PhysTEC at Towson University:

2004-2005 (Year 1) Annual Technical Report

Project personnel for 2004-2005 consisted of Dr. Laura Lising and Dr. Cody Sandifer, two full-time science education faculty in the Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences, and Ms. Lisa Tirocchi, a full-time elementary teacher-in-residence (TIR).

Introduction

The main purpose of Towson’s Physics Teacher Education Coalition (PhysTEC) project is to improve our “Teaching Science in the Elementary School” practicum course (SCIE 376). “Improvement” in this project is represented by the degree to which the course becomes more uniform from section to section (in terms of the number of science lessons taught per intern, feedback on the interns’ teaching, and a focus on inquiry) and the extent to which the undergraduate course interns (1) develop a better understanding of the principles of inquiry-based teaching, and (2) increase the amount and quality of inquiry in their elementary science lessons at the practicum school sites.

Other purposes of the project are: to assess and improve the science mentoring of pre- and in-service elementary teachers, to build a stable community of elementary science internship schools, to provide better pedagogical support for the instructors of the other science courses in the elementary education program (Physical Science I, Earth-Space Science), and to document successes and challenges that will be shared with other PhysTEC sites and the educational community at large.

Project Background and Context

Towson University (TU), a member of the University System of Maryland, is the second largest university in the state. TU graduates more preservice elementary teachers than any other Maryland school: approximately 200 per year.

Science in Towson’s Elementary Education Program

Before being officially admitted into the elementary education program, pre-elementary undergraduates are required to take an introductory physical science course, Physical Science I (PHSC 101).

Immediately before the student teaching semesters, elementary education majors at TU are required to complete a "math and science” semester, which is a semester solely dedicated to the content and methods related to math/science instruction. The Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences offers two courses during this math/science semester: Earth-Space Science, which is a combined content/methods course, and Teaching Science in the Elementary School, which is the elementary science teaching practicum course. Student cohorts are enrolled in these two courses concurrently; ideally, to provide students with a coherent framework for science teaching and learning, cohorts have the same instructor for both courses. The intent is that, in the Earth-Space Science course, the preservice teachers learn science content and reasoning skills through inquiry, while at the same time reflecting on and explicitly discussing the structure and value of inquiry-based instruction; the methods content from Earth-Space Science is then supplemented and reinforced with additional methods discussions in the practicum course, in which the interns are expected to teach science through inquiry at elementary school sites.

The model of inquiry that is the basis for TU’s preservice science content and practicum courses is the model of guided inquiry. The goal of the Earth-Space Science course is to have the preservice teachers engage in conceptual development that is driven by evidence-based arguments and reasoning, where the evidence takes the form of experimental data and everyday experience. They do this by interacting with each other in small groups, participating in whole-class discussions, collecting experimental data, and constructing evidence-based explanations -- all in a guided setting.

The science practicum course, which is the primary focus of this project, is a three-credit course that meets once per week for four hours at a nearby elementary school. Course activities include an hour of teaching time with the elementary children, coaching from the classroom mentor teacher, small-group lesson planning under the supervision of the course instructor, and methods/content discussions and activities. There are generally 4-6 preservice interns per elementary classroom, with each intern in charge of teaching science to her own small group of elementary students each week. The purpose of the practicum is to have the preservice teachers develop an appreciation for inquiry-based science instruction as an effective teaching method, practice inquiry-based science teaching, learn how to analyze, critique, and modify science lessons, engage in self-reflection about science teaching, and make steps toward improvement.

Table 1. Physical science and science methods courses taken by elementary education majors at Towson University

PHSC 101

“Physical Science I”

4 credits

An inquiry-based content course generally taken in the sophomore year

PHSC 303

“Earth-Space Science in Childhood Education”

3 credits

A mixed content and methods course taken in the junior year

SCIE 376

“Teaching Science in the Elementary School”

3 credits

A methods and practicum course held in local schools and taken concurrently with PHSC 303

Past enrollment levels, per semester, have been as follows:

PHSC 101: 5 sections, 130-140 students

PHSC 303: 6-7 sections, 100-120 students

SCIE 376: 6-7 sections, 100-120 students

An important aspect of Towson’s elementary science education program is that, due to the large number of majors, there can be as many as 7 sections per course – many of which are taught by part-time instructors. Consequently, any program-wide reforms involve strong coordination between the multiple course sections, and (possibly) new training for the part-time instructors.

