacts on the content knowledge and teaching methods of the participating faculty. All three of the models were shown to have positive and significant impacts on faculty and their teaching.

7 Attended more than one workshop

13

Appendix A

Physiology Insights Summer Research Program

Application Form

14

1999 Life Science Faculty Summer Research Program

PART A: TO BE COMPLETED BY 2-YEAR/4-YEAR/CC FACULTY MEMBER Please type or print clearly. Deadline has been extended.

Contact Alta Wallington at [email protected] for details.

1. Faculty Member's Name 2. Home Address (Note: Correspondence will be sent to your home address unless you request otherwise)

3. Home Telephone Phone with area code: 4. Social Security # 5. College/University Name 6. College/University Address 7. Your Work Telephone Phone with area code: 8. Your Current Position 9. FAX # Phone with area code:

Is this for Work or Home? 10. Your E-MAIL 11. Is your institution a... 2-year/community college

4-year college Other (please circle one, and include brief descriptive material in your application form - no more than one page)

12. Name of Dean or Department Chair (include title)

13. Dean/Department Chair's Address

14. Name of APS Host Researcher

15

15. SUBJECTS YOU ARE CURRENTLY TEACHING (continue on attached sheet, if needed)

Course

Description of Course

Number of Students

16. This program makes a special effort to involve faculty and students who are members of minority groups that are traditionally under represented in science. Please assist us by providing the following information:

My racial/ethnic group is: ____ White, not Hispanic ____ Black or African-American ____ Hispanic ____ Native American/American Indian (tribe_____________) ____ Asian-American/Pacific Islander ____ Other (please describe)

Racial/ethnic group

Number of students

in my institution in my classes (total)

White, not Hispanic

Black or African-American

Hispanic

Native American/American Indian (tribe(s)____________)

Asian-American/Pacific Islander

Other (please describe)

TOTAL STUDENTS

16

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON AN ATTACHED SHEET PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY! 17. Please describe the population of students at your school in terms of socio-economic status (e.g., percentage of students receiving financial aid), special populations (e.g., older students), access to other educational institutions, etc. In general, are there characteristics of your institution or student population that make it especially important for you to participate in this program? 18. The NSF program supporting this program allows us to provide your housing and meals during the Spring Retreat/HAPS meeting but not ground/air transportation to the meeting. Are you willing to provide your own transportation to the Spring Retreat/HAPS' meeting in 2,000? Watch the HAPS website for exact dates and times to be announced: www.hapsweb.org (HAPS=2,000 is tentatively set for June 10-16, in Charlotte, NC.)

(Yes or No) If "No," please explain why. 19. Are you willing to develop and write up at least one inquiry-based classroom activity?

(Yes or No) If "No," please explain why. 20. Have you participated in previous summer research programs?

(Yes or No), If "Yes," please list program(s), their sponsoring organization(s), and describe

briefly (1 paragraph) your activities in the program(s). 21.What do you feel are some of the most important needs in life science education at your institution? 22.Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: It is important for students in my courses to gain extensive laboratory experience, including independent research opportunities. Explain. 23. What professional and/or personal benefits do you expect to receive by participating in the Physiology Insights Summer Research Program? 24. Explain some possible methods you might use to integrate your experiences in a research laboratory with your classroom teaching.

17

The following three questions DO NOT have any impact on the evaluation of your application...they are designed to help us improve the program and the program publicity. Please answer them on a separate sheet of paper. 25. I f you were asked to explain to a colleague what "inquiry-approach teaching in science" is, how good do you think your explanation would be? (write Excellent, Medium, or Not good on your attached sheet)

a. Excellent - I'd know how to describe it and could give examples. b. Medium - I'd have some idea of what to say. c. Not good - I wouldn't really know where to start.

26. Have you used inquiry-approach methods in teaching students in the past? (Yes, No, or Not sure) If so, how often and what kind of results have you seen? 27. Where/How did you learn about the Physiology Insights program? BE SURE TO ATTACH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO YOUR APPLICATION: 1. A copy of your resume or vita which includes the following information...

a. Education/training (undergraduate and graduate, if any) b. Previous positions c. Professional society affiliations d. Publications e. Projects or curricula developed f. Awards or honors g. Science-related student clubs/organizations sponsored h. Previous research experience(s)

2. A one page description of your institution. 3. A letter of recommendation from your department chair and/or dean.

Checklist Before you submit your application, be sure to discuss with your host researcher... ! your research skills and experiences; ! your background in science; ! your expectations for the summer experience; ! the plan for your research experience; ! dates when you will work and your expected working hours; and ! your expected responsibilities in the laboratory. A final note: Since physiology is the study of life processes, physiology research generally requires the use of animals or animal tissues. If you have concerns or questions about the use of animals in research, or about how you will use animals/tissues in the lab, please discuss these with the researcher at the time of the application.

18

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APS RESEARCH HOSTS

RESEARCH HOSTS MUST BE APS MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING when the application is submitted. The Fellow should work primarily under the supervision of an APS member; the goal is for the Fellow to interact with all of the members of a research group, including the experienced researcher heading the team.

The host application is critical for the review process. In our programs, the success of the application has often hinged on the host application, particularly with regard to the plans to continue contact with the Fellow and his/her students. The research host's support of and involvement in the Fellow's plans and efforts to develop new classroom activities based on his/her research experiences is particularly important. There are no strict guidelines for the research program that the APS member establishes for the Fellow. However, the program should include meaningful involvement in the ongoing research activities of the member's laboratory. See Models in the Program Information section for more information. To ensure the Fellow's meaningful involvement in your laboratory, we strongly recommend that you speak with and, if possible, meet with the applicant before submitting the application. In addition to discussing the ongoing research in your laboratory, you should frankly discuss the expectations each of you have regarding the summer experience. You should resolve the following questions prior to completing the application. Mutual expectations. What do you expect/hope the Fellow will be able to take back to his/her classroom at the end of the summer? Does this agree with the Fellow's expectations? We find that when the Fellow and the researcher come to a mutual agreement about their expectations in advance, the summer experience provides great benefits for both parties. Work schedule. What hours/days do you expect the Fellow to work? What weeks does s/he anticipate working? If an experiment is being done, when will the Fellow be expected to be in the laboratory? (For example, if an experiment runs until 1:00 a.m., is s/he expected to stay for the duration of the experiment? If so, is s/he expected to be back at work at 8:00 a.m. the same morning?) Laboratory skills. What specific skills does the Fellow have? Are there skills required to ensure the Fellow's hands-on involvement that will necessitate providing training for him/her? Similarly, is there a small set of papers that the Fellow will need to read at the beginning of the research experience and, if so, can these be sent to him/her ahead of time to facilitate the transition into the laboratory? Will s/he be working with animals or animal tissues? What procedures will s/he be performing on animals or tissues? Building a long-term relationship. Since the program hopes to build long-term relationships between faculty and researchers on a local level, are you willing to explore ways that you can continue to have contact with the Fellow after the research experience is over?

19

The Fellow should not be thought of as an additional technical assistant but as a partner in the research project. Applications can propose involvement in one or more research projects of the member's laboratory or a rotation through several laboratories in a member's department or institution (see Models in the Program Information section). In addition to research participation, plans should be made to involve the Fellow in other professional activities such as attendance at seminars, tours of laboratories and animal facilities, discussion sessions on the value of animal research, journal clubs, and oral and written presentations of research results. The APS member's institution or research support is responsible for the cost of supplies and other miscellaneous costs of the Fellow's research work. In addition, cost sharing and/or supplementation of part of the Fellow's stipend or travel is encouraged. The NSF program that provided funding for this project has strict guidelines on the stipends and travel monies that can be awarded to participants. Research hosts are encouraged to supplement the stipend, if possible, and/or to provide air/ground travel assistance to the Spring Retreat/HAPS meeting. Applications that include cost-sharing or supplementary funds will generally receive slightly higher ratings. Both the Fellow and the APS member sponsor will be required to participate in the evaluation portion of the program. Generally, this means completing 1-2 brief surveys and, for some participants, participating in a telephone interview. See Part B of Application below

20

Life Science Faculty Summer Research Program

PART B: TO BE COMPLETED BY APS MEMBER

Please type or print clearly. Deadline has been extended. Contact Alta Wallington at [email protected] for details.

1. Researcher's Name

2. Researcher's Institution

3. Mailing address

4. Overnight Mail Address

5. Telephone

Phone with area code:

6. FAX

Phone with area code:

7. E-MAIL

8. Name of Faculty Member with whom you are applying

9. BUDGET REQUEST

APS Contribution

Cost-sharing by host's institution

Cost-sharing by fellow's institution

Total funds requested from APS

Stipend: $4,000

- $ - $ = $

Mini-grant: $300

- $ - $ = $

Travel to Retreat:$ 0

+ $ + $ = $ 0

Total: $4,300

- $ - $ = $

21

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON AN ATTACHED SHEET 10. List three of your most recent or representative publications with titles. 11. List the current financial support for research in your laboratory. 12. Describe the plans for the involvement of the Fellow in research in your laboratory, including a summary of the research that the Fellow will be conducting. 13. Describe the plans for other activities in which the Fellow will be involved at your institution or elsewhere during the summer. 14. Describe planned future interactions between the Fellow and his/her students and you, your laboratory, your staff, or your institution. 15. ATTACH A 2-3 PAGE CURRICULUM VITAE to your application packet.

22

Appendix B

Physiology Insights External Evaluation Report

New Frontiers in Physiology/Physiology Insights

Final Evaluation Report

by

Rebecca E. Dotterer Joan D. Pasley

October 2000

Prepared for: Marsha L. Matyas The American Physiological Society 9650 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814-3991

Prepared by: Horizon Research, Inc.

326 Cloister Court Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Horizon Research, Inc. 2 October 2000

New Frontiers in Physiology/Physiology Insights

Final Evaluation Report

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION A. Program Overview The American Physiological Society’s (APS) “New Frontiers in Physiology” and “Physiology Insights” programs are directed toward the improvement of science education at several levels of the educational system. New Frontiers in Physiology aims to improve science education at the middle and high school levels, while Physiology Insights focuses on science education at the undergraduate level. Although targeting difference audiences, both programs have a similar structure comprised of two distinct components:

• Summer Research Program: Teachers from around the country are paired with physiologists to work in physiology laboratories during the summer. Teachers also participate in a summer retreat focused on pedagogy, develop a classroom lesson based on their summer experiences for publication, and attend an annual physiology society meeting in the spring following their summer research experience.

• Local Outreach Program: Local Outreach Teams (LOTs), comprised of

physiologists and educators, are recruited to provide hands-on workshops to disseminate physiology-based, inquiry-oriented lessons and other materials to teachers in their area. Teams with the New Frontiers program are initially trained at an outreach institute to deliver workshops developed by APS. Teams with the Insights program receive guidance from APS to design and deliver their own workshops.

Through the Summer Research Program, APS hopes to enhance middle school, high school, and undergraduate educators’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills by providing them with opportunities to learn about science “in action” through a research internship and about the National Science Education Standards for science classrooms during a summer retreat. Further, by providing teachers with hands-on, inquiry and physiology-based activities, and requiring them to develop a classroom lesson based on their summer research experiences, APS intends for teachers to transfer newly acquired knowledge and skills to their classrooms. Similarly, with the Local Outreach Program, APS hopes to impact classroom practice by offering hands-on workshops that model reform-oriented teaching strategies and engage teachers in activities focused on physiology content. Workshop participants, then, are expected to use these activities back in their own classrooms to infuse new content and pedagogy into their instructional practice. The creation of support networks is also an expected outcome for both program components. APS envisions such networks forming as teachers develop productive working relationships with members of the research community and each other.


The New Frontiers in Physiology and Physiology Insights programs both began in 1998 and are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). While New Frontiers is a continuation of the APS’s “Frontiers in Physiology” program (supported by a previous NSF grant), Insights is considered a new APS initiative as it expands the program into the college arena. From 1998 to 2000, a total of 57 teachers participated in the Summer Research Program. Fifty-one of the Summer Research Teachers (SRTs) were selected from applications of middle and high school teachers1 from across the country. The remaining six SRTs were post-secondary educators drawn from institutions that did not have large research departments, including community colleges, technical colleges, and four-year colleges. As part of the Local Outreach Program, eight teams were established during this two-year period; five teams offering workshops at middle and high school levels and three teams targeting undergraduate faculty. B. Program Evaluation Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI), the external evaluator of the New Frontiers in Physiology and Physiology Insights programs, conducted a variety of data collection activities to assess the quality and impact of the program. Data collection activities were designed to address the following evaluation questions: Summer Research Component

1. Have the SRTs increased their incorporation of content and methods recommended by the National Science Education Standards?

2. Have the SRTs been able to transfer their summer research knowledge (process and/or content) through the development of classroom activities?

3. Have the SRTs improved their perception of their own professional abilities and their potential to influence student learning?

4. Have support networks developed between SRTs and members of the research community?

Local Outreach Component

1. Have the LOT workshops contributed to creating networks of teachers and researchers?

2. Did the workshops affect teachers’ attitudes about science and inquiry-based science? 3. Did the participants improve their content knowledge? 4. Did the participants gain skill in the use of strategies to promote gender and

racial/ethnic equity in their classrooms? 5. Did the workshop participants gain skill in inquiry? 6. Have LOT workshops fostered continued support for additional outreach programs

beyond those funded by APS? Data collection activities used to gauge the impact of the Summer Research Component on participants included:

1 Fifteen of these teachers were funded by a separate grant from NIH (Explorations in Biomedicine). New Frontiers and Explorations data are combined in this report for the purposes of reporting impacts at the K–12 level.


• SRT Entry Surveys; • SRT Exit Surveys; • Summer Retreat Participant Evaluation Surveys; • Observation of Summer Retreats; • Review of SRT-Developed Lessons; and • SRT On-line Reflections (‘98 SRTs only).

