1. Students’ Learning Performance and its Relationship to Teaching Practice Li Zhan, Dante Cisterna, and Charles W. Anderson Michigan State University National Research in Science Teaching Conference 2012

2. Overview  General approach  Research questions  Methods  Findings  Implications for future work

3. PHASE 1. Development of the learning progression framework PHASE 2. Student assessment and Teaching intervention Interviews with teachers PHASE 3. Analysis of student assessment data and teacher interview data General approach

4. 1.What are students’ learning gains across and within school levels? 2. How do particular teachers use and understand teaching materials? Research Questions

5. Research methods Data sourcesParticipantsData analysis Students’ learning results Pre and post written tests Pre: 166 ES 320 MS 153 HS Post: 171 ES 340 MS 185 HS Quantitative analysis Teachers’ interview about instructional practices Stimulated recall interviews 3 Elementary teachers 4 Middle school teachers 4 High school teachers Qualitative analysis  Data summary -Description of classroom activities - Teachers’ appreciation of activities -Perception of student learning- Suggestions for improvement  Interview Data

6. Findings  Patterns in students’ learning achievements  Patterns in teacher’ interviews

7. Students’ overall learning gains in different school levels (pre-post)  Students at all school levels (K-12) show similar and significant learning gains after teaching intervention  Teaching intervention is effective in all school levels

8. Students’ overall learning gains per practice  Students learning gains are similar in each practice

9. Students’ overall learning gains within school level  Students of different teachers demonstrated different patterns of learning gains

10. Students’ learning gains in the five practices by teachers  Significant differences in learning gains within school level: E2 vs E3 and E4 H1 vs H2 and H4

11. Characteristics of teachers with high learning gains Connected activities with learning goals

12. Differences between teachers (1) Pattern 1: Connecting activities with learning goals When they referred to an activity of “burning materials”… Teacher A: high learning gainsTeacher B: low learning gains “I wanted the kids to see it doesn't matter what we burn or it doesn't matter when you're burning your fuel, you're going to give off water and CO2. So whether it's happening in a candle or whether it's happening in ethanol on your cherries jubilee or whatever it is, all those things, the products of combustion are CO2 and water.” “…this wasn't very helpful, and I don't know if it was because I didn't burn enough different types of fuels or - they didn't - they know that oxygen's required for burning, some of them do. But I don't think they really understood where we were going with this.”

13. Connected activities with learning goals Emphasized more affordances of the teaching materials in their instruction Characteristics of teachers with high learning gains

14. Differences between teachers (2) Pattern 2: Affordance of teaching materials When teachers use molecule kits… Teacher C: high learning gainsTeacher D: low learning gains “Because building those models and seeing that you conserved the number of balls…to me is worth the whole thing. I mean the whole thing is getting them to recognize that these are high energy, energy rich materials because the kinds of bonds that they have.” “We did do the building air molecules, that was fantastic..... I didn't realize that nitrogen actually has four holes when it should only have three...I could tell the kids "all holes must be filled, except for nitrogen".

15. Connected activities with learning goals Emphasized more affordances of the teaching materials in their instruction Characteristics of teachers with high learning gains Treated system and scale unit as a tool that can be applied to other contexts (such as other units and other topics)

16. Differences between teachers (3) Pattern3: Applying system and scale unit in other contexts When teachers used tools of reasoning…. Teacher A: high learning gainsTeacher E: low learning gains “We kept both the process tools up in our room, the power of ten chart I kept right out in my hallway. So whatever we did the whole year we could go refer to it….so when we talked about cells later on, it really helped me to put it on the scale and say, “This is where it goes. This is how small it is.” “Whenever, like any other part of the lesson in all of these, the whole series of them, you never ask them to do this again. Never say, how much bigger is that and ask them to express it in a power of ten…. And so unless we were going to use that same skill later on in the unit it seemed like it wasn't necessary. “

17. Connected activities with learning goals Emphasized more affordances of the teaching materials in their instruction Characteristics of teachers with high learning gains Treated system and scale unit as a tool that can be applied to other contexts (such as other units and other topics) Adjusted the unit based on students ’ characteristics Used the pool of teaching resources provided

18. Implications for future work  General: We see a relationship between teachers’ understanding and use of teaching materials and students’ learning gains. Goals for current work  We are reviewing teaching materials to make teaching materials’ affordances more explicit.  We are organizing workshops to help teachers improve understanding and implementation of teaching materials.

19. Thank you!