Potential Areas of Improvement in Towson’s Elementary Program

Potential areas of improvement in SCIE 376.

Before the official start date of the project, discussions were held with past instructors, mentor teachers, and undergraduates in order to establish areas of improvement for the elementary science teaching practicum course (SCIE 376). These areas of improvement included:

· In the recent past, a significant portion of school practicum placements had not been secured until 5 weeks (or later) into the semester

· The different sections of the course had not been uniform in terms the number of science lessons taught per intern, feedback on the interns’ science teaching, and a primary focus on inquiry

· There had been a general lack of communication between the university instructors, mentor teachers, undergraduates, and school administrators about the purpose and logistics of the course, one result of which is that the course goals had not been generally well-understood by the people involved.

Also, at the beginning of the project, it was not known whether the interns exited the practicum course with a good understanding of (or appreciation for) inquiry-based science instruction, and, more importantly, it was unclear as to whether the interns’ science lessons in the practicum schools were inquiry-based, or were instead more traditional types of science lessons.

Potential areas of improvement in other courses.

Although improving SCIE 376 has been our primary project focus, we were also able to identify minor areas of improvement for the other two physical science courses in the program: Physical Science I (PHSC 101) and Earth-Space Science (PHSC 303).

In the past, Physical Science I (PHSC 101) had been fairly successful, in that the course had been generally uniform from section to section, primarily because each section had used the same inquiry-based activity guide; however, observations of new course instructors revealed that new instructors would sometimes have difficulty with activity procedures and/or inquiry methods.

Earth-Space Science (PHSC 303) had also been working reasonably well, as there was a draft curriculum (inquiry-based activity guide) in use by some instructors. As with PHSC 101, however, observations indicated that some instructors had difficulty with activity procedures and/or inquiry methods. Also, there were cases where there had been little to no communication and course coordination between the PHSC 303 instructors and the SCIE 376 instructors – which was problematic because these two courses (taken concurrently) are meant to provide a complementary experience in which the students are able to link their learning of science concepts, reasoning skills, and teaching methods (in PHSC 303) to their practicum teaching and methods experiences (in SCIE 376).

Potential areas of improvement in science mentoring.

Not being housed in the College of Education, the PIs had limited knowledge as to whether any science-specific mentoring occurred once the elementary education majors left the math-science semester to engage in two semesters of student teaching. To begin to address and improve science mentoring at Towson, the nature and frequency of TU’s science-specific mentoring would need to be assessed.

Prior Research on Inquiry-Related Professional Development

The primary goal of the 2004-2005 PhysTEC project at Towson was to improve SCIE 376, a course in which 50-75% of the sections are taught by part-time faculty. Therefore, a key component of Towson’s PhysTEC program was to provide effective professional development opportunities for the SCIE 376 instructors so that they would be in a position to effectively guide the practicum interns toward an appreciation and understanding of inquiry and an increased use of inquiry teaching practices.

Past research on inquiry-related professional development of pre- and in-service teachers demonstrates that transformation of teacher practice toward inquiry takes an average of 2-3 years, so an open question for our project was to what extent the project activity could help our part-time instructors, classroom mentor teachers, and practicum interns shift more towards inquiry in one semester.

Project Goals: Year 1

Given our focus on inquiry and the potential areas of improvement in Towson’s elementary education program, we chose the following project goals for the 2004-2005 academic year.

Goal 1: Build a community of science placement schools for SCIE 376, our science placement course for elementary education majors

Community-building would include fostering communication between university instructors, mentor teachers, and school administrators as well as securing placement schools that would be immediately available for the interns at the start of each semester.

Goal 2: Revise and improve SCIE 376

Improvements would include increasing the uniformity of the different sections of SCIE 376 (in terms of the number of science lessons taught per intern, feedback on the interns’ teaching, and a focus on inquiry), establishing course-wide goals, fixing logistical problems, helping the interns develop a better understanding of inquiry methods, and helping the interns begin to implement inquiry in their practicum science lessons.

Goal 3: Make minor course improvements to PHSC 303 and PHSC 101

To improve instructor support, meetings would be held for new PHSC 101 and PHSC 303 instructors before the start of each content unit, and a teacher’s guide would be written for the already existing curriculum (inquiry-based activity guide) for PHSC 101.

