ࡱ> >@=c )jbjbSS "811%]LLLLL XL (:q s s s s s s ,   q 66q * _q t HLLi MacIsaac AETS Paper Proposal #1: Using The Reform Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) As A Catalyst For Self-Reflective Change In Secondary Science Teaching 1. PRESENTER INFORMATION: Name: Dan MacIsaac & Kathleen Falconer Affiliation: Northern Arizona University Department of Physics & Astronomy Address: Campus Box 6010, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-6010 USA Work Phone: (520) 523-5921 FAX Number: (520) 523-1371 Email:  HYPERLINK mailto:danmac@nau.edu danmac@nau.edu 2. SESSION INFORMATION: A. Type of session: Contributed Paper B. Intended Audience: elementary, middle school, high school, in-service, pre-service, college C. Science Focus: Professional Development D/E INAPPLICABLE 3. SESSION DESCRIPTION Session Title: Using The Reform Teacher Observation Protocol (RTOP) Instrument As A Catalyst For Self-Reflective Change In Secondary Science Teaching Abstract: RTOP operationalizes an inquiry-oriented instructional environment. Twenty-eight secondary math and science teachers used it to assess their own and one another's teaching beliefs and practices. 4 PROPOSAL Overview (Theory, Relation to other work): The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (Sawada and Piburn, 2000) or RTOP is an observational instrument used to assess science and mathematics instructional environments. This one hour long, twenty-five Likert-syle item instrument operationalizes (provides observable behavioral objectives for) highly constructivist inquiry-oriented instructional practices. The instrument draws upon a number of widely publicized standards from the NCTM, NAS and AAAS, as well as the Horizons Research Instrument developed for the NSF Systemic Change programs: the Local Systemic Change Revised Classroom Observation Protocol , by Horizon Research (1997-98). RTOP assesses five major subscales: lesson design and implementation, propositional and procedural knowledge, communicative interactions and student teacher relationships. RTOP is unique in that it is a brief, accessible and insightful way to assess teacher and student classroom behavior in terms of constructivist inquiry learning behaviors. Twenty-eight middle school and secondary school mathematics and science teachers practiced the use of this assessment instrument prior to designing instructional materials as part of a three-week long Eisenhower-funded workshop in summer 2000. Teachers assessed videotaped clips of classroom situations individually and then engaged in lengthy group discussions of how they scored the videos and what these scores meant. The first week of the workshop teachers discussed and wrote reflective reactions and interpretations of the RTOP items and their own instructional practices. Next the teachers played the role of students who were presented inquiry lessons by experienced inquiry instructors. All teachers conducted RTOP assessments upon this instruction. The following week, teachers assembled and designed instructional materials and practiced presenting a short lesson to one another, while assessing one another's performances and their own instructional performances via RTOP. These assessments were discussed as a mid-course focus group critiquing their own use of inquiry pedagogy. For the third week, teachers prepared a second lesson and taught it to one another, while assessing one another via RTOP. Finally, teachers wrote and commented on what kinds of instructional practice changes they could make in their own classrooms to maximize their RTOP scores. For course followup, we will be visiting and RTOPing a dozen of these teachers in their own classrooms during the Fall 2000 semester. Insights Gained (Relevance): Our teachers were intrigued with the mechanics of developing and using the assessment instrument itself, and enjoyed assessing their course instructors during the first week of the workshop. Teachers were also very interested in self-assessing their own instruction, and justifying their own very low personal scores. Initial reaction from most teachers was that the instrument scored 'good teaching' but did not