As the addition of college-level educators was a new venture in 1998, HRI also conducted individual interviews with the ‘98 Insights participants to begin looking at program impacts within the context of undergraduate teaching. During the programs’ second year (1999–2000), at the request of APS, the focus for the external evaluation shifted to explore program impact on New Frontiers participants’ classroom practice in more depth. In addition to the data collection activities listed above, sample laboratory activities were collected from all incoming SRTs in the spring of 1999 for comparison to lessons they would develop and submit at the end of the summer. Also, a sample of six ‘99 SRTs was selected to participate in a more intensive evaluation. These SRTs, subsequent to their summer research, were interviewed over the phone by HRI to provide a more complete picture of their experiences and resulting impacts. In addition, three of the six SRTs also served as case studies and HRI conducted site visits to each of their schools, both prior to their summer research and approximately one-year later2. Site visits consisted of in-person interviews with case study SRTs, observation of their classrooms, and collection of classroom artifacts. The case study process focused on identifying any changes to SRTs’ classroom practice over the one-year period. Given the re-direction of effort in 1999 toward documenting classroom impacts, coupled with changes made by APS to the structure of the Insights program and a delay in the selection of Insights SRTs, the ‘99 Insights participants were not included in HRI’s evaluation of the Summer Research Component. Instead, APS conducted an internal evaluation for this group (n=2). This decision was helpful for the external evaluation as data collection efforts, then, focused only on SRTs that had shared a common summer research experience. Unlike the ‘98 group of SRTs, ’99 Insights participants did not take part in the Summer Retreat. Instead, they explored inquiry-based approaches with fellow undergraduate faculty at a Human Anatomy and Physiology Society meeting during sessions offered by APS. Additionally, ‘99 Insights SRTs were not required to complete their internship over the summer, but rather conducted their research in a physiology laboratory on a part-time basis throughout the year. Classroom lessons developed by ’99 Insights SRTs were to be published by the National Association of Biology Teachers, separate from those developed by their middle and high school counterparts for inclusion in APS’ own “Works in Progress.” In making these structural changes to the Insights program, APS was able to begin tailoring the summer research experience for educators at the college level.

2 Only 2 of the 3 post-summer research case study site visits were conducted. One case study SRT withdrew from the New Frontiers program just prior to the mandatory Experimental Biology conference in the spring of 2000. Self-reported impacts on classroom practice for this SRT, collected by HRI during a phone interview, are included in this report.


Data collection activities used to gauge the impact of the Local Outreach Component on workshop teams and participants included:

• Outreach Institute Evaluation Surveys; • LOT Workshop Participant Evaluation Surveys; and • Observation of Selected LOT Workshops (‘98 LOTs only).

During 1998, HRI also conducted interviews with members of past LOTs to assess the long-range impacts of the program. A new LOT workshop leader survey was developed and implemented for the ‘99 LOTs to gather information on this program component from the perspective of the professional development provider. C. Report Organization Data from all of the sources described above, across the first two years of the New Frontiers in Physiology and Physiology Insights programs, were used to compile the findings presented in this final evaluation report. Findings are summative in nature although particular attention is directed toward presenting data collected during 1999–2000 which have not yet been reported. Section II of this report details evaluation outcomes for the Summer Research Component, describing overall impacts on program participants and specific impacts on their classroom practice. Discussion focuses primarily on the middle and high school SRTs with the inclusion of relevant findings from SRTs at the post-secondary level where appropriate. Vignettes from HRI case studies are used to illustrate how specific program impacts played out in some teachers’ classrooms, with pseudonyms being used for SRTs’ names to maintain confidentiality. Section III and IV outline evaluation findings and impacts from the Local Outreach Component. As the preparation of teams and the content and delivery of local workshops differed depending on the target audience, findings for the New Frontiers and Insights programs are reported on separately. The report concludes with a summary of key evaluation in Section V. Quantitative survey results are provided in the Appendix. Tables 1 through 8 present entry, exit, and Summer Retreat survey data from middle and high school SRTs only. Data specific to ‘98 Insights SRTs, and findings from the programs’ first year in general, can be found in HRI’s June 1999 Evaluation Report.

SECTION II: THE SUMMER RESEARCH COMPONENT During the programs’ first two years, a total of 57 middle school, high school, and undergraduate educators were paired with physiologists to work on laboratory research projects. Thirty-two teachers participated in the Summer Research Program in the summer of 1998, with another 25 starting one year later. The teachers placed in the physiology laboratories worked in a variety of capacities, primarily dependent on the structure of the internship available at the host institution, to experience the research process. Research experiences typically lasted eight weeks, with teachers collaborating to different degrees with physiologists and other laboratory personnel during that time.


In addition, approximately halfway into their research internship, SRTs were brought together for a one-week Summer Retreat at the Airlie Center, a research and retreat facility in the Washington, D.C. area. During the week, teachers were introduced to a variety of pedagogical techniques, engaged in laboratories focusing on physiology concepts, heard presentations from fellow SRTs about their research, and reflected on their own teaching. Teachers were also provided with resources and support for developing inquiry lessons based on their summer experiences. Opportunities to receive training on Internet use or web page design and to learn about the wildlife research housed at the Retreat location were also available. By engaging SRTs in intensive scientific research and providing an avenue for exploration of various pedagogies centered around science-based curriculum materials, APS aimed to improve teachers’ content knowledge and teaching skills which could in turn have an impact on their classroom practice. Results from HRI’s external evaluation indicated that middle school, high school and undergraduate teachers alike found their summer research experiences to be both challenging and rewarding. SRTs were impacted on a number of different levels, including: (1) attitudes and beliefs about science and science teaching; (2) content and pedagogical preparedness; (3) classroom practice; and (4) support networks. Evaluation findings also identified possible barriers to some anticipated program outcomes. The remainder of this section describes evaluation findings in terms of program impacts on SRTs and provides a perspective on potential barriers to changing SRTs’ perceptions, preparedness, and practice. A. Impact on Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs The New Frontiers and Insights programs afforded participants the opportunity to re-evaluate their attitudes and beliefs about science, science teaching, and the role of scientific research.

Summer Research Teachers report a marked increase in their confidence and enthusiasm for reform-oriented science teaching.

Confidence and enthusiasm for reform-oriented instruction were among the impacts reported most frequently by SRTs as a result of program participation. In response to an open-ended exit survey question, a large number of teachers described changes in these areas when talking about how the program affected them:

[The program] gave me confidence and pride in doing hands-on and inquiry along with traditional pedagogical methods. It gave me a real eye-opener to the importance of research and presentation/communication of the research.

It enabled me to approach my teaching in a very confident manner than my students seemed to respond positively to…I was able to engage students in inquiry-oriented activities. This encouraged my students’ interest in science.

[The program] encouraged me, stretched me, stirred my “creative” juices and has assisted me in bringing science to my students as a relevant subject in many other areas of their lives, besides school.


I have used the wonderful activities and worked with the scientific process with much less fear and trepidation. I also am bolder in terms of promoting change in the acceptance of these methods.

Interestingly, participants appeared to have become more confident about teaching strategies that they had felt were an important part of effective science instruction even prior to their summer experiences. Comparison of SRT exit/entry survey results revealed that opinions on the importance of various reform-oriented instructional strategies were relatively unchanged after participation in the program. (See Appendix, Table 1.) In all cases, the majority of SRTs believed the use of reform strategies to be either fairly or very important for effective science teaching. For example, both before and after their summer experiences, all SRTs indicated they believed in the importance of developing students’ conceptual understanding of science. Almost all teachers felt it was important to engage students in inquiry-oriented activities and in applications of science in a variety of contexts. In addition, having students participate in appropriate hands-on activities and making connections between science and other disciplines were also deemed to be important strategies. SRTs’ opinions about science and science education issues were also fairly well-aligned with reform notions prior to the program, and so did not change a great deal as a result of their involvement. (See Appendix, Table 2.) All SRTs, both before and after participating in the program, felt that experiments and first-hand observations provide students with an understanding of science. Similarly, almost all SRTs agreed that understanding the scientific method is critical for understanding scientific content, and that using animals is important for both research in the physiology field and life science instruction in the classroom.

Participation in the program appeared to increase teachers’ understanding of science as a research endeavor.

Many SRTs identified their laboratory experience as the most valuable aspect of the program, often noting elements of their scientific work that had helped illuminate their understanding of how the research process works and what research scientists do. As these SRTs commented in response to open-ended survey questions:

I think the most beneficial part of my research experience was to work with scientists and doctors that had the same goal and worked together. I was able to be part of experiments and developing experiments to solve a real-life problem.

Working in the lab allowed me to see how research is implemented.

The lab experience helped me to broaden my understanding of a scientist’s day to day activities. It helped me to understand the wide range of disciplines that are involved in research.

The research expanded my heart for research and opened my eyes to possibilities for my students, experiences and career options, especially the fact that I work with a large percentage of female students.


We got to work more closely with the rats. I had never worked with a live model before and so that was really good. Harvesting tissue from them. I learned a lot.

SRTs reported having a much clearer understanding about the nature of science and how scientific research is done after completing their summer internships. (See Appendix, Table 3.) Shifting teachers’ perceptions of the scientific realm, namely making it accessible to them on a number of different levels, was an important impact of the program that likely allowed some teachers to alter their view of science and science teaching. As one interviewed SRT discovered:

[I learned about] the true science and how the science is working in reality. It was a big realization for me to take that back to my classroom and tell [my students] that science is not just this little book that we go through all the time. These topics, it’s more than that. The reality out there is that people are actually using these concepts of science to actually solve problems and it’s a process. It’s not just these 10 concepts that we go through every year. It’s more than that.

Participation in the program has provided many SRTs with a realization that modern physiological science is indeed within the grasp of the average science teacher. Significantly more SRTs also felt that they had developed good connections within the research community. (See Appendix, Table 2.) For some SRTs, such connections led to a broadened awareness of the scientific community. As one interviewed SRT described the importance of discovering that high-level scientific research was going on in his own town:

[My research host] is really well known. I didn’t realize that until I went this summer up to Washington [for the Retreat]. Every one of [the physiologists there knew my research host]. And they gave me this folder and I started reading…and [my research host’s] dossier was like five pages thick…[My research host] had published 250–300 papers, won numerous awards from APS. So I was really fired up. I left Washington really confident that I was working with someone that was at the very upper echelon of [their] business…[My home town] is not a real big place—but that was really good to know that the person I was working with was a leader in [their] field…so I learned that even though we’re a backwards place, we’re not actually that backwards in the medical department.

Participants recognized the value of being involved in original scientific research and were particularly aware of the new perspective their research experiences afforded them, and in turn, their students. As these SRT open-ended survey responses illuminate:

I feel that I can talk from my personal experience about research.

I have been able to see some of the scientific lab activities described in my textbook shown to me first hand.

I have never had this opportunity to see or experience what a researcher does. How they go about trying to solve a problem. [I have] made connections that will and have assisted me in my teaching of high school students.


The lab work really opened my eyes up to the scientific method at work. I enjoyed coming home and using ideas that I had worked with, and sharing experiences with my students.

[The research] provides excellent examples to use in class. [I have a] better ability to share my experiences in experimental biology.

By impacting SRTs’ level of confidence and familiarity with science and science research, the program likely created an atmosphere conducive to teachers’ making change in other areas, such as preparation and practice. B. Impact on Teachers’ Content and Pedagogical Preparedness In general, participation in the New Frontiers and Insights programs have impacted teachers’ content knowledge and understanding of various reform-oriented strategies and their preparedness to use them. HRI survey, interview, and observation data indicate that SRTs have strengthened their science content background and further developed their pedagogical skills.

Participation in the Summer Research Program, both the laboratory internship and Retreat experiences, helped secondary and undergraduate teachers deepen their content knowledge.

For a number of SRTs, being involved in physiology research in a laboratory setting appears to have enhanced their content knowledge, providing some with an avenue through which to enrich their science instruction. As these SRTs described:

[I have] much stronger content in molecular genetics due to [my] research experiences. [I am] able to extend [my] range of expertise in metabolic regulations and to describe work of graduate students.

Gave me a better understanding of what areas (content) to cover more thoroughly.

[The summer research] reinforced that I was right teaching [specific content]. The concept of a whole—the concept of being able to do percentages in terms of percent dilution, understanding ideas of percentages, understanding the concept of molecular weight. Basically in terms of understanding molecular structure because I’ve had this one teacher who has been teaching 25 years saying, ‘Why are you teaching the mole?’ I don’t know. Now I can say, due to the summer experience, I can say, ‘Hey, I’m teaching it because it’s fundamentally important and you need to know how to do it.’

The research experience was also a catalyst for some SRTs to gain new insight into both the content they disseminate and their students’ perceptions of new knowledge. One interviewed ‘98 Insights SRT described gaining a greater understanding from the summer research undertaken of the interconnectedness of the various systems of the body, and the need to emphasize this with students:


It’s made me think to myself, ‘How does all this stuff tie in?’ You teach about different segments of the body—all the 11 systems and then you go, ‘Now they know this.’ Well, how does it all come together? Because they shouldn’t just know that part of the heart is connected to lungs and then that’s why there’s an oxygen exchange. But then, what does that have to do with the digestive system? What does that have to do with the brain? What does that have to do with muscles? We tend to, and I’ll speak for myself, I won’t speak for all teachers, we tend to teach in these segments and then we don’t really bring it together. And so doing that [summer research], I was like, ‘God, we need to tie this together.’ Your systems aren’t entities; they all work together. So that made me think that way. Especially going into the surgery room. Without one, the other isn’t going to be working so well. I really think in teaching you sometimes lose that.

Review of SRT lesson plans in the APS “Works in Progress” publications revealed that most teachers were able to transfer their research knowledge to a classroom lesson. For example, many of the SRT-developed lessons were related to their research topic or reinforced the scientific method/experimental process they likely experienced during their research internship. In general, lessons were typically experimental-based labs asking students to observe, experiment, analyze and draw conclusions about a particular subject to further enhance or introduce them to a wider science concept. While the physiology-based research internship was the primary vehicle for program participants to increase their science content knowledge, the Summer Retreat provided additional opportunities including:

• Investigation of inquiry laboratories focusing on physiology concepts; • Interaction with and presentation of science content by guest physiologists; • Research presentations by other SRTs; and • Provision of science-based resource materials.

Evaluation survey findings show that the vast majority of SRTs felt they had improved their content knowledge as a result of attending the Summer Retreat. (See Appendix, Table 4.) Based on HRI observations, a main strength of the Retreat’s approach to helping teachers’ deepen their understanding of science content was the use of guest physiologists. The strong connection between the content physiologists addressed and the instructional materials being explored by participants was very helpful, as was the delivery of science content after SRTs had time to draw their own conclusions based on their inquiry investigations. Observations of SRTs sharing their research work during the Retreat revealed another avenue through which participants learned science content. The majority of SRTs appeared to be knowledgeable about the research they were involved in and, as mentioned above, many chose to incorporate content directly related to their summer research in the lessons they developed. Access to a variety of sample curricular materials, science-based teaching resources, science reference materials, and the Internet throughout the Retreat likely helped SRTs further strengthen their content knowledge and begin making connections between content and pedagogy.


The combination of modeling, hands-on experience, and the opportunity to explore investigative approaches to science from multiple perspectives had a positive impact on participants’ inquiry-related knowledge and skills.

