Collaborative+Inquiry

Honors Challenge in a Ninth Grade Physical Science Heterogeneous Classroom
toc =Part 2 of a two year study - 2009-2010= This year's collaborative inquiry was a continuation from our work in 2008-2009 on Honors Challenge in Physical Science. This year, Mike and I really wanted to focus on improving student engagement within the context of a heterogeneous classroom for honors level students. This meant to us, can we make Honors Challenge (HC) more successful? Throughout the year, we made changes to curriculum and instruction to improve both student engagement and conceptual understanding. Again, we used a [|Google Notebook (which is public)] to keep track of our progress. There are several changes worth noting this year. They are summarized below. Additionally, we looked at student survey results about honors challenge specifically in April. Those results and reflections are also included here.

Curricular change: Sound and Optics
One important learning goal coming out of Physical Science is the goal of scientific writing and student understanding of the nature and methods of science as it relates to lab write-ups. This is a major challenge for our students. We have tried to scaffold this process in the past by increasing the difficulty and sophistication of the labs and scientific writing as the year builds. We noticed that the Optics lab presented major challenges to many students in the course; while students were able to complete much of the calculations and writing, much of the content seemed to be lost. I proposed that we help students by introducing more of the writing and style information to students before they attempt the challenging content of optics. We decided to move the speed of sound lab before the optics lab because the sound lab is simpler in the content. In the [|notes], we state: One of the important changes as it relates to HC, is that the speed of sound lab was much different in the level of analysis and type of writing for HC this year. This meant that HC students were asked to incorporate more of the scientific rules of writing earlier in the process. This seemed to be appropriate because CP students were able to focus on understanding the concepts and writing shorter more direct explanations, while the HC students were asked to incorporate more ideas together.
 * As Mike mentioned, moving the Speed of sound lab seems to be helping students manage learning new content at the same time they are learning about scientific writing and lab presentation styles. The content for the sound lab is simpler, which enabled us to focus on how to write explanations for those concepts. The concepts for the optics lab are more complex and there is a more significant level of mathematical analysis on the optics lab. Together with writing, this made it challenging for students this year. However, it was improved in how they presented this information in their labs because of the practice they had with sound.

Instructional change: Feedback on labwork
While Mike has used "Feed forward" forms in the past, I had not been using a formal method for students to track progress on major assessments. I have noticed that students often repeat the same mistakes from lab to lab. To meet the goal of improving writing for students, this year I used a "[|Lab Feedback Form]" as a method for students to track the type of errors they make. This year I kept it simple, and just required that students chart each type of comment they had on their labs. I write many comments on labs, and this process made sure they read through each one. As mentioned in the [|notes], one challenge that faced students more this year was the ability to follow written directions on assignments. One of the categories on this form was "Following Product Descriptor." I asked students to note which category they had the largest need. This has really allowed me to differentiate for students. Knowing which areas to focus my comments on labs has always been a challenge for me. Because of these categories, I have been able to decide the target of most of my comments for particular students. For example, if a student is really struggling with including major components of the lab and not addressing questions posed in the product descriptor, I focus on that. If students on the HC end are mastering most of the writing style rules but could improve their scientific reasoning, I can focus on that. As I mention in the [|notes], students have been vocal about how this process has helped them. One student said, "This feedback form really helped because I looked back and saw what mistakes I made last time." I have several ideas of how to incorporate this form more completely next year.

Instructional change: Stations/Groups
Another challenge for heterogeneous grouped classes is delivering content that engages all levels of learners in the room. I see a continued need to improve in this area. One big learning I had this year came from a session on Differentiated Instruction at the CES Fall Forum. This two-hour session really opened my eyes to how I can restructure my class to teach content that can meet more needs of the learners, rather than just differentiate on the student output end. I have attempted a few classes structured this way this year. It has been challenge to do so because it requires additional planning. I find it particularly useful to group learners homogeneously in the course for problem solving. In the electricity unit, I did this a few times. I was able to work with CP students that were struggling with the concepts and math applications in a short concentrated burst while the HC students were working on a more complex problem. I was then able to give them support that the CP students did not need.

