0800h ED21A-0087 Peer Mentoring to Facilitate Original Scientific Research by Students With Special Needs James M Danch Colonia High.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Open Future Doors through Succession Planning Principal? Curriculum Supervisor? Assistant Superintendent? Special Services Director?
Advertisements

Being explicit about learning Focusing feedback on improvement Gathering evidence of learning Handing on responsibility for learning Participation Dialogue.
Goals-Based Evaluation (GBE)
A Guide to Implementation
PD Plan Agenda August 26, 2008 PBTE Indicators Track
Understanding By Design: Integration of CTE and Core Content Curriculum Michael S. Gullett.
Course Design: The Basics Monica A. Devanas, Ph.D. Director, Faculty Development and Assessment Programs Center for Teaching Advancement and Assessment.
Edward S. Shapiro Director, Center for Promoting Research to Practice Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA Planning for the Implementation of RTI: Lessons.
TWS Aid for Scorers Information on the Background of TWS.
An Excellent Proposal is a Good Idea, Well Expressed, With A Clear Indication of Methods for Pursuing the Idea, Evaluating the Findings, and Making Them.
George R. Willcox CTE Cluster Coordinator Virginia Department of Education January 2011 George Willcox:
FY 08 Nashoba Regional High School BudgetProposal January 25, 2007.
University of Delaware PBL2002: A Pathway to Better Learning June 16-20, 2002 Experience It Yourself: An Introduction to Problem-Based Learning Institute.
Collaborating for Student Success Teacher Collaboration: Strategies & Outcomes ARCHES Seminar UC Irvine ~ 3/15/10 Ivan Cheng
National Science Foundation: Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (TUES)
DED 101 Educational Psychology, Guidance And Counseling
Mid-Atlantic Regional Space Grant Meeting – October 1-2, Astronomy and Space Science Project Proposal New Jersey Space Grant Consortium Dr. Siva.
Science Inquiry Minds-on Hands-on.
Impact of Including Authentic Inquiry Experiences in Methods Courses for Pre-Service Elementary and Secondary Teachers Timothy F. Slater, Lisa Elfring,
Stuart D. Cook, M.D. Master Educators’ Guild A Commitment to Excellence in Education at UMDNJ Nicholas M. Ponzio, Ph.D. Professor of Pathology and Laboratory.
Assumptions About Technology Motivation Individualized learning Efficiency in information retrieval and storage! Foster collaboration Stimulate creative.
CAA’s IBHE Program Review Presentation April 22, 2011.
Rediscovering Research: A Path to Standards Based Learning Authentic Learning that Motivates, Constructs Meaning, and Boosts Success.
The Magic of Student Empowerment Barbara Stripling Senior Associate Dean and Assistant Professor School of Information Studies Syracuse University.
1 UTeach Professional Development Courses. 2 UTS Step 1 Early exposure to classroom environment (can be as early as a student’s first semester)
Problem Based Learning (PBL) David W. Dillard Arcadia Valley CTC.
Robert Reid Torri Ortiz Lienemann.  Session I: ◦ Introductions of group members, facilitators, and text ◦ Review format for the book study ◦ Choose partners/small.
Department of Physical Sciences School of Science and Technology B.S. in Chemistry Education CIP CODE: PROGRAM CODE: Program Quality Improvement.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
A Framework for Inquiry-Based Instruction through
Sharing Our Success: Preparing Teacher Quality (TQ) Program Participants to present their final assignments in poster format Kathy Lee Sutphin, Scientific.
Information Literacy Standards: Boosting Student Achievement.
PARLI PROS Conducting Meetings To Teach State Standards.
Problem-Based Learning. Process of PBL Students confront a problem. In groups, students organize prior knowledge and attempt to identify the nature of.
Waggoner and McArthur Bowling Green State University Infrastructure for Inquiry Julia McArthur Division of Teaching and Learning and Charlene M. Waggoner.
Sandra Johnson, M.A. & M.S. Susie Ceppi- Bussmann, Ph.D. New Mexico State University.
Putting It All Together Diane Gross USD 261 8/11/06.
GATE/SAS Gifted and Talented Education and School for Advanced Studies Cowan Avenue Elementary.