As discussed earlier, many SRTs already believed in the importance of using reform-oriented instructional strategies prior to their participation in the program. (See Appendix, Table 1.) Interestingly, in many cases, SRTs did not feel well-prepared to implement these strategies in their classrooms. For example, based on entry survey data, few SRTs felt prepared to engage students in applications of science in a variety of contexts when almost all of them believed it was important to do so. Similarly, most SRTs felt it was important to provide concrete experiences for students before abstract concepts though only about half of them felt prepared to do this prior to their summer experiences. (See Appendix, Table 6.) Data from the ’98 Insights participant entry surveys revealed that these educators had also identified a number of different reform-based strategies as important. They described themselves as somewhat better prepared to implement many of these, however, than did their New Frontiers counterparts at the onset of the program. A comparison of entry/exit survey data indicate that participation in the program had significant impact on teachers’ feelings of preparedness to use a variety of reform-oriented strategies. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1 In addition to the strategies shown in the above figure, all SRTs reported feeling better prepared after their summer research experiences to lead a class of students using investigative strategies. Using strategies that encourage participation of females and minorities in science and helping students take responsibility for their own learning were also areas of impact on SRT preparedness. (See Appendix, Tables 6 and 7.)

Instructional Strategies That TeachersReported Being More Prepared to

Implement After Program Participation

44

57

74

54

61

57

70

75

79

92

92

95

95

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Application of Science in aVariety of Contexts

Performance-BasedAssessment

Informal Questioning toAssess Understanding

Concrete Experience BeforeAbstract Concept

Developing ScientificReasoning Ability

Inquiry-Oriented Activities

Appropriate Hands-OnActivities

Percent of Participants

Exit Survey

Entry Survey


The most salient program impact on teachers’ pedagogical understanding appeared to be in the area of inquiry. In response to survey and interview questions, participants frequently cited inquiry in conjunction with an impact on their pedagogy. This is perhaps not surprising given the emphasis placed on inquiry learning during the program’s summer professional development sessions. The Retreat is structured in large part to engage participants in thinking about and exploring inquiry from a variety of different angles including hands-on activities, reading assignments, group discussions, and self-reflection. A range of types of inquiry lessons, from guided through quite open inquiry, are also modeled for participants during the Retreat. Results from Retreat evaluation surveys (See Appendix, Table 4.) show that a substantial number of SRTs reported that they had:

• Gained skills in how to use inquiry-based activities in the classroom; • Gained a better understanding of the implementation of inquiry in the classroom; • Gained skills in how to teach problem-solving skills; • Plan to use at least one of the hands-on activities presented at the Retreat in their

classroom; and • Plan to use inquiry-based problem solving activities in their classes more often.

SRT exit survey data also clearly indicate that participants felt the program impacted their understanding of current science teaching practices, in particular, inquiry and the learning cycle. (See Appendix, Table 3.) Experiences at the Retreat provided teachers with an introduction to, or an opportunity for re-examination of, the philosophy and structure behind inquiry learning and the teaching techniques typically associated with it. SRTs noted a number of different ways their knowledge of and preparedness to implement inquiry was enhanced as a result:

Hands-on activities gave me [the] chance to understand exactly how “inquiry” works in a classroom. Doing actual inquiry activities made the words come to life—I can do because I did! I thought that [inquiry] was what I was doing and did not realize the many components that I was missing.

Gaining a better understanding of [the] inquiry approach to teaching has helped me take this approach.

[I now have a] “plan” for what students must do to engage in the inquiry mode. I now feel that I have a better direction for how to get them thinking and working so it won’t turn into a free-for-all.

For some teachers, the opportunity to explore the inquiry approach from numerous perspectives and having time to practice with inquiry-based curricular materials made this professional development experience more beneficial than others they had experienced. As one SRT explained:


Often teachers learn about a teaching approach, but not how to implement it in the classroom. The Frontiers week-long retreat gave all the participants time to practice.

A few SRTs also identified their laboratory research work as another vehicle for them to clarify and strengthen the pedagogy emphasized at the Retreat. As these SRTs noted:

My idea of what the inquiry based teaching was, was a lot different than what it actually turned out to be once I got to [the summer workplace] and worked with it…They do exactly that. [The host researcher] gave me his grant paper that had the question on it, the part that I was going to work on. So we started with the question…he didn’t know how he was going to answer it, I figured out how he was going to answer it. It was inquiry the whole way. I didn’t realize it until I got done. I just did the inquiry method.

Learning how to apply the research approach to science education was most valuable. Being able to participate in hands-on activities at the week-long retreat and working with my professor in the lab were factors that contributed to my success in teaching.

Another SRT talked specifically about knowledge gained by being placed in the position of a student learner during the research experience:

Sometimes I think I should know a lot more than I do. And here I was thrown into an environment where I didn’t know as much as the next person, or at least I didn’t think I had as much to bring to the table as the next person…Within the chain at school, there’s not many people with more knowledge than the teacher, initially. So you are sitting kind of high on the totem pole and here I entered an environment where, in my opinion, I was dead last. I was completely out of my environment. And I am given this task that I have no idea how to do and I’m probably going to fail which puts me even lower on the totem pole. But I think that really helped me out the most. That…low allowed me to look now at what my student would—if I gave them this big task to do with no direction, how they are going to tackle it.

Having SRTs use their summer experiences as the basis for the design of a classroom lesson also appeared to help prepare teachers to use inquiry in their classroom. In a review of ’99 SRT-developed lessons, two interesting patterns emerged. First, a number of lesson plans specifically noted that the given investigation be done at the start of the school year or beginning of a particular unit. These SRTs appeared to purposively use inquiry strategies to engage their students in a concept before more rigorous examination. Second, many lessons required students to compare and contrast their laboratory experiences with a guided inquiry experiment versus those with a more open inquiry format. The extent to which lesson objectives focused on student ownership in the development of concepts and activities varied, however. For example, in many of the ’98 SRT-developed lessons, initial research questions or the purposes of the investigations were pre-supposed and students were asked to design procedures to address them. There were few instances where students were required to generate and research questions themselves and determine a procedure to answer them. In general, however, teachers were able to develop inquiry-based lessons with relevant science content.


While focusing heavily on hands-on, inquiry-based approaches, the Summer Retreat also aimed to enhance SRTs’ knowledge and use of other pedagogical techniques. The evaluation found that the majority of teachers believed they had gained:

• Skills in how to use cooperative learning; • Skills in reflecting on their own practice; • Awareness of gender and racial/ethnic issues; and • Strategies and skills for promoting gender and racial/ethnic equity in the classroom.

The program also experienced some success in promoting awareness of the National Science Education Standards by exposing teachers to a variety of standards-based pedagogical techniques. (See Appendix, Table 4.) C. Impact on Classroom Practice The preparation provided by the New Frontiers and Insights programs appears to have had a positive affect on teachers’ ability to integrate new content knowledge into their classroom instruction and to use a number of reform-oriented strategies. Helping SRTs transition between preparedness and classroom practice was a challenge the program intended to meet primarily through providing a context for exploration of the recommended pedagogy in conjunction with application of content knowledge. Two such contexts were provided: (1) Exploration of APS-developed, physiology-based inquiry laboratories during the Retreat; and (2) “Translation” of SRT summer experiences into an inquiry-based lesson for middle school, high school, or undergraduate level students. Based on evaluation survey responses, the vast majority of SRTs felt that they had gained a better understanding of the integration of content and pedagogy in the classroom, and believed they could integrate their summer research experiences into a classroom lesson for their students. (See Appendix, Table 4.) Program participants have made changes to their instructional practice both in terms of what content they teach and how they teach it. Changes span from minor revisions of existing laboratories, to inclusion of new activities and content in SRTs’curriculum, to complete alterations in the way they approach and implement science teaching and learning for their students.

Participation in the summer research program enabled teachers to introduce physiology and other new content into their classrooms in a variety of ways.

On exit surveys, the majority of SRTs reported engaging students in worthwhile science content through the use of the APS-developed physiology activities they learned about during the Summer Retreat. Some SRTs noted that their students’ response to these modules was positive and that they found the interdisciplinary and real-world focus of the activities engaging. Many SRTs also reported using the lessons they designed on their own during the summer in their classrooms—lessons which were often based on the scientific research in which they were involved. In the process of designing their own lesson, a few SRTs discovered that while their own content knowledge had been strengthened due to their research experience, the level of specificity of their scientific research was not always directly or easily transferable to their


students. These SRTs were able to find other ways to integrate their broadened knowledge of science and science issues into their instruction, however. As one SRT explained of her secondary school classroom:

I probably will not integrate the content of my research [into my classroom], but I have a clearer vision of how research is conducted. I absolutely will include rules/protocol for animal research and mediate a debate so students know both sides of the issue. We will also conduct mini-animal experiments.

Implementation of APS physiology-based activities, or self-developed lessons, to infuse new content into existing curriculum was perhaps easiest for SRTs who either did not feel pressured to stay within strict curriculum guidelines or whose particular context necessitated the acquisition of new materials. For example, one case study SRT was a novice high school teacher whose physiology and anatomy course was in the developmental stage. In tracking this SRT’s classroom practice over a one-year period, HRI discovered substantial impacts on this teacher’s science curriculum as a result of participation in the New Frontiers program. These impacts are detailed in Vignette 1.


Vignette 1 While not all SRTs had the flexibility or need to infuse a large amount of new content into their curriculum, the summer research experience appeared to be a catalyst for many teachers to think more critically about the content with which their students engage. Further, the program provided them with opportunity and incentive to try and apply new knowledge and pedagogical strategies in their own classrooms to enhance the science learning opportunities for their students.

Ms. Hudson, a case study SRT, teaches a range of secondary science classes. Her anatomy and physiology class is a relatively new addition to the school’s science offerings. Ms. Hudson describes the state curriculum frameworks as being “broad” in nature, allowing teachers a lot of flexibility in how material is presented. While there is also a district science curriculum, it is in considerable disarray. Ms. Hudson labeled the district curriculum as “awful,” but believes efforts are being made to realign it with the state guidelines. Feeling the class textbook to be of “poor quality,” Ms. Hudson spends much of her time searching the internet for teaching resources and hands-on activities that fit with the state frameworks to incorporate into her new anatomy and physiology class. Procurement of laboratory and research materials has been challenging. Ms. Hudson outlined her expectations for her involvement in the New Frontiers program during HRI’s initial site visit. In particular, she was interested in making connections with researchers and gaining new content knowledge and resources to add into her classes. Ms. Hudson was introduced to a wide range of new science content through her genomic-focused summer research work and has been able to successfully transfer the bulk of this knowledge directly into her classes by developing new lessons and units as well as adding content to existing ones. For example, Ms. Hudson is working toward bringing the concept of genes into each unit she teaches in her anatomy and physiology class. With the help of her research host, she has added an introductory unit at the beginning of the school year that looks at the effect of genes on various diseases and includes having students work on karyotyping. Ms. Hudson now plans to structure each unit in part around discussion and exploration of a major disease or disorder that wasn’t previously part of her course curriculum. Taking advantage of her summer research lab’s web site as a resource for her students is another strategy Ms. Hudson employed to infuse new physiology concepts into her curriculum. Since her own foray into scientific research, Ms. Hudson now also makes an effort across all her science classes to embed laboratory activities in real-world research. For example, the laboratory exercise in the anatomy and physiology class observed during HRI’s second site visit required students to read an article from a physiology periodical to help determine their experimental method. This emphasis on the research realm was not typical of Ms. Hudson’s instructional program prior to her summer research experiences. Rather, students would have been given a set of laboratory instructions to follow step-by-step that had been drawn up by Ms. Hudson herself or copied from a manual of some type. When asked what changes had been made, if any, to a particular unit on the circulatory system in her anatomy and physiology class (a unit that was discussed at length during HRI’s first site visit), Ms. Hudson responded: “Everything. It was all different, and it was all APS things that I’ve used.” Ms. Hudson went on to describe that the physiology-based activities she experienced during the Summer Retreat fit particularly well with her anatomy and physiology class. Ms. Hudson found teaching content through these inquiry activities more time consuming, however, and she had cut down on the number of units covered during the year to accommodate them. While Ms. Hudson is now covering fewer units, she is delving into content topics more deeply with her students.


Evaluation findings reveal that a number of teachers have been able to translate pedagogical preparedness, particularly in the area of inquiry, into concrete change in instructional practice.

Comments on SRT exit surveys provide a broad look at the types of pedagogical changes teachers reported for their classrooms:

I’m not afraid to let go a little in lab settings, my students ask questions more to discover more. This program has impacted my teaching. I am more inquiry-based. I feel more secure scientifically with what I learned. [The program] made me design lab activities to allow the students to become more active in their own education.

This program has provided me with a new teaching tool and encouraged me to try a new approach to get students to be more critical thinkers. Additionally, being given the opportunity to work in a research lab has given me a lot more confidence with my science skills. My summer research experience has moved me towards a new way of teaching—one that is more beneficial to my students. They are more excited about science and becoming critical thinkers through these problem-solving activities. They are learning more from each other through cooperative groups that carries into their other academics/social school life. It has improved/changed the way I teach—I now offer more problem-solving activities that get the students thinking more. It’s really inspired me to use inquiry activities in my class more. Refreshed my mind about teaching.

SRTs have introduced more reform-oriented strategies into their classroom practice, primarily by adding new reform-based materials to their curriculum, but also by altering units or lessons currently in their curriculum to make them more reform-oriented. On exit surveys, the vast majority of participants listed several inquiry-based activities or ideas for using assessment and cooperative learning strategies that they had acquired during the Summer Retreat. Such exposure and access to high-quality, hands-on science activities likely afforded many participants an avenue to more easily integrate standards-based pedagogy into their instruction. Development of a firmer conceptual understanding of the inquiry process, in combination with opportunity for hands-on practice, provided some SRTs with the necessary tools to modify existing lessons to be more inquiry-based. Vignette 2 presents a portion of an interview with an SRT who made fundamental changes to the way laboratories were being presented to students as


a result of the summer research experience and an increased understanding of the inquiry method.

Vignette 2 Being introduced to the inquiry learning cycle at the Summer Retreat, a model which this SRT reported is now posted in the classroom, altered this teacher’s approach to having students explore science concepts. Explanations of content now occur after students have the opportunity to first develop and explain their own understandings. This interviewed SRT also talked about being surprised with how much was learned through the summer research experience. In particular, the application of the teaching techniques being modeled during the Retreat at first seemed “disjointed” in relation to a middle or high school classroom. Trying to apply the inquiry method within a classroom setting, however, altered this perception, as the SRT explained: “Being a chemistry teacher, it is a little unusual to turn kids loose and let them basically work backwards to get to the answer, but it’s worked out pretty well.” While the majority of program participants teach biology, some of them focus on other

HRI: Do you use inquiry approaches in your classroom? SRT: I’ve used it twice this semester. And I’ll probably use it once or twice at the most second

semester…[the Retreat facilitators] recommend…if you do it three times a year you’re going to have done pretty good…

HRI: Is this typical of your past instruction? SRT: Oh no…I would have never, never—again, [Retreat facilitators talked about] the bread and

butter features. That would have been me [saying]: “This is the way you do it, blah, blah, blah, blah”…I’m big on outline form. I start with the letter ‘A’ on the first page in the chapter and end where it says we are going to end. And then we do a lab and then we test. That has been my pattern from the word go. And the inquiry is just the opposite. You take that lab activity and you throw it up front and you let them sit there and play and be perplexed or do whatever. And then as they get into it, they realize, “Hey, we already did some of this.” The major thing was just a restructuring of not necessarily my teaching style but of when we did certain activities.

