teacher/scientist partnership develops a simulated … · laboratory/middle-school partnership to...

ABSTRACT

National science education standards emphasizeactively engaging students in developing their abilitiesin and understanding of scientific inquiry as a way tolearn important concepts in the earth sciences and otherdisciplines. Too few high-quality instructional tools,based on the national standards, currently exist thatmodel this type of activity for sixth-grade students.

To promote this approach, we created a nationallaboratory/middle-school partnership to develop ahands-on, inquiry-based research project related to flashfloods in southeastern Washington State. The project,conducted during the 2003-2004 school year, built on themiddle-school Catastrophic Events module developedby the National Science Resources Center. Seventeenstudent research teams deepened their understanding ofgeology, hydrology, and meteorology and applied thisunderstanding as they analyzed and evaluated data theycollected. The student teams wrote technical reports andcreated posters that synthesized the data and presentedconclusions and recommendations based on theirfindings. The project models a successful approach fordeveloping an inquiry-based earth science project andcreating a meaningful partnership between schools andscientists.

INTRODUCTION

A major goal of middle-school earth science education isfor students to develop a holistic understanding of thegeosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere(NRC, 1996). But, until recently, few standards-basedinstructional resources related to earth sciences wereavailable to actively engage middle-school students inscientific inquiry as a way to understand these conceptsand develop problem-solving skills. Understandingconcepts and developing problem-solving skills are keysteps in achieving science literacy (NSRC, 2000).

Recently, under the auspices of the NationalAcademies and the Smithsonian Institution, the NationalScience Resources Center (NSRC) published"Catastrophic Events," an earth science module formiddle schools (NSRC, 2000). This module, part of theNSRC's Science and Technology Concepts for MiddleSchools (STC/MS) program, was developed based onthe national science education standards (NRC, 1996). Itfocuses on hands-on, inquiry-based teaching andlearning. The goal of the Catastrophic Events module isto capture students' curiosity about the world by

• engaging them directly with natural phenomena, thetools of science, real-world problems, andtechnological design challenges

• building on their prior knowledge and experiencesand allowing them to apply problem-solvingstrategies in new contexts

• providing opportunities for them to test procedures,collect and analyze data, use data to supportconclusions, and communicate findings

• developing the skills and knowledge necessary toopen paths to careers in science and technology

• fostering positive attitudes toward science (NSRC,2000).

As national laboratory scientists and scienceeducators, our goal was to develop a pilot project basedon this module that would provide "authentic roles" forscientists to engage in and add value to the teaching andlearning of middle-school science in Washington State.We wanted the project to enrich, enhance, and elaborateon the NSRC's curriculum, not substitute for it. Our aimwas to 1) create an activity that provided students with away to apply the knowledge and skills they learned inthe Catastrophic Events module using a hands-on,inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning; 2) helpthe teacher rigorously assess student learning; and 3)develop a meaningful scientist, teacher, studentpartnership. Our objectives support science educationreform efforts and guidelines that have been developedfor achieving science literacy, including solutionsproposed by research organizations such as the NationalScience Teachers Association (NSTA) (Bybee, 2002),Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning(Krueger and Sutton, 2001), American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS, 2000, 1998, 1993),Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment (Marzano et al., 2001), National ResearchCouncil (Bransford et al., 2004), and NSRC (1997).

REFORMING SCIENCE EDUCATION

The need to improve science literacy and implementscience education programs is well recognized by thescientific community, local, state, and national leaders.Krueger and Sutton (2001) reported that more than 400science education reform documents have beenpublished since 1970. The National Science Foundation,American Association for the Advancement of Science,Smithsonian, and the National Academies all haveinitiated programs aimed at reforming science educationto increase the science literacy of students (NSRC, 2000;NRC, 1996; AAAS, 1993; and Rutherford and Ahlgren,1990). In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

522 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 5, November, 2005, p. 522-530