Goal 4: Assess the science teaching and mentoring that occurs during the science internship and later internships (including student teaching) of Towson’s elementary education program and explore ideas for mentoring

Surveys would be administered to Towson’s senior elementary education majors in both the Fall and Spring to assess the frequency of science-specific mentoring during the student teaching and pre-student teaching semesters. Also, literature on mentoring would be reviewed to develop a possible plan for peer mentoring in SCIE 376. In addition, meetings would be held with College of Education personnel to gather information on science mentoring at the professional development schools (student teaching sites).

Meeting the Project Goals: Accomplishments and Continuing Challenges

Accomplishments

Goal 1: Build a community of science placement schools for SCIE 376

Placement school coordination by PhysTEC PI.

Placement coordination is the responsibility of TU’s Center for Professional Practice (CPP), the organization that also coordinates the student teaching sites. However, the CPP sometimes lacks the background knowledge or staff to secure adequate 376 placement sites by the first week of school, and so the last minute securing of sites is sometimes left to the SCIE 376 instructors. This is why, in the recent past, a significant portion of school practicum placements were not secured until 5 weeks (or later) into the semester.

Before the beginning of the fall and spring semesters, Dr. Laura Lising made frequent school visits and phone calls to recruit and retain schools, to secure dedicated school spaces for the interns, and to sort out logistical problems. The result of her time-consuming activities was that each section of SCIE 376 had a placement school available before the first week of class.

Mentor teacher workshops.

One important component of community-building during 2004-2005 was to conduct summer and winter workshops for SCIE 376 mentor teachers. The workshops were collaborative meetings, attended by both university instructors and mentor teachers, that focused on the course goals and structure, communication between 376 instructors and school personnel, and orientation and training for mentor teachers related to their mentoring duties. Sixteen mentor teachers attended the summer workshop, and five teachers attended the winter workshop. Workshop comments and a comparison of pre/post workshop surveys indicated that the workshops were successful at communicating the course goals, answering the mentor teachers’ questions, building community between mentor teachers, and establishing contacts between Towson University and the local school systems.

The products of our mentor teacher workshops include a powerpoint presentation and a newly revised teacher feedback form (for use by the mentor teachers in providing feedback on the interns’ lessons). In addition to suggestions for improving the feedback form, the workshop generated a list of ideas from the teachers for how to tackle various challenges in the placement, such as unit scheduling and assessment.

Comments from the workshop participants indicate that the workshop’s success was partially due to the fact that teachers were paid for their attendance, and also due to the fact that the workshop was truly collaborative, with everyone at the workshop collectively problem-solving about course improvements. The teachers especially enjoyed getting the chance to with other teachers in the area who are committed to helping preservice teachers develop their science teaching.

TIR visits to the placement sites.

TIR Lisa Tirocchi visited each placement site several times during each semester. In addition to her observing activities, which were focused on assessing how the course was meeting each course goal and whether or not the interns were teaching inquiry, the TIR served as a liaison for the sites and the PhysTEC team, and also served as a resource for instructors, interns, and teachers. Problems at various sites could be more quickly understood and addressed as a result of this communication. In addition, the TIR spent one-on-one time with most of the intern groups, giving them suggestions about lesson plans and answering questions.

Other supporting data.

In an on-line survey administered at the end of the Spring 05 semester, 20 out of 22 responding mentor teachers indicated that they had a “definitely positive” experience in serving as a mentor teacher for SCIE 376. The other 2 teachers indicated that they had a “somewhat positive” experience. The mentor teachers unanimously responded that they would recommend becoming a SCIE 376 mentor teacher to a fellow teacher.

Goal 2: Revise and improve SCIE 376

Both project PIs taught SCIE 376 for the first time in 2004-2005. Dr. Lising taught SCIE 376 in both the Fall and Spring semesters; Dr. Sandifer taught SCIE 376 in the Spring only. Each semester, full-time faculty taught two to three sections of SCIE 376, with the remaining sections (as many as four, depending on the semester) being taught by part-time instructors.

The Fall plan for SCIE 376 course improvement was to hold a mentor teacher workshop, introduce some inquiry-oriented changes into one section of SCIE 376 (Dr. Lising’s section), and gather information about the other sections of the course. The Spring plan for SCIE 376 course improvement was to hold a meeting with university instructors, hold a workshop for new mentor teachers, continue to gather information about the different course sections, and begin to work on a resource folder for 376 instructors.

Mentor teacher workshops.

