You are on page 1of 42

Grant Proposal for Professional Development:

Improving Teacher Quality through Technology

Enhanced Science Instruction

Project Director Project Co-Director


Burt Parker Melissa Sloan
Clayton County Public Schools Clayton County Public Schools
University of West Georgia
bparker6@my.westga.edu melissa.sloan@clayton.k12.ga.us
678-674-8736 770-473-2700
Abstract

DeKalb County School District is interested in improving their elementary teachers science

content knowledge through the use of hands-on and virtual science labs. The project team for

this professional development consists of Burt Parker, Project Director,

bparker6@my.westga.edu, Melissa Sloan, Co-Project Director,

melissa.sloan@clayton.k12.ga.us, Tenecia Powe, Facilitator, tenecia.powe@clayton.k12.ga.us,

and Esma Jennings, Facilitator, esma.jennings@clayton.k12.ga.us. The goal of this professional

development is to increase teachers knowledge, skills and disposition for teaching science in the

upper elementary grades. The 20 fourth and fifth grade teachers who participate in the

professional development will attain this goal by participating in a five-day intensive summer

session, two follow-up sessions in the fall, and one follow-up session in the spring. Participants

will receive hands-on training in the use of virtual science labs. They will collaborate to develop

lessons that demonstrate best practices for science content instruction. The project team has also

established a partnership with the Georgia Power to promote partnerships with businesses that

will provide in-school field trips which are science rich and are free for students and teachers.

The project team is seeking $32,048.70 for the purpose of this professional development course

with the course beginning in the summer of 2017 and the final report of the course being

presented in May of 2018.

Keywords: elementary, science, technology integration, collaborative learning, professional

development, school improvement


Introduction

At a time when children are forming their interests and future goals, their teachers often

struggle with science content instruction, not to mention teacher struggles with developing labs

to reinforce and engage students in the sciences. Elementary teachers often present science as

nothing more than nonfiction reading comprehension, where students read a science content

passage and answer questions about it. Standardized test results bear out the lack of engaging

science instruction in the elementary classroom. Researchers have also noted a lack of young

Americans pursuing careers in science and technology (Capobianco, Diefes-Dux, Mena, &

Weller, 2011; Naizer, Hawthorne, & Henley, 2014). Teacher quality is the issue. Improving

teachers understanding of scientific content and pedagogical practice is the answer (Zollman,

Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012).

Demonstrated Need

A lack of teacher understanding of scientific content knowledge in the elementary grades

has been connected to a lack of student performance on standardized measures (Nadelson et al.,

2013), and DeKalb County School District 4th and 5th graders are having difficulty on

standardized measures of student achievement in science (DeKalb County School District

[DCSD], 2015). Their lack of achievement on the state-mandated requires intervention.

Data Review

Mean test scores and school climate surveys help to convey how well teachers are doing

their jobs. Failing scores on standardized measures like the Georgia Milestones Assessment

System (GMAS), show that students are not being taught the subject matter content.

Consequently, these same failing scores require teacher improvement if they are to be remedied.

Negative school climate scores also point to a teacher improvement issue. Better performing

1
teachers produce better performing students, which in turn, promote a more positive school

climate.

Quantitative Data. In 2015 fifth graders in DeKalb County scored, on a whole, as

developing learners or below on the state-required GMAS test for science achievement (DCSD,

2015). In 54 of the 83 DCSD elementary schools 75% of the 5th grade students failed to show

mastery of the science curriculum on the GMAS for 2015 (DCSD, 2015). The following year,

2016, was no better. Of the 7,546 DCSD 5th graders tested by the GMAS in science over 5,500

students, again 75%, failed to grasp the science concepts required by the State of Georgia

(DCSD, 2016).

Table 1 compares 4th and 5th graders of DCSD with all 4th and 5th graders in the State of

Georgia on the percentage of students failing to achieve proficiency in science, according to the

GMAS for 2015 (DCSD, 2015) and 2016 (DCSD, 2016a). In both 2015 and 2016, DCSD 4th

and 5th graders fell about 10 percentage points below the State average. While 4th graders in

Georgia maintained a 67% failure rate in science from 2015 to 2016, DCSD 4th graders dropped

another 12% into those failing to achieve proficiency. If the State data had suffered similar

losses during this same time period, the test might be at fault, but since the state scores remained

constant and only the DCSD scores dropped, the future scores of 4th graders in DCSD are

concerning. This drop in 4th grade scores will also have reverberating effects in the years to

come as these same students progress through the District without the proper scientific

foundation in the elementary grades.

Table 1. Students failing to achieve


proficiency.
Grade 4th 5th
Year 2015 2016 2015 2016
State 67% 67% 64% 61%
DCSD 76% 88% 76% 75%

2
In Figure 1 the 2016 mean GMAS science scores for 4th and 5th graders in DCSD are

compared to the neighboring districts: Clayton County Public Schools, Fulton County Schools,

Gwinnett County Public Schools, Henry County School District, Rockdale County Public

Schools, and Decatur City Schools (DCSD, 2016a). Clearly, 2016 data demonstrates that DCSD

lags far behind the surrounding districts, with the exception of Clayton County Public Schools

(CCPS), which ranks 162nd out of 191 Georgia school districts according to this same data

(DCSD, 2016a). The deficit in student science achievement in DCSD is most pronounced when

compared to Decatur City Schools which serves the county seat of DeKalb County and ranks 5 th

of the 191 GA school districts in science achievement according to 2016 GMAS data (DCSD,

2016a). DCSD scores for both 4th and 5th grades fall over 10 points below the state averages of

502 and 506 (DCSD, 2016a), respectively.

2016 Mean GMAS Science Scores

544.4
560
539.0
540
518.3
518.2

516.3
517
509.7

510
500.4

520
496.5
489.8
488.9

487.4
480.7

500

480

460

440
DeKalb Clayton Fulton Gwinnett Henry Rockdale Decatur City

4th 5th

Figure 1. 2016 Mean GMAS Science Scores. This figure compares DCSD 2016
GMAS scores with the scores of neighboring districts.

Qualitative Data. School climate is a score given to schools based on a measure of

student, teacher, and parent perceptions of a schools climate (Georgia Department of Education

3
[GADOE], 2016b, para.4). Based on the School Climate Survey for DCPSs elementary schools,

the schools divide fairly evenly with a third of the schools obtaining negative scores, a third

positive scores, and a third in the middle (GADOE, 2016a). However, the average climate score

is 2.97, which is just left of center (GADOE, 2016a). Consequently, the overall feeling of the

climate in DCSD is negative. Poor student achievement plays a major role in this negative

perception, because all stakeholders want students to do well and, frankly, they are not when

compared to neighboring school districts on statewide assessment data.