recognize important aspects of their own teaching practices. Some teachers spent much time initially rationalizing low personal scores. Most of these teachers were pleasantly surprised by their inquiry lesson experiences acting as students for their workshop instructors during week one, and greatly enjoyed the experience of assessing their instructors using RTOP. In week two of the project, teachers prepared and taught sample lessons in mathematics and science for their own classes to one another. When preparing these lessons, teachers claimed to be addressing RTOP- assessed items related to inquiry teaching, but most lessons still had low RTOP scores due to their teacher-directed nature. Although many instructors by After receiving these low RTOP scores from known, trusted colleagues in their course, an intense discussion of how they could change teaching practices to maximize RTOP scores ensued. Several teachers constructed explicit interventional strategies (Eg greatly extending and enriching exploratory activities and student questioning before any didactic instruction) that balanced their own desired instructional activities with RTOP-fostered changes. During the final week our teachers made considerable strides towards inquiry teaching. Armed with self-constructive strategies for maximizing RTOP scores (playing a game) they saw their own teaching practices improve both on RTOP assessment and in their own judgement and the judgement of their peers, which they saw as serious professional teaching improvements. Teachers' comments at the course final focus group described how the RTOP instrument guided their instruction so they could spend what they felt were small but focussed efforts for large instructional gains. Teachers felt that RTOP guided changes in their practices that were self-generated and they were willing to make, rather than imposing a lesson recipe. Several believed that RTOP, coupled with knowledge of the appropriate subject standards allowed them to comfortably undertake what they had previously considered risky decisions regarding depth vs. breadth of curricular topics. Finally teachers emphatically stated that RTOP empowered their professional decision making allowed them to guide and budget time and effort towards refining their own teaching, rather than blindly trying to improve everything and becoming overwhelmed. Summary Although RTOP was designed as an assessment instrument for the use of professional education researchers in science and math education research, it has considerable potential for use inspiring and guiding self-reflective critique and change in teaching practice for inservice teachers. We will visit these teachers and RTOP their classes this fall (to be reported as part of this presentation) to see how their actual teaching has changed in their own classrooms. As well, we will revisit how they believe their RTOP experiences has fostered this change. We would like to note we are trying to use this experience to prepare induction activities for mentor and mentee teachers, and we are trying to change our preservice teacher microteaching courses to foster inquiry teaching using RTOP as a guide. Presentation Plans: We would like to distribute the RTOP instrument and use a subset of RTOP items to assess a videotaped vignette (15 min total). Then we would follow by presenting an overview of our RTOP experiences in classroom reform, illustrated with excerpts from teacher transcripts (10 min), followed by questions. We will make overheads from this talk available on the web, and intend to present this work at AERA later this year in one of two sessions devoted to RTOP, and to publish the work in a reviewed journal. Bibliography: American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Project 2061:Science for All Americans. http://www.project2061.org/ American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.html MacIsaac, D.L. (1999). Standards based modeling and technology for teaching high school math and science. ABOR/ Eisenhower proposal available from the author. MacIsaac, D.L. (1999). SCI599: Standards based modeling and technology for teaching high school math