• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Co-Designing a Collaborative Curriculum for Secondary School Biology
 

Co-Designing a Collaborative Curriculum for Secondary School Biology

on

  • 1,619 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,619
Views on SlideShare
1,615
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
11
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://www.slideshare.net 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Co-Designing a Collaborative Curriculum for Secondary School Biology Co-Designing a Collaborative Curriculum for Secondary School Biology Presentation Transcript

    • Co-Designing a Collaborative Curriculum for Secondary School Biology Vanessa L. Peters and James D. Slotta Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto, Canada EARLI 2009 - Amsterdam
    • Knowledge Communities in the Classroom Reflection Knowledge Building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003) Share Consequential Research Information Task Deep Disciplinary Content Fostering a Community of Learners (Brown & Campione, 1996) High level of student agency Distributed expertise Community knowledge base Technology scaffolds Progressive Inquiry (Hakkarainen, 2003)
    • Research Question Can secondary science teachers adopt a knowledge community approach in their classrooms while still addressing the mandated curriculum? High content Time commitment volume Targeted learning Knowledge Access to technology outcomes Community Conventional Significant changes in assessments teachers’ practices
    • Previous studies of FCL in secondary classrooms Biology classroom: Teachers tended to revert back to traditional teaching teaching modes; loss of emphasis on big ideas of curriculum (Rico & Shulman, 2004). Mathematics classroom: Implementation requires a reconceptualization of mathematics instruction, as well as some rethinking of the essential features of FCL (Sherin, Mendez, & Louis, 2004). Social studies classroom: Pragmatic nature of social studies compatible with FCL; teachers embraced jigsaw activity, but still “defaulted” to familiar methods (Mintrop, 2004).
    • Knowledge Community and Inquiry (KCI) Model (Slotta, 2007; Slotta & Peters, 2008) Community Knowledge Base Collaborative Scaffolded Assessable Knowledge Inquiry Learning Construction Activities Outcomes Emergent Themes & Content Expectations Community Voice & Learning Goals
    • Two Iterations of KCI Human Physiology Canadian Biodiversity ๏ 102 students, 2 teachers ๏ 114 students, 3 teachers ๏ 1 week (spring 2006) ๏ 8 weeks (fall 2006/winter 2007) ๏ CKC activity (2 class periods): ๏ CKC activity (6 class periods): • Human system diseases • Ecozones and biomes ๏ Inquiry activity: • Biodiversity issues • Challenge Cases ๏ Inquiry activity: • Research proposal Co-Design: Researchers and teachers work together in defined roles to design and develop an educational innovation (Roschelle, Penuel, & Shechtman, 2006).
    • Scaffolded wiki environment Supports collaborative authoring Easy to use, fast start-up All document revisions are archived Customized templates
    • Knowledge Community and Inquiry (KCI) Model (Slotta, 2007; Slotta & Peters, 2008) Community Knowledge Base Collaborative Knowledge Construction
    • Iteration 1: Human Physiology Lesson on Internal Systems (respiratory, circulatory, digestive) Students used web to create wiki pages using “Disease Page” script
    • KCI: Collaborative Knowledge Construction Embedded instructional prompts to target curriculum expectations All 102 students contributed to the same community resource
    • Knowledge Community and Inquiry (KCI) Model (Slotta, 2007; Slotta & Peters, 2008) Community Knowledge Base Collaborative Scaffolded Knowledge Inquiry Construction Activities Emergent Themes Content Expectations & Community Voice & Learning Goals
    • KCI: Scaffolded Inquiry “Challenge Case”: Fictitious medical case study about patient and physician Created and solved cases in different internal systems
    • Knowledge Resource Base Authors Page Revisions 50 45 Mean SD 40 Revisions 23.05 10.27 35 Word Count 1212.9 404.77 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Disease Pages (23)
    • Knowledge Community and Inquiry (KCI) Model (Slotta, 2007; Slotta & Peters, 2008) Community Knowledge Base Collaborative Scaffolded Assessable Knowledge Inquiry Learning Construction Activities Outcomes Emergent Themes & Content Expectations Community Voice & Learning Goals
    • Student achievement on final exam Physiology Score Rest of Exam 100 90 91.60 Physiology scores 80 82.42 83.35 significantly higher with 70 new curriculum 68.18 66.60 67.38 60 F(2, 96) = 7.236, p = .001) 50 Same teacher all 3 years 40 30 Similar open-ended 20 questions 10 0 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 Academic Year