Teacher quality affects test scores and school climate. Teachers, who have a better grasp

of the scientific content and are more skilled in using the technology tools available, are able to

help students navigate even through the most difficult of science concepts. With improved

teachers, students will begin to soar on assessments. Improved teachers also make better

teachers, more confident teachers, and teachers with staying power, which produces a better

school climate (Gruenert & Whitaker, 2015).

Literature Review

In reviewing the literature, intensive science content instruction coupled with

collaborative learning and the integration of technology was the resounding answer to the lack of

student achievement in the sciences (Nadelson et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014; Zollman,

Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012). Hanson (2014) demonstrated that low teacher-retention rates

and lack of teacher training in science content areas correlated with lower student performance

on standardized measures than in schools where teachers are retained and are trained in teaching

science. Low teacher-retention and lack of training are also symptomatic of schools and systems

where there is low morale and a negative climate. Fortunately, other studies have shown that

intensive professional developments (PD) can actualize a significant increase in teacher content

4
knowledge, confidence in teaching, and effectiveness in teaching science content (Nadelson et

al., 2013). This increase in content knowledge raises the rigor of the instruction, allows the

teacher to make cross curricular connections, and insures that the teachers are teaching the

correct content.

Technology in education has also been linked to increased student achievement in all

academic areas (Levin & Schrum 2012), especially science (Smith et al., 2014). The problem is

that where technology integration and the classroom actually intersect, technology is not being

used to its full potential (Davies & West, 2014). The teachers truly are not to blame. Often

teachers are given laptops, and the extent of their training on how to use them is limited to how

to turn them on. These teachers, whose planning time is often consumed by meetings,

conferences, and grading, are, then, asked to find time to develop wonderful technology

integration into their lessons. What these teachers need is professional development. Miranda

and Russell (2012) proposed that teacher exposure to technology integration is one of the

greatest influences on their integration in their own classrooms. This 2012 study found that

teachers who had the most experience and knowledge of technology used it most often with their

students (Miranda & Russell, 2012). Teachers need exposure to proper, applicable examples of

technology integration, and this exposure in the form of PDs should last at least a year, if not

longer (Gerard et al., 2011). Gerard et al. (2011) found that the most successful PDs lasted

longer and involved the teachers in an immersive, constructivist-type environment. These PDs

had intensive follow-up and collaboration as integral components, as well.

Given the clear answers shown in the research literature and DCSDs problems of low

student science achievement in 4th and 5th grades and negative school climate in their elementary

schools, teacher quality improvement is the logical answer to these problems. This

5
improvement, according to the literature, should focus on the depth of teachers content

knowledge and strengthening teachers technology skills in order to raise student achievement

(Nadelson et al., 2013).

Goals and Objectives

Teachers cannot teach what they do not understand; therefore, the focus of this PD will

be on developing the teachers understanding of the content knowledge required for teaching 4 th

and 5th grade science. Technology integration will be harnessed as a tool of good instruction.

Two of the more difficult science standards, sound and light from 4th grade and electricity from

5th grade, have been chosen to direct the content. The objectives for the PD were modified from

the Georgia Standards of Excellence (Georgia Department of Education [GaDOE], 2016c) and

the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2016). Based on the standards

from ISTE, several technology tools will be utilized to aid in the process of content acquisition

and collaborative learning. After using these tools, teachers will find that the technology can

transfer to any subject matter to enhance instruction and student engagement. Collaborative

planning and learning will also be utilized. Teachers will be encouraged to share their best ideas

with others on their teams and to embrace times when they can allow their students to engage in

collaborative learning. The objectives and topics are aligned in Table 2.

Goals

1. Increase participants science content knowledge.

2. Advance participants instructional technology skills and usage.

3. Improve participants disposition toward and use of collaborative planning and learning.

Objectives

6
1. By the end of the PD participants will acquire information to investigate science content

knowledge (electricity, sound, and light).

2. By the end of the PD participants will evaluate information to investigate science content

knowledge (electricity, sound, and light).

3. By the end of the PD participants will communicate information to investigate science

content knowledge (electricity, sound, and light).

4. By the end of the PD participants will be able to design or adapt relevant learning

experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning (ISTE,

2016, para. 2a).

5. By the end of the PD participants will be able to demonstrate fluency in technology

systems (ISTE, 2016, para. 3a).

6. By the end of the PD participants will be able to demonstrate application of technology

systems (ISTE, 2016, para. 3a).

7. By the end of the PD participants will model collaborative knowledge construction (ISTE,

2016, para. 1d).

8. By the end of the PD participants will plan for at least 3 collaborative learning experiences

in their unit of study.

Table 2. Topics aligned with program goals and objectives.


Goals and Objectives Topics
Circuits and Fun House GASTA
Conductors Mirrors Conference
Electric Circuit Bending Light Field Trip to Plant
Goal 1
Battery Making Stereo Hanger Yates
Objectives 1, 2, & 3
Electric Circuits Insulators and Sound Waves and
Virtual Lab Conductors Propagation
How We See Gizmos
Circuits and How We See Fun House
Goal 2
Conductors Virtual Lab Mirrors
Objective 4
Electric Circuit Electric Circuits Gizmos

7
Goal 2 Edmodo Gizmos
Objectives 5 & 6 Clickers Virtual labs
Collaborative
Insulators and GASTA
Planning
Goal 3 Conductors Conference
Clickers
Objective 7 Stereo Hanger Field Trip to Plant
Battery Making
Bending Light Yates
Edmodo
Collaborative
Goal 3 Battery Making Field Trip to Plant
Planning
Objective 8 Kahoot! Yates
Clickers

The goals and objectives draw from state academic objectives and ITSE objectives;

consequently, they stand on sure ground. The topics for the professional development have been

aligned with these goals and objectives to insure that as the transition is made into the day-to-day

plan of operations that the purpose of improving teacher quality in science content instruction,

integration of technology, and utilization of collaborative planning and learning is not lost.

Plan of Operations

Zollman, Tahernezhadi, and Billman (2012) noted three characteristics that make

science PDs successful. 1) The PD must bear relevance to the classroom. That is, the PD must

have application to the classrooms of the teachers who are in the PD. If not, no significant

change can be expected. 2) The PD must focus on training the teachers in the content knowledge

and effective teaching of their respective subjects. Teachers must know truth from error when

they are selecting materials, projects, and activities for their students. They also need to know

what kind of questions to ask to get students thinking scientifically. 3) The PD must be

intensive. No passing reference or short-term workshops will do. The more immersive in

content and collaborative in planning the better. Both of these take time, and effective PD takes

time, as well. Yet, the confident, successful teachers, whom these effective PDs and

collaborative-planning efforts produce, have staying power in their schools and achievement-

developing power for their students. The timeline for this project can be found in Table 3.