Inquiry Based Learning District Learning Day 1:45-2:45 August 5, 2015.
The PYP Exhibition Mentor Information. What is it?  The Exhibition is:  An individual, group or whole class inquiry  An inquiry that starts from personal.
Using Common Core State Standards of Seventh Grade Mathematics in the Application of NXT LEGO® Robotics for CReSIS Middle School Students.
TPEP Teacher & Principal Evaluation System Prepared from resources from WEA & AWSP & ESD 112.
How People Learn – Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) Three core principles 1: If their (students) initial understanding.
Session Objectives Analyze the key components and process of PBL Evaluate the potential benefits and limitations of using PBL Prepare a draft plan for.
Subgrant Goals and Activities Frostburg State University.
NCATE STANDARD I STATUS REPORT  Hyacinth E. Findlay  March 1, 2007.
An Introduction to Formative Assessment as a useful support for teaching and learning.
Problem-Solving Approach of Allied Health Learning Community.
EPMS (Employee Performance Management System) Training FOR NON-SUPERVISORS FACILITATOR: ADRIAN WILSON NOVEMBER 17 AND 19.
Kimberly B. Lis, M.Ed. University of St. Thomas Administrative Internship II Dr. Virginia Leiker.
Planning for School Implementation. Choice Programs Requires both district and school level coordination roles The district office establishes guidelines,
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics PROGRAM.
Writing a Professional Development Plan.  Step 1–Identify Indicators to be Assessed  Step 2 –Determine Average Baseline Score  Step 3 –Develop a Growth.
Stages of Adult Development And Needs. Identity Vs. Role Confusion (13-21 years) Concerns and Characteristics:  Struggle for identity (who am I?)  Changing.
What Is Action Research? Action Research is : Action Research is : - A research methodology - Participative - Responsive - Cyclic “A cycle of posing questions,
Best Practices: Model of Science Inquiry Ann Cavallo and Greg Hale MATH, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY TEACHER PREPARATION ACADEMY.
Content and Curriculum ….. Information from Chapters 3 and 9 and from the North Carolina Standard Course of Study.
Dr. Leslie David Burns, Associate Professor Department of Curriculum and Instruction UK College of Education
Knowledge is fixed and need only to transfer from teacher to students is based on constructive and transformation process through learning process Learning.
New Teacher Orientation 2009 Cheryl Dyer Assistant Superintendent Teacher Observation and Evaluation in BRRSD.
Graduate Program Completer Evaluation Feedback 2008.
Learning Assessment Techniques
Emporia State University
Student Teaching Orientation Dec 13, 2017
Action Research Dr. S K Biswas.
NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER EVALUATION INSTRUMENT and PROCESS
The Role of a Teacher.
Medical Education Program for Medical Teachers
TAKS, Inquiry, Standards and Assessment
Linking Evaluation to Coaching and Mentoring Models
Presentation transcript:

0800h ED21A-0087 Peer Mentoring to Facilitate Original Scientific Research by Students With Special Needs James M Danch Colonia High School 180 East Street Colonia, New Jersey Introduction Inquiry-based teaching with students conducting their own authentic research has been advocated as an important strategy for improving all students’ science achievement and their understanding of the scientific process (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Hodson, 1998; Melber, 2004; W. M. Roth, 1995; Schack, 1993; Wellington, 1998). The goal of the Peer Mentoring program is to utilize the expertise of high school students already enrolled in a successful authentic science research course to introduce students with special needs to inquiry-based science education (fig.1). Mentored students were able to complete the activity presented, but cognitive and emotional characteristics limited comprehension and interpretation of the results in some cases. Greater pre-lab preparation will be undertaken to increase comprehension of results. In 2007 students were able to complete a level 3 inquiry activity (table 1) but the procedure, while developed by students, was heavily guided by mentors. The effect of the program on student mentors’ attitude towards science education and students with special needs will be evaluated by questionnaire after completing their undergraduate experience in an effort to determine if the experience altered their career decisions. The 2008 school year will involve a new set of student mentors, though many of the mentored students are still present and will be able to repeat the program. The goal for 2008 is to have students perform a true level 3 inquiry activity and then develop and conduct a true level 4 activity. April Formation of initial concept. 2. Discussion with Special Education teacher. 