    • Iteration 1 Design Challenges Students used the community knowledge base when solving challenge cases, but did not engage deeply with their peer’s work. Lack of any real connection between the scaffolded inquiry activities and the community knowledge base. Students were dissatisfied that their wiki disease pages were not formally graded.
    • Iteration 2: Biodiversity 8-week unit on Canada’s biodiversity (ecozones, biomes, sustainability issues) Students used customized “Ecozone Page” script when creating Knowledge Resource Base
    • KCI: Collaborative Knowledge Construction
    • Ecozone page assessment criteria Components Criteria Value Completion & Accuracy • Page includes all categories specified in 30% template Quality & Relevancy • Logical organization; clear navigation; 20% relevant pictures/diagrams Organization • Logical organization; clear navigation; 10% includes pictures/diagrams Sources Cited • All sources cited; consistent use of MLA 10% or APA Contribution to the page • Identify individual contributions; 10% equitable participation Value of contribution • Explain how edits contributed to 10% development of wiki page Written Communication • Scientific terminology; concise and on- 8% topic Links • Reduce redundancy 2%
    • Relationship between ecozone pages and final exam scores = Individual Score 100 90 Significant correlation 80 r(49) = .38, p = .0056 Ecozone Page Score 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Biodiversity Exam Score
    • Student achievement on final exam Biology Score Rest of Exam 100 92.92 Biodiversity scores 90 85.56 84.24 significantly higher with 80 81.54 83.46 new curriculum F(2, 113) 79.68 70 = 7.133, p = .001) 60 One teacher taught all 50 3 years 40 30 Similar open-ended 20 questions 10 0 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 Academic Year
    • Ecozone page peer assessment comments !
    • Peer Review Comments Comment Type Example “Maybe add a section on Bacteria? I’m pretty sure 1. Requests for additional content 28% there must be lots of bacteria in this ecozone.” “Does anyone know how to centre a pic without 2. Asking a question 2% affecting the text?” 3. Reporting one’s own “Anyhoo, I was a primary contributor to the short 37% contribution summary the part on root rot and pine beetles” “Overall it was excellent and informative, we 4. Positive feedback 9% enjoyed reading it!” “That was me, the internet logged me off without me 5. Conversational 24% knowing!”
    • Student achievement on final exam Biology Score Rest of Exam 100 92.92 Biodiversity scores 90 85.56 84.24 significantly higher with 80 81.54 83.46 new curriculum F(2, 113) 79.68 70 = 7.133, p = .001) 60 One teacher taught all 50 3 years 40 30 Similar open-ended 20 questions 10 0 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 Academic Year
    • Teacher’s Comment: “I was the person with the foot in the classroom - knowing the curriculum well enough to know what’s going to meet the needs, or if we’ll have enough time, or hey, cool idea how can we implement that?” “It’s kind of funny because this year I was setting up a wiki for two other teachers. It’s as if you and I totally switched roles… I don’t know what happened but all of a sudden I was comfortable with it, comfortable enough to make mistakes in front of the kids. And that to me is a real level of comfort, because I know I can fix it up or say, okay, how can I fix this?” - Kathy (Science teacher)
    • Student Comments: “I thought this was a more interactive, more fun way to do [the unit] instead of just getting the notes. Because that’s what we usually do for pretty much every unit. We have the projector up and it’s just notes we copy down. - Jennifer (biology student) “I don’t think the wiki was a one-time thing where you’re like, “oh, I’m finished and I can stop working on it.” Like, for me, I’d have to go back and edit it once in a while because I’d come across some new piece of information.” - Robert (biology student)
    • Iteration 2 Design Challenges Students were overwhelmed with the amount of wiki editing that was required. Teachers still uncertain how to assess knowledge base. Need more explicit scaffolding between knowledge base inquiry activities. Co-design meetings were more difficult to coordinate with three teachers, not all teachers participated equitably.
    • Next Steps Tracking knowledge flow: during collaborative knowledge construction, and during inquiry activities (students’ access of knowledge resources). Analyzing resource base for individual and group contributions, connections to ideas and growth of knowledge. Determining the extent to which the curriculum addressed the curriculum content expectations.
    • Knowledge “transactions”
    • Visualizing knowledge construction with Swimlanes
    • Thank you! Vanessa L. Peters vlpeters@gmail.com Universiteit Utrecht, July 8, 2009