HRI: Could you give me an example? SRT: Well, for instance, in molecular bonding, where you are discussing angles that atoms bond at,

I took the lab and only gave them pictures and didn’t really even give them the words of what it was and asked them to make five different molecules. For instance, tetrahedral which is the most common bond structure that a carbon atom makes goes at 90 degree angles…We have to do something called “teaching across the curriculum.” We have to integrate other departments besides the science department in certain units…so we joined with the math department and they taught us unit circle and we taught them bond angles. And then I went into the chapter and actually taught them why bond angles are formed, what does it do to stability, [and I] taught them the difference between single, double, and triple bonds and how that effects bond angles. And I really feel that organic chemistry is the hardest part of chemistry…and I think they’re going to do really well because they’ve already basically thought [through] the puzzle and now they know what the puzzle is. I think they’re ready to go and do better things.


life or physical science subjects. A number of participants, like the SRT described above, have discovered ways to incorporate inquiry across the curriculum.

In general, Summer Research Teachers appear to be making some shifts in their classroom instruction, moving from traditional practices toward more reform-oriented ones.

Findings from one HRI case study provide an interesting and up-close look at the process of transition undergone by one science teacher to embrace more reform-oriented classroom practices. Vignette 3 describes a lesson HRI observed during the first site visit, in the spring prior to the case study teacher’s involvement in the Summer Research Program. Vignette 4 outlines observations made during HRI’s second site visit roughly one year later.

Vignette 3

Ms. Carter is a middle school teacher, whose main goal for students in her science class is “that they know how to think.” Ms. Carter wants her students to retain and be able to apply any information she presents them with in class, skills she views as critical for them to be successful on standardized tests. Ms. Carter requires her students to explain their answers in full so they are not just relying on rote memory. She believes that inquiry is “like second nature” for her students since they “always begin everything with an investigative question…they know they have to do a step by step thing and they have to have an investigation before they can do any lab experiment.” HRI observed a hands-on laboratory in Ms. Carter’s living things unit. Students were to work in small groups to dissect an owl pellet. Ms. Carter described the lesson and classroom routines as “typical” of her science instruction. When students entered the room they began copying down the “science objective,” “agenda,” and “directions for the owl lab” from the front board. Ms. Carter then went over the objective with the students and presented an overhead with their “daily oral science” questions on it. Questions centered around an image of a food web, asking about producers, consumers, and ecosystems. Ms. Carter reminded students that they were to use “processes of elimination” and “the way of thinking” she had taught them all year. After providing some time for students to answer the questions on their own, Ms. Carter then went through each of the questions with the class as a whole, choosing students to give their answers. Much time was spent on how to read the instructions provided with the food web to help them answer questions. Ms. Carter reminded her students that just like on standardized tests, "if you look closely enough, often answers are already on the page.” After the daily oral science was completed, Ms. Carter divided the class into groups by counting off numbers and gave each group two handouts: lab instructions and a reading packet on owl pellets with associated questions. Ms. Carter asked the students to remind a newer classmate what the steps of a lab report are. The students responded in unison: “problem, purpose, hypothesis, materials, procedure, results, conclusion.” Ms. Carter then went over the materials needed to dissect an owl pellet and instructed students that although they were working in groups, individual students would need to produce their own lab reports, graphing results and answering questions in the reading packet. Toward the end of the lesson, students began work on outlining their lab reports. Students copied down the objective from the front board (“the students will separate skeletons from owl pellet and identify the animals that represent a food chain within the pellet”) and the purpose, materials and procedure from the commercially produced lab instructions they had been provided. Student hypotheses tended to reiterate the objective. As the bell rang to dismiss the class, Ms. Carter explained that they would begin the actual dissection the next day following the instructions provided. Lab reports would be turned in at the end of the week.


Vignette 4 Based on HRI’s observations, this case study teacher has begun the process of introducing more open-ended, inquiry-type investigations into her science program. While still employing the instructional strategies she is comfortable with (i.e., set classroom routine, lab reports) significant effort has been made to broaden the type of laboratory activities her students engage in. During the owl pellet lesson, students knew before they engaged in the hands-on activity that they were going to find a number of different animal bones in the owl’s pellet that could then be used to reconstruct a food web. Instead of telling the students what they were going to discover ahead of time, as observed in the owl pellet lesson, the teacher opted for a lesson design in which students could experience a concept before being introduced to the science behind it. In a post-observation interview during HRI’s second site visit, this case study SRT identified the main difference between the inquiry method and her previous style of teaching as a change in “what’s being introduced before the experiment, how much of it is being introduced.” From this teacher’s perspective, “pretty much with inquiry it seems as though what [students] are learning

During HRI’s second site visit, Ms. Carter’s science class had just ended the living things unit and was moving on to physical and earth sciences. The lesson observed was the first one in the physical science unit. Students were going to make and investigate an unknown substance called “phlubber.” The routine of Ms. Carter’s science class was similar to that observed one year earlier. Students entered the classroom and wrote down the lesson objective and agenda off the board. Instead of moving next through a daily oral science activity, however, students were given handouts prepared by the teacher and told to look over the instructions for an experiment they were going to perform. As the students were reading over the instructions (a recipe for phlubber), Ms. Carter circulated among them to check for understanding by asking about what certain materials would be used for. Students were then divided into groups. After gathering the necessary ingredients, each group engaged in the messy task of making phlubber. Groups had been provided with a “phlubber question sheet” to help guide them through their hands-on experience. Students were asked to draw the contents of their bowl both before and after mixing. They were also to describe what the substance called phlubber looked and felt like. Additionally, they were to describe what happens when they played with it, noting any temperature changes in particular. Ms. Carter circulated around the room while students were engaged in the activity. While not all students completed the question sheet, they were all engaged in making observations with their fellow classmates. In addition to answering questions on the sheet, each student was required to write up a full lab report. Similar to the previous year’s class, students were very familiar with the required components for their report. Their hypotheses were to take the form of “if/then” questions. Some examples of student hypotheses observed by HRI were: “I think it will make a slimy substance that can stretch”; “If you mix 1 ½ cups of Elmer’s glue and 1 ½ cups of water what will it do?”; “If we combine Borax and Elmer’s glue then it will make a flexible substance called phlubber.” Students were also asked to record additional hypotheses focusing on what they thought might happen if they changed some of the variables (i.e., amount of borax use, size of bowl, etc.). At the end of the lesson, students placed their phlubber in a ziploc bag for further investigation the next day. Ms. Carter planned on making phlubber with different characteristics than what the students produced to help facilitate discussion about properties of solids and liquids. Students will conduct another experiment based on one of the additional hypotheses they designed and then be engaged in a class discussion to provide closure on characteristics of different state of matter.


is not given. You do the experience and what is learned is actually discovered and then you talk about it afterwards.” In talking about the “phlubber” lab, the teacher explained that she didn’t want to give students in this lab any information about states of matter or what they would discover ahead of time because she “just wanted them to explore.” This SRT also described adding in more inquiry-type and hands-on experiences for her students to explore concepts in other units. For example, in her living things unit, she had added an activity that requires students to draw animals and then arrange them on the front board to demonstrate different concepts such as food chains and webs. Previously, as observed during HRI’s first site visit, these concepts had been communicated to the students by showing them a pre-drawn food web on an overhead projector. Students in this science classroom are also having more opportunities to direct their investigations and make sense of their experiences. In particular, the teacher is encouraging students to come up with additional ways to continue an investigation and is asking students to design and interpret their own graphs and charts rather than doing it for them. As this case study SRT pointed out during an interview, these were strategies that were emphasized at the Summer Retreat. The teacher also felt that she had added inquiry into her class discussions by having students draw on their own experiences and make parallels between science content and everyday life. Opting to infuse more inquiry into the curriculum was a deliberate choice for this case study teacher and perhaps signaled a new perspective. A prescriptive district curriculum geared toward students achieving success on standardized tests was in place for this teacher’s science classroom leaving little room for exploring new strategies, activities, or concepts. Indeed, this case study SRT reported that she did not use any of the APS-developed inquiry activities as their content was not directly relevant. She discovered, however, that by infusing some of the strategies modeled during the Retreat into existing lessons in her curriculum she could still reach her goal of improved student performance. From this teacher’s perspective, inquiry activities can help her teach students “how to mentally problem solve and to execute things they have learned…and be able to utilize it and apply it in any area or any aspect be it reading, language arts, or math.” Based on HRI observations, connecting the new inquiry-focused and hands-on activities to the more traditional lab report format that students regularly use in this class will likely be a challenge for this teacher. Student-generated hypotheses appear to be standardized to a large extent and students don’t yet appear to be connecting their exploratory experiences with the exercise of writing up a lab report. There is definitely evidence of progress being made in this SRT’s classroom toward merging new pedagogy with past practice, however. This teacher plans to opt for hands-on, reform-oriented activities whenever the chance to introduce new lessons or materials into her curriculum arises. Integrating open-ended explorations within more traditional laboratory settings, as observed in the case study SRT’s classroom described above, was also a strategy used by Insights participants, educators at the undergraduate level. For example, based on summer research experiences, one interviewed ’98 Insights SRT planned to make fairly extensive changes to his teaching, incorporating more open-ended labs. He was taking a sabbatical to develop these inquiry activities and test them out. As he described his plans:


Much more open-ended labs where they’ll be given some tools and asked to design a hypothesis, run through the tests, present their results in some form to the group. That will be different…I’ve really never done anything like that…And in that course, probably every lab will be of that type. Everything or nearly everything will be of that nature.

Interestingly, data from SRT exit surveys paint a somewhat contrasting picture to the instructional impacts reported by many teachers in interviews and observed by HRI in case study SRTs’ classrooms. In the survey, student participation in a number of activities was measured to assess the degree to which the classrooms of SRTs were becoming more “student-centered.” While significantly more SRTs reported involving all students, and their ideas and suggestions, in classroom discussions after their involvement in the program, survey findings revealed that levels of student participation across the majority of activities were generally maintained. (See Appendix, Table 8.) One possible explanation, as observed with the middle school case study SRT described above, may be that teachers didn’t necessarily change the types of activities their students were involved in (e.g., class discussion, writing lab reports, hands-on investigation) so much as alter the approach and strategies they used while employing these activities. D. Barriers to Impacting Participants’ Classroom Practice While external evaluation results indicate that SRTs were able to integrate a number of different aspects of their summer experiences into their classroom instruction, evaluation data also point toward a number of barriers teachers encountered when attempting to make such transitions.

Lack of Time and Fit with Curriculum Lack of time and stringent state or district curriculum guidelines were the most commonly cited barriers to teachers introducing new science content into their classrooms or extending explorations in specific content areas using additional hands-on activities. The need to cover set curriculum material within a specific time frame was an issue for middle school, high school, and undergraduate educators alike. For example, a number of SRTs at the secondary level reported feeling fairly tied to their given curriculum or to covering certain material because of external pressures for their students to do well on standardized state tests. This context often made it difficult for these teachers to integrate the new knowledge or resources they had gained through their summer experiences into their classrooms, even though they were excited about doing so. Additionally, it appeared that for some SRTs, if they could not see how activities explored during the Retreat linked to their particular science curriculum, they opted not to use them in their classrooms. While some teachers were able to make some changes to their instruction despite these constraints, the depth and range of impact possible on teachers who were open to change was likely not realized.

Lack of Resources SRTs’ progress in transferring knowledge and skills gained through the New Frontiers and Insights programs has been hampered in some cases by a lack of resources. For example, some SRTs reported having difficulty obtaining necessary materials for hands-on, inquiry activities. As one ’98 Insights SRT lamented, even though she was able to redesign different laboratory


activities, she felt that the lab experience itself was not particularly applicable to her teaching since she could not duplicate the techniques with the equipment available. Not having access to particular supplies through their science department was a main reason cited by some SRTs to explain why they had not yet made use of APS or SRT-developed units they were exposed to through the Summer Retreat. For one of the case study SRTs, both lack of materials and proper facilities were issues. This SRT was situated in a standard classroom that was not designed for science investigation (i.e., no sinks, lab benches, lab equipment). Any materials required needed to be transported from another teacher’s more up-to-date laboratory. This SRT was observed to be making progress in applying some of the knowledge and skills gained from the summer research experience, but definitely felt hampered by the challenging physical environment.

Perceptions of Student Ability In interviews with SRTs, HRI encountered the perception that inquiry-oriented strategies were not appropriate or feasible for some students. For example, one interviewed SRT talked about the difficulties of using inquiry with a general level science class:

Inquiry being more of a discovery approach to learning…is kind of challenging with the students that I teach because they are at such a low level and it’s just really difficult to pull out of them that you want them to learn about what’s guiding them by giving them a little piece.

This teacher elaborated on the particular challenges of using inquiry as a way to engage the students in content:

It is very difficult because after we use that approach and they discover what you want them to discover it’s like they missed the point of the lab and you have to go back and go over it again, what they were actually supposed to learn. So it is really time consuming and in a 50-minute class period…you know, at [the Summer Retreat], we had two hours, an hour and a half, and that’s not feasible [here]…I think I’m very prepared [to teach inquiry.] But…with the time frame that I’m dealing with, and the caliber of students that I’m dealing with…And so considering all those things together, to use time efficiently, that would be a challenge for me to master how to implement the techniques in the time frame and with the students that I am working with.

Ability to Design and Implement Inquiry-Based Lessons

While SRTs appeared to have increased their general understanding of inquiry and seem particularly willing to implement existing, inquiry-based materials, evaluation findings indicate that some teachers struggled to determine how best to effectively integrate inquiry experiences into their classroom practice. For example, some of the participants reported having difficulty making a clear connection between the pedagogical techniques being modeled during the Summer Retreat and their own instruction. As one SRT noted about the Retreat:


The inquiry based activities were fun, but often results were inconclusive. Time was rushed—not the way I would run a classroom. I really need to know how to implement activities, and what criteria do you use for implementation.

On evaluation surveys, a few SRTs commented specifically on the disproportionate amount of time spent performing experiments and presenting data during the Retreat compared to that spent by facilitators helping teachers elucidate connections between presented pedagogy and classroom implementation. One of the ’98 Insights SRTs found it difficult to envision the inquiry teaching emphasized at the Retreat in a community college setting. This SRT perceived inquiry as a time-consuming strategy that would be difficult to implement in an undergraduate environment. Having adequate time to reflect on and relate workshop materials and activities to their experiences and needs appeared to be a particular area of concern for SRTs. Based on survey data, less than 70 percent of all SRTs felt that enough time had been provided at the Retreats toward this end. Concurrently, however, a number of participants’ open-ended survey responses stated that the time spent on daily reflections was not as worthwhile as the other Retreat activities. (See Appendix, Table 4.) One explanation for the discrepancy in data may be that some participants were not relating the reflection exercises to the other Retreat activities in which they engaged. To help address this concern, for the incoming SRT cohort in the spring of 2000, APS decided to distribute both the required inquiry-based reading materials and reflection questions to participants prior to the Retreat. Evaluation findings suggest that many teachers were more comfortable using or revising existing activities to be more inquiry-focused rather than developing their own inquiry materials. Indeed, HRI found that participants’ ability to translate their summer experiences into inquiry-based classroom activities was variable. Based on a review of SRT-developed lessons, the degree to which these lessons were inquiry-based was wide-ranging. There were clear attempts, however, to shift traditional experiment-based activities toward open, hands-on investigations. Cooperative learning and assessment strategies were also evidenced in many of the SRT-developed lesson plans. The process of thinking about how to approach designing an inquiry activity to facilitate student learning was perceived as a challenge by some teachers. As one SRT explained: “you really have to sit down and say what is it that I can do so that I will not be giving them the information, but they’ll actually be able to figure out that this is what I want to teach them.” Evaluation findings revealed that some SRTs were unable to successfully transfer their content knowledge into a classroom lesson using the inquiry-approach. Some SRTs reported that the research they were involved in was not transferable in any way to their students, while others felt that some topics seemed to lend themselves more readily to open investigations (e.g., biology being easier than chemistry). For other participants, difficulties appeared to stem from not having a solid grasp on particular content or pedagogical concepts. For example, HRI observations of SRT presentations during the Retreat showed that a few teachers had difficulty communicating the essence of their research to others. One SRT, while sharing a summer research experience, stated: “The results we found were of significance to my [host] researcher, but not to me.” Not fully understanding the content of their research work may in turn have had implications for


SRTs’ ability to transfer that content into a lesson or otherwise make use of their exposure to wider science content. E. Impact on Creating Support Networks Aside from impacting teachers’ content and pedagogical preparedness and practice, SRTs also reported that the Summer Research Program provided them with valuable associations with members of the scientific research community as well as other secondary and post-secondary educators.

Support networks, in a variety of forms, have developed between teachers and physiologists.

The large majority of SRTs responding to an open-ended question on the exit survey—months after their internship—reported that they had had at least some contact with their host researcher or host institution since completing their research experience. In addition, significantly more SRTs felt that they had good connections with members of the scientific research community after having participated in the program than prior to their participation. (See Appendix, Table 2.) SRTs reported that post-research contact between themselves and host physiologists or host institutions has included:

• Physiologists providing SRTs with science content information in person, over the phone, or via email;

• SRT classroom field trips to research labs; • Joint collaboration on a poster presentation for the Experimental Biology

conference; • Physiologists visiting SRT classrooms to discuss scientific research and its

applications with students; • Participation of physiologists in school science fairs; and • Loaning or donation of equipment for SRT classrooms from research laboratories.

In a few cases, SRTs also reported continuation of their research work and the possibility of presenting their findings through a joint manuscript submission with their host physiologist to prominent science journals. One SRT also hopes to perhaps pursue graduate work in the physiologist’s lab.

Program participation has also resulted in strong and continuing connections among Summer Research Teachers themselves.

While the research aspect of participants’ summer experience provided for collegial relationships to develop between individual teachers and their host physiologists, the Summer Retreat afforded the opportunity for SRTs to connect with their peers. Encouraging participants to share their experiences and exchange ideas was a main strength of the Retreats, ultimately of benefit to both teachers and their students. Survey data clearly indicate that the vast majority of SRTs felt the interaction between teachers was a valuable aspect of their Retreat experience. From one SRT’s perspective:


The time I spent with colleagues from around the country was very useful. As a teacher, you always feel the grass is greener somewhere else. But I found out that it is pretty much the same all over.

Based on HRI observations, the use of past SRTs as session presenters at Summer Retreats was an effective strategy to help encourage such interaction and create bonds among teachers. Given their perspective as a fellow classroom teacher, these individuals not only provided good connections to classroom implementation but also helped create an atmosphere of trust and respect for participants as they had “been in their shoes” at prior Retreats. At the 1999 Retreat, the role of past SRTs was broadened to include the mentoring of assigned participants. While many SRTs appeared to work collaboratively with their mentors during the Retreat, evaluation data showed that very few opted to contact their mentor for ongoing support during the school year. Some SRTs indicated they were thinking about applying to become a mentor at future Retreats, however. In this way, the summer research component of the program has also had some direct impact on developing teachers’ leadership capacity. Additionally, through the electronic discussion board recently initiated by APS, participants have been made aware of various leadership opportunities within the educational arena. The list-serv also serves as a mechanism to assist SRTs in further developing networks with fellow educators across the country. Responses to open-ended survey questions and informal conversations with SRTs during Summer Retreats revealed that some SRTs felt the program needed to facilitate even more time for networking among teachers. As one participant stated: “Teachers are the real resources here.” These SRTs believed that having more time to talk with other teachers, explore each others’ views on teaching, and share classroom experiences would encourage self-reflection and in turn impact upon practice. Several participants also suggested that the program could be improved by having a longer research internship or even having it extended to include subsequent summers. SRTs felt that in addition to having more time to work in a research setting gaining knowledge and skills, extended internships could help foster stronger working relationships among researchers and educators. While this may not be realistic given the constraints of the program, it is an indication that SRTs were positive about the summer research experience and aware of the multiple benefits to be gained from it.

SECTION III: THE NEW FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY LOCAL OUTREACH COMPONENT :

EFFECTING CHANGE AT THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL

From 1998 to 2000, the New Frontiers in Physiology program funded five Local Outreach Teams (LOTs) from around the country to provide regional in-service workshops to secondary school teachers. Three teams were established in 1998. To help encourage minority participation in science, the two teams initiated in 1999 had intentional ties to Native American populations.


LOT teams were collaborative in nature, comprised of middle and high school educators and research physiologists. LOT members received training to prepare them for their workshop facilitation role at a summer Outreach Institute. During the Institute, team members familiarized themselves with the inquiry-based physiology activities (developed through the Frontiers in Physiology program) that would be the basis for their workshops. LOTs, then, in turn exposed the middle and high school teachers that were participants in their regional workshops to these inquiry activities, presented relevant physiology content, and provided resources that would be helpful for the teachers’ to implement the activities in their own classrooms. The regional workshops also provided an avenue for participants to begin building connections with the research community. While team members from all five of the New Frontiers LOTs attended an Outreach Institute, only three teams implemented their regional workshops as intended by APS.3 Two of the LOTs established in 1998 chose to present their workshops in a condensed format, engaging participants in the inquiry activities for only a few hours. As workshops were designed to last at least one day in length to provide time for participants to immerse themselves in the hands-on activities and reflect on how they could transfer this experience (content and pedagogy) to their own practice, the much-reduced sessions were unlikely to achieve anticipated outcomes. Accordingly, for the external evaluation, HRI pursued documenting impacts from the regional workshops that were delivered as intended by three of the LOTs. The first of these workshops was held in the fall of 1998 and was observed by HRI.4 Three others took place in the fall of 1999 and were held in Native American communities (one ‘99 LOT delivered two regional workshops). Participant evaluation surveys were distributed at the end of each regional workshop and LOT facilitators completed a leader survey to provide feedback from the perspective of the professional development providers. This section of the report has three parts. The first part explores the quality of the preparation LOT members received at the Outreach Institute. The second part describes the quality of the regional workshops held by the three LOTs evaluated by HRI from the perspectives of workshop participants and facilitators. Finally, in the third part, impacts from the New Frontiers Local Outreach Component are discussed. A. The Outreach Institute As mentioned above, prior to conducting an outreach workshop in their local area, each LOT was required to send at least two of its members to a four-day Outreach Institute at the Airlie Center in the Washington, D.C. area. During the period of this evaluation, APS conducted two Outreach Institutes, one with the LOTs established in ‘98 and again with those beginning in ‘99. In total, 17 LOT members received training. The Outreach Institutes aimed to: (1) expose LOT members to the physiology activities and pedagogies that would form the basis of their workshops; and (2) allow the LOTs an opportunity to plan for and reflect on the workshops they would be organizing and implementing.

3 For a detailed explanation of LOT workshop requirements, see HRI’s June 1999 Evaluation Report. 4 For a description of a 1998 LOT’s workshop planning process and subsequent implementation, see HRI’s June 1999 Evaluation Report.


In addition, APS offered a LOT Curriculum Development Workshop that ran concurrently with the 1999 Outreach Institute at the Airlie Center. Members of past LOTs were invited to this curriculum workshop to collaboratively develop new physiology activities for use by future LOTs. While the assessment of this workshop was outside the scope of HRI’s evaluation, it is important to mention as it demonstrates APS’ commitment to the local outreach program component and its interest in continuing to expand and improve the experience for LOT participants.

The Outreach Institute was well received by members of the Local Outreach Teams. Survey results (See Appendix, Table 9.) revealed that team members considered several aspects of the Institute to be of the highest quality, including:

• Workshop planning and organization; • Presenters and their ability to effectively model, and provide for, a variety of learning

styles; • Workshop resources and materials; • Appropriateness of topics covered; and • Preparation to use hands-on activities.

LOT members felt that they had been given adequate time to relate materials to their own experiences and were well-prepared to conduct a workshop for middle and high school life science teachers using the APS activities. As several LOT members commented about the preparation they received:

A lot of work went into this workshop to make the participants feel comfortable. Thank-you! A very nice step to bring different professions together for a common cause. It is always helpful to come to a workshop that models presentations styles. [I] feel better prepared to implement on our own.

The modules were beneficial for me to go through step by step. LOT members identified the varied experiences of the Institute participants as resources for learning. Several individuals recognized the value of having access to the expertise of teachers and physiologists on site and the opportunity to network and learn about other people’s experiences. The use of previous LOT members as workshop facilitators was also considered a strength in this respect. Two new preparation-related response items were added to the 1999 Outreach Institute participant evaluation survey. Only half of the ‘99 LOT members indicated they felt well-prepared to discuss the use of animals in research during their own workshops as a result of the Institute training. Over two-thirds, however, felt confident to explore physiology careers. These differences may be due to the variable experiences of the LOT members (i.e., research physiologists and classroom teachers). If a number of team members are not very familiar with using animals in a research setting, it may be more challenging for them to engage workshop


participants, who are likely even less experienced in this realm, in a discussion about this topic. Career information, however, may be easier for individuals to communicate to others without necessarily having first hand knowledge. B. Local Outreach Workshops HRI conducted evaluation activities for workshops held by three of the New Frontiers LOTs. These regional workshops were one-day in duration; two were conducted at a local community college/university and two at local secondary schools. A total of 47 middle/high school teachers took part in the regional workshops delivered by the three LOTs. Incentives for teacher participation included mileage to and from the sites, modest honorariums, and/or provision of classroom materials. LOTs were responsible for all aspects of their workshops including planning the agenda, advertising, application and registration processes, obtaining needed supplies, and implementation.

Workshop participants had similar backgrounds and experiences and their demographics reflected program efforts to target Native American communities.

Most of the workshop participants were experienced teachers, with about two-thirds having taught for more than ten years; less than one-quarter held degrees beyond the Bachelor’s. A large number of teachers who attended the workshops were females. While the majority of participants were white, there was an increase in the number of American Indian/Alaskan Native participants in the ‘99 LOT regional workshops. (See Appendix, Table 10.) Similarly, there was a change in the ethnic distribution of participants’ students. Most students taught by ‘98 participants were white, with the majority shifting to American Indian/Alaskan Native for ‘99 teachers. (See Appendix, Table 11.) These findings are reflective of APS’ intentional recruitment of ‘99 LOTs with ties to Native American communities. The vast majority of workshop participants reported some in-service education in science in the previous year, and about one in four had attended national or state science teacher association meetings in the same period of time. Roughly one-quarter of the group had served on a school or district science curriculum or textbook selection committee. (See Appendix, Table 12.) While these teachers were fairly experienced and had taken advantage of various professional development opportunities, less than one-third of the group considered themselves “expert” science teachers. In general, teachers participating in the LOT workshops enjoyed teaching science and perceived laboratory-based science classes to be more effective than non-laboratory ones. Significantly more ‘99 LOT workshop participants, compared to their ‘98 counterparts, felt they had opportunities to learn things in their job, received support from their colleagues to try out new ideas in teaching science, and regularly shared ideas and materials with other science teachers in their schools. (See Appendix, Table 13.) Despite these reported differences between cohorts in participants’ work environments, opinions of the LOT regional workshops were similar.


Overall, the local outreach workshops evaluated by HRI were implemented as intended by APS and were well received by the secondary school audience.

Based on participant evaluation survey results (See Appendix, Table 14), and HRI observation of a 1998 workshop, the LOT workshops presented were well implemented and of high quality. All participants reported that the workshops:

• Reflected careful planning and organization; • Allowed for the varied experiences of participants to be resources for learning; and • Provided useful resources and materials.

Most participants also felt that the presenters were well prepared, workshop goals were clearly stated, appropriate topics were covered, and their questions and concerns had been addressed effectively by the facilitators. Participants also reported that adequate time was allowed for them to reflect on and relate materials to experience and classroom needs. Review of LOT workshop agendas for these three LOTs showed that they had followed the guidelines delineated by APS, guidelines that likely helped them achieve such positive feedback from participants. For each of the four sites, workshop goals were laid out at the onset of the sessions, participants were engaged in hands-on, physiology-based activities, and adequate time for reflection and discussion was provided. One LOT also presented hands-on activities developed by local teachers who had been summer research teachers and taken part in the APS Summer Retreat. When asked about the most useful aspects of the workshop, participants frequently cited the opportunity to do hands-on activities and interact with researchers and other science educators:

The hands-on experiments—practicing what you will teach first helps so much! The materials and lesson plans. Also, the discussions between teachers and scientists on the nature of science education.

[Most useful was] the modeling of lessons for inquiry teaching in the classroom. Without good lessons and the proper instruction on how to guide an inquiry lesson, then nothing ever gets done.

Having people for additional resources and for information on other projects. Seeing other people’s labs really is encouraging and gives a good example of inquiry learning.

