getting a methods proposal draft together.

so at this point i'm working on getting a few pages together on a refined research topic, questions, and methods.  i'll be editing the survey questions and the lit review in the next few weeks.  but as for now, this is the direction i am heading.  let me know what you think!

---

In recent years science education reform has received increasing attention from researchers and educators around the world.  Much of the questions surrounding this issue involve topics of scientific literacy, the nature of science, and content standards reform.  In the US, the National Science Education Standards state that ‘the content standards define scientific literacy.’  Internationally, the PISA goals format the question in this way: What is important for citizens to know, value, and be able to do in situations involving science and technology?

The answers to this question are at the heart of science education goals around the world.  Every society must decide what is important for students to know and understand in order to be productive and critical citizens, or scientifically literate citizens.  The idea of a democratic science education revolves around the concept of scientific literacy, the capacity to use scientific knowledge and skills to make informed decisions in order to understand the natural world and to participate in social activities.  The scientific knowledge in question when considering scientific literacy often involves a discussion of the nature of science (NOS), an understanding of the process and skills that make up the discipline of science.  International standards documents show an increased attention to NOS ideas and scientific literacy, including the competency standards in Denmark (McComas, __, Dolin, IND MtG).

The Danish science education standards reflect three specific strands for students (future citizens) to engage: the use, understanding, and awareness of science and science content (MtG map).  The attainment targets (goals) at folkeskole science levels, though not specifically outlined as competencies, also align with process and NOS skills.  For 8-10 physics and chemistry they include: Physics and chemistry world/content, Evolution of scientific cognition, applications of physics/chemistry in everyday life and society, working methods and philosophies (Folkeskole Publication).  At the gymnasium level, the competency standards reflect the process and skills present in NOS ideas, and were created to supplement content standards with practical knowledge that would contribute to the scientific literacy of students.  Competencies require students to demonstrate knowledge, cognitive abilities, and attitudes, values, and motivations as they meet and respond to science-related issues (Dolin).  Their emphasis is on measuring the skills necessary for living an everyday life and to participate in democratic processes.  The competency standards were introduced in Denmark as part of the 2005 reform, in response to the PISA testing reports.  

The competencies related to science at the gymsaium level are (http://pub.uvm.dk/2004/fremtidens/html/chapter03.htm):

• Empirikompetence - observation and description, experimentation, classification, manual skills, data collection and processing, safety, assessment of uncertainty and expediency, critique methods, generalization between practice and theory, etc.. 
• Representation Competency - symbols and representations, and observing, presenting, differentiate and switch between different levels of representation, analyze, understand explanatory power, abstract, reduce, etc..
• Modeling Competence - problem formulation, develop, distinguish between model and reality, reduce, analyze, clarify, apply appropriate check falsify, determining causality, criticize, develop more. 
• Perspectives Competence - Internal consistency, coherence with non-science, historical / cultural context in relation to the near and the distant outside world, reflect on the progress of science and technology's roles in society, critically evaluate natural sciences knowledge compared to other knowledge, etc..

Impact of Educational Reform on Danish Science Education

With respect to education, standards should act to help define the content of instruction—to inform teacher education/development processes with regards to content and expectations (Impact of Standards).  In Denmark, the tradition of teaching and planning is left to the teacher (didactic), whose role is to merge the necessary content with the individual and collective learning needs of students (bildung aspect of education).  National content standards in Denmark are normally broad and nonspecific, reflecting consideration of
didactic choice.  In contrast, the introduction of competency standards as a part of science education reform in Denmark has placed a somewhat curricular tradition demand on Danish science teachers, creating a unique research perspective.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of imposing a curricular tradition on a didactic classroom teacher.  Specifically, the question of focus is: How do Danish science teachers (gymnasium) receive and interpret the Danish competency standards with respect to the nature of science.  How do standards affect their planning/instruction decisions? (Physics or bio specifically?)  The study will cover aspects of teachers’ beliefs about the necessity and relevance of NOS/competency reform strands and the degree of implementation of those standards in the classroom.   In addition, specific attention will be paid to the empirical and the perspectives competencies, as these most closely align with NOS goals. 

