Utah State University Utah State University
DigitalCommons@USU DigitalCommons@USU
Publications Integrating Elementary-Level Mathematics
Curricula with Expansively-Framed Computer Science Instruction 2024
Using Student Experience Reports as a Window for Teacher Using Student Experience Reports as a Window for Teacher Reflections on Inquiry Science Instructional Practices
Reflections on Inquiry Science Instructional Practices
Jessie Nixon
Weber State University, [email protected] Mimi Recker
Utah State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/eled_support_pubs Part of the Instructional Media Design Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Nixon, J. & Recker, M. (2024). Using Student Experience Reports as a Window for Teacher Reflections on Inquiry Science Instructional Practices. In Lindgren, R., Asino, T. I., Kyza, E. A., Looi, C. K., Keifert, D. T., &
Suárez, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2024 (pp. 1347-1350). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Integrating Elementary-Level Mathematics Curricula with Expansively-Framed Computer Science Instruction at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
Using Student Experience Reports as a Window for Teacher Reflections on Inquiry Science Instructional Practices
Jessie Nixon, Weber State University, [email protected] Mimi Recker, Utah State University, [email protected]
Abstract: This paper examines how student experience reports, collected as exit tickets, can be leveraged during professional learning to support science teachers’ understanding of their students and inform future classroom practices. Our analysis frames exit ticket data as a boundary object, which bridges across researchers’, teachers’, and students’ perspectives of the learning environment. During two successive professional learning activities, teachers examined and reflected upon their students’ exit ticket data. A thematic analysis of teachers’
discourse during these activities distilled two themes. The first theme surfaced how exit data helped teachers form new views about their students’ emerging science identities; the second revealed how teachers gained new insights into their students’ perceptions of contributions to classroom discourse, which both challenged and validated their own intuitions.
Introduction
For many decades, education researchers and practitioners have been designing and studying approaches for effectively engaging teachers in professional learning (PL) activities (e.g., Borko, 2004; Walker et al., 2012).
Despite the wide variety of approaches, few PL activities afford teachers the opportunity to engage with and make sense of student data (Dodman et al., 2023). Knowing how to interpret student data can help teachers make instructional improvements, prioritize instructional time, and meet individual students’ needs in more equitable ways (Hamilton et al., 2009).
In this paper, we examine how student classroom experience data can be leveraged during PL to support secondary school science teachers’ understanding of their students' learning, while also informing more equitable future classroom practices to support students’ diverse sensemaking practices. Student data is collected as exit tickets, implemented as Student Electronic Exit Tickets (SEETs; Raza et al., 2024), which are short online surveys administered during instruction to gather data about learners’ perceptions of their classroom experiences. In this study, we focus on two important predictors of student engagement in science and STEM pathways: 1) students' developing science identity, or one’s sense of affiliation with the field (Carlone & Johnson, 2007) and 2) students' perceptions of the connection between classroom experiences and the larger field of science (Archer et al., 2010).
In our analysis, we frame exit ticket data as a boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989), an artifact that crosses between different actors’ perspectives of the learning environment. In our case, these actors are the researchers who design the SEETs and data visualizations, the students who complete the SEETs, and the teachers who interpret visualizations of the data. Framed in this way, exit ticket data can be viewed as a way to bridge across these different actors’ perspectives. Our study was guided by the following research question: To what extent can student exit ticket data help teachers reflect on and learn from the diversity of their students’ science classroom experiences?
Theoretical framework
Exit tickets, a kind of short formative assessment of student experiences administered during instruction, can provide teachers with insights into students’ perceptions, thinking, and learning without requiring more time- consuming summative measures (Fowler et al., 2019). One form of exit tickets, SEETs, has been used in science classrooms to collect data about students’ perceptions of their science identity, instructional coherence, their classroom contributions, and the relevance of the science content to their lives (Raza et al., 2024). Visualizations of SEET data can support teachers in reflecting on inequitable patterns in student participation during science classroom activities (Raza et al., 2024).
In this study, we frame exit ticket data as boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989), that is, artifacts that cross between the students’, researchers’, and teachers’ perspectives of instructional units (Penuel et al., 2015). Framed this way, researchers make decisions about what aspects of instruction to formatively assess through their choices of exit ticket items and how to display student responses; students complete the exit tickets as a way to reflect on their experiences; and teachers use these data and their visualizations as means to consider their students’ experiences. While the exit tickets serve different purposes for each set of actors, reflective discussions can create opportunities to bridge gaps and reduce power inequities between researchers’ and teachers’
during PL activities, while building a shared purpose of better understanding students’ experiences and improving classroom instruction.