As important as the mentor teacher workshops (described above) were to our community-building efforts, the workshops were just as crucial to the course improvement plan for SCIE 376. A giant step forward in making the course more uniform from section to section was the sharing of clearly defined course goals (developed by the PIs) with both the university instructors and mentor teachers. These course goals can be found here.

Information-gathering on course sections: Fall 2004.

A multiple choice/free response survey was administered to all of the SCIE 376 interns at the end of the Fall 2004 semester. The survey elicited information about the interns’ course experiences and orientation towards inquiry. Eighty-nine interns responded to the survey. In addition, the project team developed an observation protocol based on the National Science Education Standards to document whether the 376 interns’ science lessons had an inquiry focus. The Towson TIR used the observation protocol to evaluate eleven different science lessons during Fall 2004.

Note that the PhysTEC team had not attempted to make any changes to SCIE 376 in Fall 2004 (except in Dr. Lising’s section), and so the Fall 2004 results reflect the state of the course before any PhysTEC-related course improvements were instituted.

Table 2. Fall 2004 survey responses relating to inquiry-based teaching methods (post only)

	Fall 04 post (89 interns)
Interns who indicate that their top priority is to give students experiences with experimentation and data	27%
Interns who indicate that their top priority is to help students develop argumentation and reasoning skills	12%
Interns who indicate that the top two activities that they would try to incorporate into every science class are (1) discussions in which students generate a variety of scientific ideas and (2) experiments in which students generate a variety of ideas.	57%
Interns who indicate that one of the two primary roles of the teacher is to guide whole-class and small group discussions	51%

Observations of the interns’ science lessons (approximately two observations per course section) revealed that, in most cases, the lessons tended to be unmodified city/county activities that focused on verifying science content and obtaining answers through the use of text, demonstrations, or lecture. Very little about these lessons approached evidence-based inquiry into scientific ideas and scientific phenomena.

It should be stated that the intern lesson observations are not meant to be critical of either the practicum interns or the university instructors. Presumably, the interns’ lessons had been influenced by the methods content (which was likely not inquiry-focused) stressed within their particular section of the practicum course. In addition, although the inquiry-focused course goals had been briefly communicated to the university instructors at the mentor teacher workshop, no effort had been made during the Fall to either help the instructors develop a deeper understanding of inquiry or to provide support for instructors to make inquiry-focused course modifications.

Another point of interest is that there was a significant mismatch between the interns’ survey responses and their actual science lessons. For instance, 57% of interns indicated that the top two activities that they would try to incorporate into every science class are (1) discussions in which students generate a variety of scientific ideas and (2) experiments in which students generate a variety of ideas. However, these two activities were very rarely seen during the lesson observations. This mismatch between survey responses and implemented lessons was likely the result of a complicated interaction between (a) the expectations of the university instructors, interns, and mentor teachers, especially as related to whether the interns should be teaching the official school science lessons “as-is” or whether the interns should instead be critically examining and modifying the science lessons, (b) the degree to which the university instructors, mentor teachers, and interns possessed a deep, shared understanding of inquiry-based science instruction, (c) the ability of the interns to put their inquiry teaching goals into practice, via their lesson planning and facilitation skills, and (d) the practical constraints of elementary classrooms and the practicum course, such as the availability of science materials and basic communication between the interns, university instructors, and mentor teachers.

University instructor workshops.

After our Fall observations helped us to identify problems with the courses which hinted at potential directions of improvement, we wanted to bring the instructors in for a pre-semester meeting. In December we met with all the SCIE 376 instructors, with the following goals:

· Increase communication between the PhysTEC team and the instructors.

· Establish a team atmosphere for improving the courses, so that the instructors were clear that we were not imposing all changes from above, but instead that we would be working together as a team to learn and improve. Part of this involved soliciting more of the instructors’ input about course needs.

· Clarify the course goals, especially the newly established inquiry goals as embodied in the national standards, and the goal of helping the interns modify curriculum to make it more inquiry-based.

· Further motivate the course goals with our data findings.

· Provide some examples of modified curricula to further clarify these goals.

Unfortunately, at the time of the instructor workshop, we could not support the instructors with curriculum materials and necessary supplies, as the curriculum materials had not yet been developed. We went into the meeting assuming the outcome would be severely limited by this shortcoming.

We met for only two hours and went through the above points and a sample of a piece of modified curriculum, having discussions as necessary. The instructors asked for copies of the NSES, which we provided. Still, we did not expect much shift towards inquiry in the absence of additional support, thus we were thrilled to see shifts in our observation results in the Spring! (See below.)

