1. Math Infusion into Science Project James Lauckhardt, Ph.D. Center for Advanced Study in Education CUNY Graduate Center

2. The Math Infusion into Science Project (MiSP) NSF Funded development, research, and evaluation grant awarded to investigate the benefit of contextualized learning (Math infused Science) A project that grew from the Math Science Technology Partnership program Emphasizes the importance of thinking differently than traditional siloh-style learning The recommendation to make connections between math and science is built upon the rationale that the two disciplines contain similar functionalities (Bosse, Lee, Swinson, & Faulconer, 2010)

3. MiSP Intervention Details 26 Math Infused Science Units Developed by Two Curriculum Experts Target grade level is 8 th grade Intended to include Earth Science Regents, Living Environment Regents, and 8 th Grade General Science content areas 5-day activities that include a teacher’s guide, and introduction, 2-3 lab activities, and assessment worksheets for students The math infused in each unit included:  Level 1: Graphing - Identifying/Interpolating/Extrapolating  Level 2: Slope - Understanding and Calculating  Level 3: Linear Equations – Understanding and Calculating

4. MiSP Intervention Details Teachers Identified 6 Units to Teach Throughout the Year Trained in approximately 16 total units that they were interested in learning about, and chose 6 based on their experience and preference Infused in the first, second, and third quarters of the school year, leaving the fourth quarter for test prep and wrap-up Two units infused per quarter Teachers received the units that included the appropriate level of math based on the time of year the unit was being taught.  First Quarter - Level 1: Graphing - Identifying/Interpolating/Extrapolating  Second Quarter - Level 2: Slope - Understanding and Calculating  Third Quarter - Level 3: Linear Equations – Understanding and Calculating

5. 2010 - 2011 Academic Attitude Participant/Data Type Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 1 7 th Grade NYS test Math Score Pre/Post MiSP Content Assessment Monthly MiSP Do Now Assessment 8 th Grade NYS test Math Score 8 th Grade NYS test Science Score Pre/Post MiSP Attitude Assessment 7 th Grade NYS test Math Score Pre/Post MiSP Content Assessment Monthly MiSP Do Now Assessment 8 th Grade NYS test Math Score 8 th Grade NYS test Science Score 9 th Grade NYS test Math and Science Score for a sub-sample of Cohort 1 7 th Grade NYS test Math Score Pre/Post MiSP Content Assessment Monthly MiSP Do Now Assessment 8 th Grade NYS test Math Score 8 th Grade NYS test Science Score Pre/Post MiSP Attitude Assessment Student Level Data Teacher Level Data Academic Attitude Pre/Post MiSP Content Assessment SCOR – Observation Assessment Pre/Post MiSP Content Assessment SCOR – Observation Assessment 6 Unit Reflection Surveys Summer training Feedback Survey End of Project Feedback Survey 6 Unit Reflection Surveys Summer training Feedback Survey End of Project Feedback Survey Semi-Annual Reflection Surveys 2011 - 2012 2012 - 2013 Data Collection Procedures

6. Cohort 2: 2011 - 2012 Cohort 3: 2012 - 2013 – Sub Sample Cohort 1: 2010 - 2011 8 Schools 20 Teachers 10 Infusion10 Comparison 1,650 Students 911 Infusion739 Comparison 14 Schools 33 Teachers 30 Infusion3 Comparison 2,205 Students 2,036 Infusion 169 Comparison 4 Schools 12 Teachers – All Infusion ~ 350 Students Sample Characteristics

7. Cohort 1: 2010 - 2011 20 Teachers 10 Infusion10 Comparison Class Characteristics Group Assignment Gene ral Scien ce Living Environmen t Earth Scienc e Comparison2273 Infusion313-

8. Cohort 1: 2010 - 2011 1,650 Students 911 Infusion739 Comparison Sample Characteristics Demographic Characteristic MiSP Group Total Compar ison Infusio n Gender Male 48.40 % 48.30 % 54.80 % Female 51.60 % 51.70 % 45.20 % Ethnicity Asian 10.20 % 8.30% 11.90 % African-American 7.90%3.90% 11.50 % White 71.40 % 73.80 % 69.30 % Hispanic 10.30 % 14.00 % 7.00% Other 0.10%0.00%0.20% Eligible for Free of Reduced Lunch 27.30 % 24.80 % 29.50 % Limited English Proficiency 4.10%3.30%4.90% Special Ed or IEP 6.90%8.30%8.80%

9. Pre/Post MiSP Content Assessment Description of Student Assessment Tools 29 Questions Type Cognitive Complexity Level of Math 16 Multiple Choice Questions 13 Open-ended Questions 8 Knowledge Questions 14 Application Questions 7 Reasoning Questions 16 Level One Questions 7 Level Two Questions 6 Level Three Questions

