ncosp learning community forum march 2007 science curriculum topic study examining student thinking

NCOSP Learning Community Forum March 2007

Science Curriculum Topic StudyScience Curriculum Topic Study

Examining Student Thinking


Three Goals

• To practice using a “scaffold” for examining student thinking with student work from our own classrooms.

• To learn to link our analysis of student learning to the research on student learning, and instructional implications.

• To consider how this process could be used in our work with other teachers.


Balanced Assessment

Formative Assessment

Summative Assessment

Examining students’ thinking for the purpose of informing instruction


Collaborative Inquiry

…is a process by which all relevant groups construct their understanding of important problems and potential solutions through asking questions, carefully analyzing all relevant data, and engaging in constructive dialogue with colleagues.

Wagner, 1998


Data: The Heart of Inquiry

“ Data enable us to be educational detectives. We are ‘Columbos.’ We get clues as to how students are doing. We look at how to improve.”

Joe O’Reilly, Mesa Unified School District


Examining Student Thinking

• If the student material you brought is in the form of a notebook, please go.....

• Everyone else stay here


CIEST DATA-DRIVEN DIALOGUE- 3 Phases

Phase 1

Activating & EngagingSurfacing assumptions, makingpredictions, asking questions

Phase 2

Exploring & Discovering

Organizing & analyzing the data

Phase 3

Organizing & Integrating

Generating inferences, hypotheses, explanations

Adapted from Nancy Love’s Using Data, Getting Results and The Adaptive School, Laura Lipton and Bruce Wellman


Phase 1Step 1: Establish Group Norms

Generate “ground rules” for conducting the CIEST protocol

* Include sticking to the protocol!


Phase 1 Step 2: Examine the Probe

Jot down any notes about: Your own thinking as you completed the probe

Prior knowledge you accessed (e.g. formal or informal learning, intuitive rules, topic study, etc.)

Any difficulties you encountered or content you are unsure of

How and when your students might have encountered (or will encounter) the idea(s) targeted in this probe?


Phase 1 Step 3: Probe Clarification

What is the “best response” and scientific explanation?

What CTS Guide will you use?

What specific idea(s) from the standards are targeted by the probe or may contribute to the scientific knowledge used to respond to the probe ? (CTS Section III)

What other learning goals are related to this probe? (CTS Section III)

How do students typically encounter the idea targeted by this probe? (CTS Section II)


CTS Discussion

IN YOUR GROUPS,

Examine and discuss the learning goals and the prerequisite ideas identified through CTS Section III.

How does CTS Section II help us understand the instructional implications related to your probe?


Phase 1 Step 4: Anticipate Student Thinking

IN YOUR GROUP What assumptions do you have about how students at

your grade level might respond to your probe? Share one individual assumption

What group “quantitative” predictions can you make? Share 1 quantitative prediction about what they expect to see in the student work (e.g. %’s of responses)


Step 4: Quick Scan of Student Work

Quickly scan through the student work and select one sample of student thinking that interests you.

What was interesting or surprised you about the student’s thinking?

Briefly have each member of your small group share one or two things (caution- no analysis yet! Just the facts!)


CIEST Data-Driven Dialogue Approach

Phase 1Activating & Engaging

Surfacing assumptions, makingpredictions, asking questions

Phase 2Exploring & Discovering


Phase 3Organizing & Integrating


Adapted by Nancy Love for Using Data, Getting Results from The Adaptive School, Laura Lipton and Bruce Wellman


Phase 2Step 5: Organize and Sort

Tally ”Forced Choice” (Tier 1) responses.

Go Visual! Create bar graph of the Tier I responses (A, B or C, etc. responses) for your group.

Now, make a list of general categories of reasoning used in the “Justification” (Tier 2) explanations.


Phase 2 STEP 5 (Cont’d)

Select 4-6 common categories of “rules” or reasoning to focus on (one of the categories should include a correct reason)

Cross match your selected categories to the Tier 1 responses (may have overlap in some responses)


Phase 2 Step 6 Analyze the Data

What prevalent student ideas pop out at you from looking at the data?

What patterns or trends seem to emerge from the data?

What are some surprising or interesting findings?

Do correct Tier 1 responses always have correct reasoning?

“Just the Facts, Ma’am”, Jack Webb


Read through selected research summaries from Section IV in CTS.

Jot down notes or highlight sections of the research that are related to students’ thinking in the work you analyzed.

Share research findings that appear to match findings from your data within your group.

Were there any common ideas not described in the research that you found in your student work?

Phase 2 Step 7: Examine Cognitive Research


CTS Section IV Discussion

How did CTS Section IV, Research on Student Learning, differ from what you found in the data? Or, was it the same?


CIEST Data-Driven Dialogue Approach

Phase 1Activating & Engaging

Surfacing assumptions, makingpredictions, asking questions

Phase 2Exploring & Discovering


Phase 3Organizing & Integrating


Adapted by Nancy Love for Using Data, Getting Results from The Adaptive School, Laura Lipton and Bruce Wellman


Phase 3Step 8: Analyze Learning Goals

Examine Sections V, III and VI of CTS. Does the research highlight any gaps in

student understanding? What implications does this have for your

curriculum and instruction?


Phase 3Step 9: Organize and Integrate

What inferences, explanations, or conclusions can we draw from the data?

What else do we want to find out and how could we do that?

What hypotheses might we test?


Step 10: Next Steps

What else do we, as a group, want to learn from the data we have collected?

Do we need to disaggregate the data? How? What additional data should we collect? What other

information from CTS or other resources would be useful to us?

What will we do (group action steps) as a result of what we have learned?

What are the implications of our findings for ensuring all our students achieve state and national standards for science literacy?


Reflection

Look back on your initial notes. How has your thinking about teaching and learning related to the assessment content changed or been enhanced by looking at student work?

What will you do with the information you gained?

What did you gain by interacting with your colleagues?

What will you do differently in your classroom or in your professional learning communities as a result of this experience?

How will you use this protocol in your work?


CIEST Is a PD Strategy that...

• Deepens teachers’ science or mathematics content and pedagogical content knowledge

• Links standards and research to classroom context• Engages teachers in evidence-based dialogue

about student learning and teaching practice• Uses a structured data collection, organization, and

analysis approach• Encourages reflection and promotes action• Places high value on formative assessment• Can be used with a variety of PD structures (e.g.

study groups, co-mentoring, action research)

ncosp learning community forum march 2007 science curriculum topic study examining student thinking

Documents