The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the implementation of Patterns Physics on teacher practice and beliefs about science teaching at the high school level. Two focus questions that influenced this study were: 1) How does this new
approach facilitate teacher classroom practices and beliefs? 2) Is this approach congruent with those expressed in A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013)?
This case study examined high school science teachers from District A, a district in which the Patterns Physics curriculum was initially developed and implemented at the 9th grade level in the 2012-2013 school year. This study participants were chosen due to their unique position of being part of the development of the Patterns curricula as well as being first adopters. Another key reason for this selection is that there has been a
significant investment in making the initiative work in District A. The district has funded teachers on special assignment (TOSAs) to organize and lead professional development, TOSAs have worked to improve the curriculum based on teacher feedback and resources and teachers have extensively collaborated to invest time and effort to implement and improve this initiative over time.
Compared with other large Physics First initiatives, this one was developed and supported by internal efforts within District A. This was not an initiative coming into the district from an outside, third-party entity such as has been the case in San Diego,
In addition, compared with other smaller Physics First initiatives that were developed within schools by an individual or small number of teachers, this initiative has been implemented district-wide with significant support and resources provided to support all teachers involved in the initiative. These reasons make the Patterns initiative in District A unique and worthy of study.
As mentioned above, data were collected in two phases. In phase one, a survey was completed by 32 high school science teachers in District A (participation rate=47%). In phase two, nine high school science teachers in District A who took the survey and volunteered to be interviewed participated in a 30-45 minutes individual interview (28% of survey respondents; 13% of teachers invited to participate).
In this chapter, I will first discuss the results and analysis from the first phase of the study, the Patterns Physics Impact Survey (PPIS), followed by a presentation of the findings from phase one. Next, I will present the results and analysis of the second phase, the interviews with nine District A science teachers, followed by the findings from phase two.
Results and Analysis
Phase One: Patterns Physics Impact Survey
Inspired by the NGSS Readiness Survey (Haag & Megowan, 2015), the Patterns Physics Impact Survey (Appendix A) was developed to investigate the impact of this Physics First initiative on teachers’ views of this instructional approach. In addition, this study sought to elicit teachers’ perceptions of impact of the Patterns curriculum on teachers’ confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices.
Finally, this survey sought to elicit data concerning teachers’ views and experiences about professional development associated with this educational reform effort.
The Patterns Physics Impact Survey (PPIS) was distributed to high school science teachers in District A via an email containing the invitation with a link to the web-based survey. The email was sent after I, or a proxy (I met with five schools and a proxy met with one school), met with each school’s science department to introduce the study, answer questions, and invite teachers to participate by completing the survey and participating in an individual interview. The formal invitation for participating in the interviews was placed at the end of the survey. Interested teachers opted into the interview and provided their contact information in the survey. The survey was anonymous except for the teachers who opted in to be interviewed at a later date.
The survey instrument is comprised of four main sections outlined in Table 10: Demographics, Physics First and Patterns Physics, the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices, and Professional Development. Specific survey item numbers are listed in the table. The next section outlines the demographics of the participants.
Topic Item Numbers
Demographics 2.1-2.3; 5.1-5.5
Physics First and Patterns Physics 2.4-2.15
NGSS Science and Engineering Practices 3.2-3.4; 4.1-3
Professional Development 4.1-4.3
.
Table 10
Demographics of District A Survey Participants. For this study, I used the
following information to define different characteristics of the participant recruitment sample:
• Building: The teachers’ school identifier, 6 different schools, labeled A-F; • Content expertise: Teachers self-identified their area(s) of content
expertise: physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, other; • Career band: Teachers indicated how many years they had been
teaching, which was categorized as follows: early-career = two to five years (there were no first-year teachers in the sample) of science teaching experience, mid-career = six-nineteen years of experience, and late-career = twenty-plus years of experience;
• Courses taught: Teachers identified which high school science courses they taught and categorized as follows: Patterns Physics, Patterns Other (either Patterns Biology or Patterns Chemistry); and Other (all other science courses).