3. Presentation to administration. (week 1) 4. Assignment to seniors – Develop a simple experiment to introduce the idea of a control. 5. Experiments evaluated. (week 2) 6. One experiment chosen. 7. Experiment modified by instructor. 8. Experiment submitted to Special Education teacher for approval. (week 3) 9. Assignment to seniors – Develop an activity to introduce students to concepts and equipment needed for experiment. 10. Assignments evaluated. 11. One activity chosen. 12. Activity modified by instructor. 13. Activity submitted to Special Education teacher for approval (week 4) Printed by Abstract Developed to allow high school students with special needs to participate in original scientific research, the Peer Mentoring Program was a supplement to existing science instruction for students in a self-contained classroom. Peer mentors were high school seniors at the end of a three-year advanced science research course who used their experience to create and develop inquiry-based research activities appropriate for students in the self- contained classroom. Peer mentors then assisted cooperative learning groups of special education students to facilitate the implementation of the research activities. Students with special needs successfully carried out an original research project and developed critical thinking and laboratory skills. Prior to embarking on their undergraduate course of study in the sciences, peer mentors developed an appreciation for the need to bring original scientific research to students of all levels. The program will be expanded and continued during the school year. Authentic research (table 1) involves typical activities of professional researchers and has been defined by Pizzini, Shepardson and Abell (1991) as follows: Students identify problems and solutions, and test these solutions; Students design their own procedures and data analyses; Students formulate new questions based on their previous claims and solutions; Students develop questions based on their prior knowledge; Students link their experience to activities, science concepts, and science principles; and Students share and discuss procedures, products, and solutions. LevelProblemProcedureDataConclusions 0Given 1 Open 2Given Open 3GivenOpen 4 Table 1. Levels of Inquiry modified from Schwab (1962) and O’Herron (1971). The goal of this program is to move students from level 0 to level 4. Fig. 1. Science Research student peer mentor. Fig. 4. Sample comparative data generated by peer mentored students. Fig. 5. Sample comparative data generated by peer mentored students. All mentored students were able to successfully conduct the independent research project. All mentored students were able to collect sufficient data to produce graphs of both differences between control and experimental groups (fig. 4). All mentored students were able to comprehend the difference between control and experimental groups. Most mentored students were able to comprehend the difference in rate of growth between control and experimental groups (fig. 5). May Activity carried out by student mentors. (week 1) 15. Laboratory Experiment carried out by student mentors (week 2) 16. Second experiment chosen. 17. Second experiment modified by instructor. 18. Experiment submitted to Special Education teacher for approval. (week 3) 19. Experiment discussed with student mentors. 20. Initial phase of experiment carried out by student mentors. (week 4) June Second phase of experiment facilitated by Student Mentors (week 1) 22. Data collection continued (week 2) 23. Data analysis facilitated by Student Mentors (week 3) Mentored students exhibited pride in their work and enthusiasm for science lessons. Student mentors voiced positive statements concerning working with students with special needs. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank: Mr. Frank Darytichen, Science Supervisor Mr. Robert McLaughlin, Principal Mrs. Dorothy Ponte, Science Department Chairperson Mrs. Linda Rockmaker, Special Education Teacher and her students. Student Mentors: Kevin Paszinski, Zain Paracha, Shamik Patel, Mike Partyka, Divya Patel, Vanessa Pizutelli, Melissa Toledo Ms. Laura Hemminger, Director, Center for School and Community Health Education and the UMDNJ School of Public Health for poster printing MethodsResults Discussion Started in 1987 and modeled after traditional mentor- driven graduate research programs. Funded via state grants, student grants and school district budget. Expanded to 3 high schools after development of curriculum guide (Darytichen and Danch, 1999). Avoids many limitations of traditional “Hands On” science classes. Students choose topics of personal interest. Students work to obtain original results. Creativity is fostered. Three-year commitment allows students to explore topics in greater depth. Allows high school students to add to the body of scientific knowledge. Background on the Existing Science Research Program From Which Student Mentors Were Selected: