An Evidence – Based CPD Program on Knowledge Integration in Physics

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

2. Collaboration withBat-Sheva EylonDoctoral StudentHana Berger

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

4. 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

5. Our Innovation is Related to Knowledge Integration (KI) “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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Sample 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.)

13. 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)

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

15. 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

16. 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” “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”

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

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

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

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

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

22. 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

23. Research Questions 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?

24. Analysis of Data 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”

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

26. At the Beginning of the Program,Teachers Used Evidence Primarily as a Means for Examining the Implementation of the KIRs Distribution of KI and E statements (average in the first 4 meetings) (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

27. Towards the End of the Program, Teachers Realized the Importance of Evidence Teachers reflections on the program in summary meetings

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

29. Q2. How did teachers develop professionally in these two dimensions?

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

31. Summary • An innovation, grasped by teachers as important, promoted their will to examine their practice • The importance of the evidence component emerged towards the end of the program • 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.”.