Teacher/Scientist Partnership Develops a Simulated NaturalDisaster Scenario to Enhance Student LearningSigne Wurstner Natural Resources Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999

MSIN K9-36, Richland, WA 99352, [email protected]

Cheryl Herr Pioneer Middle School, 450 Bridge St., Walla Walla, WA 99362,[email protected]

Gregg Andrews Business Support Services, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999MSIN K6-64, Richland, WA, [email protected]

Kathy Feaster Alley Science and Engineering Education, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O.Box 999 MSIN K6-64, Richland, WA, [email protected]

(Public Law 107-110) promotes increased achievement in science and mathematics education.

The authors of the national science educationstandards envision reforming science education bychanging the current emphases on how science is learnedand taught. That means changing the emphases inteaching, professional development, assessment,content, program, and in the educational system itself.All these changes are expected to encourage students toachieve higher levels of science literacy (Bybee, 1997).The content standards, for example, outline changes inemphases in learning and teaching to promote use of theinquiry approach so that

• teachers place more emphasis on activities thatinvestigate and analyze science questions rather thanon activities that demonstrate and verify sciencecontent

• students conduct scientific investigations overextended periods of time rather than only during oneclass period

• students explain science rather than answer questionsabout science content (NRC, 1996).

Table 1 presents additional examples of changes inlearning and teaching emphases outlined in the nationalscience education standards.

Although reforming science education is a nationalendeavor, many states have developed their ownimprovement efforts. In Washington, for example,community and state leaders have created apublic/private partnership called the Washington StateLeadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform(LASER) project. The LASER project is a multi-facetedscience education reform model for the state. Eightinterconnected elements comprise the model: 1) astrategic plan for science education reform; 2)professional development; 3) curriculum; 4) national andstate standards; 5) student and program assessment; 6)materials support; 7) administrative and communitysupport; and 8) shared vision and goals (Figure 1). Theproject helps school districts initiate, implement, andsustain standards-based, inquiry-centered scienceeducation in grades K-8. The Office of theSuperintendent of Public Instruction, Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory, and the Pacific Science Center leadthe effort.

Washington is one of eight states participating in thenational LASER project, which was initiated by theNSRC. The National Academies and the Smithsonianoperate the NSRC. The National Science Foundationoriginally funded the LASER project through a grant tothe NSRC. LASER's national goal over a five-year periodwas to involve 300 school districts, 27,000 teachers, andapproximately 1 million students in the project.Washington's long-term goal is to serve all 296 schooldistricts in the state and teach 19,500 teachers how toreform science education by applying the LASER model.

The Walla Walla School District, where wedeveloped the pilot project, is one of more than 100

Wurstner et al. - Simulated Natural Disaster Scenario to Enhance Student Learning 523

Less Emphasis On More Emphasis OnActivities that demonstrate and verify science content Activities that investigate and analyze science questionsInvestigations confined to one class period Investigations over extended periods of timeProcess skills out of context Process skills in contextIndividual process skills such as observation or inference Multiple process skillsmanipulative, cognitive, procedural

Getting an answer Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising anexplanation

Science as exploration and experiment Science as argument and explanationProviding answers to questions about science content Explaining scienceIndividuals and groups of students analyzing andsynthesizing data without defending a conclusion

Groups of students analyzing and synthesizing data afterdefending conclusions

Doing a few investigations to leave time to cover largeamounts of data

Investigation to develop understanding, ability, value ofinquiry, and knowledge of science content

Concluding inquiries with the result of the experiment Applying the results of experiments to scientific argumentsand explanations

Managing materials and equipment Managing ideas and informationPrivate communication of student ideas and conclusions toteacher

Public communication of student ideas and work toclassmates

Table 1. Changes in emphases to promote inquiry in science education (modified from table on page 113of NRC, 1996).

