EDUC 891: Case analysis assignment

“Case Study 7” in Ertmer et al., (2014), pg 72-78: Implementing New Instructional

Approaches in a K-12 setting for Middle School Science Teachers

Word Total 1298 (not including references)

Submitted by Stuart Mitchell

 Following is an analysis of case study 7 which looked at the implementation

of a new instructional approach to Middle School science teachers. The stakeholders

include the class teacher Ruth Anne Ponten, Maya Thomas, the state development

instructional consultant for the area and the Grade 7 students Ruth Anne is expected

to teach. Other involved people include the administration of the school and the

parents of the students.

The setting of the school and the families of the students is of a transitory

nature. The students are generally unsupervised after school; the parents have low

academic expectations of their kids. A common comment from the students is that

their parents do not see the value of education and are therefore unsupported in

their studies. The community surrounding these students is comprised of farmers

and college educated professionals who see the value in education and are willing to

try new approaches to schooling their kids. Unfortunately, the students in Ruth

Anne’s class are in-between these groups and tend to struggle in the average

academic classroom.

The school has some limited resources such as available computers for the

class and a newly adapted text. The administration fully supports any direction that

would help progress, saying, “Any success is a giant step”. Linking math to other

areas of the school is also important to the vice principal. Admin expects that the

class adhere to state expectations by passing the final exam with regular testing

before and after sections. This contrast suggests a restructuring of expectations

should be part of the process.

 Ruth Anne is very open to the idea of a “laboratory style” of teaching and the

use of hands-on practical work in “real life” situations as Maya suggests. The current

curriculum does not work for her students and she knows that low achievers will

benefit from authentic applied learning where students can “transform already

acquired knowledge” (Greeno, Collins, Resnik 1996). Maya and Ruth Anne agree

that the students appear “to not care” about class and are easily distracted. The

problem of low parental support and a negative attitude towards education is also

an issue. The difficulty is that Ruth Anne is accustomed to the instructivist style of

teaching; she is most comfortable at the front of the class giving examples and

assigning drills. She recognizes this is not effective but still clings to the idea of rote-

learning, repetition and regular drill-based homework to teach her students. When

Maya suggest that so far this method has not worked for the students and suggests

alternatives, Ruth Anne understands but is hesitant to adopt the new ideas, claiming

the students and parents will react, the assessment will be difficult and her own

level of comprehension will be too low. While Maya is suggesting alternatives that

are initially uncomfortable to Ruth Anne it is encouraging that she does want to

develop and change her style so that her students will be more effectively

supported.

The case study is not specific in identifying Maya’s approach to supporting

the students and Ruth Anne. However, Maya and Ruth Anne have identified a

learning gap, which can be supported through Instructional Design. (Morrison et al

2011) I would suggest that Maya needs to give some attention to the idea that the

current group of students will need to “learn how to learn” (Murray, 2017) with less
emphasis being placed on State standards and end-term evaluations. The students

need to learn the value of math and how it applies to them personally, as well as

giving the parents the opportunities to learn as well. Specific learning strategies are

only referenced vaguely; the only mention of her intentions is a “laboratory style (of

class) with real world experience and a hands-on, real-world learning environment”.

It’s clear that she wants to move from a traditional drill and practice model to “make

it relevant to everyday lives”. The lack of detail makes it difficult to comment on

although I would suggest that there are many ways to develop this basic premise.

The first idea is that of a “laboratory style of class” which encourages higher order

thinking supported by understanding a premise than applying it to a situation that

would encourage intrinsic motivation. (Bloom, 1956) A ‘lab style” class could be

expanded to use computers for finding out local tax laws or budgeting a household.

Basic skills needed to scaffold higher levels of math could use state and text

supported manipulatives and practical applications. Mayas approach to address the

instructional problems appears to be of a more constructivist approach and avoids

drill and practice, which can be part of the solution. She also does not mention using

parent and community involvement. What appears to be a liability could be an asset

as she involves all the potential stakeholders in a way that supports learning.

Expected outcomes of Mayas intervention could start with aligning the admin

and state requirements with a realistic set of expectations for the class. The view

taken by the admin that the “students must pass state requirements” does not align

with the comment that “any success is a giant step”. Students need to learn the

basics before moving on to grade expected State requirements. Learning can be

more effective as larger and more complex skills build upon the simpler skills as

suggested by Gagne (1968). Maya could suggest starting with concrete hands-on

activities using manipulatives to learn basic fractions, for example, before moving to

abstract ideas such as proportions and integers. This approach would not only help

students who have missed the basics but it would help control behaviour issues as

the students said “hands-on” learning is more enjoyable. Ruth Anne tended to use

the computers as just another drill and practice session. Using the computers

available to try online practice that is game oriented or using online resources to

create family budgets that are personally relevant to the students would be

effective. (Tessmer, Richey (1997)

Another outcome could be building the link between students, school and

family. Greeno, Collins and Resnick (1996) suggest that building learning as a

community strengthens the process of learning. Involving the families by linking

them to the class through after school activities or “learn-show-demonstrate”

evenings would give parents the opportunity to be involved and to give them a voice

in the education of their children. Creating this bridge would solve many basic

issues that are holding back the students. Another bridge could be that between the

math class and other areas of the school. Students might find classes they already

enjoy and are motivated to do well at supported by math, which would make Ruth

Anne’s class more topical and interesting to the students. Examples include using

fractional measurement in hands-on classes or science classes. Physics is easily

demonstrated with hands-on math involving rockets, catapults and trebuchets that

the students could build and test. Socials classes could be supported with math
through learning how to analyze population growth in other countries and

predicting city expansion.

Assessment of the success of Maya’s intervention seems obvious because the

current levels are established and the expectations are low. I would suggest that the

interventions are more complicated, however, and involve a large variety of

stakeholders. Passing students through the state requirements is a simple matter of

monitoring exams but assessing whether parents become more involved is trickier.

Hands-on work that is “real-life” can be assessed gradually and in a supportive way

that encourages growth and builds success. Students could also be taught to

evaluate their own progress and to create a set of markers to be used to measure

success in a positive way, both personally and for their classmates. This type of

intervention would not only support the students but would allow Ruth Anne to

develop as an educator as she focuses more on student growth rather than

evaluating drills and homework.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Patty Murray. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from

BrainyQuote.com Web site:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/pattymurra175834.html

Gagne (1968), Learning Hierarchies, Educational Psychologist, 1-9

Greeno, Collins, Resnick (1996) ‘Cognition and Learning” Handbook of Educational

Psychology, Macmillan, New York. 15-46

Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (2014). Case study 7: Maya Thomas, implementing
New Instructional Approaches in a K-12 Setting. In P. A. Ertmer, J. A. Quinn, & K. D.
Glazewski, The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design, Fourth edition (pp. 39-
42). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective
instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.