Questions to be considered:

-          Are the competency standards viewed as process or content oriented?

-          Do they (competencies) matter for students to be scientifically literate?  Any one more than the others?

-          Is competency teaching already a part of teachers instruction/planning?

o   Are any of the competencies easier to implement?

o   Are teachers implicit or explicit about the competencies/NOS in their practice?

Are teachers implicit or explicit about the competencies/NOS in their practice?

This will be addressed with observation and interview, as it is difficult to describe explicit instruction through a survey process.  Explicit instruction is a contextual phenomenon. An explicit NOS instructional approach deliberately focuses learners’ attention on various aspects of NOS during classroom instruction, discussion, and questioning (McDonald, 2010).

Specific methodology editing/refinement questions:       

Participants: Danish gymnasium teachers (physics or bio?—leaning toward physics here, but I’m open) will be targeted for the sample population.  Secondary (gymnasium) educators are targeted because the competency standards have been set for gymnasium level.

Data collection: 

The study will be involve mixed methods—with survey, observation and interview components.  The mixture of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (observation and interview) data collection will enable the researcher to gain a more well-rounded view of the phenomenon in question.  The added feature of observation of science teaching will enhance the data regarding the question of whether teachers are explicit or implicit regarding NOS/competencies.

Instrumentation: The protocol in the survey and interview targets (1) teacher’s attitudes towards competency/reform and (2) the degree of implementation of NOS reform strands. 

(Should I have an interview protocol?) 

(Should I consider sending the survey multiple times for reliability testing?) 

(Should I incorporate a comparison of preferred and actual goals/implementation?)

Potential Impacts:

-          How can teachers be assisted in addressing competency standards? (aka are there barriers to implementation?)

One of the important impacts of these questions is what potential barriers do science teachers encounter when implementing SBI practices?  This study will help to inform teacher education programs at university and local professional development levels to prepare teachers to implement the competency standards.

nl;

danish education system...not so standard

it would be good for me, i think, to describe a little bit of the danish education system before i jump into describing my conversations and research ideas any further.  the danish school system is anything but simple...i think the important thing to remember is that however complex it may seem, if you look closely enough there is probably a cultural/social reason or practical construct behind each structure of the system.  

there are 3 levels to the danish ed system:

folkeskole = primary school

gymnasium = secondary, or high school

university = tertiary, college

the folkeskole is mandatory for 9 years--our 1st through 9th grades essentially--with an option for year 10.  there is a year 0 available, and highly suggested, as well.  the 10th year is for students who choose to go on to gymnasium--they must stay for exams and such to test into that level.  students who do not attend gymnasium can go into work or a trade school.  it's no uncommon for students to take their 10th year at "efterskole"---a year away from home at a boarding school.

gymnasium is much more comparable to a US general ed course load at university.  there are several tracks to take in gymnasium, which give danish students an option to specialize earlier if they choose.  this is where the system gets even just a bit more complex, as each track is nearly a different school in itself.  also, it is essential to note that folkeskole and gymnasium have very little in common with regards to structure, teaching, content, and assessment.  basically, they have nothing in common but that they are danish.

by the time danish students reach university, they are ready to specialize in a field, having basically completed a gen. ed. course load at gymnasium the previous 3 years.  the 1st two years at university often compare much more to the last 2 years of a standard american degree (BS, BA) program.  it's in the junior/senior year that US students begin to specialize in their major courses.

settling into the Institute

I now have a desk in the "specialstudien" room at the Institue for Naturfagenes Didaktik....aka, in the Master's student room at the Institute of Science Education.  As I am the only Master's student currently working with the Institute, the room has become my office.  There are 8 desks, and I have taken over 2 of them.  (More on the how/why of this later).  The Institute has recently moved to the old observatory behind Rosenborg Botanical Gardens (Botanisk Haven).  I am a few blocks from the queen's castle, Rosenborg, and the Copenhagen K (central) district.  I am really quite lucky to be working in this area--it's a great way to be in Copenhagen and get to know the heart of the city while I am here.

