Presents justification for dissertation study looking at five different types of learner-content interaction in self-directed electronic professional development in science education

1. Examining Learning-Content Interaction Importance and Efficacy in Online, On-Demand Electronic Professional Development in Science for Elementary Educators in Grades 3-6 Prospectus Exam and Proposal November 2009 Al Byers

3. Literature Review

6. Elementary and Middle Level Teachers of Science Elementary School Teachers 80% 74% Vast majority of K-8 teachers have general education degree, not in science or science education Horizons Research (2001) At middle school level (grades 5-8), large percentages of teachers “within-field” teaching “out-of-field” Ingersoll (1999) There are approximately 1.7 million elementary teachers in United States NCES (2000) Middle School Teachers 20% 40% 60% 80%

7. Elementary and Middle Level Teachers of Science Middle School Teachers Elementary School Teachers 71% 67% Vast majority of K-8 teachers expressed need to deepen their own science content knowledge (67-71%). Only 18-29% of K-4 teachers felt well prepared to teach science. Horizons Research (2001); NSDC (2008) Content-related PD top priority requested by teachers in 03-04 NCES SASS survey 20% 40% 60% 80%

8. Overview of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment on Science in US Study National Reform Findings Elmore (2004) School research in classrooms across US over years Elementary teachers have little knowledge of various curriculum & assessment for science, nor support to implement effectively within classroom CCSSO (2007) Analysis of NCES 2004 Schools and Staffing Survey 50% Elementary teachers in US in self-contained classrooms responsible all subjects, little formal preparation in science. Only spend 2-3 hrs/week on science grades 1-6 (down from 3.5 hrs/week on 1994 SASS) Griffin (2008) State-wide N=164, volunteer survey Due to NCLB, survey shows 60% report decreased time on science spending as little as 1.5 hrs/wk Ma (1999) Comparison of US vs. China methods and classrooms Elementary math teachers less formal schooling then US, but deeper knowledge of content and PCK, team lesson analysis difference, more planning time

11. Research Purpose/Question and Supporting Theories 11

17. Research in K-8 Online PD (Self-Directed Online Learning Studies) Study PD Model Audience/Content Research Findings del Valle et al. (2009) Self-paced, 12 week module, instructor help K-12 inservice teachers--24 from elementary Mastery-sig. time over longer period, Task-focused-less time in shorter per. Procrastinator-little time, long pd Krall et al. (2009) Self-paced, on-demand, hands-on kits, mentor 43 Elem. & Middle Science and Inquiry, grades 4-8 Significant gains in content & conceptual knowledge. Email Mentor rated lowest across all interaction Lapointe et al. (2008) Evaluate import of online community 74 adult grad students out of 412, 30 disciplines Perception survey and quantitative data reveal mixed results. Not all favor peer-peer interaction (split) Rhodes (2009) Self-paced courses part of certificate model 10 adults in undergrad ed tech PD courses Learners interacted most with content and instructor and ranked ahead of learner-learner interaction Russell et al. (2008) Compare 8 wk online PD, varied support 145 Middle level math teachers (grades 5-8) Sig. gains in pedagogy and content knowledge across all delivery/ support modes. NSD between mode Walker et al. (2008) Online modules, email support In & Pre-service, K-8 grades (N=32) Survey: high ease of use, and enhanced instruction (self-reported)

18. Research in Online PD in Science Education Return Study PD Program Model Target Audience/ Content Area Research Findings Asbell-Clarke (2007) 40 moderated online courses and 35 instructors, across 6 institutions. Middle and high science (Over 200 students) Large Instructor controlled asynchronous discussion. Little hands-on or projects Harlen et al. (2004) Short course w/ hands on inquiry (compare w/ f2f) Elementary and Middle Science (N = 15 and 18 respectively) Online group significant learning gains and time spent. Inquiry more difficult Sherman et al. (2008) Self-paced, mentor, learning objects Middle school science and inquiry (N = 43) Significant gains in content knowledge and self-efficacy

19. Anderson’s Equivalence of Interaction

20. Anderson’s Equivalence of Interaction Many focus on learner-learner or learner-instructor interaction. This study will focus on importance and learning efficacy of learner-content interaction.