As shown in Table 11, thirty-two District A high school science teachers completed the survey. At least two participants from each school participated and three participants did not identify a school (this item was optional). The science department in each school employed a range of six-to-fourteen teachers. Respondents self-identified their areas of science content expertise. Twenty-four teachers indicated expertise in physics; 17 in chemistry, 20 in biology, eight in earth science and six in other (this could be any other science content area). Respondents could choose more than one response.
Table 11 also depicts the number of teachers in each career band. Sixteen (50%) participants were mid-career teachers, eight (25%) were late career teachers, and seven (22%) were early-early career teachers with two-to-five years of experience. One respondent (3%) did not indicate their years of experience teaching science.
Table 12 depicts the science courses that each of the teachers taught and which Patterns professional development workshop(s) they attended. There are three Patterns workshops available: Patterns Physics, Patterns Biology, and Patterns Chemistry. These workshops were typically offered during the summer months. The date at which each
Table 11 Survey Respondents Building Number of Respondents Content Expertise* Number of Responses Career Band Number of Respondents Percent A 3 Physics 24 Early (2- 5) 7 22% B 5 Chemistry 17 Mid (6- 19) 16 50% C 7 Biology 20 Late (20+) 8 25%
D 5 Earth Science 8 Not
indicated 1 3% E 2 Other 6 F 7 Not indicated 3 Total 32 Total 32 100
teacher participated in the workshop was not collected but could have occurred at any point over the past six years.
At the time that the survey was administered (2017), 19 teachers taught Patterns Physics, 10 teachers taught either Patterns Biology or Patterns Chemistry, and three teachers taught science courses other than Patterns Biology, Patterns Chemistry, or Patterns Physics. In addition, the type of Patterns training—Patterns Physics, Patterns Chemistry, and Patterns Biology is listed. Since this study focused on teachers’
perceptions related to Patterns Physics, I combined the Patterns Chemistry and Patterns Biology categories into a category called Patterns Other.
In total, 25 of the 32 study participants who completed the survey had participated in the Patterns Physics Workshop. Of that total number of survey respondents, 14 had participated in the Patterns Physics Workshop alone while 11 respondents had
participated in both Patterns Physics and in either or both of the Patterns Chemistry and Patterns Biology workshops.
At the time of the survey, 14 of the 19 Patterns Physics teachers had only participated in the Patterns Physics workshop. In other words, 14 of the 19 teachers had not participated in a Patterns Chemistry or Patterns Biology workshop.
As indicated in Table 12, of those teaching Patterns Physics, twelve indicated that they used 80-100% of the curriculum, two used 60-79% of the curriculum, and four used 40-59% of the curriculum. One teacher did not indicate the percentage of the curriculum used in his or her courses.
Courses Taught Workshop Attendance
Number Percent Number Percent
Patterns Physics*
19 59% Patterns Physics Only 14 44%
Patterns Other 10 31% Patterns Physics and Patterns
Other
11 34%
Other 3 10% Patterns Other 6 19%
None 1 3%
Total 32 100% Total Workshops 32 100%
Total Patterns Physics 25 78%
*Of the Patterns Physics teachers, twelve used 80-100% of the curriculum, two used 60-79% of the curriculum, four used 40-59% of the curriculum, and one is unknown.
Another component of this study was to investigate the impact of professional development on teachers’ practice. One of the survey questions inquired about the amount of professional development each teacher had participated in over the past two years that was outside of the regular school district professional development activities. Of the 32 respondents, 25 (78%) responded “yes” to additional professional development outside of the school district, and seven responded “no” (22%). There were 23 “yes” respondents that estimated the number of hours of PD they had participated in. While there were six outliers with 100+ hours, the mean number of hours of PD, not including the outliers, was 32 hours with a standard deviation of 16 hours.
While the purpose or structure (e.g. one summer workshop for 32 hours, or four 8-hour sessions throughout the school year) was not indicated, a majority of teachers were pursuing PD outside of opportunities provided by their district. Again, due to the
Table 12
survey design, respondents provided data for two-years of PD. To give some context to these numbers, in a national sample of K12 teachers, over a 12-month period 26% of teachers participate in 33 or more hours of PD in their content area and 53% participate in 9-33 hours, and the remaining 21% with 0-8 hours (which may include PD offered by the districts) (NCES, 2012). Compared to the national sample indicating the number of PD hours taken in one-year, District A teachers likely partake in more PD than the average teacher in the national sample, particularly since the District A teachers did not include in-district provided PD in their estimates.
