Abstract Name

Name: Learning Lab: Connecting Learning and Practice MSP Project: Math and Science Partnership of Southwest Pennsylvania Author(s): Cindy Tananis, Keith Trahan, Cara Ciminillo, Gail Yamnitzky, Tracy Pelkowski, Yuanyuan Wang, and Rebecca Price Presenter(s): Cindy Tananis, Keith Trahan, Cara Ciminillo, Gail Yamnitzky, Tracy Pelkowski, Yuanyuan Wang, and Rebecca Price 1. Questions(s) or issue(s) for dialogue at Learning Network Conference session Millions of dollars are spent each year on efforts to offer quality professional development opportunities for in-service educators. In the past, most professional development models assumed the transmission of knowledge would serve well to hone and extend the practice of educators both in the classroom and administrative offices. Little was done to tie together knowledge and experience or to follow up on impact. More recent models of quality professional development highlight the importance of practice-embedded knowledge, the use of collaborative learning environments, and the provision of ample opportunity to reflect on practice at a deeper theoretical level. For example, Deborah Ball and her colleagues at the University of Michigan piloted the original Learning Lab to provide a forum for educators to examine elementary math instruction. Utilizing a “fishbowl” approach, educators observe and interview individual students to determine conceptual understand. Group debriefing after the Lab prompts theoretical reflection and deliberation among the educator observers (Cavanagh, 2008). Such a professional development experience provides a prime venue to explore the issue of how educator and student learning is interconnected. 2. Context of the work within the STEM education literature and within your MSP project: The Math Science Partnership of Southwest Pennsylvania’s (MSP) Learning Lab, piloted in the summer of 2008, was built on the assertions of quality professional development provided above. The Lab was designed as a “proving ground” to explore a common notion embedded as an underlying tenet of mathematics and science education reform: that all children can learn math and science. Specifically, this Learning Lab provided an opportunity for Teacher Leaders (teachers in their 4 or 5 years of training with the MSP) and administrators to spend three days observing a particular fifth grade student as s/he participated in daily mathematics and science lessons. Participating students were from a high-poverty, low-performing district in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Mornings were spent observing student thinking and learning in a classroom context, and afternoons revolved around debriefing sessions that focused on participant perception of student learning and experience as observers. Student participants were attendees at a summer school session (based on their failure to thrive in the prior academic year) and were not coached or provided any prior exposure to the facilitators or educator participants. Throughout the Learning Lab, each educator participant kept a journal reflecting upon both the assigned student’s learning and the educator’s own learning. At the end of the weeklong session, educator participants interviewed their assigned students to assess learning, comparing their assessments with the perceptions of student learning expressed through previous discussion and journal writing. 3. Claim(s) or hypothesis(es) examined in the work (anticipating that veteran projects will have claims, newer projects will have hypotheses): The theory of action that underlies the MSP logic model is premised on the idea that student achievement in mathematics and science can be enhanced by administrators’ and classroom teachers’ willingness to view themselves as learners. Similar to the theory of action for the NSFsupported Local Systemic Change program, the MSP argues that providing teachers with opportunities to deepen their content and pedagogical knowledge in the context of high-quality instructional materials will result in better-prepared teachers. Through Learning Lab, participants had an opportunity to discuss issues of pedagogy, content, and social context based on a common classroom experience and to focus extensively on the uniqueness of an individual student’s learning. Both are rare opportunities for practitioners that can provide robust opportunities to reflect on practice at more theoretical levels. With ongoing support, teachers will be more inclined and have more capacity to change their practice in ways advocated by national standards. These changes are expected to improve student thinking and learning, a core focus of the MSP, which will in turn lead to higher student achievement. 4. Evaluation and/or research design, data collection and analysis: The Collaborative for Evaluation and Assessment Capacity (CEAC) at the University of Pittsburgh conducted documentation and evaluation of the MSP’S 2008 Learning Lab. Observations, focus group interviews, and documentation supplied data for thematic coding and analysis. Notable themes were found to be complex, intriguing, and consistent with major goals of the larger MSP program. Participants supported the notion that all students can learn mathematics and science, and explored what both students and educators need for this to occur. 5. Key insights (retrospective for veteran projects, prospective for newer projects) that have value for the Learning Network: Two major challenges emerged: the cultural dynamic of learning and the professional/personal tension inherent in this process of professional development. Embracing these challenges led to successes, including a focus on learning, a leveled hierarchy in professional development, and an integrative reflective practice. Challenges Cultural dynamic of learning In each of the data sets, a major theme was the impact of classroom and external culture on student learning. Throughout Learning Lab, participants explored student culture as a major variable of learning and discussed the intricate relationship between culture and learning. The insight gained by participating teachers and MSP Coordinators illuminates the complex, dynamic relationship between the external culture of the student body, student learning, and teacher pedagogy as they merge to create an ecology of the classroom. Student behavior posed difficulties in classroom management and student engagement, but over the course of the Learning Lab, a rapport was built between the Coordinators and the students. This important factor led to “a growth [in] student inquiry, collaboration, [and] time on task” for students. The cultural discontinuity between teachers and low-income minority students makes the development of trustworthy relationships tantamount to the academic success of students (Ogbu, 1992; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994). Regarding pedagogy, participants acknowledged the necessity of student experience with and skills for cooperative learning for successful inquiry-based instruction. There was general agreement among participants on the importance of teaching the skills that students need to successfully work in cooperative groups, particularly since peer pressure had such a strong affect on the culture of the classroom in both positive and negative ways. Participants also discussed external factors, such as socioeconomic status and family background, that influence students’ attitudes about school and their levels of engagement in the classroom. Participants realized that meeting students’ basic needs like food, sleep, and movement could increase classroom engagement and that a lack thereof often displaces studying from the top of students’ “lists of needs. ” Since the students in Year One of Learning Lab were attending a low-performing school in a high poverty district, it may be helpful to reflect on these themes in order to inform future professional development and support systems at a time when policies towards low-performing schools are at the forefront of reform discourse (CEP, 2008). Personal/professional tensions Donaldson (2006) describes American teachers’ belief in keeping firm control over their own classrooms. Teachers normally treat their classrooms as private, and the vision of teacher collaboration and communication across classroom walls seems hard to achieve. Learning Lab’s initiative puts participants in a classroom context in a critical attempt to deprivatize the classroom and strengthen teacher collaboration. Nevertheless, the “community of learners” designed by Learning Lab inevitably involves tension on the parts of both the teachers who present public lessons and participants who observe teaching and student learning. On one hand, de-privatization of classrooms of low-performing students makes teachers wary of teaching Learning Lab lessons. Having participating colleagues observe teachers’ lessons and comment on their teaching represents professional risk-taking. Teachers may feel embarrassed or uncomfortable being watched or having their pedagogy judged by their colleagues, so this issue might result in decreased confidence and increased anxiety. Moreover, students’ weak knowledge foundation and teachers’ limited teaching experience with high poverty, low performing students pose challenges for teachers who must determine curriculum and instruction. In this context, this type of student often appears to be a near-insurmountable obstacle to those who teach Learning Lab lessons. On the other hand, participating teachers’ immersion into this kind of classroom teaching environment brings about conflicts between their perspectives on education and instructional methods. For instance, participating teachers see the effective role of particular instructional methods (e.g. inquiry-based instruction, collaborative work) in student learning. When put into practice with low-performing students, this theoretical approach falls into question. Participants struggle with the idea that low-perfo