A number of teachers also appreciated the science content provided during sessions, in particular, the explanation of physiology concepts provided by the LOT members who were APS physiologists. For the two LOTs formed in1999, HRI administered a Workshop Leader Survey to gain insight into the workshops from a facilitator’s perspective. One lead facilitator from each of the teams completed a survey. Interestingly, workshop leaders tended to identify the same session strengths as did their participants. As one leader described their team’s success in meeting its workshop goals:


I think we were very successful in accomplishing most of [our] goals. By taking the teachers through the physiology of exercise modules and discussing contexts (health, physical fitness, emergency medical care) they might use with their students to introduce these modules, I believe we convinced them of their usefulness. By having teachers actually do several inquiry-based modules, they seemed to better appreciate this approach. We spent a lot of individual time with teachers during the workshop ensuring that they understood the science behind the exercises in an attempt to make them more comfortable with the materials and therefore more likely to use them. We provided equipment necessary to conduct these modules in their classroom. While most of the teachers who attended the workshop already knew each other, some did not and therefore, hopefully the workshop will encourage further networking.

LOT leaders reported that they had everything they needed in terms of resources to implement the workshops. Support in addition to funding provided by APS was garnered by all three LOTs. Facilities and some equipment were provided by the schools or college/university campuses that hosted the workshops. Publicity was typically afforded through local school district networks and in one instance a web site was established by a university to accept workshop applications electronically. In another case, funds for substitute teachers were leveraged through a local NSF-based initiative.

There were a few areas of local outreach workshop implementation that some teams found challenging.

From one team’s perspective, the facility for their workshop was not ideal. The set-up of the science lab they used for the workshop was not as conducive as the team had hoped to encouraging group interactions. For another LOT, similar to the experience of some teachers who implement inquiry with their middle or high school students, the team found that creating an inquiry-supportive environment required more effort than expected. As one LOT faciliator explained on the Leader Survey:

We found it very difficult to let teachers discover solutions on their own. The tendency is to cookbook these experiments, jump in too soon and problem solve for the participants. Clearly, these are more meaningful exercises if those conducting the experiments are left to answer their own questions.

Participants were appreciative of any materials LOTs provided to help them implement the hands-on activities modeled at the workshop in their own classrooms. LOT members who were also APS physiologists were available for classroom visits while they were in the region. One LOT held a lottery that included drawings for such visits. As the physiologists were likely not able to visit all workshop participants’ classrooms, a few teachers mentioned that they would have liked the opportunity to learn more about these scientists’ experiences during the workshop. When asked what they would do differently if their workshop were presented again, LOT members responding to the Leader Survey thought that they should try to “get the word out” about the regional workshops a little earlier to get more teachers involved. One LOT leader also


felt the involvement of more personnel from the institution hosting the workshop would be of benefit to participants in terms of networking. All three LOTs conducted a follow-up for participants of their primary workshops. These follow-up sessions generally focused on discussing participants’ experiences using the hands-on APS materials, providing participants with additional content background, or purposively continuing to build local networks to share knowledge and resources more effectively among educators. C. Impacts of the Local Outreach Component at the Secondary School Level The design of the New Frontiers in Physiology’s Local Outreach Component has been an effective one to help meet the programs’ goals of bringing together and training teams of educators and researchers to deliver regional, hands-on, physiology-based, in-service workshops to middle/high school teachers. Evaluation findings based on feedback from both participants and facilitators indicate that the workshops:

• Better prepared middle/high school teachers to implement hands-on physiology activities in their own classrooms;

• Created stronger connections between middle/high school teachers and physiologists; and

• Led to wider involvement of the research community in science education. Specific impacts in these three areas are discussed below.

Teachers reported gaining pedagogical skills in a number of different areas, as well as additional content knowledge, as a result of their participation in the local outreach workshops.

The majority of middle and high school teachers taking part in one of the four New Frontiers local outreach workshops surveyed by HRI reported that they had gained skills in reflection, problem-solving, inquiry, and equity. While most of the workshop participants felt they had acquired expertise in how to teach problem-solving skills, significantly more believed this was the case in the 1999 workshops. This increase suggests that the ‘99 workshops may have paid more explicit attention to developing this skill than did the workshop in 1998. Helping to encourage minority participation in science was a main focus for the ‘99 LOT workshops held within Native American communities, and there was a significant increase between 1998 and 1999 in the percent of teachers who felt they had gained skills in promoting gender and racial/ethnic equity in their classrooms. Facilitators likely either focused more acutely on this issue, or were able to more effectively communicate its importance and value in quality instruction. (See Appendix, Table 13.) The majority of participants from all four workshops reported that they had improved their content knowledge in physiology and that they were better prepared to teach physiology concepts as a result of their participation. The potential for these teachers to use the physiology activities presented in their instructional program is promising; a large number of participants felt that the activities were appropriate for their middle or high school students and that they would be easily transferable to their classrooms. (See Appendix, Table 13.) In addition, in


response to an open-ended survey question, most reported that they would use the physiology activities in some form with their classes.

The local outreach workshops appear to have provided an avenue for teachers at the secondary school level to establish connections with the research community.

To gauge the impact of the LOT regional workshops over time, and to determine whether they have resulted in ongoing interactions between middle/high school teachers and physiologists, HRI conducted interviews with several past LOT leaders in the spring of 1999.5 Most of the interviewees were physiologists associated with medical schools where LOT workshops took place. Based on HRI interview data, workshops have engendered interaction between LOT physiologists and participant teachers. All of the interviewed LOT members reported that teachers had visited their research laboratories since the workshop, often accompanied by their students. Said two interviewees about these visits:

There’s one teacher that brought several of her students up here to visit the labs. She brought about a half dozen students…[An anatomist] brought out a human heart that was dissected through and the students could see it, take it apart, and handle it. They got a big kick out of that.

Yes, primarily tours through both the hospital and the research building. The primary objective is showing the teachers and their students the applications of the science that they’re learning in the classroom.

Less common than workshop participants and their students visiting LOT physiologists at a research institution were other types of contacts such as physiologists visiting teachers’ classrooms and teacher/physiologist conversations concerning information or equipment. One interviewed physiologist described such classroom visits as “a very time intensive activity” and suggested that scientists were more likely to participate in judging student science fairs. Classroom visits described by interviewees were usually limited to a single physiologist at the site who had developed demonstrations to do for the students. Two of the interviewed LOT leaders also mentioned that their institution had hosted Summer Research Teachers. LOT workshops have influenced teachers to pursue further opportunities with the Frontiers in Physiology program in the past. Applications for summer research internships have often come from teachers who attended LOT workshops, perhaps as a result of participants’ willingness to contact physiologists as a result of a positive LOT experience or because teachers attending LOT workshops were made aware of the SRT experience. Regardless, this is another avenue for ongoing collaboration between teachers and physiologists.

5 HRI interviewed seven individuals who had coordinated LOT regional workshops over the past several years. For more detailed findings, see HRI’s June 1999 Evaluation Report.


The local outreach team experience led some researchers to further broaden their role in the science education arena.

While some of the interviewed LOT leaders’ research institutions had been involved in providing professional development for teachers, the LOT regional workshop was the first time any of these physiologists had personally provided a professional development workshop specifically for middle and high school teachers. Most of those interviewed found out about the LOT workshop through their involvement with APS, and were drawn to it because they had an interest in outreach to schools. Some physiologists saw it as a way of “jump-starting” their outreach program because they would not have to develop their own activities or basic structure for the workshop. A number of the physiologists interviewed reported that they had used the LOT activities (or modified versions) in professional development since the primary and follow-up regional workshops. Two said that they had presented the LOT activities at state science teachers’ association meetings. One used the LOT activities during a series of 13 anatomy and physiology workshops funded through a grant from the local school district. Another conducted a LOT workshop for Native American teachers at a tribal college (funded by NASA), and has written a Howard Hughes grant proposal for presenting the LOT activities (and additional workshops) multiple times across the state. A few LOT leaders also indicated that other members of their team, and department faculty, had become more interested in science education as a result of this experience:

With other physiologists on the LOT, some of them want to stay involved in doing the outreach workshops whenever we do them. Some of them have expressed interest in taking summer research teachers. There was not much outreach from the medical school prior to the LOT; this marked a change.

Some of our faculty and graduate students became more interested in this type of thing—more interested in K–12 education and what’s being done. So it stirred up a little interest among the faculty and graduate students here that I don’t think would have happened.

Interest in continuing involvement with the professional development of teachers appeared to be strong. LOT leaders would welcome more funding and resources from APS to enable them to continue working with teachers, offering more workshops in hope of a more sustained impact.

SECTION IV: THE PHYSIOLOGY INSIGHTS LOCAL OUTREACH COMPONENT: EFFECTING CHANGE AT THE POST-SECONDARY LEVEL

During the spring of 2000, APS launched its inaugural local outreach workshop for undergraduate life science faculty through the Physiology Insights program. Another two Insights workshops were implemented in different locations in the summer of 2000 and plans are in place for additional workshops in the fall. Similar in structure to the New Frontiers Local Outreach Component, but targeting a different level of the educational system, teams of


undergraduate educators and APS physiologists were brought together to disseminate innovative college-level materials and resources to life science faculty via professional development workshops. Unlike the experience of the New Frontiers LOTs described earlier, however, Insights workshop teams were not necessarily presenting APS-developed materials and did not receive any formal preparation for their facilitation role (i.e., they were not required to attend an Outreach Institute). Workshop themes or content strands and activities were most often developed independently by Insights LOT leaders or in conjunction with APS. Guidelines provided by APS to workshop leaders suggested that Insights workshops include:

• Hands-on laboratory in physiology (preferably inquiry-based); • Reflection and/or discussion activities (and resources) on effective teaching

strategies, standards for undergraduate physiology instruction, and authentic assessment techniques; and

• Discussion of new research, resources, and recent innovations on the workshop’s theme.

Insights workshops were longer in duration than their New Frontiers counterparts, extending the one-day format that was typical of the regional workshops offered at the middle and high school level to provide undergraduate educators with a more intensive three-or-four day experience. Participants at Insights workshops were college faculty who had applied to APS for a Physiology Insights Fellowship allowing them to attend the workshop and help cover their costs. These fellowships typically covered workshop registration, materials, accommodation and some meals. Travel costs were the responsibility of participants; however, most reported receiving assistance in this area from their home institutions. As of September 2000, three Insights workshops had been delivered, reaching a combined total of 57 educators from two- and four-year colleges. HRI collected workshop descriptions for all three workshops, and for two of them, conducted evaluation activities including participant workshop evaluation surveys and workshop leader surveys. Surveys were not distributed to participants at the inaugural Insights workshop as APS viewed it as a “trial run,” preferring to focus HRI evaluation efforts and funds on the subsequent workshop offerings. This section has two parts. The first part briefly describes the workshops held by the Insights LOTs and discusses the quality of experience as reported by participants and facilitators from two of the three workshops. In the second part, impacts from the Insights Local Outreach Component are presented.

A. Workshop Implementation The focus and configuration of the three Physiology Insights workshops was variable. Two of the workshops were embedded within large-scale physiology conferences/meetings: the Experimental Biology conference and the Human Anatomy and Physiology Society meeting. During these four-to-five day events, APS sponsored a number of different symposia and hands-on workshops with physiology-based themes (content and pedagogy focused) led by Insights LOT members that awardees of the Physiology Insights Fellowship could attend. While at the


conference/meeting, participants of the Insights workshops were also free to explore other sessions and exhibits on their own. The third Insights workshop was held at a local university and was independent of any larger event. This workshop was two and a half days in length and offered activities focused specifically on linking inquiry methods and technology. Insights LOTs were successful in garnering support for their workshops as space and necessary equipment were typically provided by the host institution or conference site.

In general, Insights workshop participants had similar backgrounds in terms of education, teaching experience, professional development, and ethnicity.

The majority of participants at the two Insights workshops HRI evaluated were full-time faculty from four-year colleges with over 10 years teaching experience. Almost all participants reported teaching physiology and just over half taught anatomy. General biology, cell and molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry were other subjects that a number of participants also reported teaching. Roughly three-quarters of participants had been involved in more than 15 hours of professional development in the last year. Most of the participants held a doctorate degree and had taken numerous graduate courses in physiology. Over 80 percent of these undergraduate educators were white (non-Hispanic), and just under two-thirds were male. Participants taught an average of 118 students per year, three-quarters of whom were white. (See Appendix, Tables 15–17.) While Insights workshop participants were professionally active, experienced undergraduate faculty, only 63 percent considered themselves “expert” science educators. All participants reported that they enjoyed teaching science and almost all believed that laboratory-based science courses were more effective than non-laboratory courses. Many of these faculty felt supported by their colleagues to try out new ideas in teaching science (89 percent), although fewer indicated they regularly shared ideas and materials (62 percent) or had opportunities to learn new teaching techniques (65 percent). Only half of the participants indicated that they had many chances to keep up-to-date on new discoveries in science. (See Appendix, Table 18.) Just over half of the participants reported currently using inquiry-based teaching in their courses. In response to an open-ended query on the workshop evaluation survey, most participants described inquiry in their classrooms as students developing hypotheses and conducting experiments of their own design. Assigning independent research projects and soliciting student feedback during lectures and laboratory periods were also provided as examples of inquiry. In a few cases, participants described using a case study approach where students worked in groups to conduct research and present findings. One participant, familiar with APS-developed materials, reported using the Elvis Experiment and Neural Networks laboratories in an undergraduate setting to provide students with hands-on experiences. Another participant found use of interactive demonstrations an effective method to engage students, particularly in a class of non-Biology majors.

Undergraduate educators had favorable reactions to the Insights workshops they attended. Most participants at the two Insights workshops HRI evaluated felt that the advanced information they received gave them a realistic description of the workshops, and that presenters


were well-prepared and organized. Participants also believed the workshop goals were clear, appropriate topics were covered, and their questions and concerns were addressed effectively. Similar to findings from the New Frontiers local outreach workshops, the varied experiences of workshop participants were viewed as a resource for learning. (See Appendix, Table 19.) In open-ended survey responses, undergraduate faculty highlighted several aspects of their Insights workshop experiences as being the most useful. Aspects mentioned included:

• Exposure to different teaching pedagogies; • Demonstration of and/or participation in inquiry-based laboratory activities; • Examination of misconceptions in physiology; • Exposure to new laboratory techniques and equipment; • Gaining new information regarding current physiology research; • Obtaining or learning about resources for effectively teaching physiology; and • Opportunity to interact with other colleagues in their field.