Survey item analysis
The demographic data provided context as to some of the qualities of the participants who took the Patterns Physics Impact Survey (PPIS). Here, I will address analysis of each section of the survey—Physics First and Patterns Physics, NGSS Science and Engineering Practices, and Professional Development.
Recall that the first set of survey items addressed teachers’ views on Patterns Physics and Physics First. The second set addressed teachers’ views and self-reported changes in confidence in engaging students in the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices. The third section addressed teachers’ views about what professional development and teaching experiences where most impactful to their understanding and/or instruction of the NGSS science and engineering practices.
Patterns Physics and Physics First. Teachers were asked the following: For a variety of reasons, high schools across the United States offer different science
sequences is best for students to learn science? The answers to this question can be found
in Figure 10. The most common response was the PCB sequence, with 19 (59%). The next most common response was both “the sequence does not matter” and “other,” with 5 (15.6%) responses each. Only three (9.4%) respondents indicated a preference for the BCP sequence.
Respondents were asked to provide a brief explanation for their choice. Here, I present Figure 10 that provides a summary of these responses for each of the sequence options, followed by a brief summary of the reasoning.
Figure 10. Preferred Course Sequence 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 9 % 59 % 59 % 59 % 59 % 59 % 59 % 59 % 59 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 % 16 %
Other sequence: For those who answered “other,” responses included:
• Integrated, bio, chem, physics but wish it weren’t so;
• I think developmental readiness is most important. I would like to see 9th grade; physics students choose Bio or chem. I see some students who could take STEM chemistry if they waited until Junior year;
• As always, it’s more about how it is done than the order. There are benefits to both…I personally miss our Integrated Science where students got a bit of each subject through their sophomore year;
• Earth Space Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics (optional); • Physical science, chemistry, biology, physics.
To summarize these choices, two respondents preferred an integrated approach at the 9th grade level and one respondent preferred a physical science class at the 9th grade level; which indicates that these teachers believe that some physics content is appropriate at the 9th grade level. Three of the respondents listed physics as a fourth-year course, which would be optional for students in this setting due to the state requirement for only three years of science. Two of the respondents provided reasoning that the developmental readiness of the student or how the class is taught is more important than the subject matter of the course.
DNM sequence: For those who answered, “the sequence did not matter,” there
were four relevant responses:
• I think that as long as students are receiving information on how to collect and analyze data and apply it to patterns, it doesn't matter which science sequence students take;
• I just feel that I cannot really state that learning science is sequence dependent. A good science course will stimulate student minds and make them want to engage in inquiry no matter where they start. I think that
logically physics makes the most sense, but not all students base their learning off of the physics foundation of content knowledge;
• Different interests should be allowed to explore the sciences at their own pace and order of choice. I do not believe that biology requires chemistry and
physics as prerequisites; I do believe that whatever course is tailored for freshmen will be of far lesser rigor in terms of math and complexity.
• Students should be able to take classes in whatever order they choose, perhaps trying out their first interest. If we want to get more kids interested in science, we need to provide high interest electives.
These responses can be broken down into two categories of reasoning. First is the idea that a good science course that engages students in scientific practices is independent of content. Second is the idea that students should be able to choose a course based on the student’s interests.
BCP sequence: For those who answered “Biology, Chemistry, Physics” as the
preferred course sequence, their reasoning was:
• I have noticed that an integrated approach worked best. For physical science, the ISP program seemed the most beneficial. I have found that physics first has dramatically decreased the interest in science for students who are borderline or struggle, rather than increase as promised;
• Biology isn't as math intensive and should theoretically be easier for 9th graders to do, especially if they've had biology content in middle school. Chemistry is the next most technical course and is at sophomore level. Physics is the most math- intensive and should be taken later.