This is an area that I would like to improve with more concentration next year. I think the idea of mixing groups that are heterogeneous and homogeneous within the classroom supports the framework of the HC program.

Feedback from students: Ideas for improvement to HC
In late April, Mike and I asked students for feedback on the HC program on a survey. We then categorized the comments and looked for major themes that came from the survey. Please see **April Survey: Physical Science** for complete results and analysis. The analysis of this survey Mike and I did together is also on the [|notes.]

Lessons Learned and Next Steps
Mike and I are pleased with Honors Challenge as a program overall. We feel we are meeting the needs of students as learners and can see that in several forms, from performance on assessments to feedback from parents and students. Although we feel that the program has been successful to this point, we see areas for continued improvement. Next year will be our third year for HC. It would be a good opportunity to re-evaluate our progress in the context of the freshman team and science learning area, as well.
 * I have a goal of more participation in HC next year of 50%, and with feedback and suggestions from the students, I think that is attainable.
 * Mike and I have discussed ideas for continued refinement of HC assignments for next year. We would like to have additional assignments and the possibility of more choices for assignments throughout the year. With our collaborative planning time next year, this should be manageable.
 * Last year, I indicated it would be interesting to be able to quantify gains in learning for HC students. That may be an endeavor that requires a lot more planning and dedicated energy. The answers may or may not be worth the investment of time and energy. I think it is may be more beneficial to concentrate our energy on crafting more assignments and implementing changes to instruction.

=Part 1 from 2008-2009=

=Collaborative Inquiry Overview=

Initial Stages
The development of this collaborative inquiry came from several needs from our learning area and from our course. As our learning area looked at our program and developed ideas of how to improve our program, a need arose to find an alternative to the inconsistencies in homogeneous and heterogeneous classes in 9th and 10th grades in science. Our students started high school by choosing between Honors and College Prep Physical Science, and then as sophomores were placed in heterogeneous groups for Biology. This combined with the fact that almost 70 percent of freshmen were signing up for Honors Physical Science led us to consider an alternative. After researching Honors Challenge Programs at schools in the region, we decided to take on this challenge for Physical Science in 2008-2009.

The initial stages included getting feedback and ideas from Poland and Sowhegan teachers that are implementing these types of programs. We talked to them about what they found to work. Mike and I then decided our course had some natural fits for this type of program. Early in September we outlined the guidelines for Honors Challenge, developed ideas for Honors Challenge Assignments and discussed methods for keeping track and measuring the program. We started a [|Google Notebook (which is public)] to keep track of our major meetings and notes. See the notebook for details on the initial stages of our planning.

Preliminary Feedback
In January, Mike and I asked for feedback from our students. We compiled a list of observations on the program and made plans to improve on the areas we saw as challenges in the next units.

**Ongoing Communication**
One of the needs that has developed for a program like Honors Challenge is an easy and efficient way of keeping track and communicating about the HC requirements. We have used the wiki as one tool. Also, I have had students keep some of their reflections along the way in their Google Sites Personal Learning Space. This started as a way for students to keep track of honors challenge work, but also developed into something that students can keep as a way of reflecting on major assignment throughout the year.

Another component of ongoing communication is communication with the other members of the Freshman Team and the Science Learning Area. In both groups Mike and I shared our feedback on our program with plans to share out again at the end of this first year. In the Freshman Team area we had an [|discussion] about what we have been doing in science. The intent of this discussion was to share with the group our experiences and to determine where we are as a team in moving toward more or less heterogeneous grouping.

April Feedback
At the end of April, I asked students for feedback on their motivations and interest in the HC assignments. I was interested in how students decided to do HC assignments and what factors contributed to their completing optional HC assignments.