IND entrance at the top of the only hill in CPH/KBH

IND (the Institute) has about 14 faculty/researchers--I have slowly been going around to chat with each of them about their work and mine.  The idea is that somewhere there should be some synergy between my interests and theirs.  That way, we all keep in line with the goals and direction of the Institute, and I have some extra insight and guidance into my own research project.  It is a very social place--which I can't say is normal in Denmark, as I have heard stories from both sides of that coin. But, for me, I will just be thankful that it is such a collegial atmosphere.  We have lunch together each day, outside if the weather is nice, and sometimes have work breaks or family day/parties throughout the year.  These would involve a Julfest (Christmas party), dinners, or other celebrations.  Also, there is a ping pong table and cozy breakroom on the bottom floor.  Fridays seem to be pingpong day--those of us in the office late that day (not so many considering the Danish penchant for reasonable work hours and time with family--37 hours standard) go down and play a "round" ping pong tournament.

view of my office space and desk

The offices are typically shared, and mine has the 8 desks arranged in pairs facing one another.  This is where my selfish use of 2 desks comes in.  The room has an "A-frame" roofline, and two bright skylights that look up to the telescope observatory tower.  Quite a nice space, but my perch under the skylight (or at any other desk) left me sitting near enough to the wall that whenever I stood, I hit my head on the slope of the ceiling.  After 2 days, I broke the collegial tradiation of this room, and turn a desk to face the wall, and now have a corner style desk set up with the two.  If another Master's student comes perhaps I will change, but for the time being my skull appreciates this new desk design!  :)

sky light view of telescope/observatory tower

My task this week is to read articles, and begin to translate a former Master's thesis on a related topic to my interests.  My goal is to narrow into a suitable research question by the end of the week.  We will see how this goes....But for now I am still focusing on the Gymnasium (high school) level, and somewhere between the content standards and the teacher's instruction.  How do the standards look in the classroom.  I suspect I will end up choosing to focus on the competency standards as there US counterpart is what most interests me in the states, but we'll see.

My original proposal

This is the plan I submitted to the fulbright commission last year. It's merely a basic outline and a mote refined plan will appear soon. The lovely thing about Fulbright is that they don't care if I complete this specific task, only that I am working on something worthwhile with adequate effort. The point is cultural exchange not academic product. Lucky for me as my academic interests seem neverending. :)

---

STATEMENT OF GRANT PURPOSE

Callie Van Koughnett, Denmark, Education

Interpretation of Science Content Standards in Denmark

I am applying for a Fulbright grant to study the didactics of high school science subjects and teacher education in Denmark.  Didactics represents the process of instructional design using multiple perspectives by examining the relationships among the elements involved in a lesson: student, teacher, and content.  I entered a master’s program to prepare me for the task of helping to improve science education in the United States, and this is part of my preparation for that mission.  To date, I have attended several workshops on incorporating standards into the classroom to enrich the teacher education program in which I am currently enrolled.  Through this Fulbright grant, I will spend a year studying the dissemination of national science content standards into the classroom in Denmark through the lens of teacher preparation and didactic design.  My study highlights a major difference in Denmark’s and the United States’ interpretation of science content standards in teacher education programs and instruction. 

I have developed a research project with Dr. Robert Evans, an American professor in the Department of Science Education at the University of Copenhagen. His work integrates his experiences with Danish and American educational cultures and teacher preparation programs.  I will act as a guest Masters student in the department, working alongside other PhD and Masters candidates.  To facilitate the transition process, I will be visiting the university and Dr. Evans in October 2009, during the ICE2009 conference on global climate education in Copenhagen.   Attending will introduce me to international cooperation and sharing of educational ideas and tools, as well as best practices and inter-disciplinary teaching methods.  Additionally, I will be able to interact on a professional level with potential colleagues in Denmark.