When asked about the least useful aspects of the Insights workshop, many participants were unable to identify anything in particular. A few individuals mentioned the need for more time during workshop sessions to allow for more questions and reflection. Some participants also reported that sessions were at times too crowded and multiple sections of the sessions should have been offered to accommodate the demand. Lengthening workshop sessions times was also a modification suggested by Insights LOT members on the Workshop Leader Survey. At one site where the workshop was embedded within a larger conference, a few participants remarked on the need for a less “chaotic” registration process and guidance on how to “gain the most” from their workshop/conference experience. Overall, the Insights workshops were successful from the perspective of both the participants and facilitators. As these individuals exclaimed:

The instructors gave wonderful demonstrations, had an extensive knowledge of the experiments, and equipment, and did a terrific job of creating a flexible organization that allowed us to spend time in the areas of greatest interest for our needs.

I will use this space [on the evaluation survey] to really praise the obvious huge effort the organizers put into preparation beforehand to ensure availability of equipment, supplies, and an outstanding [workshop facilitation team.]

Every session I attended was meaningful and helpful. B. Impacts of the Local Outreach Component at the Post-Secondary Level While the local outreach component of the Physiology Insights program is a new initiative, and only limited evaluation data have been collected to date, preliminary evidence suggest that its target audience is being impacted positively on a number of different levels.


Undergraduate educators viewed the physiology resources and materials presented at the Insights workshops as both applicable and transferable to their classrooms.

The majority of undergraduate faculty at two- and four-year colleges who participated in the Insights workshops surveyed by HRI reported that they are now better prepared to teach physiology concepts. Participants anticipated that the resources and materials in physiology they were exposed to through the workshops will help them in this endeavor. The presented physiology activities were seen as being both appropriate for undergraduate students and easily transferable to participants’ courses. (See Appendix, Table 19.) A number of participants commented on the value of specific workshop activities:

[I] will use the crayfish lab. I have been wanting to start using this animal in my labs and am very pleased to have had such a thorough introduction to the crayfish heart lab! [I] will use parts of just about all of the labs in my class. [I] will give information to other people in the department who were unable to attend the workshop—specifically AP instructors [who] also teach many nursing students, etc.

I plan on using the Elvis experiment in some way. I will make this an out-of-class lab exercise. The student groups must submit an experimental protocol, conduct the experiments, write a report, and prepare a poster for a class discussion. I also hope to use more active classroom discussion and in class “quizzing” to emphasize class participation.

As a [scientist] and Chair of [my department,] I found the curricular links to other subjects fascinating. I was grateful for the opportunity to compare this computer-interface system with our own…The ease with which one can move into inquiry-based labs when using this type of system is something I need to reflect on and incorporate more fully into my courses.

A number of participants noted the interdisciplinary nature of the workshops as a strength, and as one individual extrapolated about implementing workshop activities back in the classroom: “It will give students a fresh view of how disciplines intertwine.” Another participant stated: “I currently teach anatomy, but I may incorporate some physiology labs/lessons.”

The vast majority of participants felt they had improved their content knowledge in physiology and gained resources on effective teaching strategies.

Roughly 90 percent of the surveyed participants felt that they had gained content and pedagogical knowledge as a result of their experiences at an Insights workshop. According to open-ended survey findings, the college-level participants particularly valued the opportunity to receive updates on recent innovations in the field of physiology, and learn about new areas of physiology research. Quantitative survey results are not as suggestive of this finding, however, as only 47 percent of participants felt they had gained knowledge about new research from their workshop. It is important to reiterate that Insights workshops have no set requirements. APS suggests a number of different elements for Insights LOTs to include, but workshop themes and the relative emphasis allotted to particular topics or strategies within sessions are determined by


the facilitators. Participants’ experiences and perceptions on what skills they gained, therefore, will necessarily be different across workshops. For example, inquiry was likely a main focus across all Insights workshops and over 80 percent of participants reported gaining skills in how to use inquiry-based teaching in their courses. In comparison, roughly two-thirds of participants reported gaining skills in reflection and only about one-third indicated improvements in their knowledge of how to use authentic assessments in their courses, perhaps because fewer workshop sessions likely focused on these areas. (See Appendix, Table 19.) Regardless of the relative emphasis sessions placed on particular pedagogical techniques, participants described a wide range of teaching strategies encountered at Insights workshops that they intended to integrate into their own practices. As these workshop participants described:

[I will try] to incorporate more ‘active learning.’

I plan to use assessment materials as well as the various cooperative learning activities in my classroom this fall.

[The most useful aspect of the workshop was] the presentation of inquiry based lab experiment ideas that could be incorporated into my course.

[I learned] new & unanticipated views/methods.

[I] will be able to expand and improve the labs I do. Next time I buy acquisition programs and peripherals [I] will have a good idea of what is available.

Workshop facilitators also felt that participants were prepared to transfer knowledge and skills gained to classroom practice. As one facilitator responded to questions on the Insights Workshop Leader Survey:

The workshop provided hands-on experience while demonstrating effective teaching strategies. Pressure-flow-volume relationship were observed first hand!…The hands-on discovery aspect was the most frequently lauded aspect of the workshop. Participants also cited the simplicity and low cost of the materials/equipment…Participants are likely to repeat the exercises with their students in a lab setting. They are also less likely to lecture on the pressure-flow-volume relationships and more likely to let students ‘discover’ them.

Another facilitator from a different Insights workshop reported that “it wasn’t clear how much progress was made in promoting inquiry activities” given the limited time and the fact that many participants felt that they already had “a good grasp of how to do inquiry labs” coming into the workshop. The facilitator noted that participants in this workshop were able work on acquiring new teaching skills they were interested in learning that could be used in combination with familiar inquiry approaches.


A few Insights participants found that the workshops stimulated their interest in pursuing similar, but more intensive, professional development focused on physiology and confirmed the value of taking an “active” approach to teaching:

Physiology is very often taught by people who are not physiologists by training. Thus, physiology is often learned from textbooks before being taught, which makes teaching difficult and not accurate. I would like to have the opportunity to attend an intensive physiology course offered by physiologists using active-learning techniques. In such a course I would improve both my ‘content’ knowledge as well as my teaching techniques….Overall, this workshop reinforced my conviction that active learning is the right way to teach and thus, gave me more assurance to stand for this idea during internal school debates!

Similar to findings from the New Frontiers program, the opportunity outreach workshops afforded to participants to network with other professionals was also viewed as a benefit. As two of the Insights workshops were embedded within larger scientific meetings, participants likely had exposure to a wider number and diversity of professionals with which to network.

SECTION V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. The Summer Research Component The model developed by APS that engages middle school, high school, and undergraduate educators in physiology research and provides an opportunity for exploration of various teaching strategies through hands-on, physiology-based activities continues to be a successful one. The New Frontiers in Physiology and Physiology Insights programs aim to improve science education at several levels of the educational system by promoting the adoption of national standards for science content and pedagogical techniques and on-going relationships between educators and researchers. While impacts of these programs on participants vary, most likely due to different instructional contexts and participants’ prior attitudes and preparedness, it appears that there has been progress toward each of these goals. As a result of participating in the program, middle and high school SRTs report a marked increase in both their confidence and enthusiasm for reform-oriented science teaching and their ability to grasp modern physiology science. Becoming more connected to the scientific realm and having the chance to enhance their content and pedagogical knowledge and skills affords SRTs new avenues through which to enhance their science instruction. There have been concrete changes in their classroom practice, ranging from the addition of new content or infusion of new inquiry-based activities in their curriculum to the more effective use of a wider range of teaching techniques or an altered approach to how students are engaged in science. Like their middle and high school counterparts, post-secondary SRTs report a better understanding of the research process and current science teaching practices. In both groups of SRTs, shifts from traditional laboratory practices toward more reform-oriented ones are evident. The extent to which SRTs are able to apply new knowledge and implement new skills gained from their summer research experience appears to be dependent on a number of factors,


however. SRTs identify lack of fit with curriculum, lack of time, and inadequate resources as the most common factors conspiring against use of activities introduced or self-developed over the course of the program. Some SRTs encounter difficulty determining how best to integrate inquiry into their classroom practice. APS-developed inquiry activities that are ready to use have a greater potential to be incorporated by SRTs into their classroom. Altering existing lessons or designing new ones to increase the amount of inquiry-oriented experiences students have presents a much greater challenge. Development of SRTs’ skills in this area, however, is needed for teachers to be able to apply their summer research experiences more broadly and impact deeper change in their instruction. While there have been changes to SRTs classroom practice as a result of their summer research experience, further support—post-program participation—is likely required to ensure the quality and permanence of change the program has the potential to engender. Similarly, most SRTs established valuable associations with the research community during their participation in the program. Follow-up opportunities for continued contact between educators and researcher would further strengthen the nature of these connections. B. The Local Outreach Component The local outreach workshops conducted by teams of physiologists and educators aim to promote the adoption of standards-based instruction by disseminating inquiry-based physiology activities and other life science resources to teachers across the country for use in their classrooms. Making connections between teachers and the research community is also a goal of this program component. When implemented as intended, it appears that these workshops provide teachers with the necessary tools, materials, and experiences to help reach these goals on some level. Teachers involved in the New Frontiers outreach workshops report that they have improved their content knowledge in physiology and that they are now better prepared to teach physiology concepts. Teachers feel they have also acquired expertise in how to employ a number of different pedagogical strategies in their classrooms. Materials presented at the workshop are considered appropriate for their classroom context and many of the teachers anticipate using them in some form with their students. While the implementation of Physiology Insights outreach workshops is a new initiative, the potential for impact on educators at the undergraduate level is promising. Post-secondary educators report impacts from workshop participation in their content and pedagogical preparedness. For many, exposure to active learning teaching strategies such as inquiry and the interdisciplinary nature of workshops provide many new avenues for consideration in relation to their current instructional practice. Participants in workshops across both programs find the experience to be a good opportunity for networking with other educators as well as researchers. Given the limited interaction that occurs during a local outreach workshop, however, these connections are likely much less intensive than those made between teachers and the research community during the programs’ summer research component. Previous outreach workshop facilitators report that their involvement with this


component of the program acts as a catalyst to their involvement in providing other professional development to teachers. The need for additional funding and resources appears to be the main barrier to LOTs improving the quality and frequency of the outreach workshops to have a more sustained impact across a broader spectrum of teachers.

Horizon Research, Inc. A-1 October 2000

APPENDIX

Table 1: Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on the Importance of Various Instructional Strategies

Table 2: Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on Science and Education Issues Table 3: Level of Understanding Reported by Summer Research Teachers on Current

Science Education Topics Table 4: Summer Retreat Evaluation Results Table 5: Summer Retreat Participants’ Ratings of Workshop Activities Table 6: Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on their Preparedness to Implement

Various Instructional Strategies Table 7: Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on their Preparedness to Implement

Various Instructional Strategies Table 8: Level of Student Participation in Summer Research Teachers’ Science Classes Table 9: Outreach Institute Evaluation Results Table 10: Demographics of Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Participants Table 11: Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Participants’ Student Information Table 12: Science In-Service Training and Professional Involvement of Local Outreach

Team Regional Workshop Participants Table 13: Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Participants’ Opinions on Science

Education Table 14: Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Evaluation Results Table 15: Demographics of Physiology Insights Workshop Participants Table 16: Physiology Insights Workshop Participants’ Student Information Table 17: Professional Development and Educational Background of Physiology Insights

Workshop Participants Table 18: Physiology Insights Workshop Participants’ Opinions on Science Education Table 19: Physiology Insights Workshop Evaluation Results


Table 1 Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on the

Importance of Various Instructional Strategies1

Percent of participants who responded "fairly important" or "very important"

Total (n = 38) 1998 (n=18) 1999 (n=20)

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Develop students' conceptual understanding of science.

100

100 100 100 100 100

Have students participate in appropriate hands-on activities.

97

97 100 94 95 100

Develop students' scientific reasoning ability. 97 97 94 94 100 100 Make connections between science and other

Disciplines.

95

100 94 100 95 100 Use informal questioning to assess student understanding.

92

90 94 89 90 90

Engage students in applications of science in a variety of contexts.

92

97 100 100 84 95

Engage students in inquiry-oriented activities. 90 97 89 100 90 95 Provide concrete experience before abstract concepts. 89 97 94 100 84 95 Take students' prior knowledge into account when

planning curriculum and instruction.

87

92 83 100 90 85 Use Internet to gain resources for teaching or students. 82 90 83 94 80 85 Teach science facts and terminology. 82 68 72 61 90 75 Cover fewer topics in greater depth. 79 90 76 83 82 95 Have students work in cooperative learning groups. 78 92 78 89 79 95 Use performance-based assessment. 78 83 78 89 79 78 Use portfolios for assessment of student learning. 58 66 50 72 65 60

1Comparative extry/exit survey results presented in Appendix tables, and referred to in the report, use only the data from those cases in which both a pre- and post-survey were returned. The McNemar Test was used to test the statistical significance of changes from pre- to post-responses. It is important to note that since there is a very small number of cases, there must be a large difference between pre- and post-responses for statistical significance.


Table 2 Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on Science and Education Issues

Percent of participants who “agree” or “strongly agree” Total (n = 38) 1998 (n=18) 1999 (n=20)

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Performing an experiment or making first-hand observations provides students with an understanding of science.

100

100 100 100 100

The use of animals is very important for research in the physiological sciences.

92

97 94 94 89 100

Biology/life science instruction is enhanced by the use of animals in the classroom.

89

97 89 100 90 95

An understanding of the scientific method is critical for understanding scientific content.

89

90 83 78 95 100

Male and female students tend to have equal ability in science.

84

82 83 78 85 85

In addition to reading a textbook, students can benefit from reading original research reports and review articles in scientific journals.

84

78 78 71 90 85 Boys and girls tend to have an equal interest in science. 71 53* 67 44 75 60 I feel I have good connections with members of the scientific

research community.

37

82* 44 89* 30 75* Modern physiological science is beyond the understanding of

the average science teacher.

32

8* 44 6* 20 10 The processes of scientific research are beyond the

understanding of the average science teacher.

21

11 28 17 15 5 Scientific research is boring.

0

3 0 0 0 5 * Difference between entry and exit survey significant at p ≤ .05 (McNemar Test)


Table 3 Level of Understanding Reported by

Summer Research Teachers on Current Science Education Topics

Percent of participants who responded “high” or “very high”

Total (n = 38) 1998 (n=18) 1999 (n=20)

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Integrating science with other subject areas (e.g., mathematics, reading, social studies)

58

66 61 50 55 80

Integration within science disciplines (e.g., biology, physical sciences)

55

74 44 56 65 90

National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards

42

57 39 67 45 47

Current science teaching practices (e.g., inquiry, learning cycle)

37

79* 39 78* 35 80*

The nature of science (i.e., how scientific research is done)

38

84* 35 83* 40 85* Guidelines or regulations for using animals in teaching

at my school

27

63* 22 67* 32 60 * Difference between entry and exit survey significant at p ≤ .05 (McNemar Test)


Table 4 Summer Retreat Evaluation Results

Percent of SRTs who “agree” or “strongly agree”

Total (n = 49)

1998 (n=26)

1999 (n=23)

Sharing ideas with colleagues during the institute was valuable. 98 100 96 I gained skills in how to use inquiry-based activities in my classroom. 98 100 95 I will use inquiry-based, problem solving activities in my classes more

often.

