Table Of Contents

• October Meeting for all MVHS CoreModels teachers
• February Meeting for MVHS Leadership Team
• April Meeting for all MVHS CoreModels teachers

After an introduction by the Project Director, eight small group meetings were held, each led by a supporting teacher, and each focusing on a different modeling activity, so that teachers could choose from activities they had completed. The discussion focused on the student learning evident during these units. Later in the morning, each group presented their conclusions, including recommendations for improving the activity, logistical hints, and teaching strategies.

Teachers had the chance to network individually with peers during lunch. In addition, there was a meeting of ST/PT evaluation pairs with Katie McMillan and Wendy Friedman of Center for Children and Technology (CCT). An explanation of how peer support would be studied was provided, and the support of these teachers was secured. After lunch, all teachers completed a survey constructed by CCT as well as evaluations of the summer workshops.

Small groups reconvened to consider assessment of student learning by reviewing sample student papers. Groups reassembled to prepare for next modeling activity implementation. Some teachers worked together on designing extensions on the first model. A wrap up session with the entire group included administrative paperwork, a discussion of communication problems, and scheduling peer classroom visits.

Concerns that directors hoped to address during the meeting included the difficulty some teachers seemed to have in introducing the modeling activity and the importance of one on one questioning of students at the computer to assess their understanding and help them interpret results. The small group sharing activity evolved from the agreement of directors and the evaluation team on the need to focus this year on building up the conversation among teachers about:

• what they think students are or should be learning from their engagement with these units and with the model-building process, and
• what the relationship is between those learning goals and the standards.

In addition to the understanding gained by the participating teachers, a secondary outcome was the increased confidence and competence of the supporting teachers in their leadership role. The ST's did an excellent job facilitating the discussions, using a discussion guide one of them had created to provide structure and focus without inhibiting the full range of discussion issues.

The afternoon was less focused and intense. Teachers seemed quite subdued after completing the survey at the end of the morning session. In one biology group, teachers who shared student papers seemed relieved that their students weren't so far behind others. There was a realization that the difficulty students have in giving thorough, thoughtful responses is a common problem, but that students improve on subsequent activities.

The afternoon experience led to two questions for consideration by the directors.

• Do we model our questions after formats the students are familiar with (i.e. MFWT prompts) or do we teach them what our questions are expecting?
• Do we go for short one word answers (easy to grade) or longer responses which require more construction and tougher grading from teachers?

Several teachers had very strong opinions one way or the other. There is a need for the team to determine our own position and work with the supporting teachers and strong participating teachers to work through objections. There was some evidence that the younger teachers had greater expectations of their students' ability to handle longer constructed responses and of their own responsibility to teach them to do this.

Directors felt the need to open our discussions of student responses, what we expect, what we need, etc. to ST participation. These teachers might like a chance to discuss how they are doing, concerns about observing other teachers, etc. I remember we had many long phone calls last year dealing with our insecurities, so I'd be surprised if they didn't have a few. We could also teach them to use the model report database and then they could use it as well.

• Email Message to Center Directors and Supporting Teachers
• Questions to guide reading of Year 1 Evaluation Report
• Selected Responses of Supporting Teachers

We are calling an important meeting of the CoreModels Leadership Team (CD's, ST's and myself) to consider these questions. We desperately need you at this meeting. We all have different strengths and insights, and together we can build a complete picture and move forward.

The meeting will be at Blair on February 5 from 10 to 2 with lunch included. Of course your substitute will be paid by MVHS. Please let me know right away if you see difficulties in attending, as I might be able to help in some way. I will put in the mail tomorrow some background material. I do want you to know that national leaders in science education see great potential in our work, and this meeting will focus on actions that will propel us toward our goals.

Letter to Supporting Teachers with questions about evaluation report

In order to make our time together as fruitful as possible, we would like you to take some of your valuable time to read the enclosed report and send us your reflections (see below) either by email or fax (301 649-2830) by Thursday, February 4, at noon. This will help us guide the discussion in our limited time on Friday. You will be paid a stipend of $150 for your work.

Please read the entire report and answer these questions in terms of your own experience. But don't be afraid to also "expound" on your own general theories.