8
Table 3: Teacher Quality Project Timeline
Activity Date Location
Project Submission November 21, 2016 TQ Digital Drop Box
Funding Notification February 1, 2017 Email, phone
PD Portal, DCSD email,
School Science Chair
Meetings, Principal
Recruitment Window February 13 April 3, 2017 Meetings, Instructional
Site Facilitator Meetings,
Target Under-performing
Schools
Registration Window February 13 April 3, 2017 PD Portal
Synchronous and
asynchronous meetings
Project Session Planning April 3 May 31, 2017 between Project Director,
Co-PD, facilitators, and
other collaborators
DCSD Administrative
Intensive Summer Session July 17-21, 2017
Industrial Complex
Follow-up Day 1 August 26, 2017 Plant Yates, Newnan, GA
DCSD Administrative
Follow-up Day 2 September 23, 2017
Industrial Complex
DCSD Administrative
Follow-up Day 3 January 20, 2018
Industrial Complex
Atlanta Evergreen Marriot
GSTA Conference February 1-3, 2018 Conference Center, Stone
Mountain, GA
Final Report Submission May 31, 2018 TQ Digital Drop Box

These characteristics will be the basis for this PD. The participants will be immersed in a

content rich environment with virtual labs and other hands-on activities. All materials will be

filed in a repository on Edmodo which the participants will use throughout the five-day intensive

summer session, when they return to school, and during the 3 follow-up meetings. They will be

challenged to take Edmodo, the content, the experiences, and the labs back to their students. An

outline of proposed activities is found in Table 4.

Summer Workshop

Registration. At the time of registration participants will be asked to complete a pretest

and attitudinal survey. The pretest will assess the teachers content knowledge prior to the PD.

9
The attitudinal survey will gather information about the teachers disposition toward

collaborative learning, technology integration, and science education. With these two measures

the project team will be able to gather necessary information to guide preparations for the PD.

Day 1. The PD will start with a welcome by the Project Director and Co-PD, who will

also introduce the facilitators of the Summer Sessions. The Director will explain the objectives

and learning targets for the sessions. After this brief introduction, Tenecia Powe, facilitator for

Days 1 and 2, will show teachers how to get on Edmodo, explaining why this is such a valuable

tool for science education. Participants will create their own log-in, create their own classes, and

join the Edmodo group for the professional development class. Mrs. Powe will direct her

students to the battery making lab directions which are included on the class page. Participants

will be assigned lab partners for the day. This lab will close as a whole group lab and a brief Lab

Write-up Form, which will be submitted to the Project Director for this and all subsequent labs

through Edmodo. The use of Edmodo and the Lab Write-up Form is modeling of how the

teachers can utilize these tools in the elementary science classroom, Objective 4.

Mrs. Powe will, then, begin to break down the science concepts of Objective 1,

electricity. She will utilize infographics, hands-on activities, and multimedia to aid content

delivery. The class Edmodo will be the base of daily operations for all subsequent interactions

and presentations, so that teachers will have access to all materials electronically. This class will

include two virtual labs, Circuits & Conductors and Electric Circuit. These labs will reinforce

the concepts presented by Ms. Powe. After submitting the lab write-ups, participants will add all

the virtual labs and other artifacts to their own Edmodo class to be utilized when they return to

school. The class will end with a brief time for questions and a Kahoot!, an on-line, interactive,

customizable game, covering the content from the day. The data collected from the Kahoot! and

10
informal observations of the ensuing discussions will be used to drive instruction for future

sessions.

Day 2. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on day 1 utilizing

clickers as an aid to promote discussion (Smith et al., 2009). Data from clickers will be used to

evaluate topics that need to be reinforced. Tenecia Powe, will drive the teachers to take a deeper

look into electricity and circuits, Objective 2 and 3. Participants will be assigned lab partners

for the day and complete the Virtual Lab and Lab Write-up Form included in Edmodo. After

completing the lab, Mrs. Powe will introduce Gizmos which provide another virtual

experimentation environment for students. They will be trained in creating classrooms on

Gizmo, making assignments, and linking to Edmodo. Participants will also be introduced to

Claim Evidence Reasoning (CER) (CCPS, 2016). CER leads the students to explain answers to

scientific questions with a claim, supported by evidence, and the reasoning that joins the claim

and the evidence together to answer the question. The CER process will help the participants

and their students, when the school year starts again, to probe deeper into scientific concepts and

to transfer their knowledge to new situations. The Electricity lab in Gizmos will focus on using

CER as a scientific processing tool. The last lab will be the Insulators and Conductors virtual

lab. Participants will add all the virtual labs and other artifacts to their own Edmodo class. The

class will end with a brief time for questions and a Kahoot! covering the content from the day.

The data collected from the Kahoot! and informal observations of the ensuing discussions will be

used to drive instruction.

Day 3. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on days 1 and 2

utilizing clickers as an aid to promote discussion (Smith et al., 2009). Data from clickers will be

used to evaluate topics that need to be reinforced. Dr. Esma Jennings will take over as facilitator

11
on day 3. She will begin with instruction on student-centered collaborative learning and

demonstrations of how the participants own learning has been enhanced through collaborative

learning. Dr. Jennings will then begin to break down the science concepts of Objectives 1, 2,

and 3 on light. She will utilize infographics, hands-on activities, and multimedia to aid content

delivery. After some instruction and demonstration of light and its properties, the participants

will be assigned lab partners for the day complete the hands-on lab, Bending Light, and the Lab

Write-up Form included in Edmodo. Jennings will use concepts presented in the lab to discuss

reflection and refraction. Two virtual labs, Fun House Mirrors and How We See will follow.

After submitting the lab forms participants will add all the virtual labs and other artifacts to their

own Edmodo class. The class will end with a brief time for questions and a Kahoot! covering the

content from the day. The data collected from the Kahoot! and informal observations of the

ensuing discussions will be used to drive instruction.

Day 4. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on the first three

days utilizing clickers as an aid to promote discussion and collaboration (Smith et al., 2009).

Data from clickers will be used to evaluate topics that need to be reinforced. Jennings will

introduce the concepts of transparent, translucent, and opaque. The virtual lab, Transparent,

Translucent, and Opaque, will then be completed. After lab forms are submitted, participants

will be directed back to Gizmos for more practice with light and an introduction to sound

concepts, Objectives 1, 2, and 3 on sound. Participants will use Gizmos for CER with sound and

light. Two other labs will follow, Stereo Hangers (hands-on) and Sound Waves and Propagation

(virtual lab). After submitting the lab forms participants will add all the virtual labs and other

artifacts to their own Edmodo class. The class will end with a brief time for questions and a

12
Kahoot! covering the content from the day. The data collected from the Kahoot! and informal

observations of the ensuing discussions will be used to drive instruction.