Figure 1. The eight-pronged NSRC model for scienceeducation reform is intended to help school districtsinitiate, implement, and sustain standards-based,inquiry-centered science education in grades K-8.

districts currently participating in the Washington StateLASER project. As a LASER school district, Walla Walladesigned a plan to improve their science educationprogram so that more students can meet Washington'sscience standards. Their plan included 1) usingstandards-based, inquiry-oriented instructionalmaterials (like the Catastrophic Events module); 2)providing professional development for teachers andadministrators; 3) assessing student learning; and 4)involving community partners in ways that improve theteaching and learning of science in elementary andmiddle schools.

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

As a community partner, Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory (PNNL) worked with a sixth-grade teacher atPioneer Middle School in Walla Walla to design,implement, and evaluate a "culminating project"onethat would allow students to demonstrate knowledgegained from being taught the Catastrophic Eventsmodule during the year. Two PNNL scientists (ahydrogeologist and a meteorologist) met with theteacher from May to September 2003 to brainstorm anactivity that would mimic how a scientist conductsresearch; motivate students; be something the teachercould learn and repeat (the goal was for this to berepeatable); present a range of technical concepts toengage all students at the appropriate cognitive and skilllevels; and encourage team work. We investedapproximately 200 hours in the design phase of theproject, which is based on the Catastrophic Eventsmodule.

Critical to our success was the selection of partnerswhose personalities, subject matter expertise, experienceworking with students, and commitment to creating apositive learning environment were complementary.Having the up-front time and willingness to worktogether to understand and clarify one another'smisconceptions and provide hands-on instruction set thestage for compatible give-and-take and problem-solvingthroughout the partnership experience. Thus, a teachertrained predominantly in language arts paired withscientists resulted in a strong team capable of designing a

workable, age-appropriate program and technicalmaterials.

Having students work in teams is an importantstrategy in the Catastrophic Events module (NSRC,2000). Students working in small groups can learn fromeach other by sharing ideas, discoveries, and skills, inmuch the same way that collaborative research teamsconduct scientific studies. Collaborative learning alsorequires students to rely on each other, be accountablefor doing their share of the work, develop leadershipskills, manage conflict, and assess team functioning(Felder and Brent, 1999).

We identified a fictional research scenario in whichstudent teams would analyze the risk of flash floods atfour sites near Walla Walla: 1) South Fork of the WallaWalla River at Harris Park, 2) Mill Creek Road at TigerCanyon, 3) Tucannon River near Camp Wooten, and 4)North Fork of the Touchet River near the Bluewood SkiArea (Figure 2). The teacher suggested these sites, alldifferent in their settings, as locations that would befamiliar to students. The use of real-life settings and localflash flood history was an important design element thathelped capture student interest in the project. The teamswere asked to rank the sites from best (lowest flash floodrisk) to worst (highest flash flood risk) and recommend,in a technical report, the best site at which to build ayear-round camp for students.

This scenario was well received because it was realand involved the students' own environment. The WallaWalla area has a history of flash floods, the most recentmajor event being in 1996. Also, researchers have foundthat natural disasters provide a good theme forinquiry-based teaching and learning because theymotivate students as "real mysteries" of nature to explore(Gutierrez et al., 2002; Zebrowski, 2001).

The scenario also allowed for building on concepts ofgeology, hydrology, and meteorology described in themodule; provided an opportunity for professionaldevelopment for the teacher; and motivated thestudents.

IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT

When school started in August 2003, the teacher beganteaching the Catastrophic Events unit and introduced theuse of journals in which students documented what theylearned. She enhanced the unit by teaching someadditional concepts necessary for the students to conducttheir research. These concepts were topography(including calculating slope from a topographic map);site evacuation (including using local maps to identifyexit strategies for emergency response); stream channeldynamics (including using an in-class simulated streamchannel model to understand how streamflow ismeasured); and the effects of the Ice Age floods on thelocal geology (based on review of local area maps). Theteacher created data sheets to supplement theCatastrophic Events unit and introduce the additionalconcepts. The PNNL scientists supported the teacherduring her development of these data sheets byproviding concept-specific technical input anddeveloping and reviewing science-based materials. Thisincluded providing hands-on training in navigatingcomplicated science web sites to find the required data,providing the equation and steps for calculating slopefrom a topographic map, and answering technicalquestions about science concepts.