10. Pre/Post MiSP Attitude Assessment Description of Student Assessment Tools 29 Questions Confidence Using Linear Equations Confidence with Graph Construction Math Self- Efficacy Math Interest Math Applicability Math is important for completing tasks in science Math makes learning science easier Math is interesting I am interested in a Math related career I am good at Math I can get good grades in Math Setting up a graph Identifying independent and dependent variables Using a graph to write the equation of a line Using a data table to calculate slope

11. Standardized NYS Test Scores: 7 th grade Math State Assessment Score (Scale and Level) 8 th Grade Math State Assessment Score (Scale and Level) 8 th Grade Science State Assessment Score (Scale and Level) 8 th Grade Science Regents Score (if applicable) For 2010 – 2011 8 th Grade students, in the process of collecting their 9 th grade Math and Science Regents scores Description of Student Assessment Tools

12. Observation Rubric: SCOP-Revised: Science Content Observation Protocol  Rubric assesses the following domains on a scale of 0 (poor/ not evident) to 6 (excellent/extremely evident): o Learning Objectives o Developing Understanding o Sense-Making o Classroom Culture Description of Teacher Assessment Tools

13. Pre/Post Intervention Content Knowledge: MiSP Developed Assessment  Asks teachers to 1.Solve common MiSP-based content problems 2.Identify areas in which they feel students will have trouble 3.Provide teachers with sample MiSP student work and have them identify errors and comments they might make to help students better understand the content. Description of Teacher Assessment Tools  Scored by two Math/Science Content Experts

14. 6 Unit Feedback Surveys: MiSP Developed Assessment  Completed upon finishing one of the 6 units they chose  Asks teachers to 1.Indicate the length of time the lesson took to complete 2.Evaluate the lesson based on their experience Description of Teacher Assessment Tools

15. GroupNPre-MiSP Mean % correctPost-MiSP Mean % correctMean Diff. Infusion64140.7054.78*14.08 Comparison55944.0149.48*5.47 Preliminary Student Outcome Results Pre/Post Group Differences

16. KAR Area InfusionComparison Pre-MiSP lesson Post-MiSP lesson Change (Post-Pre) Pre-MiSP lesson Post-MiSP lesson Change (Post-Pre) Knowledge49.24%73.63%*24.39%54.25%66.15%*11.90% Application39.02%58.09%*19.07%42.90%53.43%*10.53% Reasoning34.52%40.00%*5.48%34.73%35.70%.97% Preliminary Student Outcome Results Pre/Post Group Differences by Cognitive Complexity

17. Level InfusionComparison Pre-MiSPPost-MiSPDifferencePre-MiSPPost-MiSPDifference One 48.66%69.01%*20.3553.45%62.27%*8.82 Two 54.05%64.36%*10.3156.58%60.44%*3.86 Three 17.45%36.70%*19.2519.14%32.87%*13.73 Preliminary Student Outcome Results Pre/Post Group Differences by Level of Math

18. Quartile Categorization at Post-test Based on Pre-test Categories

20. What We’ve Learned about Interconnected Learning Interconnected learning is doable for teacher and students within a regular class period Teachers need professional development in both pedagogy and content being infused Students learn each content area in greater depth When technology is included there must be options for hands on work Students recognize the importance of infusion and develop more positive attitudes towards both content areas Stakeholder buy-in is critical for success 20

21. Issues We Have Encountered – DATAG, help! Deidentification of data – Who, what, where, why, how Lack of access to individual item-level data Students learn each content area in greater depth Utilization of data results in the classroom –What support is given? –How do we know it is being “utilized” effectively –Are there tangible improvements documented? 21

22. WISEngineering Simulation and Modeling in Technology Education (SMTE) 22 Two of Our Other Relevant Projects

23. 23 WisEngineering  WiseEngineering is Next Generation Learning Grant that is using engineering pedagogy to teach mathematics using a web-based delivery system that allows for instruction to incorporate both computer based and hands on learning. Lessons engage students in a community based design task, reflections and embedded assessments

24. Design Cycle – Design Challenge 24

25. 25 Design Cycle – Develop Knowledge

26. 26 SMTE  Simulation and Modeling in Technology Education (SMTE) is a DR-K12 project to develop and research the academic potential of a mathematics and engineering infused hybrid instructional model and a set of prototypical materials that integrate 3-D simulation, educational gaming, and real-world physical modeling into middle school technology education programs.

27. 27 Survival Master Screen Shots