Day 5. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on the first 4 days

utilizing clickers as an aid to promote discussion and collaboration (Smith et al., 2009). Data

from clickers will be used to evaluate topics that need to be reinforced in follow up sessions.

The Co-PD Melissa Sloan will facilitate day 5. She will wrap up any concepts that data show

teachers are still misunderstanding. Then, Ms. Sloan will address classroom-management issues

with technology integration and collaborative learning. The remainder of the time will be spent

in collaborative planning with participants grouped by location and grade level. The class will

end with a brief question and answer session followed by a course satisfaction survey.

Table 4. Summer 2017 proposed daily schedule.

Time Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

8:00- Team Briefing Team Briefing Team Briefing Team Briefing Team Briefing
8:30

8:30- Welcome; Reflection/ Reflection/ Reflection/ Reflection/


9:30 Introduction of Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion
Project Team (clickers) (clickers) (clickers) (clickers)
and
Facilitators;
Explanation of
Goals and
Objectives

Focus Objective 1, Objective 1, 2, Objective 1, 2, Objective 1, 2, Objectives 2, 3,


Electricity & 3, & 3, Light & 3, Sound 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8
Electricity
Objectives 4, 5, Objectives 4, 5, Objectives 4, 5, Choosing
&7 Objectives 4, 5, &7 &7 Science Labs
&7 for
Edmodo and Edmodo and Gizmos and Understanding
Electricity Gizmos and Sound and Sound and Facilitator:
Facilitator: Electricity Light Light Melissa Sloan
Tenecia Powe Facilitator: Facilitator: Facilitator:
Tenecia Powe Esma Jennings Esma Jennings

13
9:30- Introduction to Deeper in Introduction to Deeper in Wrapping up:
12:00 Edmodo, Electricity, Student- Sound and Electricity
account utilizing Centered Light, utilizing and Sound
creation, content from Collaborative content from and Light
joining a class, Edmodo Learning Edmodo
creating a class Collaborativ
Virtual Lab Bending Transparent, e Science
Battery Light Translucent, Labs
Making and Opaque

12:00 Working Working Working Working Working


-1:00 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch

1:00- Introduction to Introduction to Introduction to More Gizmos Collaborative


2:00 Electricity, Gizmos and Sound and and Claim Planning for
utilizing Claim Light, utilizing Evidence Science
content from Evidence content from Reasoning with Instruction
Edmodo Reasoning with Edmodo Electricity and
Electricity Sound and Edmodo Unit
Light with resources
for Electricity
or Sound and
Light

2:00- Circuits and Electricity How We Stereo Collaborative


4:00 Conductors Gizmos See Hanger Planning
Electric Insulators Fun House Sound Waves
Circuit and Mirrors and
Conductors Propagation

4:00- Question and Question and Question and Question and Question and
4:30 Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer
Session/ Session/ Session/ Session Session; Post-
Feedback Feedback Feedback /Feedback test and
Kahoot! Kahoot! Kahoot! Kahoot! Satisfaction
Survey of
Course

4:30- Team Team Team Team Team


5:00 Debriefing Debriefing Debriefing Debriefing Debriefing

Follow-Up Sessions

14
After the initial 5 day intensive training in the summer of 2017, there will be 3 follow-up

days once the participants have returned to their classrooms. Recognizing that this follow-up

must be immediate and supportive of real-life-implementation issues, these sessions will begin

just as the teachers are settling in for their year. The focus of the follow-up sessions will be dual

1) to encourage the teachers in collaborative planning and allowing for collaborative learning

especially in science and 2) to utilize the digital tools presented in the summer institute. Other

tools and sites will be presented for teacher resource purposes, as well.

Follow-Up Day 1. This follow-up meeting has been scheduled for the fourth Saturday in

August, 2017. Teachers will take a field trip to Plant Yates in Newnan, GA. The field trip will

include a tour of the plant with explanations of electrical concepts, the Georgia Power Student

Safety Presentation, and an exemplar In-Class Field Trip on electricity.

Follow-Up Day 2. This follow-up meeting has been scheduled for the fourth Saturday in

September, 2017. The project team will present other digital resources and invite the participants

to share ones they have discovered on the class Edmodo page. Technical support and further

instruction will be provided for Edmodo and Gizmos. Teachers will be introduced to the Science

Olympiad and encouraged to bring a team to the DCSD sponsored event or to sign up to help

with the Olympiad, which will be held the first weekend in May 2018. After sharing a brief

video from the 2017 event, the project team will lead 3 or 4 events, as time allows, for the

teachers to experience what takes place at the Science Olympiad.

Follow-Up Day 3. This follow-up meeting has been scheduled for the third Saturday in

January, 2018. Teachers will present the changes they have made in their classrooms as a result

of their learning. They will discuss student outcomes and improvements on county common

assessment measures in science compared to their previous classes tested with the same

15
measures. This session will end with a course satisfaction survey, a post-assessment, and a

science, technology, and collaborative learning dispositional survey.

GSTA Conference. While all of the participants will be encouraged to attend the GSTA

Conference, held February 1-3, 2018, DCSD has agreed to provide substitutes for 5 of the

participants to attend the full conference, where they will also present the results of their

professional learning. No transportation or lodging will need to be provided for the teachers

since the GSTA has elected to hold their conference at the Atlanta Evergreen Marriot Conference

Center in Stone Mountain for the second year in a row. Five DCSD teachers who participated in

the summer institute, have made substantial changes in their science instruction, and have seen

significant gains in student achievement will be selected to attend the conference to present their

results.

Evaluation Plan

According to the literature, the process of a PD, that is, the length and intensity, is

directly related to the outcome of the PD, that is, teacher improvement evidenced by increased

knowledge and change in pedagogical practice (Nadelson et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014;

Zollman, Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012). Therefore, an accountability piece of this PD project

will include the evaluation of the project process and outcomes. Recognizing the gravity of this

evaluation, Dr. Adriana D Alba, PhD, will perform the third-party evaluation.

External Evaluator

Dr. D Alba is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at the University of

West Georgia and teaches graduate courses in the Department of Educational Technology and

Foundations. Her research interests include technology integration in the classroom,

instructional design, and integration of emerging technologies in STEM curriculum. She is a

16
member of the American Educational Research Association, the Society for Information

Technology and Teacher Education, the International Society of Teacher Education, and the

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Her expertise in the areas of

instructional design and technology integration will prove invaluable in the assessment of this

professional development project. Dr. D Alba will oversee the formative and summative

evaluation of the project, as well as, the development of these measures, the teacher attitudinal

surveys, and the project effectiveness survey.