The following methods detail my plan to answer the question: How are the nationally developed standards in Denmark received and interpreted?  There are several perspectives from which to approach this, including teacher training, didactic design (lesson planning), and how standards are used in the classroom.  I will focus on the teacher preparation and didactic design elements as they are common to my current experience in the US.  Didactic design is included as a training element of teacher preparation programs.

      By attending teacher preparation courses in science didactics at the University of Copenhagen, I will examine the resources teachers have available to them when planning curricula and lessons, looking specifically for how teachers are prepared with respect to implementation of project-based learning and interdisciplinary components of the national standards.  This process begins the comparison to what my own training in the US has provided, beginning with a basic course in science didactics in the fall, and continuing with an advanced course in the didactics of natural sciences in the spring.

The second element of didactic design requires a multi-step approach of observation, interview, and interaction.  I will visit six schools, two in each of the main categories in Denmark, the folkeskole (grades 1-9), the gymnasium (grades 10-12), and the technical gymnasium (grades 10-12).  I will spend the majority of my time in the latter two gymnasium sections, as they are comparable to my secondary level preparation in the United States.  During my observations, I will look for examples of how the standards and materials from teacher preparation courses are implemented.  For example, were the standards explicitly stated?  What design and teaching methods were used?  Following the observation, I will interview teachers regarding the resources that were used in planning the lesson, and how standards were incorporated into that planning.  These interviews will be recorded and later transcribed to enable me to look for themes among the teachers’ answers. 

As nearly everyone speaks English in Denmark, interviewing and observing will not be difficult.  Schools in Denmark welcome guests, particularly those who speak English, to their classrooms to interact with students.  To assist me in the communication process, however, I will be taking Danish courses which are commonly offered to enrolled students at the University.  Currently I am learning on my own through use of Rosetta Stone, translating online news articles, and communication with friends and colleagues in Denmark.  I am comfortable reading; however, I will be working in the fall and spring with a Danish resident in Charleston, practicing my conversation skills.

In addition to interviews and observation, I will engage in lesson planning projects in Denmark.   These projects will enable me to isolate correlations between teacher preparation, planning, and classroom instruction, focusing on how the standards are interpreted into the lessons and thus disseminated into the classroom.  Such correlations will enable me to transfer my insights to a relevant American context and my future classroom.   Upon my return, I plan to have a parallel lesson involving international communication between my students in the US and students in Denmark, using these insights as tools for the design of that project.  Additionally, I will share the results of my research and insights with other teachers and colleagues.  I expect my joint relationship with Knowles Science Teaching Foundation (KSTF) to complement this process.  Through their support, I will have an enhanced opportunity to share the processes, methods, ideas, and values that I observe in Denmark with colleagues, peers, and students in the United States.  As a KSTF Biology Fellow, I meet three times each year with a cohort of science teachers from across the US to engage in professional development.  In addition, KSTF provides leadership grant money that I can use to organize a professional development program or share ideas at a national meeting or other organization. 

This project will act as a capstone for my Master’s program, encouraging me to utilize a variety of methods in the classroom and become a reflective practitioner.  Education in the United States has a standardized test score focus, which has caused our curricula to be oriented around state based standards for accountability purposes.  Thus, teachers in our public school system often learn to rely on these standards as curricula rather than content guides (Sunal & Wright, Impact of State and National Standards on K-12 Science Teaching, 2003).  Denmark’s education system lacks this explicit focus on standards and consequently approaches instructional design differently.  The assessment culture in Denmark is far less test score driven, and national standards are written to include mandatory project-based work and interdisciplinary curricula (Dolin, Standards in Science Education: Making it Comparable, 2007).  These differences reflect the education values held in Denmark, and compel my choice to study in Denmark.  Understanding approaches different countries take to education can enhance our understanding of those cultures and consequently provide deep insights about how some of those approaches to education may be relevant in an American context.  Close study of Danish teacher preparation with respect to content standards could have a positive influence on the American (and my) approach to science education.  My study begins to address how we, as education professionals, policy makers, citizens, and students, can improve teacher preparation programs by learning from other approaches to incorporating content standards into instruction.