Introduction - Page 1

Question 1

Question 2

Work to Date and Preliminary Findings - Page 3

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Discussion and Recommendations

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10

Overall

Selected responses of supporting teachers

DH

Report: "If teachers engage deeply with the systems thinking approach embodied in STELLA and the CM curricular units and make significantly greater use of technology in their day-to day-teaching than they previously have, their practices will change significantly?" What does engage deeply mean? What are some examples of teacher practices?

Where is the continued support for peer-support relationships going to come from past the effective time of the grant? For people buying in, it's a big issue.

GM

MVHS has a lot of very busy committed teachers.

Getting out to visit demands a great deal of lead time due to crammed schedules and the demands of other missions.

JH

The peer support portion of the project is/has been a struggle. The association of classroom visits with evaluations by supervisors and administrators appears to be deeply ingrained. Teachers seem to be receptive to workshop-type sessions but less amenable to having other teachers visit. Most PT's seem to be anxious to collaborate. Workshops and regional meetings have been productive for all parties involved. In this setting, PT's seem to be more relaxed, creative, analytical. Support seems to work better in a group situation unrelated to a classroom, more of a brainstorming session.

(idea - prepare a common lesson - then visiting is for own benefit, or improving materials - joint ownership. Idea 2 - magnet - interdisciplinary)

KW

During the first year of CM (mentoring relationships, workshops, and on-line discussions) worked well for me. If I was having a problem with a model or some of the material, one of the CDs or another ST was available for help and/or suggestions. The summer workshop was a wonderful opportunity to breakdown the packets and to discuss what we liked and what we didn't like. Now that we are in the second year, I do not feel as satisfied with my role as an ST. Everything is fine still with the other ST's and CD's however I haven't been able to fulfill my role as an ST to some of the PT's. Likewise, I don't feel that some of the PT's see me as a resource for support or feedback.

PM

Factors with Peer Visits: Fragmented school calendars (loss of cohesion), widespread nagging illness, PT's not pedagogically aggressive, not enough philosophical support and training for PT's - subconsciously struggling with discrepancies in styles/values, etc., less enlightened administrators, PT's uncomfortable with shifting conceptual conditions and frameworks.

DH

Time and money concerns - did not feel particularly encouraged to do more development work. Don't get paid for evaluation writeups (this will change). Need to set aside good chunks of collaborative time - requires immersion.

GS

Summer is needed for writing materials - impossible with everything else during the school year. Each individual applies STELLA in different ways - we should document on Saturday the variation on a theme and see if there are common currents and if those approaches are successful in teaching content and thinking skills. We are not institutionalizing a conformity of techniques but are fostering independent exploration in both teachers and students.

JH

Time is the biggest constraint. I am also still a little hesitant to take on development of a complex model. In addition, there are several models and/or extensions in which I have a personal interest, but they may not be globally useful so I am reluctant to ask others to give up their valuable time for something that may be of interest to only a small number of individuals.

AN

We need to have more Sat. meetings or after school meetings. Not with everyone, but with the Center Director for the one topic or area. The Center Director could be the leader for the STs within a subject area working and revising. In essence working in smaller groups in a region. Using the fax and/or email to review material.

GM

Key factor that kept me from participating more actively in materials development is ignorance. I thought that modifying the existing models was the priority. Field testing, support materials and accommodations for different learning styles were needed before the models could be properly implemented in the classroom. My inexperience with STELLA plays a role in the direction of my energies at this time. I can develop supporting materials and assessment activities more easily than creating a new model.

MN

Trying to work on the packet during the school year (last year) was exhausting and nearly impossible due to time constraints. It seems that summer is the only time I could commit to doing materials development. I also feel somewhat isolated as the only physics teacher participating in the North Region. I was able to make one class visit with Elizabeth prior to her leaving Core Models and I find that sharing ideas with teachers in my subject areas is very helpful in improving what I do with Core Models.

KW

I think much was accomplished not so much in terms of materials development but rather materials refinement over the summer. This occurred because at least two STs were together for an extended amount of time to discuss what worked and what had not and because PT's were there working through the models - problems were fresh. Time is definitely a factor. On-line discussions cannot come close to the productivity of a real work session.