Data Collection and Schedule

In order to be sure that the data collection is reliable, multiple measures will be used to

provide data from the PD. Some examples of the instruments can be found in Appendix D.

Table 5 provides a summary of the instruments, the data collection times, and the alignment with

the PD objectives. The instruments fall into 3 categories. First are pre-assessments. During

registration via the online portal, participants will be asked to complete 2 instruments: the pre-

assessment and the pre-attitudinal survey. These will provide a baseline for the rest of the data

collection. Next, there are instruments to collect data during the PD itself. These will include

Kahoot!, clickers, and Lab Write-up forms. The final instruments will be used at the conclusion

of the PD or on Day 5 and the last follow-up meeting. These summative instruments will record

growth in and attitudinal changes toward collaborative planning and learning, technology

integration, and science content knowledge.

Table 5. Data collection procedures by program objective.


Evaluation Criteria Data Collection Instrument Data Collection Times
Pre/Post-Assessment Registration/Final meeting
Kahoot! Days 1-4
1. Objectives 1, 2, & 3
Clickers Days 2-5
Effectiveness Survey Day 5 & Final meeting

17
Lab Write-up Form Days 1-5
Rubric for Instructional
2. Objective 4 Final meeting
Plans
Rubric for Edmodo and
3. Objective 4, 5, & 6 Final meeting
Gizmo usage
Rubric for Instructional
4. Objectives 5 & 6 Final meeting
Plans
5. Objective 5, 6, & 7 Effectiveness Survey Day 5 & Final meeting
Rubric for Instructional
6. Objective 8 Final meeting
Plans
Pre/Post-Attitudinal
7. Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 Registration/Final meeting
Survey

Process Evaluation

The process evaluation will be tracked by the sign-in (and out) sheets verifying that the

full eight hours were utilized and that all participants were present. Demographic data will be

collected at the time of registration. Finally, as a part of the attitudinal survey the participants

will answer questions regarding their view of the success or failure of the PD to accomplish the

described goals and objectives.

Outcomes Evaluation

The outcome evaluation will be tracked, first, by the change between the pre- and post-

assessments for science content knowledge. The evaluation of lessons created by the participants

will provide further verification that the goals and objectives of the PD were met. Finally, the

participants usage of Edmodo and Gizmos will be evaluated according to the rubric to verify

adoption of technology integration into the science classroom.

The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the PD classes, the impact of the classes

on the participants science and technology knowledge base, and the teachers attitudes toward 1)

elementary science concepts and 2) the integration of technology into the elementary science

18
classroom. The evaluation will also probe the impact of the project on the teachers pedagogical

practices.

Partnerships

To insure the success of the project, certain partnerships have been sought that will bring

valuable resources and subject matter experts (SME) to the aid of the project team.

Partners

Metropolitan RESA will contribute a collection of web resources, as well as, elementary

science SMEs for consultation. Georgia Power will contribute web resources, in addition to

science SMEs for consultation, hands-on activities, and a meeting space for a follow-up class

while participants are on-site for their field trip at Plant Yates. Fernbank Museum of Natural

History will provide web resources and follow-up opportunities for participants and their

students. DCSD will supply the meeting space with tech-support for the use of their presentation

equipment, laptops, hands-on lab materials, bus for the field trip (driver fee and mileage paid

through this grant), substitute teachers and conference fees for teachers attending the Georgia

Science Teachers Association (GSTA) conference, and janitorial support. Summer intensive

sessions and two of the follow-up meetings will be held at the DeKalb County Administrative

Industrial Complex in Stone Mountain.

Participant Recruitment

Using 2015 and 2016 GMAS science scores, the Project Director and Co-PD will recruit

participants from the lowest performing DCSD elementary schools. The target population will

be 4th and 5th grade science teachers. They will be contacted individually via email with an

attached copy of the recruitment poster. Principals and Science Coordinators at these same

schools will be targeted to receive information soliciting their 4 th and 5th grade science teachers

19
participation in the project. In the address to the principals special attention will be given to the

teacher improvement aspect of the project. If space remains, the project will be opened to higher

performing schools, recognizing that a majority of DCSD schools are underperforming schools.

Conclusion

This project is designed to improve teacher quality through increasing their science

content knowledge, their use of technology as a tool of good teaching, their practice of

collaborative planning, and their facilitation of collaborative learning. The 3 characteristics of

successful science PDs (Zollman, Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012) will be utilized. Participants

will find this PD to bear relevance to their classrooms, the PD will focus on training teachers in

science content knowledge and effective teaching, and finally, the PD will be intensive. The

schedule starts with the 5-day summer intensive and continues with on-going access to the

summer-class materials and cohort through the Edmodo classroom. Then, follow-up sessions are

strategically scheduled for maximum impact on the teachers learning and practice. The

culmination of the PD is the challenge for all to attend the GSTA conference, which will provide

more training and support to the teachers at the lagging DCSD schools.

20
Appendix A: Budget Summary

TEACHER QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM


Itemized Budget Page 1
CATEGORIES TQ Funds
Personnel-list people individually (please indicate if the person is 100% soft money in
narrative)
Burt Parker, Project Director for the duration of the project $5000.00
Tenecia Powe, Facilitator ($300 per day for 2 days) $1200.00
Esma Jennings, Facilitator($300 per day for 2 days) $1200.00
Melissa Sloan, Co-Project Director for the duration of the project $4000.00
Total Personnel Costs $11,400.00
FRINGE-list figure amount and % for each person separately
Burt Parker, Project Director 25% of Project Director salary $1250.00
Melissa Sloan, Co-PD 25% of Co-PD salary $1000.00
Total Fringe Costs $2250.00
Support Personnel-list # of graduate assistants, (names if known) consultants, etc.
Rose Parker, Student Assistant (10 hrs @ $8/hr) $80.00
Total Support Personnel Costs $80.00

Participant Costs
$500 each for 20 participants ($500X20) $10,000.00
Total Participant Costs $10,000.00

Travel-list lodging costs, meals, mileage reimbursements, etc. (per person costs)
DCSD Transportation Department Driver fee ($20/hrX7hrs) $140.00
DCSD Transportation Department (1) bus from DCSD AIC to Plant Yates @ $60.50
($.55mileX110 miles)
Total Travel Expenses $200.50

Additional Costs list each piece of equipment, food, registration fees, etc. (per person or per
school costs)
Participant (20) lunches @ $9 each per day for 5 days SU2017 ($9X20X5) $900.00
Participant (20) lunches @ $9 each per day for 3 days FA2017&SP2018 ($9X20X3) $540.00
Facilitators (1) lunch @ $9 each per day for 4 days SU2017 ($9X1X4) $36.00
Project Director and Co-PI (2) lunches @ $9 each per day for 5 days SU2017 $90.00
($9X2X5)
Project Director and Co-PI (2) lunches @ $9 each per day for 3 days $54.00
FA2017&SP2018 ($9X2X3)