Figure 2. Locations of sites proposed for flash floodrisk evaluation.

In addition to developing science content, theteacher recognized that the students needed to betterdevelop their writing skills before taking on thechallenge of writing a technical report. She introducedopportunities for the students to write descriptiveparagraphs and non-fiction paragraphs using the JaneSchaffer Writing Program (Schaffer, 1995), an approvedcurriculum in the Walla Walla School District. Thewriting exercises were specifically designed to occurduring the entire course of the Catastrophic Events unitfor two reasons: to allow students to write about theirknowledge while it was fresh in their minds, and to breakup the tasks so students had a variety of activities goingon at one time throughout the project (to keep theirinterest).

While the teacher prepared students to understandflash floods, the PNNL scientists continued technicalplanning for the scenario. They prepared specificgeographic site descriptions based on maps anddetermined which data sources students would need toconduct the flash flood risk analysis for each potentialcamp site. An important aspect of this part of the processwas identifying actual data that scientists use thatstudents would understand. The goal was to use realdata, presented at the students' cognitive level. Thescientists and teacher communicated frequently viaphone and email to ensure this goal would be achieved.They also visited the identified sites together to shareobservations and take pictures that could later be sharedwith the students.

The teacher suggested it would be a good idea for thestudents to meet the scientists before beginning theculminating project to provide an opportunity for thescientists and students to develop a personal relationshipand create excitement around the project. So, inNovember, the scientists visited the classroom andpresented mini-lessons to introduce various geologicand meteorologic concepts. Each topic was related to theflash flood scenario. For example, the students learnedabout temperature, precipitation, weather forecasting,and the types of precipitation patterns that cause flashfloods.

PRESENTING THE SCENARIO

In February 2004, the teacher created 17 student researchteams, each composed of four or five students. Teams

selected a group nameranging from the ScientificPooches and Nerd Herd to Led Zepplin and the PinkPeacocksand created their own logos (Figure 3). Theteacher was careful to ensure that each group included amix of students with different interests and strengthsand not just a group of friends. The goal was to achieve abalanced group of students with individual strengths inmath, science, writing, and art.

At this time, the scientists visited the classroom tointroduce the research project scenario. The scenario wasintroduced via an invitation letter from Take-A-Hike,Inc., a fictional company "owned" by the scientists. Theletter (Figure 4) stated that Take-a-Hike, Inc. wished to"contract" with Pioneer Scientific Consultants, Inc. (thestudent research teams) to help the company select a sitenear Walla Walla where they could build a year-roundcamp for students. To provide the sense of a trueclient/consultant relationship, the invitation letterprovided the students with specific expectations andaccompanying deadlines. Four attachments wereprovided with the invitation letter:

• Attachment 1 contained a geographic description ofeach site, including the location on the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, and thenearest stream gaging station.

• Attachment 2 provided students with expectations fortheir report. We specified the report format andexplained the content for each section.

• Attachment 3 provided information about the types ofmeteorologic and geologic/hydrologic data needed


Figure 3. Examples of team logos designed andproduced by students.

Figure 4. Take-A-Hike, Inc. invitation letter.

for the project and where the students might begin tolook for these data. We provided website addressesand fairly detailed instructions for navigatingspecified websites.

• Attachment 4 described the expectations for the posterthat was to be the final product of the project.

The students wrote down the facts and figuresderived from their daily research on the real-life projectin their journals, and used them to create charts, datatables, and graphs to help analyze the site-specific flashflood risks. They subsequently used their journal entriesto write (then type) their final group project reports.