PM

We need less emphasis on making new models and lessons and more emphasis on comparing and revising teaching techniques for existing lessons. I'm not half as interested in mastering new/other modeling lessons as I am in exchanging teacher experiences with the delivery of the several most popular packets --- especially pre- and post-lab activities (that is, introductions/set-ups, and common assessment methods).

DH

I don't share the concerns discussed here. In the role of an ST, just as with being a regular classroom teacher, you have to find the best expression of your strengths. I have been completely satisfied in the ways I have been able to contribute support and my peer relationship; I just would have liked to do more of it in the materials development role.

GS

As a supporting teacher, I have attempted to make it clear that I am there to facilitate other's use of the STELLA program and to help them evolve practices that they feel comfortable with. STELLA is just one tool in an arsenal that the professional science teacher might employ to get ideas across. I have found the diversity of approaches refreshing and confirming that MVHS is on the right track. We are not institutionalizing a conformity of techniques but are fostering independent exploration in both teachers and students.

JH

Concerns: Not being able to devote as much time to development of materials and finding a way to establish some kind of relationship with the PT's in my region. Wants to take issue with the ST discomfort about the nature of the collaboration between the key program staff, the ST's and the related comment about evaluation. The discussion about PT's perhaps misjudging the intent of the ST's visits was a preventive discussion.

AN

I like the peer support model so that none of us feel that we are evaluators or are being evaluated. I feel that this method is less threatening to me or the participating teachers. My concern is not being able to make site visits. I have corresponded via email.

GM

I am comfortable in my ability to support the participating teacher but have not found a way to establish communication with them. Of the six participating teachers that I support, two have never returned email to me, I have visited two, and I have established frequent communication with two. In regard to visitation, one of the visits went very well. I was neither introduced nor recognized during the other visit. I have one teacher coming to visit during the Hardy-Weinberg modeling activity in February.

As a peer mentor, I do not believe that I should force myself upon the participating teachers. On the other hand, there is no way to know how the project is being implemented in the classroom if the participating teachers are not observed. Reasons for lack of visits/communication

• expectation of autonomy - another person in the room is seen as an invasion of privacy
• participating teacher does not feel need for supporting teacher or "burden" him/her
• summer experience went well - PTs have everything they need
• PTs cannot plan the STELLA activity in advance
• PTs don't recognize the need to document the use of STELLA

thought - what do we do with our kids - observe common problems and then give needed explanation/remedial work to the whole class.

MN

Most of the school year I have not had a physics PT to work with. I have never felt like I was being evaluated or told how to teach when Don (CD) visited my classes.

KW

I'm sure the STs could have been given more training, because one year is not that long, but I feel confident that I can help and give support to the PTs. I have no discomfort about thinking that I am telling another teacher how to teach. I look at it this way. This is what has worked and what has not worked for me, your situation is different, you are different. I only offer suggestions, but the other teacher still needs to feel everything out to determine what works best for him.

PM

I share none of these worries - I feel completely confident about my ability to model the lessons for visiting PTs, and to help them improve their lesson deliveries at their sites without subverting or suppressing their personal styles or making them feel "evaluated".

Supporting teacher Paul Mandl presented an overview of the mathematical functions used in some of the popular biology models. Paul adapted this talk from the training he received last summer at the NSF CC-Sustain Project in Portland, Oregon. After lunch, Don Shaffer introduced Chesapeake Bay ecosystem models that he had learned about at a meeting at the Horn Point Environmental Laboratory in Cambridge, Maryland. Teachers worked through activities dealing with these models for the rest of the afternoon.

Physics teachers started their session with a roundtable discussion in which they shared activities they had used and problems encountered by the group. Most of the talk centered around problems with interpretation of graphs and with student writing. An exposition of the generic STELLA model for a 2nd order differential equation was given by Charlotte Trout and Franco Pozo. This model can be easily adapted to mechanics and to electric circuits. Charlotte then presented problems associated with baseball for group model development. Can a baseball travel further on a humid day? What is the effect of the spin imparted to the ball in its speed, time of flight, and distance travelled? David Spitzer led the group in formulating a basic model.