Capstone Presentation 6-09

494 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Capstone Presentation 6-09

  1. 1. INCORPORATING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN CHEMISTRY Leslie Karpiak
  2. 2. CHEMICAL BOGGLE Focus Because Puck Bunny Noise Phones Those Noon Pick Bacon Brown Crack Functional Financial Frappucino Motives Library Classic brick Violin Phosphorus American Scorn Nobody
  3. 3. Overview <ul><li>Background Information </li></ul><ul><li>Focus </li></ul><ul><li>Rationale </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Data Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
  4. 4. Maine West High School <ul><li>2,300 students </li></ul><ul><li>3 years of science: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chem 1/Phys 1 </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Focus Question <ul><li>Impact of cooperative learning (CL) on student achievement? </li></ul><ul><li>Sub questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>students’ perceptions positively change? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>implementation positively impact the instructor’s experience? </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Rationale <ul><li>Cooperative learning initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Differentiated instruction </li></ul><ul><li>College readiness standards </li></ul>
  7. 7. Treatment <ul><li>Base groups </li></ul><ul><li>Structures </li></ul><ul><li>Tournament of knowledge </li></ul>
  8. 8. Base Groups <ul><li>Random </li></ul><ul><li>4-5 students </li></ul><ul><li>Non-academic tasks (social) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Structures <ul><li>Steps for student interaction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Example - Variation of Team Word Finder: Chemical Boggle </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Structures Used <ul><li>Team Word Finder </li></ul><ul><li>Quiz, Quiz, Trade </li></ul><ul><li>Rally Coach </li></ul><ul><li>Draw It! </li></ul><ul><li>Same-Different </li></ul><ul><li>RoundRobin/RoundTable </li></ul>
  11. 11. Draw It! <ul><li>Draw It! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar to Pictionary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different rules </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Same-Different <ul><li>Individual, pairs, group </li></ul>
  13. 13. Same-Different
  14. 14. RoundRobin/RoundTable <ul><li>Our task is to find as many things as we can from this list on a penny. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>words, parts of words, images, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A small insect = the letter “B” </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. The Penny Page
  16. 16. Tournament of Knowledge <ul><li>Individual, Cooperative, Competitive </li></ul>Group 8: 2D, 3D, 5D Group 7: 1D, 4D, 6D Group 6: 4C, 5C, 6C Group 5: 1C, 2C, 3C Group 4: 2A, 4A, 5A Group 3: 1A, 3A, 5A Group 2: 4B, 5B, 6B Group 1: 1B, 2B, 3B 4-5a Groups Team 6: 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D Team 5: 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D Team 4: 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D Team 3: 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D Team 2: 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D Team 1: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D 4-5a Teams
  17. 17. Data Collection Techniques Research Question Data Sources 1 2 3 Focus question : Impact of cooperative learning on student achievement. Compare Assessment Averages from Semesters 1 & 2 Compare Class Averages from Semesters 1 & 2 Compare CRT from Semesters 1 & 2 Sub question 1 : Will students’ perceptions of cooperative learning positively change throughout the course of the treatment? Pre and Post-Survey Focus Groups Teacher Journal Sub question 2 : Will implementation positively impact the instructor’s classroom experience? Teacher Journal Time Log Colleague Interaction Log
  18. 18. Data Collection Techniques <ul><li>Focus question: student achievement impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment averages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Class averages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CRT averages </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Assessment Average Comparison <ul><li>Semester 1 - 69% </li></ul><ul><li>Semester 2 - 75% </li></ul>
  20. 20. CRT & Class Averages Control Group Experimental Group CRT Average 74% 78% Class Average 74% 76%
  21. 21. Data Collection Techniques <ul><li>Sub question 1: students’ perceptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre and post-survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher journal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social before academic </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Survey Response: How Do You Work Best?
  23. 23. Survey Response: Altered Perspectives on Benefits
  24. 24. Focus Groups: Student Contributions
  25. 25. Journal & Focus Groups: Perceptions of Draw It!
  26. 26. Data Collection Techniques <ul><li>Sub question 2: teacher impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher journal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time log </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Colleague interaction log </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Teacher Journal <ul><li>Social before academic </li></ul><ul><li>Enjoyment of classroom experience </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing with colleagues </li></ul><ul><li>Department chair e-mail </li></ul>
  28. 28. “ I loved the activity you were using on Tuesday. All students were actively engaged and the organization kept things moving with the stopwatch and passing of questions to the next table. Don't hesitate to share this with others!” Jay Payne Science Department Chair
  29. 29. Time Log <ul><li>Extra hours preparing </li></ul><ul><li>Kagan and Johnson & Johnson courses </li></ul>
  30. 30. Colleague Interaction <ul><li>Colleague input </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Timing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modeling </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lessons learned </li></ul><ul><li>From: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HELP! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to! </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Conclusion <ul><li>Time-consuming </li></ul><ul><li>Worthwhile </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Colleague support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Caveat: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 nd time’s a charm </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Looking ahead </li></ul>
  32. 32. With great appreciation to Dr. Eric Brunsell, Project Advisor Susan Kelly, Project Advisor Peggy Taylor, Director Diana Paterson, Associate Director John Graves, Jewel Rueter, Shelley Chrismon, Amy Manhart and many others. And thank you to my family for their love and support.

×