In addition to keeping their journals, the studentswere now also required to inform Take-a-Hike, Inc. oftheir progress by providing weekly reports via email.The weekly reports to the scientists gave studentsownership in the project, held them accountable forcollecting data on a schedule, and created peer pressurefor staying on task. It also provided a forum for them toask the scientists questions. The scientists made a pointto suggest where the students could find their ownanswers, rather than merely providing direct answers.Responses such as "Have you thought about this? Haveyou thought about that?" were common. The studentsalso were provided a deadline for their final reports anda date for a poster session at which they would presenttheir results.

Over the next three weeks, students collectedmeteorological, geologic, and hydrologic data (aminimum of 10 hours per class). Meteorological dataincluded average precipitation for all months of the year;one-day maximum precipitation for each month;average snowfall amounts for each month; maximumsnow depth; and mean monthly number ofthunderstorms. Student teams gathered these data fromthe Western Regional Climate Center website(www.wrcc.dri.edu/climsum.html and www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/lcd.html).

For each site, students also collected geologic andhydrologic data. Specific data requirements included thefollowing:

• Slope and topography. This required students todescribe the topography and calculate the slope alonga stream and along a line perpendicular to the streamfrom topographic maps.

• Geologic setting. Students gathered information ongeologic setting from historical photographs andgeologic maps. They were also encouraged to use anypersonal knowledge they might have of any of thesites.

• Historical flood frequencies and magnitudes. Students had to use the Internet and other resources such as theWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife and theU.S. Forest Service to determine how often the streamsnear these sites flooded in the past and how big thefloods had been.

• Streamflow rates and hydrographs. Students accessedthese data from the USGS website for surface waterdata for the nation (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw). Students used the website to find theyear when streamflow was highest and determine thevalue for streamflow during that year for streamslocated near each proposed site. We also instructedstudents to choose a year for which they had collectedmeteorological data and extract the streamflow versustime for that given year (a hydrograph). This

information allowed them to compare streamflow andprecipitation data and draw conclusions about therelationship between the two based on analyzing thesedata.

• Drainage area of the watershed. These data, acquiredfrom each gaging station website, provided thestudents with a sense of the total land areacontributing water to each stream.

After collecting these data, student teams wererequired to graph their results and interpret the data.During the course of this exercise, the teacher discoveredthat constructing graphs was a difficult concept for thestudents to grasp. Therefore, she determined that tableswere a better approach for students to understand andcompare the collected data. Each team created 10 datatables. This activity took 5 to 10 hours of class time.

EVALUATING THE PROJECT

The teacher evaluated student knowledge and skillsgained during the project by regularly reviewing studentjournal entries as well as the written technical report andposter session required by the Take-a-Hike, Inc."contract." The journals provided evidence of eachstudent's individual level of work on paragraph-writingassignments as well as data collection, organization,analysis, and interpretation to support their rankordering of sites for the ultimate site selection. Theteacher reviewed the journals to assess each student'sdemonstrated growth in writing paragraphs, organizinginformation, analyzing data, calculating slope, rankingvariables, and summarizing information for reportingpurposes. Journal entries also indicated how the studentsworked as a group, sharing research results from theirindividual efforts and keeping the information alltogether during the project.

Student teams began writing their reports at the endof February and finished them during the first two weeksof March. In each technical report, students wererequired to include an analysis of the meteorology andgeology/topography of the four proposed sites (studentswere given an option to organize this section by site or bytopic), a ranking of sites from best (lowest flash floodrisk) to worst (highest flash flood risk), and arecommendation for the best place to locate the studentcamp. This activity required 20 hours minimum of classtime. Students eagerly spent additional time writing andillustrating their reports before school, after school, andduring the lunch period, which provides evidence oftheir motivation.

In mid-March, student teams presented their resultsand their reports to the client (i.e., the scientists). Eachteam met with the scientists in the school library. Thescientists asked students about their rankings of the sitesand reasons for selecting the best and worst sites. Thelevel of knowledge the students had gained fromworking on the project was impressive. The studentsshowed a wide range of understanding of the conceptsand demonstrated how they applied them to the project.They explained how they came to their conclusions usingclearly reasoned evaluation of the data they hadcollected.