For subsequent semesters, during the Spring and Summer, we put together a draft curriculum Resource Folder for SCIE 376 and obtained some additional equipment, including digital recorders and DVD players (more detail is provided in the “Resource Folder” section below). With the resource folder in hand, we were able to design a more extensive workshop for the instructors. This workshop had the same goals as above, with an additional goal of helping the instructors to navigate and implement the items in the Resource Folder. The workshop was designed to go through a few methods activities from the folder to give a flavor for the purpose and structure of the activities, and also to help the instructors understand how the many different activities were linked both to the course goals and national science standards. Going through activities as a group also provided a structure for deeper discussions about the nature of science inquiry teaching and the challenges faced at the sites. Furthermore, we wanted to encourage the instructors to modify the methods activities as needed and also to give us as much feedback as they could to help us improve later versions of the folder. The workshop carried a stipend for the part-time faculty, and was run by both the PhysTEC team and one part-time faculty member who had contributed activities to the folder. (She was paid by the grant as a consultant for this.) Our Fall 2005 observations should reflect the relative success of this workshop.

Information-gathering on course sections: Spring 2005.

The multiple choice/free response survey was again administered to all SCIE 376 interns in the Spring 2005 semester – only this time it was given both as a pre- and post-test. Also, the standards-based observation protocol was again used to evaluate different science lessons during Spring 2005. Fourteen lessons were observed in Spring 2005.

Results showed some positive movement with respect to course goals such as decreasing the amount of time interns spend observing and increasing the amount of time they spend teaching, and encouraging interns to modify lessons.

Table 3. Survey responses relating to SCIE 376 course activity: Fall 2004 and Spring 2005

	Fall 04 (89 interns)	Spring 05 (108 interns)
Interns who observed their mentor teacher teaching 4 or more times	19%	18%
Interns who taught less than 4 times	28%	11%
Interns who indicated that their lessons were always official school activities implemented as written (no modifications)	20%	10%

The percentage of interns who taught less than 4 times in Spring 2005 (11%) is significantly less than the percentage of interns who taught less than 4 times in Fall 2004 (28%), c²(1) = 9.2, p < 0.01. The percentage of interns who implemented unmodified activities in Spring 2005 (10%) is significantly less than the percentage of interns who implemented unmodified activities in Fall 2004 (20%), c²(1) = 3.9, p < 0.05. Therefore, our project’s PhysTEC-related reforms appear to have had a significant positive impact in Spring 2005: the interns taught more frequently than before, and the interns more frequently modified the official science lessons rather than teaching them as written.

Table 4. Spring 2005 survey responses relating to inquiry-based teaching methods (pre and post)

	Spring 05 pre (110 interns)	Spring 05 post (108 interns)
Interns who indicate that their top priority is to give students experiences with experimentation and data	25%	34%
Interns who indicate that their top priority is to help students develop argumentation and reasoning skills	2%	3%
Interns who indicate that the top two activities that they would try to incorporate into every science class are (1) discussions in which students generate a variety of scientific ideas and (2) experiments in which students generate a variety of ideas	68%	73%
Interns who indicate that one of the two primary roles of the teacher is to guide whole-class and small group discussions	46%	53%

None of the pre/post differences for the Spring semester are statistically significant.

An important point is that these statistics cannot be ascribed to particular courses. The pretest percentages are presumably related to all previous elementary education coursework, as well as the interns’ complete science-related educational background. The post-test results also cannot be ascribed to particular courses, as the interns receive teaching methods and science experiences in at least two courses in the math-science semester: PHSC 303 and SCIE 376. The post percentages may also be indirectly influenced by the math methods courses and their similarity to the science methods courses (or lack thereof).

The biggest success of the project lies in the shift of the SCIE 376 interns’ science lessons toward inquiry in Spring 2005. Compared to the Fall 2004 teaching, the Spring 2005 teaching focused much more frequently on the investigation and analysis of science content, public communication of science ideas, scientific discussion and debate, the use of evidence, and the selection and modification of science activities. Table 5 illustrates sample differences in the interns’ science lessons between the two semesters.