Methods
This study is part of a larger research-practice partnership collaborating with a rural school district to design and implement computationally-rich inquiry science units in secondary science classes (Gendreau Chakarov et al., 2021). These units, structured as storylines (Reiser et al., 2021), are intended to support student learning by foregrounding authentic practices that approximate what scientists do as students collaboratively investigate scientific phenomena, discuss ideas, and wrestle with uncertainty (Watkins & Manz, 2022).
Participants and professional learning activities
Five middle and high school science teachers took part in year-long professional learning (PL) during 2022-2023, consisting of four full-day workshops and four two-hour after school sessions. During the PLs, teachers learned about three NGSS storyline units that included the use of a programmable sensor system for data collection, reflected on their classroom implementations of these units, and provided feedback for revisions of the units.
Throughout the year of PL activities, researchers and teachers engaged in activities intended to build a relationship based on mutual trust and learning (Brown & Allen, 2021). Just as the teachers learned about implementing storyline units, researchers learned about the implementation contexts by engaging in regular classroom observations and communications with the teachers. During the school year, the five teachers implemented two week-long different storyline units. Each unit embedded SEETs after two lessons. These were administered to students via an online form and included questions asking about their demographics (gender, ethnicity, and home language), science identity, and classroom contributions (see Table 1).
This study focuses on activities during two different PL workshops in which teachers analyzed SEET data collected from their students and engaged in structured reflective discussions. During both PL discussions, one researcher first presented anonymized aggregated and disaggregated visualizations of student responses to each SEET question, modeling how she read, made sense of the data, and drew implications about student learning. Teachers next reviewed SEET data from their individual classrooms and then partnered with another teacher to discuss data using guided discussion prompts. Finally, all participated in a large group discussion.
Table 1
Exit Ticket Items Completed by Students
Construct Question Response options
Identity I felt like a scientist when we used the sensor system I felt like an engineer when we used the sensor system
Yes/No Yes/No Classroom
Contributions
When investigating the sensors …(select one answer) I shared an idea and it influenced the class I shared an idea but it did not influence the class I did not share an idea
When investigating the sensors …(select one answer)
Someone shared an idea and it influenced the class Someone shared an idea but it didn’t influence the class No one else shared an idea
I figured out something that helped us answer the questions we asked
Yes/No
Data sources and analysis
Two data sources were used for this study. The first was SEET data collected from the five teachers’ students (n=757) during their storyline implementations. These data were represented as bar graphs, showing frequencies, percentages, and means of responses at both the aggregate and individual teacher levels. Data disaggregated by gender were also shown. The second data source was video recordings and transcripts of small and large group discussions about the SEET data during the two PL sessions. Using thematic analysis, we collaboratively viewed the PL discussions then used open coding to develop, modify, and apply inductive codes. Finally, we condensed codes to distill overarching themes.
Findings
Theme 1: SEET data challenged teacher beliefs about student science identities
Across all teachers, the SEET data frequencies showed that more boys than girls reported feeling like scientists or engineers during the units. This finding challenged some teachers’ views of their instructional practices. For
example, one high school teacher (Derek) noted that “probably the girls contributed as much or more during the class period, in my opinion…But they didn't walk away saying that they felt like a scientist or engineer.” The data from his class revealed a tension for Derek as his intuition was that girls contributed more during classroom discussions and he appeared to associate contributing to classroom discussions with developing a positive scientific identity. However, the SEET data revealed that this was not always the case.
Another high school teacher, Eric, was also surprised at the differences between his boys’ and girls’
responses, concluding that “there's a gender disparity…is there something in my class that… that promotes that?
Is there something I need to change?” In this way, the SEET data enabled Eric to locate a troubling disparity and prompted him to consider how to better support gender equity in his teaching practices.
Examining the SEET data also prompted the teachers to unpack factors that may lead to science identity formation. One teacher wondered if it mattered if students were learning in a classroom versus a lab and whether students might feel more like scientists if they were wearing goggles, gloves, or white coats. Another surmised that professional quality tools might also support students’ science identity development. In contrast, Derek offered that students might feel less like a scientist when they are in the middle of an investigation or when they are wrestling with uncertainty. Thus, this teacher suggested that the timing and location of SEET administration may affect students’ responses.
Teachers also discussed instructional practices that might further influence students’ science identity development, from using content vocabulary to providing students with knowledge about careers in science and engineering. Finally, teachers proposed ways to adapt the storyline units to help students see the connections between practices highlighted in the storylines to the practices of real-world scientists and engineers.
Theme 2: SEET data provided insights into perceptions of classroom contributions
The aggregate SEET data showed that many students felt that either they did not contribute to classroom discussions or that if they did contribute, it did not make an impact. Surprised by this data, teachers brainstormed the many social components that could lead to these responses, including students feeling that they are ignored or having low levels of comfort sharing with others.