The scientists also took this opportunity to askstudents about their experience participating in theproject: What part of the project did you enjoy the most?What was the most challenging part? Did every teammember contribute to the project? Most teams said they


enjoyed collecting the data and making graphs the best,found writing to be the hardest part, and learned thevalue of being on a diverse team that allowed for adivision of labor based on individual talents. Onestudent said, "It was kind of fun. At first I was bummedbecause I thought it would be boring, but at the end I wasproud." During their presentations, the students showedobvious pride in having organized and presented neatand thorough project reports and in having learned tocompromise when working through problems together.

Figure 5 shows an example of the first page of astudent report. Based on the factors used to evaluate thesites, it was apparent early on that two sites werefavorable, and the other two were unfavorable. Thismade the problem more real in the sense that there wasno obvious correct answer, forcing students to weigh thefactors by their importance for determining the risk offlash flooding. Ten teams selected Site 4, the North Forkof the Touchet River near the Bluewood Ski Area, as thebest site to build a camp because it had the lowest risk offlash flooding. This conclusion was based on their data,which showed the site had low precipitation; low slope,and therefore, less chance for landslides and mudslides;high elevation; and many evacuation routes. Most otherteams selected Site 3, Tucannon River near CampWooten, as their number one site.

Nearly all teams selected Site 1, the South Fork of theWalla Walla River at Harris Park, as the worst site. Thissite had the steepest slopes, and therefore, the highestlandslide and mudslide risk; high precipitation; noescape routes; and a history of flash floods. Studentteams based their conclusions on slope, precipitation,snowfall, snow depth, flood history, and escape routes.See Figures 6 and 7 for examples of student data tables.Figure 8 shows an example from a student group reportof the rank ordering of the sites. The rank order is the


Figure 5. Sample page from a student report. Figure 6. Sample student data table showing the top10 floods at each of the 4 sites. Using this table,students compared flood history at each site todetermine which sites had a tendency to flood andthe magnitude of the flood.

Figure 7. Sample student data table showing averagetotal monthly snowfall at each proposed site. Fromthis table, students ascertained which sites havemore potential water (“stored” in the form of snow)that could contribute to a flash flood.

result of the students collecting, organizing, andanalyzing relevant site data.

For two weeks following the completion of technicalreports, the student teams created posters thatsynthesized study results from their reports. They spentbetween 10 and 20 hours creating posters, depending ongroup decision-making skills and their ability tocompromise. Again, the students worked extra hoursoutside of normal class time to make sure their posterswere attractive and informational. The posters weredisplayed at an Open House for other teachers, schooladministrators, parents, and the press. See Figures 9through 12 for photos of student posters.

REFLECTIONS

We conclude that this project provides a successfulmodel for enhancing student and teacher understandingof earth science concepts and building problem-solvingskills. The pilot project was a success based on evidencefrom student reports, posters, and conversations. Thepartnership provided for an enriched experience forstudents that would not have been possible without allparties involved. It was clear that involving "third-partyexperts" (scientists) added to the reality of the scenarioand heightened student interest. Student engagementpromoted student-driven learning that made themresponsible for their success.

Creating student teams was successful not onlybecause of the opportunity for students to share

knowledge and information, but for them to learn thevalue of working with other students who weren't theirfriends. The team approach allowed all students to besuccessful within their individual potentials. Thescenario was flexible and accommodated all levels oflearners. All teams rose to the challenge of meeting theexpectations of the project, and some teams went aboveand beyond, producing more sophisticated graphs andconducting more in-depth analyses.