Table 5. A sample of the standards-based lesson observation data: Characteristics of the interns’ intended lessons for Fall 2004 and Spring 2005

NSES characteristic

Fall 2004

(11 lessons)

Spring 2005

(14 lessons)

Less emphasis should be placed on:

More emphasis should be placed on:

0/1

2/3

4/5

0/1

2/3

4/5

Activities that demonstrate and verify science content

Activities that investigate and analyze science content

Focus on getting an answer

Focus on using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation

Providing answers to questions about science content

Communicating science explanations

Rigidly following curriculum

Selecting and adapting curriculum

Focusing on student acquisition of information

Focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes

Presenting scientific knowledge through lecture, text, and demonstration

Guiding students in active and extensive scientific inquiry

Asking for recitation of acquired knowledge

Providing opportunities for scientific discussion and debate among students

Note. Eleven lessons were observed in the Fall and 14 lessons were observed in the Spring. Each lesson characteristic was rated on a 0-5 scale. N/A denotes that the characteristic did not apply in the lesson. 0/1 denotes the lesson characteristic falling into the “less emphasis” category. 2/3 denotes the lesson characteristic falling in the middle of the two emphases. 4/5 denotes the lesson characteristic falling into the “more emphasis” category.

Setting a minimum acceptable threshold of 2/3 for each lesson characteristic, and omitting any N/A data values, we see that the Spring 2005 lessons were more inquiry-oriented than the Fall 2004 lessons. For example, 10 out of 14 lessons in Spring 2005 focused on investigation and analysis (as opposed to verification and demonstration), in contrast to 2 out of 11 lessons in Fall 2004, c²(1) = 7.0, p < 0.01. Similarly, 10 out of 13 lessons in Spring 2005 (one N/A lesson omitted) focused on communicating science explanations (as opposed to providing an answer), in contrast to 3 out of 11 lessons in Fall 2004, c²(1) = 8.3, p < 0.01.

Instructor Resource Folder for SCIE 376.

As mentioned above, a crucial part of improving SCIE 376 was to eventually provide curriculum resources and materials for the instructors. Rather than design a single curriculum, we decided to put together a “Resource Folder” for the course. This allowed the instructors to select and adapt activities to fit their local course conditions, which vary considerably, and complement the instructors’ areas of expertise. The folder took the form of a set of documents on a CD and several supplies that we purchased or created: DVDs, DVD players, one TV/DVD, and several digital audio recorders that instructors could check out for the semester or shorter periods. (The Resource Folder will be made publicly available once it has received an appropriate amount of testing and improvement.)

Since encouraging inquiry was our main goal, we decided to organize the folder by the standards. We grouped the 21 inquiry standards that we use in our observation protocol into 9 categories of similar items. Each classroom activity or assignment was indexed to one or more of these categories on a one-page chart according to the activity’s focus. We encouraged the instructors to use this chart as a selection guide for activities in three main ways:

· During semester planning, the instructor could choose an assortment of activities that focused on the full spectrum of the aspects of inquiry.

· Or he or she could choose activities to complement his/her own set of activities depending on her assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of those activities in the various categories.

· Or he or she could add in activities mid-semester to address inquiry-related issues that the instructor was noticing needed more emphasis.

Each standards-linked activity included implementation guidelines in a standardized format that included guidelines for use, prerequisites, materials, troubleshooting hints, etc. Although we have extensive course development experience, this was the team’s first attempt to write this type of curriculum material for a methods course, so we expect many clarifications and modifications to be necessary. The folder also included other resource documents such as sample syllabi.

Goal 3: Make minor course improvements to PHSC 303 and PHSC 101

A teacher’s guide was developed for the PHSC 101 activity guide. The teacher’s guide was distributed to each instructor, and one of the project PIs (Dr. Sandifer) held biweekly meetings with the part-time faculty to give guidance about the course focus on inquiry, the course text (activity guide), and the overall structure of the course. It was also arranged for new instructors to periodically observe Dr. Sandifer’s section of PHSC 101.

Dr. Sandifer also held course meetings for PHSC 303. Three meetings were held – one before the beginning of each new unit. These meetings served the same purpose as the PHSC 101 meetings.

Mid-semester observations of the PHSC 101 and PHSC 303 instructors indicated that both courses were being taught in accordance with the course developer’s inquiry teaching goals.

An on-line survey was administered to elementary education student teachers in Fall 2004 and Spring 2005. These are students who have completed the science-specific courses (SCIE 376 and PHSC 303) and are spending one to five days per week in the classroom. Both semesters represent baseline data for the project.