96 100 91 I will use at least one of the hands-on activities in my classroom. 96 96 96 The resources and materials available at the workshop were useful. 96 96 95 The presenters were well-prepared. 94 96 91 The varied experiences of the participants were resources for learning. 94 96 91 I have been encouraged to set additional goals for my personal and

professional growth and development. 94 92 96

The workshop reflected careful planning and organization. 92 100 83* I gained better understanding of the implementation of inquiry in the

classroom. 92 96 86 I gained skills in how to teach problem-solving skills. 92 96 86 I gained understanding on how animals are used in research and

teaching. 90 92 87 I gained skills in reflecting on my teaching. 90 88 91 I improved my content knowledge. 90 88 91 I gained better understanding of the integration of content and

pedagogy in the classroom. 86 92 78 I was able to integrate ideas and/or experiences from my summer

research into a lesson for my own classroom. 86 92 78 Participants’ questions and concerns were addressed effectively. 84 81 87 The presenters provided for a variety of learning styles. 84 81 87 I gained skills in how to use cooperative learning techniques. 83 77 91 Advanced information provided a realistic description of the institute. 79 80 78 I gained skills and strategies to promote gender and racial/ethnic

equity in my classroom. 71 69 73 I have an increased awareness of gender and racial/ethnic issues. 67 69 64 I increased my knowledge of the National Science Education

Standards. 66 64 68 Adequate time was allowed for participants to reflect on and relate

materials to their experience and needs. 65 69 61 I am better able to respond to student questions regarding the use of

animals in research

-

-

96

I plan to use the Internet to identify or locate teaching resources. - - 91 *Difference between 1998 and 1999 participants significant at p ≤ .05 (two-tailed z-test)


Table 5 Summer Retreat Participants’ Ratings of Workshop Activities

Percent of SRTs who responded “useful” or “very useful”

Total (n = 49)

1998 (n=26)

1999 (n=23)

Elvis Experiments 84 85 87 Introduction to inquiry and the Standards. 83 76 91 Neural Networks 81 83 81 The sharing of research work by fellow SRTs. 80 73 87 Field trip on geese migration. 59 69 48 Reflections 1-6 53 46 64 Ideas for Undergraduate Faculty - 31 - Mealworm Experiment - - 78


Table 6 Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on their

Preparedness to Implement Various Instructional Strategies Percent of participants who responded

"fairly well prepared" or "very well prepared" Total (n = 38) 1998 (n=18) 1999 (n=20)

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Teach science facts and terminology. 89 90 94 89 85 90 Have students work in cooperative learning

groups.

86

92 88 89 84 95 Take students' prior knowledge into account

when planning curriculum and instruction.

82

86 78 88 85 85 Cover fewer topics in greater depth. 79 86 65 73 94 95 Develop students' conceptual understanding of

science.

76

94 83 88 70 100* Use informal questioning to assess student

understanding.

74

92* 72 83 75 100* Have students participate in appropriate hands-on

activities.

70

100* 71 100 70 100* Make connections between science and other

disciplines.

68

82 65 78 70 85 Use Internet to gain resources for teaching or

students.

63

74 56 72 70 80 Develop students' scientific reasoning ability. 61 95* 50 89* 70 100* Engage students in inquiry-oriented activities. 57 95* 61 89 53 100* Use performance-based assessment. 57 79* 59 69 55 89* Provide concrete experience before abstract

concepts.

54

92* 50 89* 58 95* Engage students in applications of science in a

variety of contexts.

44

74* 35 67 53 80 Use portfolios for assessment of student learning. 38 50 41 50 35 50

* Difference between entry and exit survey significant at p ≤ .05 (McNemar Test)


Table 7

Summer Research Teachers’ Opinions on their Preparedness to Implement Various Instructional Strategies

Percent of participants who responded "fairly well prepared" or "very well prepared"

Total (n = 38) 1998 (n=18) 1999 (n=20)

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Recognize and respond to student diversity. 87 92 83 89 90 95 Manage a class of students engaged in project-based

work.

81

95 78 94 84 95 Encourage student interest in science. 79 95 78 100 80 90 Help students take responsibility for their own learning.

74

89* 83 88 65 90* Lead a class of students using investigative strategies. 66 100* 56 100* 75 100* Use strategies that specifically encourage participation

of females and minorities in science.

63

90* 67 89 60 90* * Difference between entry and exit survey significant at p ≤ .05 (McNemar Test)


Table 8 Level of Student Participation in

Summer Research Teachers’ Science Classes Percent of participants who responded “often” or “very often” Total (n = 38) 1998 (n=18) 1999 (n=20)

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Entry Survey

Exit Survey

Students give their opinions during discussions. 90 84 89 78 90 90 Students write reports of laboratory investigations. 60 70 50 71 65 70 Students’ ideas and suggestions are used during

classroom discussions.

63

82* 50 78 75 85 Students watch the teacher demonstrate a scientific

principal.

50

34 56 39 45 30 Students work in class on science projects that take

a week or more.

47

45 50 44 45 45 All students participate equally in class discussions. 38 55* 33 56 42 55 Students use a computer. 29 42 22 33 35 50 Students carry out investigations to answer

questions coming from class discussions.

32

42 28 39 35 45 Students carry out investigations to answer

questions which puzzle them.

11

21 6 28 15 15 The teacher lectures without students asking or

answering questions.

3

3 0 0 5 5 * Difference between entry and exit survey significant at p ≤ .05 (McNemar Test)


Table 9 Outreach Institute Evaluation Results

Percent of participants

who “agree” or “strongly agree”

Total

(n = 17) 1998

(n=11) 1999 (n=6)

The workshop reflected careful planning and organization. 100 100 100 The presenters were well prepared. 100 100 100 The varied experiences of the participants were resources for learning. 100 100 100 Appropriate topics were covered. 100 100 100 Participants' questions and concerns were addressed effectively. 100 100 100 The resources and materials available at the workshop were useful. 100 100 100 I understand what is expected in conducting a workshop for middle and high school life

science teachers.

100 100

100 I plan to use reflection as a tool in conducting my workshop. 94 100 83 The presenters provided for a variety of learning styles. 94 91 100 Adequate time was allowed for participants to reflect on and relate material to their

experience and needs.

94 91

100 I feel well prepared to conduct a workshop for middle and high school life science

teachers.

94 91

100 I feel prepared to explore pedagogy (instructional strategies) with participants at

workshops I conduct.

82 91

67 The presenters effectively modeled a variety of professional development strategies. - 91 - The presenters effectively modeled a variety of learning styles. - - 100 I feel better prepared to discuss the use of animals in research with participants at

workshops I conduct. - -

50

I feel better prepared to discuss careers in physiology with participants at workshops I conduct.

- -

83

Exercise Physiology The content is appropriate for the participants of my workshops. 88 82 100 The pedagogy is appropriate for the participants of my workshops. 94 91 100 I feel well prepared to use this activity at a workshop. 100 100 100 Neural Networks The content is appropriate for the participants of my workshops. 94 91 100 The pedagogy is appropriate for the participants of my workshops. 94 91 100 I feel well prepared to use this activity at a workshop. 100 100 100


Table 10 Demographics of Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Participants

Percent of Respondents

Total (n = 47, 4 sites)

1998 (n=15, 1 site)

1999 (n=32, 3 sites)

Race/Ethnicity White, not Hispanic origin African American Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander

80 0 0

20 0

93 0 0 7 0

75 0 0

25 0

Gender Male Female

30 70

27 73

37 69

Degrees Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate

100 16 0

100 33 0

100 7 0

Prior Teaching Experience 0–5 years 6–10 years 11–19 years 20+ years

36 24 22 18

36 21 21 21

36 26 23 16

Prior Science Teaching Experience 0–5 years 6–10 years 11–19 years 20+ years

64 9

19 9

60 13 13 13

66 6

22 6


Table 11 Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Participants' Student Information

Total

(n = 47, 4 sites) 1998

(n = 15, 1 site) 1999

(n = 32, 3 sites)

Average Number

Number of Students 120 150 106

Average Percent

Percent of Ethnic Distribution

African American 6 12 3

American Indian 50 0 70

Asian or Pacific Islander 1 2 1

Hispanic 1 5 1

White 41 82 24


Table 12 Science In-Service Training and Professional Involvement

of Local Outreach Regional Workshop Participants Percent of Respondents


1998 (n = 15, 1 site)

1999 (n = 32, 3 sites)

Science In-Service in Last 12 Months None Less than 6 hours 6–15 hours 16–35 hours More than 35 hours

20 25 23 18 15

21 21 36 14 7

19 27 15 19 19

Science In-Service in Last 3 Years None Less than 6 hours 6–15 hours 16–35 hours More than 35 hours

15 8

23 26 28

18 0

18 36 27

14 11 25 21 29

Professional Involvement in Last 12 Months Attended any national or state science teacher association meetings Taught any in-service workshops or courses in science or science teachings Received any local, state, or national grants or awards for science teaching Served on a school or district science curriculum committee Served on a school or district science textbook selection committee

23 19 6

30 21

27 13 7

27 7

22 22 6

31 28


Table 13 Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop

Participants’ Opinions on Science Education Percent of participants who

“agree” or “strongly agree” Total

(n = 47, 4 sites) 1998

(n= 15, 1 site) 1999

(n = 32, 3 sites) It is important for students to learn basic scientific terms. 96 100 94 Laboratory-based science classes are more effective than non-laboratory

classes.

96

93

97 I feel that I have many opportunities to learn new things in my present job. 83 60 94* I enjoy teaching science. 79 80 78 I feel supported by colleagues to try out new ideas in teaching science. 77 60 84* Science teachers in my school regularly share ideas and materials. 68 47 78* I consider myself an “expert” science teacher. 30 26 32 Activity-based science experiences aren’t worth the time and expense for

what my students learn.

9

14 6 *Difference between 1998 and 1999 participants significant at p < .05 (two-tailed z-test)


Table 14 Local Outreach Team Regional Workshop Evaluation Results

Percent of participants who “agree” or “strongly agree”


1998 (n= 15, 1 site)

1999 (n = 32, 3 sites)

The workshop reflected careful planning and organization. 100 100 100 The varied experiences of the participants were resources for learning. 100 100 100 The resources and materials available at the workshop were useful. 100 100 100 The presenters were well prepared. 98 100 97 Participants’ questions and concerns were addressed effectively. 98 100 97 Appropriate topics were covered. 98 100 97 I gained skills in reflection that will be useful for my teaching. 98 93 100 Adequate time was allowed for participants to reflect on and relate materials

to their experience and needs.

98

93 100 The goals for the workshop were clearly stated. 96 93 97 I gained skills in how to teach problem-solving skills. 91 80 97* I am better prepared to teach physiology concepts as a result of this

workshop.

89

100

88 I improved my content knowledge in physiology. 89 86 91 The presented physiology activities are easily transferable to my classroom. 87 94 84 I gained skills in how to use inquiry in my classroom. 85 80 88 The presented physiology activities are appropriate for the students I teach. 83 93 78 Advance information provided a realistic description of the workshop. 78 88 74 I gained skills and strategies to promote gender and racial/ethnic equity in

my classroom.

49

26 60* *Difference between 1998 and 1999 participants significant at p < .05 (two-tailed z-test)


Table 15 Demographics of Physiology Insights Workshop Participants

Percent of Respondents

2000 (n=37)

Type of Institution Two-year college Four-year college

5

87 Current Teaching Status Full-time staff Part-time staff Contract staff

97 0 3

Prior Science Teaching Experience 0–5 years 6–10 years 11–19 years 20 + years

17 17 26 40

Subjects Taught Physiology Anatomy Other

95 60 73

Gender Male Female

62 38

Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaska Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic White, non-Hispanic

0 5 8 0

87


Table 16

Physiology Insights Workshop Participants’ Student Information 2000

(n=37) Average

Number Number of Students Taught Per Year 118

Average Percent

Percent of Student Ethnic Distribution African-American American Indian Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic White

16 3 4 4

72


Table 17 Professional Development and Educational Background

of Physiology Insights Workshop Participants Percent of

Respondents 2000

(n=37) Hours of Professional Development – last 12 months None Less than 6 hours 6–15 hours 16–35 hours More than 35 hours

5 3

22 32 38

Hours of Professional Development – last 3 years None Less than 6 hours 6–15 hours 16–35 hours More than 35 hours

3 8

22 68

Graduate Coursework in Physiology None 1–4 courses 4–8 courses 8 + courses

14 38 21 28

Degrees Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Other

100 68 83 8


Table 18 Physiology Insights Workshop Participants’ Opinions on Science Education


2000 (n=37)

I enjoy teaching science. 100 Laboratory-based science courses are more effective than non-laboratory

courses. 95 I feel supported by colleagues to try out new ideas in teaching science. 89 I feel that I have many opportunities to learn new teaching techniques in my

present position. 65 I consider myself an “expert” science educator. 63 Science educators in my college regularly share ideas and materials. 62 I feel that I have many opportunities to keep up-to-date on new discoveries in

science in my present position. 54 Lab-based science experiences aren’t worth the time and expense for what my

students learn. 0


Table 19 Physiology Insights Workshop Evaluation Results


2000 (n=37)

Participants’ questions and concerns were addressed effectively. 100 Appropriate topics were covered. 100 The varied experiences of the participants were resources for learning. 100 The goals of the workshop were clearly stated. 97 The presenters were well prepared. 97 The resources and materials available at the workshop were useful. 97 The workshop reflected careful planning and organization. 94 Advanced information provided a realistic description of the workshop. 92 The presented physiology activities are appropriate for the students I teach. 92 I gained resources on effective teaching strategies. 92 I improved my content knowledge in physiology. 89 Adequate time was allowed for participants to reflect on and relate material to

their experience and needs. 89 I am more knowledgeable about resources in physiology that will help me in

my teaching. 87 The presented physiology activities are easily transferable to my courses. 86 I gained skills in how to use inquiry-based teaching in my courses. 83 I am better prepared to teach physiology concepts as a result of this workshop. 81 I gained understanding about recent innovations in the field of physiology. 68 I gained skills in reflection that will be useful for my teaching. 66 I gained knowledge about new research in the field of physiology. 47 I gained skills in how to use authentic assessment in my courses. 36

final report on major activities - american physiological society

Documents