22. Research in Online PD in Science Ed (Pedagogical Content Knowledge Addressed Online) Study PD Program Model Target Audience/ Content Area Research Findings Asbell-Clarke (2007) 40 moderated online courses, review across courses 250 K-12 science educators and 35 instructors completed pre/post questionnaires Instructor lead asynchronous discussion. Little hands-on or sims. Students felt supported and large discourse regarding pedagogy and self-reflection. Berger et al. (2008) Monthly f2f with online blend in-between (9 months) 16 High School Physics Teachers (in Israel) Strong online participation linked to student work. Build off teacher queries/ideas Owston et al. (2006) 4 f2f workshops between 8 weeks online. 25 weeks. Two cohorts Middle Science & Math. 65 science teachers (in Canada) Significant gains in teacher perception of inquiry. Weak online participation. Difficult to take release time provided Russell et al. (2009) 8 wk online PD include pedagogical activities such as preparing lessons, online discussions 145 Middle level math teachers (grades 5-8) Using pre/post pedagogical beliefs and practices survey found all groups show significant gain in self-reported inquiry-based practices

23. Research in Online PD in Science Ed (Simulations, Hands-On Inquiry, Interactive Reference) Return Examples Study PD Model Target Audience/ Content Area Research Findings Harlen et al. (2004) Short course w/ hands-on inquiry (compare w/ f2f) Elem. & Middle Science (15 and 18 in each group) Online group significant learning gains and time spent. Inquiry more difficult Krall et al. (2009) Self-paced, hands-on kits, mentor Elem. & Middle Science & Inquiry Significant gains in content knowledge. Low mentor rating. Sherman (2008) Self-paced, email, learning object with simulations Middle school science/inquiry Significant gains in content knowledge & teacher self-efficacy Schaller et al. (2002) Museum content-web sites/web logs 2 groups (adults/ children) N=549 Adults preferred Interact. Ref. & Simulations. Kids preferred role playing and games Schaller et al. (2007) Museum web sites (content-type) 7,800 exit surveys from 11 museums Learning style affects adult pref. Social-Role Play, Intellectual--Interactive Ref.

24. Learner-Content Interaction Types Interactive Reference: Content narrative, images, slide shows, animations, audio and glossary classified as interactive reference permitting learner to engage in content via playback of animations, movies, check-your thinking mouse-overs, etc. (Hoskins et al. 2005; Schaller et al. 2002, 2007)

25. Interactive Reference

26. Interactive Reference

27. Interactive Reference

28. Learner-Content Interaction Types Hands-On Opportunities: Activities to learn content via tactile mode via simplistic yet elegant inquiry using items readily available within home. Not a full-blown student lesson plan. (Asbell-Clarke et al. 2007; Harlen et al. 2004; Krall et al. 2009; NRC 1996)

29. Hands-On Activities

30. Learner-Content Interaction Types Pedagogical Implications: Translation of content for classroom contexts by grade band (e.g., strategies for teaching difficult concepts, what cognitively appropriate by grade band, K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12) and as aligned to both the National Science Education Standards and AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Berger et al. 2008; Asbell-Clarke et al. 2007; Russel et al. 2009; Owston et al. 2006)

31. Pedagogical Implications

32. Pedagogical Implications

33. Learner-Content Interaction Types Simulations: Control of relational variables to observe differences in science content phenomenon under examination (e.g., height ball dropped, angle down hill, type of surface ball rolling across (Anderson 2003; Asbell-Clarke et al. 2007; Sherman et al. 2008; Schaller et al. 2002, 2007; Bayraktar, 2001; Kulik, 1991; J. Lee, 1999; Vogel, et al., 2006)

34. Simulations Air Gravity Cart Track Plate Tectonics Seismic Waves Make a Reef Reflecting Light Curved Mirrors

35. Learner-Content Interaction Types Personal Feedback: Feedback provided for individual learners based on selections they make as answering varied question types that are embedded throughout content and as quizzes at the end of each section (e.g., multiple choice answers, drag-n-drop hotspots, sequencing questions, etc.) (Hoskins et al. 2005; Lapointe et al. 2008; Rhodes et al. 2009)

36. Personal Feedback

37. (Appendix D)

38. Ex: Frequency of Interaction one web module Return Appendix D Survey

42. Variables: Age, Work Experience, Achievement, Perception Study Study Design Aud./Content Research Findings Del Valle et al. 2009 Content usage in on-demand 12 wk course, cluster analysis determined 3 distinct groups of learners online 59 teachers, 24 elementary. On-demand course on inquiry & tech integration with email mentoring. Three Groups: Mastery oriented, Task Focused, Procrastinators. Mastery most sessions & time. Task Focused shorter time, more logins then procrastinators-least time, fewest logins. Work Experience: Mastery group significant more yrs experience vs. task focused group. Minimalist group: Prefer cohort group envir. Age: NSD among 3 clusters. Self-Reported Learning: All report learned, NSD found between cluster groups. Hoskins et al. 2005 Tool/content usage-online quizzes, dis. boards, etc. Multiple linear regressions and discriminate function analysis to predict use. 110 ungrads, 12 wk blended course in biological psychology. Analysis of Covariance determine web use impact on achievement Age: Older students (>21 yrs) put forth more effort to process content at deeper level for more intrinsic reasons. As age increased, number of logins and time online increased, and use of discussion boards. Study Approach: As lower achievement oriented learners completed more quizzes they learned more, higher achievement oriented users access more content/tools. Academic Achievement: Increased use of discussion board predicted increase achiev.