Table 6. Survey responses relating to science experiences during student teaching: Fall 2004 and Spring 2005

	Fall 04 (80 interns)	Spring 05 (70 interns)
Interns who taught science frequently in their internship	44%	35%
Interns who never taught science in their internship	21%	27%
Interns who received no science-specific instruction from their Towson instructors during their internship	54%	63%
Interns who indicated that they were well-prepared by their Towson courses to teach science during their internship	21%	35%
Interns who indicated that they were somewhat prepared by their Towson courses to teach science during their internship	63%	50%
Interns who frequently received science-specific mentoring from their school site mentor teacher	22%	19%
Interns who never received science-specific mentoring from their school site mentor teacher	37%	34%

Important baseline data includes the fact that less than half of student teachers taught science frequently, with approximately one-quarter not teaching science at all. Also, over half of student teachers received no science-specific instruction from the Towson instructors, and approximately one-third of student teachers received no science-specific mentoring from their mentor teachers. This data points out the critical need for science-specific mentoring and teaching opportunities in the student teaching semesters at Towson University.

There were also a number of suggestions, comments, and complaints that appeared somewhat frequently in the free response portion of the survey, including: the need for a greater focus on science in the schools – as evidenced by the fact that some schools just don’t teach science; a desire to have learned more science content; the need for more knowledge on how to integrate science with other subjects; and a lack of science equipment in the schools.

Continuing Challenges

Towson’s PhysTEC project faces a number of ongoing issues and challenges that make it difficult to achieve our goal of making widespread sustainable changes to the SCIE 376 course.

The need for a SCIE 376 course coordinator.

A critical need for SCIE 376 is the presence of a single course coordinator to handle school recruitment and retention, among other things. This position did not exist prior to Fall 2004 (which is when Dr. Lising took on the coordination responsibilities), and the course suffered as a result. Coordinating SCIE 376 is a time-consuming task, however, and the position of “course coordinator” does not come with any release time or other incentives. Coordinating the course is currently a grant-supported activity, but in the future – in the absence of ongoing external funding or college support – the coordination of SCIE 376 will likely become a pro bono activity that takes away time from other important faculty obligations, such as faculty research and course preparation.

Developing a shared understanding of inquiry.

Given the limited amount of time that the project PIs are able to dedicate to close interactions with mentor teachers and part-time faculty (in the form of workshops, etc.), and also given the turnover associated with the mentor teacher and part-time faculty positions, it isn’t clear to what extent the project will be able to help each and every mentor teacher and Towson instructor develop a deep, shared understanding of standards-driven, inquiry-based science teaching. The lack of a shared understanding and valuing of inquiry-based instruction has far-reaching effects, such as in those instances when mentor teachers give advice to interns that directly conflicts with the advice from the university instructors, or when university instructors allow interns to implement the official city/county science lessons as-is, without requiring the interns to modify the lessons to be more inquiry-based.

Course coordination between SCIE 376 and PHSC 303.

An advantage for full-time faculty is that they often have the same student cohort for both SCIE 376 and PHSC 303. Having the same cohort for both classes sets up a fluid situation where (a) the science content in the SCIE 376 interns’ science lessons can become part of the course content addressed in PHSC 303, (b) the instructor can hold in-depth methods and planning discussions in PHSC 303 that, due to time constraints, might otherwise not occur in SCIE 376, and (c) the instructor can help the interns develop a deeper, more coherent understanding (and appreciation) of inquiry and science learning by having them make explicit connections between their teaching practices, their understanding of children’s science learning, and their own science learning – which are precisely the types of connections that the educational community recognizes as being crucial aspects of successful professional development for teachers. By necessity, most sections of SCIE 376 are taught by part-time faculty who meet with their interns only once per week, at the school site -- and so these types of spillover content/methods opportunities aren’t possible. This makes teaching SCIE 376 for part-time faculty, and full-time faculty in a similar predicament, much more difficult.

Greater coordination during the math-science semester.

Greater coordination across the math and science methods courses could be of great benefit to the elementary education undergraduates. For example, the same model of inquiry and inquiry-based instruction could be consistently presented in both the science and math methods courses, which would help the “message” of the math-science semester become clearer and more coherent. In upcoming semesters, some initial contact could be made to evaluate the extent to which the math and science courses are based on similar philosophies of teaching and learning.

Science mentoring.