One respondent mentioned the Integrated Science Program (that involves units on Biology, Chemistry and Physics in a one-year course) as the preferred sequence. Two respondents reported that since adopting Patterns Physics, they have observed a decrease in science interest amongst students who struggle in science. The second respondent indicated that math is a barrier for ninth grade students and therefore biology is “easier for ninth graders to do.”
PCB sequence. For those respondents who answered “Physics, Chemistry, Biology,”
the sequence matters, as in physics prepares students for chemistry, and then physics and chemistry prepare students for biology (ideas referenced in eight of the 17 responses).
The second most common response was that a physics course is appropriate in that it allows for hands-on, macroscopic activities that allow students to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering. One teacher indicated that these qualities made physics less abstract and more accessible to English as a Second Language students than other science content areas.
Several related teacher responses are listed here:
• Patterns physics is a great introductory course for freshmen. They learn the basics of high school science including inquiry and engineering design. They are taught to use data to make informed predictions, and they learn in the style of write claim evidence, reasoning. Chemistry continues improving these skills. By teaching chemistry before biology, students are able to understand the phenomenon we experience in more detail because they have already studied molecular properties and interactions. Biology is the ideal course to combine the three areas of high school science. At the junior year, the biology course can include more depth and detail because physics and chemistry have already been taught.
• When implemented correctly, and with full buy-in from faculty, physics provides a strong foundation for chemistry, which in turn supports biology. Students
should be able to engage in deeper meaning-building in biology (and chemistry) if they already have this foundation. Algebra-based physics offers more
opportunities for students to really confront their preconceptions about how the world works and understanding how to recognize and use patterns in nature can lead to a deeper understanding of further science disciplines. It makes sense to start with physics, because most of what we study in 9th grade is macroscopic and topics students deal with on a daily basis (motion, forces, energy). Plus, it sets students up to take even more advanced physics, but I'm a physics teacher, so... • Physics provides hands-on, visible and "feelable" experiences with nature that
students can easily relate to and allows them to strengthen their basic algebra skills within the context of their science studies. Chem[istry] is invisible, harder to conceptualize, and Biology requires keeping track of multiple, interdependent systems with a lot of memorization.
To expand on the question of which science sequence was best, a follow-up question asked whether teachers had changed their opinion since they had started teaching, and if so, why. Seventeen respondents (53%) had changed their opinon of the best science course sequence over their teaching careers. From that list, 12 had originally thought that the BCP sequence was best with nine now preferring the PCB sequence and three said that the sequence does not matter. Only one teacher indicated changing from an initial view that the PCB sequence was best to “other,” where they identify a preferred sequence to be integrated science at 9th grade, followed by chemistry, biology, and then physics.
Table 13 depicts the choice for Best Sequence in the categories Teaching
Location and teaching Experience Career Band. A chi-square analysis was done to see
if there were any significant differences between responses and the school in which they taught (Teaching Location) and their years of teaching experience (Career Band). The analysis shows that there were no significant differences in responses based on teaching location (2(18, N = 32) = 11.1, p = .89.) or years of experience (2(9, N = 32) =
Best Sequence Total BCP DNM Other PCB Teaching Location-coded* (School) Not indicated 0 0 1 2 3 A 0 1 0 2 3 B 0 0 1 4 5 C 1 1 0 5 7 D 1 1 1 2 5 E 0 0 0 2 2 F 1 2 2 2 7 Total 3 5 5 19 32
Teaching Experience** Not indicated 0 0 1 0 1
(Career Band) Early (2-5) 0 1 2 4 7
Late (20+) 1 2 2 3 8
Mid (6-19) 2 2 0 12 16
Total 3 5 5 19 32
* 2(18, N = 32) = 11.1, p = .89.
** 2(9, N = 32) = 11.9, p = .22.
Table 14 shows the choice for Best Sequence broken down by courses taught and workshop. A chi-square analysis was done to see if there were any significant
differences between responses and the courses that they taught (Patterns Physics:
Table 13
Physics; Patterns Chemistry and/or Patterns Biology: Pother; any other science course: Other). The analysis shows that there were no significant differences in responses based