44. Variables: Learner-Content Type, Learner Preference by Age Study Study Design Aud./Content Research Findings Schaller et al. 2002 Online exit surveys across 5 museum web sites for 549 users Interaction types: Creative play, guided tour, interactive reference, puzzle/mystery, role play, simulation Learning Preference: Sig. Diff. found among types of web-based learning between kids and adults. Adults: favored interactive reference and simulations Kids: Creative Play or Role Play Novice Learners: Regardless of age preferred Guided Learning web modules. Schaller et al. 2007 Two separate online exit surveys across 11 museum web sites for 5606 users, 2298 adults. Use Kolb LSI 3.1 for preference Middle & High School kids and Adults. Content Interaction Types: Interactive Reference, Discussion, Design, Simulation, Role Play, Puzzle-Mystery Learning Preference: Sig. Diff. Adults: Learning style influence preferences for learning activities. As get older move from Accommodating style to more Assimilating and Converging learning styles Age: Adults prefer Int. Reference and Puzzle, Kids--Role-Play, & Design. Gender: Female adults-more social then male adults. Kids-NSD

45. Variables: Learner preference, Achievement, Age, Work Exp. Study Study Design Aud./Content Research Findings Kayes 2005 Internal validity and reliability of Kolb 3.1 221 undergrad and grad business students completed Kolb 3.1 Found significant differences in learning preferences between undergrads and grads. Researchers attributed to age or work experience. Russell et al. (2008) Compare 8 wk online PD, varied support. 70% female. 145 Middle level math teachers (grades 5-8). 48%< 40 yrs old. No further breakdown Sig. gains in pedagogy and content knowledge across all delivery modes. NSD between modes. NSD between support groups on demographic variables—teachers self-selected mode. Brittan et al. (2008) Learning styles on academic course achievement & course selection 108 undergrad students at HBCU (91% female). Psychological Assessment course (online or f2f compared). Self select enrollment Surveyed students who volunteered to take Kolb after completing f2f exam. Using Chi-Square found NSD between learning style and course delivery preference. NSD also found between course grade (achievement) and course delivery format (2X4 ANOVA). Researchers call for re-evaluation of learning styles given interaction available in online learning environments

46. Methodology, Variables and Instruments

53. Selected Kolb Learning Preference Studies Study Study Design Aud./Content Research Findings Felder et al. 2005 Varied teaching strategies needed to accommodate different learning preferences. Literature review-Kolb Engineering Students. Three categories diversity have important implications for teaching and learning. Literature Review: Differences in students’ learning styles (characteristic ways of taking in and processing information-Kolb 3.1), Approaches to learning (surface, deep, and strategic) Intellectual development levels (attitudes about the nature of knowledge and how acquired and evaluated). Brittan et al. (2008) Role learning styles on academic course achievement and preferences for course selection 108 undergrad students at HBCU (91% female). Psychological Assessment course (online or f2f compared). Self select enrollment mode. Surveyed students who volunteered to take Kolb after completing f2f exam. Using Chi-Square found NSD between learning style and course delivery preference. NSD found between course grade (achievement) and course delivery format (2X4 ANOVA). Researchers call for re-evaluation of learning styles given interaction available in online learning environments

54. Selected Kolb Learning Preference Studies Return Study Study Design Aud./Content Research Findings Schaller et al. 2007 Two separate online exit surveys across 11 museum web sites for 5606 users, 2298 adults. Use Kolb LSI 3.1 for preference Middle & High School kids and Adults. Content Interaction Types: Interactive Reference, Discussion, Design, Simulation, Role Play, Puzzle-Mystery Learning Preference: Sig. Diff. Adults: Learning style influence preferences for learning activities. As get older move from Accommodating style to more Assimilating and Converging learning styles Age: Adults prefer Int. Reference and Puzzle, Kids--Role-Play, & Design. Gender: Female adults-more social then male adults. Kids-NSD Kayes 2005 Internal validity and reliability of Kolb 3.1 221 undergrad and grad business students completed Kolb 3.1 Found significant differences in learning preferences between undergrads and grads. Researchers attributed to age or work experience.

55. Kolb Learning Style Inventory 3.1

57. NSTA Content Knowledge Assessment: Sample Chronbach Alpha Internal Consistency Test No. of Items No. of Cases Mean Internal Consistency* Earth History 20 111 62.3 .704 Food Science Safety 22 102 61.7 .787 Magnetic and Electric Forces 22 114 56.1 .821 Nature of Light 20 105 55.6 .737 Resources and Human Impact 16 100 79.0 .656 Atomic Structure 16 102 65.9 .882 Cell Structure and Function 23 261 13.2 .636 Chemical Reactions 23 101 60.5 .877 Elements, Atoms, & Molecules 28 103 83.3 .812 Nutrition 20 97 67.5 .609 Cell Division & Differentiation 22 97 69.1 .752 Cells & Chemical Reactions 24 94 59.4 .821