The project PIs have little control over the mentoring that occurs in actual classrooms (once Towson graduates secure teaching positions) or during the student teaching semesters. Mentoring in local elementary schools is handled by official school personnel, and mentoring in the student teaching semesters is handled by faculty and staff in the College of Education. Practically speaking, it appears that the best that our project can hope to achieve in the area of mentoring is to introduce peer mentoring activities into both PHSC 303 and SCIE 376. It is still unclear as to whether peer mentoring can become a significant aspect of these courses, and to what extent peer mentoring skills might carry over into other contexts.

Standardized testing in Maryland.

There is currently no science-specific testing in Maryland, although that will change when a standardized science testing comes on-line in 2007 or 2008. It remains to be seen whether teachers and administrators will allow SCIE 376 instructors to make inquiry-oriented modifications to the official curriculum when teachers and administrators are faced with rigid content and lesson requirements driven by the Maryland State Assessment (MSA). If we are ever in a position where curriculum modifications are not allowed, SCIE 376 may be unable to maintain its crucial focus on inquiry – a situation that would severely limit the effectiveness and utility of the course.

Summary

During the 2004-2005 academic year, Towson’s PhysTEC project made significant progress toward reaching our project goals. The SCIE 376 course has become more consistent across course sections, the SCIE 376 mentor teachers and part-time faculty have developed a better understanding of the course goals (in general) and inquiry-based instruction (in particular), the SCIE 376 interns’ science lessons have become more inquiry-oriented, and some progress has been made in improving other science courses (PHSC 101, PHSC 303) by making them more uniform and instructor-friendly. In achieving our goals, the project has produced a number of resource documents and assessment instruments that will benefit other PhysTEC sites and the greater educational community at large. In our second year, Towson’s PhysTEC project will continue to make progress towards our goals, document our efforts, improve our assessment instruments, and create additional resource documents for elementary science educators.

Detailed Summary of Project Activity

Table 7. Summary of project activity: Year 1 (2004-2005)

Fall Semester 2004	Spring Semester 2005
Wrote a teacher’s guide for Physical Science I (PHSC 101; CS)	Initial writing on teacher’s guide for Earth-Space Science (PHSC 303; CS)
Weekly project meetings (All)	Weekly project meetings (All)
Orientation and training of new TIR (All)	Hiring of TIR for upcoming year (All)
Planned and Presented Mentor Teacher Workshop (All)	Planned and Presented Mentor Teacher Workshop (All)
Attended PhysTEC Conference in Sacramento, California (CS,LT)	Attended PhysTEC conference in Muncie, Indiana (LL,LT). Prepared and presented a poster on Goals and Assessment (LL,LT). Co-led two inquiry workshops for conference participants (LL).
Observed all sections of SCIE 376 (LT)	Observed all sections of SCIE 376 (LT)
Worked with PhysTEC team to create observation protocol based on NSES to evaluate SCIE 376 interns (All)	Reviewed the literature on mentoring and developed a possible plan for peer mentoring to be used in SCIE 376 (LT)
Created a survey to assess science teaching/mentoring in Level 3 and 4 internships as well as these interns’ orientation toward inquiry (All)	Created and administered a survey to assess the mentor teachers’ satisfaction with the SCIE 376 course (CS)
Administered level 3/4 survey (CS)	Administered level 3/4 survey (CS)
Created a level 2 survey to determine course activity in SCIE 376, as well as the interns’ orientation toward inquiry (All)	Collected written course reflections from SCIE 376 university instructors and mentor teachers (All)
Administered level 2 survey (LT)	Administered level 2 survey (LT)
Analyzed survey data (All)	Analyzed survey data (All)
Created a NSES-based teaching observation protocol (All)
Observed interns and rated their teaching using NSES-based Observation protocol (LT)	Observed interns and rated their teaching using NSES-based Observation protocol (LT)
Planned inquiry based lessons for interns to teach in placement schools (LL,LT)	Planned inquiry based lessons for interns to teach in placement schools (All)
Observed a Level 3 Internship placement school (LT)
Hosting of site visit by project management (All)	Attended two-day project meeting in Washington, D.C. (LL)
Planned and presented a meeting for SCIE 376 instructors (All)	Beginning to create a curriculum resource folder for SCIE 376 (All)
Teaching of SCIE 376 course (LL)	Teaching of SCIE 376 course (LL,CS)
Recruitment and coordination of SCIE 376 school placement sites (LL)	Recruitment and coordination of SCIE 376 school placement sites (LL)

Note: All = all project personnel involved. LL = Laura Lising, CS = Cody Sandifer, and LT = Lisa Tirocchi.