21
TEACHER QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Itemized Budget Page 2
Total Additional Costs $1620.00
Evaluation CostsList external evaluator and associated costs
Dr. Adriana D' Alba, External Evaluator $3500.00
Food and Travel Expenses (2) days @ 72.1 one way (72.1X2X2X$.55) + (2) lunches $176.62
@ $9 (2X$9)
Total Evaluation Costs $3676.62
Suppliesplease attach a detailed list at the end of this budget
DK Eyewitness Books: Electricity (20X$13.99) $279.80
All about Light and Sound (20X$8.39) $167.80
Total Supplies $447.60

IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY PROGRAM

PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY

Institution:
DeKalb County School District
Address of Department or School:

1701 Mountain Industrial Boulevard, Stone Mountain, GA 30083


Budget Office Address:

1701 Mountain Industrial Boulevard, Stone Mountain, GA 30083


Contact Person in Budget Office (Name and telephone #):

Burt Parker, Project Director 678-674-8736


Project Title:
Improving Teacher Quality through Technology Enhanced Science Instruction

TEACHER QUALITY CATEGORIES TO BE USED ON ALL Requested TQ


INVOICES Funds

1. Personnel $11,400.00

2. Fringe $2,250.00

3. Support Personnel $80.00

22
TEACHER QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Itemized Budget Page 3
4. Participant Costs $10,000.00

5. Travel $200.50

6. Additional Costs $1,620.00

7. Evaluation Costs (at least 3%) $3,676.62

8. Materials and Supplies $447.60

9. Total Lines 1-8 $29,674.72

10. Indirect Costs All subgrants should use one of the two following $2,373.98
indirect cost calculations, whichever is lower: 1) 8%, excluding tuition
or 2) the institutions federally negotiated indirect cost rate.
Grand Total (9 & 10) $32,048.70

23
Appendix B: Budget Narrative

Personnel and Fringe Benefits $13,650 (TQ Funds)

Burt Parker will serve as the project director for this PD, developing the grant proposal

topics and activities for the improvement of teacher quality in elementary science education. Mr.

Parker reviewed the past test scores and CCRPI data to discover the need for teacher

improvement in DCSD. He will be responsible for the recruitment of the 20 teachers and serve

as the facilitator during the 3 follow-up sessions. He will also, with the help of the Co-PD,

develop the course schedule. He will also be attending the GSTA with the DCSD teachers who

are making their presentation. The TQ grant will provide a salary of $5,000 and fringe benefits

of $1,250.

Melissa Sloan will be the Co-PD for the development of this course. She will aid in

developing the course schedule and serve as the facilitator of the last of the 5-day summer

intensive. She will also aid Dr. D Alba in the development of the data collection instruments.

Ms. Sloan will assist in the recruitment of the 20 participants for the project and in the daily

administration of the PD. The TQ grant will provide a salary of $4,000 and fringe benefits of

$1,000.

Tenecia Powe will serve as a facilitator of the first 2 days of the summer intensive. She

will be provided 2 days for preparation for the 2 days of instruction. Her depth of knowledge in

science and technology integration will be of immense value to the teachers who participate in

the PD. The TQ grant will provide remuneration of $600 for the 2 days of facilitation and $600

for the 2 days of preparation for a total of $1200.

Dr. Esma Jennings will serve as a facilitator during the summer intensive. She will be

provided 2 days for preparation for her 2 days of instruction. Her depth of knowledge in science

24
and experience in teaching professional developments will be of immense value to the teachers

who participate in the PD. The TQ grant will provide remuneration of $600 for the 2 days of

facilitation and $600 for the 2 days of preparation for a total of $1200.

Participant Cost $10,000 (TQ Funds)

Each of the 20 4th and 5th grade science teachers will receive a $500 stipend for

participation in the PD. Each participant will be expected to attend all 5 days of the summer

intensive and all 3 follow-up days during the school year. The stipend will be held until the

completion of the course. The TQ grant will provide $10,000 in stipends.

Additional Cost $1620 (TQ Funds)

All funds in this area will go to provide lunches for the participants, facilitators, and

project directors during the PD so that the time usually given to a lunch break can be utilized as a

working lunch. The cost includes 20 boxed lunches a day for the participants during the summer

intensive and 2 boxed lunches a day for the Project Director and Co-PD during the summer

intensive and 1 boxed lunch per day for the facilitators during the summer intensive (20

participants X $9 per lunch X 5 days) + (2 staff X $9 per lunch X 5 days) + (1 facilitator X $9

per lunch X 4 days) = $1026. TQ funds will also provide lunches for the participants and staff

for the 3 follow-up days (20 participants X $9 per lunch X 3 days) + (2 staff X $9 per lunch X 3

days) = $594. Total TQ funds amount to $1620.

Evaluation Cost $3,676.62 (TQ Funds)


Dr. Adriana D Alba will provide the external evaluation of this project. She will collect

data from before the course begins to establish the baseline. She will also evaluate all of the data

collected throughout the course and provide the course evaluation after the final session of the

course. The evaluation will require 2 trips to Stone Mountain from Carrollton. TQ funds will

provide Dr. D Alba $3500 in evaluator fees and $176.62 for meals and travel expenses.

25
Materials and Supplies $447.60 (TQ Funds)

Every participant in the PD will receive a copy of 2 nonfiction childrens books to utilize

in his classroom upon returning to school. The book DK Eyewitness Books: Electricity costs $13.99

each (20 X $13.99) = $279.80, and the book All about Light and Sound costs $8.39 each (20 X $8.39) =

$167.80. Total TQ funds amount to $447.60.

Indirect Costs $2,373.98 (TQ Funds)

TOTAL BUDGET $32,048.70 including indirect costs

Request for Distribution of Funding

Category Education LEA Running Total

1. Personnel $11,400.00 $11,400.00

2. Fringe $2250.00 $2250.00

3. Support
$80.00 $80.00
Personnel

4. Participant Costs $10,000.00 $10,000.00

5. Travel $200.50 $200.50

6. Additional Costs $1620.00 $1620.00

7. Evaluation Costs $3676.62 $3676.62

8. Materials and
$447.60 $447.60
Supplies

Sub Total $17,854.22 $11,820.50 $29,674.72

% Distribution 60.2% 39.8%

Indirect Costs $2373.98

Total $32,048.70

26
Appendix C: Capacity

The goal of the project team is to deliver the highest quality professional development for

the teachers of DCSD while improving the participants knowledge of elementary science

concepts, skills in teaching using hands-on and digital tools, and disposition toward science,

technology, and collaborative learning. The experiences created by the project team and the

interactions between the participants will build lasting learning constructs for the teachers to use

throughout the rest of their careers.

