An Evidence – Based CPD Program on Knowledge Integration in Physics Esther Bagno Safed Seminar July, 2006

Collaboration with Bat-Sheva Eylon Doctoral Student Hana Berger

Central Goal Getting teachers to examine their teaching and their students ’ learning and reflect on it with colleagues and reflect on it with colleagues (Evidence-based Approach)

Challenge: Teachers are required to spend extra time on a task not conceived by them as part of their teaching commitments Suggestion: Introduction of an innovation, teachers find important, so that they would like genuinely to examine its effect on their students’ learning

“If a pedagogy of understanding means anything, it means understanding the piece in the context of the whole and the whole as the mosaic of its pieces” (Perkins, 1992) Our Innovation is Related to Knowledge Integration (KI)

A “Knowledge Web” in Physics Theoretical Knowledge Demonstrations Problem Solving Formula Lab Work Etc. Boundary Cases Meaning of Symbols Units Etc. Decomposition Into events Identifying Relevant Principles Rationale forusing Etc.

Students’ Knowledge is Fragmented Knowledge gained in the same topics, different contexts, Knowledge learnt in different subjects/time, Knowledge learnt in different activities, etc. KI supports learning Bell & Linn, 2000; Bagno & Eylon, 1997; Bagno, Eylon & Ganiel 2000, Chi, 1981 Recall, conceptual understanding, problem solving, and transfer. Distinguishes experts from novices They do not form relationships between:

Our Innovation: “Knowledge Integration Routines” Theoretical Knowledge D emonstrations Problem Solving Formula Lab Work Etc. Boundary Cases Meaning of Symbols Units Etc. Decomposition Into events Identifying Relevant Principles Rationale forusing Etc. From “Problems to Principles” KIR

Our Innovation: “Knowledge Integration Routines” Theoretical Knowledge D emonstrations Problem Solving Formula Lab Work Etc. Boundary Cases Meaning of Symbols Units Etc. Decomposition Into events Identifying Relevant Principles Rationale forusing Etc. “Interpretation of a Formula” KIR

The KIRs Short generic activities Consists of five stages: individual work group work whole class discussion individual reflection homework assignment

Partial List of KIRs to link between a formula and its meaning Interpretation of a formula to link between a formula and its meaning to link between a topic and its main concepts and ideas So what have we learned? to link between a topic and its main concepts and ideas to link between a problem and its underlying physical principles From problems to principles to link between a problem and its underlying physical principles

KIEvidence 16 experienced physics teachers - novices in both the KI and the Evidence components A year-long program, meeting once a month for 3 hours and interacting through a web-site in-between meetings. A summary meeting in the summer (40 hrs. f2f.) Sample

2 Goals of the CPD Program Innovation: Professional Development in the domain of KI (Content, PCK and Practice) Evidence: Professional Development in teachers’ skills to examine their teaching and their students’ learning (Collect data, Present, Reflect, Collaborate)

How to convince teachers that they need to use KI activities in their classes and to examine (Evidence) their students’ learning and their practice?

Through Contrasting Facts with Expectations Prior to the first meeting teachers were requested to ask their students the following question: So what were the main ideas we learned this week? Write down the ideas they “intended” to teach Tally the students’ responses Present their interpretation to the plenum

“Then, I started to think that three topics and three ideas are not the same” “Anyway, I didn’t get from the students the ideas I taught” The “Cognitive Conflict” of Igal at the Beginning of the Program “I am very confused. When I got this question I thought, O.K. what can be simpler than that?“ “After I got their answers, I saw that they wrote down three main topics (labels) we learned”

Opportunities for contrasting facts with expectations were sometimes initiated explicitly by the CPD providers, or arose naturally by examining evidence

Congruence: “Generally speaking, I was satisfied with most of their answers. They wrote what I expected more or less” Incongruence: “I was shocked to see their answers, I need some ideas what to do” Uncertainity : “Maybe if I’ll do it over and over I’ll be able to give you a better answer ” TRIGGER FOR KI ACTIVITIES

“So what have we learned?” Trying out a KIR Examining its effect on teaching Asking for another KIR Discussing characteristics of KIRs Examining its effect on students learning Trigger Evidence is a Trigger for KI and vice versa Designing KIRs by themselves Examining practice as “habits of mind”

EVIDENCE KI Evidence and KI Evolve Simultaneously Revisiting previous ideas, Extending knowledge based on previous ideas

LEARNERS TEACHERS RESEARCHERS Teachers experience KIRs as Didactical Approach of the CPD

Work on the KIRs as students Implement KIRs in classes Collect a variety of data, analyze, share, and reflect on it with collegaues Prepare “Practice Reports

Q1. What were the mutual relationships between the Evidence and the KI components of the program? Q2. How did teachers develop professionally in these two dimensions? Research Questions

Major data source: Teachers’ discourse during the meetings Discourse units: Change of speaker/ idea Perspectives of: KI, Evidence, KI to Evidence, Evidence to KI and “Other” Analysis of Data

Interaction between the E and KI components Q1. What were the mutual relationships between the Evidence and the KI components of the program?

(38%) KI: "I asked my students to write down 3 main ideas we have learned this week“ (15%) E: "Me and my colleague went through all the ideas our students wrote down and compared it to our lists” (10%) KI  E : “I’m pretty sure, my students do relate the experiment to the underlying theory. I’ll have to ask them” (23%) E  KI: "Unfortunately, a third of my students didn’t write down the main ideas Distribution of KI and E statements (average in the first 4 meetings) At the Beginning of the Program,Teachers Used Evidence Primarily as a Means for Examining the Implementation of the KIRs

Meeting #6Meeting #9 KI74% 19% E 13% 27% KI  E 3%8% E  KI 6% 21% Total # statements Towards the End of the Program, Teachers Realized the Importance of Evidence Teachers reflections on the program in summary meetings

The distribution of discourse units examined through the perspective of “contrasting facts with expectations” Cognitive Conflict

“I am very confused. When I got this worksheet I thought, O.K. what can be simpler than that?” (KI) “After I got their answers, I saw that they wrote down three main topics (labels) we learned” (Evidence) “I’d like to show you a new KIR I’ve developed to organize the formulas of a specific topic” (KI) “Analysis of students’ data is reflection on our teaching” (Evidence) Q2. How did teachers develop professionally in these two dimensions?

A Teacher’s Concept Map Summarizing her View of an Accomplished Teacher in the Domain of KI Integrates KIRs into his teaching Is aware of the importance of students’ and teachers’ reflection Owns a pool of teaching materials for KI and methods for data analysis Uses a special language (events, main ideas) Emphasizes relationships Composes exams evaluating KI KI Evidence

The importance of the evidence component emerged towards the end of the program Summary An innovation, grasped by teachers as important, promoted their will to examine their practice There was an interaction between the KI and E components in teachers’ discourse “Looking at my students' reflections on the KI worksheets enables me to become a better teacher.”.