1. Evidence-based Continuous Professional Development (CPD) of chemistry teachers in an inquiry laboratory Dorit Taitelbaum Ph. D. Advisors: Prof. Avi Hofstein and Dr. Rachel Mamlok-Naaman abcdefgijk lABCD Weizmann Institute of Science Department of Science Teaching In collaboration with Miriam Carmeli

2. The Inquiry Chemistry Laboratory in Israel (ICL) Uniqueness  100 inquiry-type experiments  Main characteristics: Working in small groups Phrasing different inquiry question Preparing “ Hot Report ” Having students presentation Hot Reportstudents presentation  Integral part of students ’ final assessment (20%)

3.  Conducting pre-inquiry experiment  Making observations  Raising questions  Choosing one research question  Constructing a relevant hypothesis  Designing an appropriate inquiry experiment  Making and organizing observations  Analyzing and summarizing the inquiry experiment  Presenting the results to the whole class  Raising more advanced questions Students’ inquiry skills

4. What do we mean by accomplished teaching in the Inquiry Chemistry Laboratory (ICL)? Chemistry teachers ’ skills  Help students to: - Solve problems - Ask high-level questions - Hypothesize regarding certain unsolved experimental problems  Encourage students to share their knowledge with peers

5. A flavor from the inquiry chemistry laboratory (ICL)

6. Summer induction course Development of learning materials (teacher's guide) Workshop Classroom-laboratory observations Evidence-based portfolioForum on the web The evidence-based CPD model for chemistry teachers

7. The study Research questions: 1.What kinds of strategies did the teachers use while conducting the inquiry-type experiments? 2.How did the teachers cope with collecting artifacts, turn them into evidence, and use them to construct their portfolios?

8. Research population  All participating teachers were novice to the inquiry approach  7 high-school chemistry teachers participated in the study each year, during 3 years. (In the first year, a pilot study was conducted)  Each teacher had a different professional background

9. Research tools  Classroom-laboratory observationsClassroom-laboratory observations Three teachers were observed and videotaped during 2-3 inquiry-type activities each year Several qualitative research tools  Interviews Semi-structured in-depth interviews with each teacher immediately after each observation  Teacher portfolio Each teacher was asked to build a portfolio concerning the whole year  Documentation of the workshops All the workshops ’ meetings were documented using videotape/audiotape

10. Data analysis A diversity of qualitative research tools Steps in the process of analysis  Transcription of the videotapes, interviews, workshop ’ s meetings  Definition of categories and criteria  Interpretation to the data The multiple sources enable us to validate the results and make triangulations

11. Variables that were assessed First category: Dilemmas concerning group work  Ways of grouping the students The same groups or different groups? Homogeneous or heterogeneous groups?  The time that the teacher spent with each group and the number of times that the teacher approached each group Hesitating or approaching?  Teachers' challenges Discussing but not revealing The criteria

12. What happened during these 5 months of the school year? Workshop  A teacher has to organize and plan the lessons well, in order to cope with a lot of uncertainty that is rooted in teaching using the ICL approach The teachers claimed that:  Exchanging ideas with peers and the providers, getting relevant feedback and support were very essential Variables that were assessed

13. Evidence-based portfolio What happened during these 5 months of the school year? The teachers claimed that:  They became more reflective, and their anxiety concerning the implementation of the program decreased.  The fact that they were encouraged to document their work, together with the process of investigating it during the inquiry-type experiments, contributed significantly to their work. Variables that were assessed

14. Second category: Teachers ’ challenges concerning summary discussions  Planning the discussion  Involving as many students as possible Variables that were assessed

15. In-Depth Interviews “ At the beginning I thought that if I would summarize everything by lecturing to the class - that will be the right thing to do. But that ’ s not enough … Later I said to myself, let ’ s change, let the students talk. Then I thought, that I will let them present, and indeed it became more varied and colorful, with PowerPoint presentations. I started with a “ dry routine ” discussion, but then I moved on and “ passed them the ball ”. I made them more and more activate ”. Teacher centered toward Student centered

16. In-Depth Interviews “ For the student, part of the learning process is studying for the test, organizing the learning materials. In the inquiry unit there is no such thing. So how can you give the student an overall perspective on the activity? This should be done during the summary discussion ”

17. Summary Teachers had to develop two main teaching strategies that were essential to the inquiry approach:  the management of the group work  the management of the summary discussion The most powerful components of the CPD model were: the workshop, the pieces of evidence and the videotaped observations Bringing artifacts from the laboratory and turning them into evidence was not a trivial task. It was also time consuming

19. Hot Report  Each group prepare one joint “ Hot report ”  The “ Hot report ” is handed to the teacher immediately after the lesson, to be assessed

20. Students ’ presentation Student centered

21. Students' work transparencies Questionnaire assessing students' attitudes Teachers' documentation concerning small group work Few scenes from the videotapes taken during an activity Students' “ Hot reports ” Artifact can be:

22. Development of learning materials (teacher's guide) Each inquiry activity in the teacher ’ s guide includes the following:  Aims: In teaching chemistry In teaching as inquiry  Requirement of prior knowledge  Connections to the syllabus  Place in the teaching sequence  Time managing  Instructions to the student for executing the experiment  Specific safety remarks  Remarks and instructions from teachers' experience  Background and information concerning the experiment  Recommendations in respecting with the variety of additional working possibilities

23. Summer induction course The aim was to provide novice teachers with an initial exposure to basic methods and skills of using the inquiry approach in the laboratory  Five-days long course, eight hours a day  Teachers learned inquiry skills by having first-hand experience in all the cognitive dimensions and the practical stages

24. Classroom-laboratory observations As a research tool As an artefact The teachers were observed during:  3 inquiry-type experiments along the year  Each activity was of 2-3 meetings  Each meeting was of 2-3 lesson (90-135 minutes)  A total of about 19 lessons for each teacher along the school year  Few scenes from the videotapes were used by the teachers as: artifacts → evidence → presentation → portfolio

25. Workshop The aim was to assemble a group of novice teachers who were novice at the inquiry approach and would share their experience with each other  Brought artifacts from their classesartifacts  Reflected on their teaching  Recorded, presented and discussed evidence Throughout the school year, seven meetings, once a month, three hours each  Discussed challenges and actual problems The teachers:

26. Evidence-based portfolio The aim was to enable the teachers to demonstrate their professional development during the school year, while reflecting and supporting it with evidence from their practice The portfolio structure:  Introduction  Professional background  Evidence from classroom-laboratory activities  Reflective summary of the CPD

27. Forum on the web The aim was to enable the teachers to continue to discuss issues that were raised during the workshop meetings  Online closed internet forum