What made this project work? A national laboratorywilling to fund scientists' time to develop the project,scientists willing to invest the time, a supportive schooldistrict, a motivated teacher who was willing to see theproject through (and invest extra time), and genuineinterest of the students (and parents). One advantage forthe scientists was their familiarity with the CatastrophicEvents module from their participation in a professionaldevelopment workshop that teachers attended theprevious summer. From the teacher's perspective,having block classes (two 50-minute class periods back toback) and a subject-integrated (science and language


Figure 8. Example of student reasoning for rankingsites.

Figure 9. A student explains her poster to the WallaWalla Superintendent of Curriculum at the publiclyattended Open House.

Figure 10. A student explains her poster to PNNLscientists at the publicly attended Open House.

arts) classroom provided an environment that facilitatedthe project's success.

What did the students think about the project? Inpost-project interviews, most students said the projectwasn't easy, but they learned a lot, and were excited tohave had a chance to work on a big project and becreative. Would they do it again? Almost all studentsinterviewed said yes. In fact, several students, havingmoved on to the seventh grade, came back to visit theteacher and insisted that the next class "absolutely get todo this project," so they could come back as assistants tohelp their younger schoolmates. One student said, "Atfirst, I thought it was going to be very hard, but it turnedout to be easy. As soon as we learned how to read themaps and use the Internet for research, it became simple.I would do it again and I would be glad to help Mrs. Herrwith the new sixth graders."

In conducting a project such as this, it is importantfor everyone to understand their roles. The scientistswere to be resources and feed technical information tothe teacher, not be the classroom instructors; the teacher'srole was to synthesize the information that was providedher, filter it for her students, and guide them insuccessfully achieving project goals. In a "lessonslearned" discussion, the teacher suggested one importantimprovement would be to give students more time tocomplete the project.

Overall, this pilot project went smoothly. By the endof the school year, other sixth-grade teachers at PioneerMiddle School had already requested to participate inthe project. The project was also featured on KCTS PBS(Seattle) in a program called "The Learning Curve -Closing the Achievement Gap," and the Walla WallaSchool Board took an interest in the project, invitingseveral of the students to report on their experience at aschool board meeting. Although there is no way todirectly assess the impact on, for example, the requiredstatewide assessment for science (the WashingtonAssessment of Student Learning or WASL), the teacherobserved surprisingly high student improvement in thetypes of higher learning skills described in Bloom'sTaxonomy (analyzing and synthesizing information)and the writing skills needed to perform well on theWASL test.

NEXT STEPS

We knew from the onset that we wanted to start small,then branch out based on our success and withcontinuous improvement. The pilot project wasexpanded successfully during the 2004-2005 school yearto include all sixth graders at Pioneer Middle School andlessons learned from the first year (including improvedrubrics for report development and team presentations).Involving additional teachers introduced new ideas,such as the use of summary data sheets to compare thevariables for all sites and the inclusion of student notesbelow data tables to explain their contents for morecomplete reporting of findings. Parent volunteers helpedinterview student teams during the final presentations oftheir reports and identified other technical partners inthe community who could help develop additionalprojects focusing on other Catastrophic Event topicssuch as earthquakes or volcanoes. We also discussedhow pre-assessing knowledge of the subject matter, thentesting knowledge gained from each module after projectcompletion might enable us to measure observedlearning quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

This is a model used by PNNL scientists for theproject, but we envision that other scientists throughoutthe region can partner with schools in the same way.Other experts, such as university professors, employeesof federal agencies, or local TV station meteorologistscould be recruited to participate in a project such as thisone. The next step is to prepare a package of materials toprovide to additional teachers so that they can replicate


Figure 11. Sample student poster recommending theselection of Site 3.