Project Team

Project Director: Burt Parker, MAA, MACS

Mr. Parker is an Early Intervention Program Teacher at Hawthorne Elementary School,

helping students struggling in reading and mathematics. Before moving into this position he was

the Science Lab teacher for Hawthorne. He has also taught middle school science in a private

school setting. Burt earned his bachelor of science in education at the University of Georgia,

majoring in early childhood education. He has earned two masters degrees and is currently

completing his specialists degree in instructional technology. He has 8 years experience in

public education and 20 years in adult and youth education in the nonprofit sector. During these

20 years serving nonprofits, Mr. Parker has organized and led many projects and managed

budgets over $500,000. His leadership and vision will provide stability to this team.

Co-Project Director: Melissa Sloan, Ed. S.

Ms. Sloan is a Teacher Development Specialist for CCPS and has also served as the

District Science Coordinator. She has taught numerous PDs in her 19 years in education. These

PDs include: Hands-on Science, Integrating Science in Elementary Classrooms, How to

Organize Science Labs in Elementary, New Generation Standards Presentation, How to Create

27
Common Assessments in Science, Using Science Data to Drive Instruction, Classroom

Management, Differentiated Instruction, Explicit Instruction, and Effective Instruction. She is

certified in middle grades and elementary science education. In addition, Melissa holds a

Coaching Endorsement and Educational Leadership certificate. Because of her vast experience

in professional development, as well as, working in a county with lagging science test scores,

Ms. Sloan will provide seasoned expertise to the team.

Facilitator: Tenecia Powe, M. Ed.

Mrs. Powe is currently a Digital Learning Specialist for CCPS. On a daily basis she

engages teachers in her district, training them on the use of technology in the classroom. She

also focuses on utilizing technology for collaborative learning. She holds a bachelor of science

in chemistry and a masters degree in instructional technology. Her certifications include 6-12

science, gifted, and instructional technology. Tenecia has 10 years experience in education.

Mrs. Powe will bring not only her understanding of technology and collaborative learning but

also her deep understanding of science concepts to aid in the professional development of the

teachers in DCSD.

Facilitator: Esma Jennings, Ed. D.

Dr. Esma Jennings teaches gifted students at Hawthorne Elementary School and the

gifted-endorsement classes for CCPS. Dr. Jennings has taught numerous other professional

development classes in her 25 years in public education. She, in years past, she has trained all

the elementary science teachers in CCPS in Project Learning Tree, Project Wild, and Project

Wet. She also trained teachers in the use of CCPSs Star Lab, a mobile planetarium. She is a

National Science Foundation grant recipient and Georgia Science Foundation grant recipient.

Currently, Dr. Jennings serves Grand Canyon University as an adjunct professor in its M. Ed.

28
program. As a member of the implementation team for this project, Dr. Jennings will bring

many years of experience, not only in science, but also in teaching teachers.

Facilities

All classes, with the exception of the fieldtrip, will be held at the DCSD Administrative

Industrial Complex (AIC) in Stone Mountain. Within the AIC, DCSD has agreed to supply an

ample classroom for the 20 participants, tables and chairs for all participants, whiteboards and

projectors, a rolling cart of 20 Professional Learning Department laptops, technical support for

the facilitators in using DCSD devices, janitorial services, climate control, and lighting. In

addition, DCSD will handle the boxed-lunch order each day through their local vendor network.

Finally, DCSD has agreed to supply a class set of the lab supplies for the electricity unit and

sound and light unit that each teacher should have access to at his local school.

29
Appendix D: Data Collection Tools

Attitudinal Surveys

Pre-Attitudinal Survey of Technology Integration, Collaborative Learning,


and Science Content Instruction
1. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of educational technology?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

2. How do you rank yourself on the integration of technology into your teaching practices?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

3. If you had to implement a new piece of technology in your classroom, how would you
feel towards implementing it?
Confident
Uncomfortable

4. How often do you use technology in your teaching?


Several times a day
One or two times a day
Every other day
One to two times a week
None

5. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating technology in your
classroom?

6. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of collaborative learning?


Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

7. How do you rank yourself on the integration of collaborative learning into your teaching
practices?
Novice
Beginner

30
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

8. How often do you use collaborative learning in your classroom?


Several times a day
One or two times a day
Every other day
One to two times a week
None

9. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating collaborative learning
in your classroom?

10. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of the science content for your grade level?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

11. How do you rank yourself on the ability to teach engaging science lessons?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

12. How often do you teach science in your classroom?


Several times a day
One or two times a day
Every other day
One to two times a week
None

13. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when teaching science in your
classroom?

31
Post-Attitudinal Survey of Technology Integration, Collaborative Learning,
and Science Content Instruction

1. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of educational technology?


Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

2. How do you rank yourself on the integration of technology into your teaching practices?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

3. If you had to implement a new piece of technology in your classroom, how would you
feel towards implementing it?
Confident
Uncomfortable

4. How often do you use technology in your teaching?


Several times a day
One or two times a day
Every other day
One to two times a week
None

6. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating technology in your
classroom?

7. How has participating in this professional development course changed your attitude
toward the implementation of technology in the classroom?

8. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of collaborative learning?


Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

9. How do you rank yourself on the integration of collaborative learning into your teaching
practices?
Novice
Beginner

32
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

10. How often do you use collaborative learning in your classroom?


Several times a day
One or two times a day
Every other day
One to two times a week
None

11. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating collaborative learning
in your classroom?

12. How has participating in this professional development course changed your attitude
toward the implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom?

13. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of the science content for your grade level?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

14. How do you rank yourself on the ability to teach engaging science lessons?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert

15. How often do you teach science in your classroom?


Several times a day
One or two times a day
Every other day
One to two times a week
None

16. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when teaching science in your
classroom?

17. How has participating in this professional development course changed your attitude
toward the teaching of science at your grade level?

33
Electricity Pre/Post Assessment

1. When several lightbulbs are connected in a series circuit, what will happen if one bulb
burns out?
A) All of the lightbulbs will go out. C) The other bulbs will burn brighter.
B) The other bulbs will continue to burn. D) There will be a short circuit.

2. Which material conducts electricity?


A) piece of glass C) rubber ball
B) cotton T-shirt D) copper coin

3. To have an electric current when using batteries, there MUST be a


A) a complete circuit. C) lightbulb.
B) switch. D) motor.