One middle school teacher, Naomi, who taught the same students all year, was able to compare her students’ SEET data collected in August and December. Her early data confirmed her observations that students hardly talked during class discussions in August, but that by December she felt they had made great strides in their levels of contributions. By comparing her two sets of data, Naomi’s efforts towards increasing student participation were validated.
Finally, teachers reflected on the difference between students’ perceptions around making contributions and feeling that their contributions are valued. As Naomi pointed out, “I heard a lot of my kids share information, but they might not have thought about it…as being valuable.” The SEET data allowed teachers to recognize a misconception that can arise through simply observing their own class: assuming that students who contribute also feel that their contributions are valued. This tension is important for teachers to recognize as not only should their classroom discourse strategies encourage student contributions but should do so in ways that demonstrate how and why their contributions matter.
Conclusion and implications
In this paper, we sought to understand how student exit ticket data, viewed as a boundary object crossing between teachers, students, and researchers, helped teachers reflect upon the diversity of their students’ science classroom experiences. We found that SEET data created a shared reference object, serving as a locus for discussions between researchers and teachers and helped each group understand more about their different priorities and goals.
In this way, these discussions helped further develop reciprocal relationships between researchers and teachers where all perspectives were valued.
Having a researcher first demonstrate strategies for making sense of the SEET data and present potential implications for inquiry science instruction provided a model for teachers to examine their own classroom data.
Teachers saw how their teaching contributed to research and how researchers analyze and use student data. The discussion questions encouraged teachers to think about what the data meant for themselves and their students, and also provided a means to provide feedback to researchers about lesson design.
Whether teachers found that their own intuitions about students were challenged (Derek) or validated (Naomi) by examining their SEET data, analyzing the data with peers allowed teachers to compare and contrast their data in a non-judgmental manner and tease out the contextual differences that may impact their students’
experiences. These kinds of interactions can help teachers grow their own practice.
Furthermore, teachers were able to build collective expertise around supporting science identity development and fostering students’ classroom contributions in equitable ways. The reflective discussions enabled teachers to bring in their various perspectives toward understanding students’ experiences, an important characteristic of effective data use (Wayman & Jimerson, 2014). These types of reflective interactions with peers are integral for teachers who wish to learn to implement challenging instructional practices (Penuel et al., 2010).
This study highlights that PL designed to support teachers’ in interpreting and using student experience data should involve critical, guided reflection involving facilitators and peers. By structuring PL activities that included modeling by a researcher and engaging teachers in two stages of guided reflection around their individual student data, teachers had the opportunity to both validate and challenge their own observations and intuition about their students’ experiences.
References
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., and Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus ‘being’ a scientist: examining 10/11-year-old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Sci. Educ. 94, 617–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20399
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Brown, S., & Allen, A. (2021). The interpersonal side of research-practice partnerships. The Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 20–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27083830
Carlone, H. & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: science identity as an analytic lens. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237 Dodman, S.L., & DeMulder, E.K., View, J.L., Stribling, S., & Brusseau, S. (2023). “I knew it was a problem
before, but did I really?”: Engaging teachers in data use for equity. Journal of Educational Change, 55, 407-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09477-z
Fowler, K., Windschitl, M., & Richards, J. L. (2019). Exit Tickets: Understanding students, adapting instruction, and addressing equity. The Science Teacher, 86(8), 18-26.
Gendreau Chakarov, A., Biddy, Q., Hennessy Elliott, C., & Recker, M. (2021). The Data Sensor Hub (DaSH): A physical computing system to support middle school inquiry science instruction. Sensors, 21(18), 6243.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., & Frank, K. A. (2010). The alignment of the informal and formal supports for school reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57–95.
Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research-practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1-2), 182-197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988334
Raza, A., Sumner, T., & Penuel, W. (2024). The science student electronic exit ticket (SEET) system:
Visualizations to help teachers notice and reflect on classroom inequalities. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.8199
Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T. A., & Penuel, W. R. (2021). Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. Jrnl of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 805-829.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, B., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing technology-related teacher professional development designs: A multilevel study of teacher and student impacts.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 421-444.
Watkins, J., & Manz, E. (2022). Characterizing pedagogical decision points in sense‑making conversations motivated by scientific uncertainty. Science Education, 106(6), 1408-1441.
Wayman, J. C., & Jimerson, J. B. (2014). Teacher needs for data-related professional learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 25-34.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (Award No. 1742053, No. 2019805 and No.
1742046) and the James S. McDonnell Foundation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the funding organizations. We thank our participating teachers.