Lessons Learned and Next Steps

 * Assignments cannot be perceived as add-ons in either content or amount of material. The most successful assignments from our perspective in both engagement and learning were designed with the intent in probing students to develop critical analysis skills as well as a deeper understanding of the processes of science. We want HC students to go further in their mathematical and conceptual analysis in scientific content. We consider this depth of understanding a key distinction for honors level work.
 * Time for collaboration to develop assignments is invaluable. We have developed 4 new assessments this year to fit into our HC curriculum as well as tweaking the other from prior years. We did this strategically and did not make other major changes to our curriculum from previous years in order to utilize our collaborative inquiry time well. We had time to develop our philosophy of depth of understanding and have stuck to that as an essential component of the course. A defined number (9-10) of HC optional assignments is manageable in a science course.
 * In a classroom with a "critical mass" of students, more learning takes place for both HC-enrolled and non-enrolled students. Mike and I both have had 1 class without that number of students that are enrolled in HC, and have noticed a significant difference in the achievements for those classes. This largely is driven by scheduling. However, this does seem to be an impacting factor on the success of collaboration and motivation for HC in these classes. As a next step, this should a targeted area for improvement for all of the students in a class like that next year if the same scenario occurs.
 * HC assignments are a tool to improve engagement in a science classroom. While this was shown in my observations in enacting HC, as a next step, it would be good to see more quantifiablly how HC assignments engage students. As mentioned above probing for the depth of understanding often can lead to engagement in the content and assignments. However, I would like to know more what factors improve this engagement most so that future assignments can be designed with that in mind.
 * Students self-report being motivated by interest in the content, desire for the honors credit in the course, and attempting challenging assignments. This is what I anticipating as motivating factors. What was also clear was that students report these as reasons not to attempt challenges. Those students would rather not have the option to do the assignments, following the model of Honors and CP separate classes. I see this as something to work on for next year.
 * Students need clear expectations for reflecting on their learning continually. If I want them to do this regularly, it needs to be a clear cut assignment.

New questions:

 * What are HC students learning that is more in depth in content? Can this be quantified? Are they in fact learning more depth of content?
 * What non-quantifiable learning are students taking from being in a heterogeneous classroom, (ie. leadership, collaboration, modeling, appreciation of others, etc.)?
 * What is the role of HC challenge within heterogeneous groupings on student confidence and affect?
 * What is the role of student choice on a) number of students attempting HC assignments, and b) engagement of students on the assignments?
 * What is the role of the critical mass in a heterogeneous classroom?
 * How can improvements be made for HC-enrolled students within a class of mostly non-enrolled students?
 * What is being gained in this model that is missing from the other model in our school or Honors and College Prep classes, and does that outweigh advantages of the status quo for science?

[| Collaborative reflection on program thus far]
Next steps for now to the end of the year:
 * 1) We haven't felt that this program was incredibly challenging to implement. We feel that the time we are given as a pair is integral to work on this. We got the impression from other schools that this was going to be tough to implement. We haven't found that the implementation was terribly hard. We take the absence of large stumbling blocks in our implementation is a good sign.
 * 2) We have noticed that heterogeneous classes have stepped up the pace and expectations and study habits for students that may have been in a CP class in years past. Students seem to be benefiting from the modeling of high achieving students in the classroom.
 * Potential survey for the end of the year; maybe focused on student choice in the rocket lab
 * Rocket Lab: we are intending to give more student choice
 * For next year, we might consider how to scaffold things like data tables
 * We might also phase in more student choice in HC assignments as the year progresses as well.
 * Choice in the rocket lab will still include essential components of data collection, results, analysis, addressing core concepts, etc.
 * For HC, we are looking for students to add changes to the basic lab components
 * We are going the then look at the question: what is the effect of student choice on engagement and depth of learning?
 * How can we phase from menus of choices and options for assignments to something that is more open-ended choice? We are really looking at some more open ended inquiry for the rocket lab.
 * We may want to use this as another layer for us to consider as we continue to define and refine our HC assignments. How can we develop inquiry throughout the year?