4. Which term refers to the flow of electrical charges?


A) conductance C) current
B) resistance D) energy

5. Use the list below to answer this question.


Plastic, rubber, glass, paper
Which name applies to these materials because of their electrical properties?
A) connectors C) conductors
B) regulators D) insulators

6. Which of these is a conductor?


A) a short length of string C) a piece of aluminum foil
B) a plastic drinking straw D) a piece of chalkboard chalk

8. Static electricity can be built up by


A) clothes spinning around in a dryer. C) plugging in an iron.
B) a battery and a light bulb. D) a glass of water.

9. If you took a woolen cloth and rubbed it briskly over your hair, your hair would stand
on ends. What has been created?
A) insulator C) chemical change
B) lightning D) static electricity

10. Which components could complete an electric circuit?


A) wire, bulb, switch C) battery, wire, switch
B) battery, bulb, switch D) battery, wire, bulb

34
11. Gary walks in the house and turns on the light. What could he do that would make this
circuit open?
A) remove the light bulb C) replace the bulb with a dimmer bulb
B) leave the light operational D) extend the wire from the switch to the
light

12. Larry connects a wire from a battery to each of the listed items. Which item would allow a
current from the battery to pass through if connected to another wire on an opposite end?
A) brass door knob C) rubber ball
B) wooden door D) cotton shirt

13. Which would be a good conductor of electricity?


A) a rubber band C) a penny
B) a piece of paper D) a mirror

14. What material would be safest to use as an insulator to cover electrical wires?
A) Aluminum C) Rubber
B) Tin D) Water

15. Many electrical wires are wrapped with a plastic coating because plastic is
A) less expensive than steel. C) able to keep its shape.
B) more dense than copper. D) a good insulator.

16. Carletta and Terry are given a box of materials to use for an investigation on static
electricity. The students add air to the balloons and tie each to a string. The balloons hang
from the strings without moving. The students rub the two balloons together and nothing
happens. They rub the balloons with a piece of woolen cloth and the balloons move away from
each other as shown below.

Part A: Explain why the balloons at first hang from the string without moving.
Part B: Explain why even though the balloons are rubbed together nothing happens.
Part C: Explain why the two balloons move away from each other after the students rub them
with a piece of woolen cloth.
Part D: What type of electricity produces lightning during a rainstorm? Explain your answer.

35
18. Some students want to build an electric circuit that will make a light bulb glow. The
students search a reference book and find a diagram of materials to construct an electric circuit
as shown below.

Part A: Describe the three steps that should be followed to assemble this electric circuit. Be sure
to include the materials used in each step.
Part B: All the parts of the electric circuit are connected and the battery is new. Explain what
else is necessary to make the light bulb work.

19. Laura and Kelly are asked to build and test an electromagnet. The students are given the
materials shown below.

Part A: List the steps the students should take to build the electromagnet. Provide specific
details for each step.
Part B: Describe how to test the electromagnet to be sure it is functioning.
Part C: Explain how you can increase the magnetic strength of an electromagnet.
Part D: A heavy bar magnet was made available. What test can be performed to compare the
difference in the strength of the bar magnet and the electromagnet?

Note: This instrument is adapted from GOFAR (Georgia Online Formative Assessment Resource) (GaDOE,
2016d).

36
References

Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S., & Warren, S.

(2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support

science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 305-320.

Bethke Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content

performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering

Education, 102(4), 513-540. doi:10.1002/jee.20026

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on

technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and

practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43.

Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer?

Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal

of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304-328.

Clayton County Public Schools. (2016). Professional development portal. Retrieved from

https://pdexpress.clayton.k12.ga.us/pdexpress/catalog_list.aspx

Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of

Research on Educational Communications & Technology (pp. 841-853).

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68

DeKalb County School District. (2014). ITBS elementary schools [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/itbs-elementary-

schools.pdf

DeKalb County School District. (2015). Elementary schools: Science and social studies [Data

file]. Retrieved from http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/test-scores/

37
DeKalb County School District. (2016a). End of course 2015-2016 [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/test-scores/

DeKalb County School District. (2016b). About us. Retrieved from

http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/about/

Department of Education. (2014). Teacher quality partnership grant program notice inviting

applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Federal Register, 79(102), 30584-

30596. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/05/28/2014-

12346/applications-for-new-awards-teacher-quality-partnership-grant-program

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,

confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42(3), 255-284.

Georgia Department of Education. (2016a). School Climate Star Ratings [Data file]. Retrieved

from http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx

Georgia Department of Education. (2016b). School climate. Retrieved from

https://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Policy/Pages/School-

Climate.aspx#_ftn1

Georgia Department of Education. (2016c). Science Georgia standards of excellence. Retrieved

from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Pages/Science.aspx

Georgia Department of Education. (2016d). Georgia Online Formative Assessment Resource

[Data file]. Retrieved from https://slds.gadoe.org/sldsweb/GOFAR.aspx

Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M.C. (2011). Professional development for

technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448.

38
Gruenert, S., & Whitaker, T. (2015). School culture rewired : How to define, assess, and

transform it. Alexandria, Virginia USA: ASCD.

Hansen, M. (2014). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM: Evidence from two states

longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 374-391.

doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.823364

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for teachers.

Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/standards-for-teachers

Judson, E. (2014). Effects of transferring to STEM-focused charter and magnet schools on

student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 107(4), 255-266.

Lehman, J. D., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working

to integrate engineering design in elementary science education. Journal of STEM

Education: Innovations and Research, 15(3), 21-28.

Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2012). Leading technology-rich schools: Award-winning models for

success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. K. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration

of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.

Mayer, R. E., William, B., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more:

Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 64-73.

Miranda, H. H., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed

student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling

approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652-666.

39
Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning.

Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC). Quincy, MA: Nelle Mae Education

Foundation.

Mongillo, G. (2008). Play, games, and attitude: Student and teacher perspectives of educational

games. Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 44-54.

Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM

perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for

elementary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.

Naizer, G., Hawthorne, M. J., & Henley, T. B. (2014). Narrowing the gender gap: Enduring

changes in middle school students' attitude toward math, science and technology. Journal

of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(3), 29-34.

Ragan, L. C. (1999). Good teaching is good teaching: An emerging set of guiding principles and

practices for the design and development of distance education. CAUSE/EFFECT, 22(1).

Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem/cem99/cem9915.html

Rawson, C. H. (2014). Every flower in the garden: Collaboration between school librarians and

science teachers. School Libraries Worldwide, 20(1), 20-28. doi:10.14265.20.1.003

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T.

(2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept

questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.

Zollman, A., Tahernezhadi, M., & Billman, P. (2012). Science, technology, engineering and

mathematics education in the United States: Areas of current successes and future needs.

International Journal of Science in Society, 3(2), 103-111.

40