Figure 12. Sample student poster describing howstudents performed their risk analysis of the foursites.

and expand upon its success. We expect to grow themodel, merging the best of diverse ideas, subject matterexpertise, and teaching styles to further enhance studentlearning. Over time, we hope that this kind ofpartnership-based activity will become a fixture of thescience curriculum in eastern Washington andcontribute to the community's full-share partnershipwith local schools in science education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the inspiration of Jeff Estesfor providing the vision for and support of thispartnership. In addition, we'd like to thank GeorganneO'Connor and Susan Ennor for providing text andeditorial comments, Peggy Willcuts, Walla Walla DistrictScience Coordinator for K-8, and the AdministrationTeam at Pioneer Middle School for their invaluablesupport of this project. This project was made possiblewith funds for LASER through the Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory, operated by Battelle for the U.S.Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.

REFERENCES

20 USC 6301 et seq. 2002, No Child Left Behind Act of2001, Public Law 107-110.

American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), 2000, Designs for Science Literacy, NewYork, Oxford University Press, 300 p.

American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), 1998, Blueprints for Reform, New York,Oxford University Press, 350 p.

American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy,New York, Oxford University Press, 418 p.

Bybee, R.W., editor, 2002, Learning Science and theScience of Learning, Arlington, Virginia, NSTAPress, 151 p.

Bybee, R.W., 1997, Achieving Scientific Literacy fromPurposes to Practices, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Heinemann, 265 p.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R., Donovan,M.S., and Pellegrino, J. W., editors, 2004, How PeopleLearn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School,Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 374 p.

Felder, R., and Brent, R., 1999, How to improve teachingquality, Quality Management Journal, v. 6, p. 9-21.

Gutierrez, M., Coulter, B., and Goodwin, D.R., 2002,Natural disaster workshop integrating hands-onactivities, internet-based data, and GIS, Journal ofGeoscience Education, v. 50, p. 437-443.

Krueger, A., and Sutton, J., 2001, EDThoughts: What WeKnow About Science and Learning, Aurora,Colorado, Mid-Continent Research for Educationand Learning, 112 p.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., and Pollock, J., 2001,Classroom Instruction that Works: Research−BasedStrategies for Increasing Student Achievement,Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Supervision &Curriculum Development.

National Research Council (NRC), 1996, NationalScience Education Standards, Washington, D.C.,National Academy Press, 262 p.

National Science Resources Center (NSRC), 2000, Scienceand Technology for Middle Schools: CatastrophicEvents, Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution/The National Academies, 412 p.

National Science Resources Center (NSRC), 1997, Sciencefor All Children, Washington, D.C., NationalAcademy Press, 225 p.

Rutherford, F.J., and Ahlgren, A., 1990, Science for AllAmericans, New York, Oxford University Press.

Schaffer, J., 1995, Teaching the Multiparagraph Essay: ASequential Nine-Week Unit, San Diego, California,Jane Schaffer Publications.

Zebrowski, E. Jr., 2001, Natural disasters: A fascinatingapproach to scientific inquiry, Journal of CollegeScience Teaching, v. 30, p. 376-381.


Practical, creative, and innovative ideas for teaching geoscience

Name (print or type) Phone

Mailing Address Fax

City State Country Postal Code

E-mail

College/University Professor at

Pre-College Teacher at

Other at

Checks (US funds only) are payable to National Association of GeoscienceTeachers.Mail to: NAGT, 31 Crestview Dr., Napa, CA 94558 USA

Please charge my credit card for my membership fees Visa MC

Credit Card # Exp. Date Signature

The membership year runs from January through December, and members receive 5 issues of JGE per year. Subscrip-tions received after June 1 will begin receiving the Journal in January of the following year. Back issues are available for$15 each ($18 foreign).

*To qualify for student rate, indicate status below, and obtain verification from an NAGT member.

Undergraduate Graduate

Signature of NAGT member School

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Individual Subscription &Membership Rates (US Funds)

Regular USA $35 ___Outside USA $47 ___Student* USA $20 ___Student* outside USA $32 ___Retired NAGT member $30 ___

Library SubscriptionsRegular USA $75 ___Outside USA $87 _______New ____Renewal

teacher/scientist partnership develops a simulated … · laboratory/middle-school partnership to...

Documents