and science. Course homepage  HYPERLINK http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/; http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/; summer 2000 courses. National Council for the Teaching of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards. http://standards-e.nctm.org/1.0/normal/index.html National Council for the Teaching of Mathematics (1991). Professional Teaching Standards. http://standards-e.nctm.org/1.0/normal/index.html National Council for the Teaching of Mathematics (1995). Assessment Standards. http://standards-e.nctm.org/1.0/normal/index.html National Academy of Science (1995). National Science Education Standards. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309053269/html/1.html Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-01,  HYPERLINK http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/PDF http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/PDF Sawada, D. and Piburn, M. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) Training Manual. ACEPT IN-02, http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/PDF  Z "##/#0#l######?$$$$$$%%%&%B%C%%%%%#&B&D&u&&&&&'A'D'u'''((;(<(=(f(g((()))jUB* jU B*OJQJ>*B* OJQJB*>*B* >*60JjU jU<"#01;ijw !8"#01;ijw !8opz{?@Kvw Z [ XYGHeftu^_gh """0##w$Y%%v&&v'h()))Topz{?@Kvw Z [ XYGHeft$tu^_gh """0##w$Y%%v&&v'h()))$0< / =!8"8#$%hWW7LnXF!R|א[U-2w]0rM3ST!.ov2#Cf4^m6ju'W]_ HtSNGK CG=बDBUn`qy #M,ˊmoBfBCU,\pz-܋vm Jdi#JFFF7o>![ψ^Q3Ia~<=:?rVX ?mF4C!fB IS,۪?A2=~*^ʩI &7 ſT@QeЗQ؜w+ɻظR^(ouRn23QmEbwdm|=xB "\np/.q=n`/}18Q#xdJA֫"GE 錄DyK danmac@nau.eduyK ,mailto:danmac@nau.eduDyK http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/;yK :http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/;DyK *http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/PDFyK Thttp://purcell.phy.nau.edu/AZTEC/RTOP/PDFTuDJ .)aXb3Dy4WK#SՀ5Kͳ`D%Nƹq%1WKC:FHhCGddBDd|@@B,d8~LNKd`dcKE$,A JBN8~L|3xK|`5ApdL||@ 8LdN8NBLd 8|3x ~LN8|PK\E`Bd  8`T:|.|.%|fx8 B }Cx}$Kx99)8c|e4|@ԀH8!@|N |!8bWd.J|@ KB|@ 8.H8!@|N |!|}x|#x;Wd, |@8,Kq,.X8!P|N |!;W8c,aBc.a@c a>c.a<:,,@(.,@&,@8&K8aB8@K@B<T:g|.|c.T<|fP}*|29#88 B }Cx|;x989)} 5A8aB8@8>8<8:98K|`5@$8bWBc@>.<:Kը@4< |@|x@cT:|.|c.$B4B,|4|B|e|"|h!T<|i.T<|i.8|4c |P|@|~P88 8B|4|T<|.8|4|@8aB8@8>8<8:98K|`5@ 8bWBc@xKV`X8!P|N |!|dx;(AL ,A |#xx|@@B$~HUAxHIAx(@܀H8!@|N |!8bWccK]H8!@|N |!8bWe.H| @8`KQB 8.H8!@|N |!;;WB~8.8a>@8@,>.<:KY@x<~T:c|.|c.8 B |;x|3x889>}4|@8aB8@8>8<8:98K|`5@$8bWBc@>a<:@ 8aB8@KM@B|x<|`4eT:|.|c.9 }&Kx8 B }Cx|;x989)}$4|@8aB8@8>8<8:98K|`5@$8bWBc@><:Ka@B8@@$,A .,@,,@K8&8aB8@8>8<8:98K|`5@ ~B@>8<8:98K=|`5@ ~B@>:Ka@;8<B@KBxK;a<48|A,AH8aB8@8>8<8:98Ke|`5@$8bWBc@>*B*%8!!!! $ v"%#)t)) %!B!$<$f$%XXXGRcr#GT/= r{DQ######w$}$%),8B26o~0kw Y!!!!!!"#"C"v"""""##B#v##h$$% Dan MacIsaac;HummelA2G:manuscripts:AETS Jan01:AETS01 RTOP Paper Proposal Dan MacIsaac;HummelA2G:manuscripts:AETS Jan01:AETS01 RTOP Paper Proposal Dan MacIsaac/HummelA2G:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 2630 Dan MacIsaac/HummelA2G:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 2630 Dan MacIsaac/HummelA2G:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 2630 Dan MacIsaac/HummelA2G:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 2630 Dan MacIsaac;HummelA2G:manuscripts:AETS Jan01:AETS01 RTOP Paper Proposal Dan MacIsaac/HummelA2G:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 3822 Dan MacIsaac/HummelA2G:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 3822 Dan MacIsaac;HummelA2G:manuscripts:AETS Jan01:AETS01 RTOP Paper Proposal*Xÿdÿ @hh^h`OJQJ^Jo(@%%%% %@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3Arial=M  (P'$timeTimes3Times"qhFlF<?$>0d$`!MacIsaac AETS Paper Proposal #1: Dan MacIsaac Dan MacIsaacoFzRwOߧ ޮz%%$r44;Z")JBP,Qъ~}#A޵Ǹ 24GS>C`Evxۡ|+;˘itaep6ט)H`8a88KE8!|N |!|~x|#x8~,HQ`(@ 8`B~dxH`H8!@|N |!|}x|#x;W8}H`8|@@ |xB,Ȩj!4|@|x,@x;4B8|;x48|e#8|c!|c(Q@8;4|A;B,d||+xx|H1`;4|AB,d,x|+xx|H `B8`X8!P|N |!!|zx|#x;W;"W Oh+'0   < H T`hpx'"MacIsaac AETS Paper Proposal #1: osacI Dan MacIsaac Paan NormalI Dan MacIsaac Pa16 Microsoft Word 8.0 @!@Pi޿@(<B|4||@T@.|x98| 4Bd}4 T:|3x}K0| 9}"B4}`4T8,@4AB 4A}`4T <;4|(A9}4,A8|4|HAXN |4|4|fx|#x}*}$B|3x8|4T1@8(8(8(8(HA4x8|`H`8bLc(@ 8`B,8a8xH`8a8HUA8|3x~x8>888`89H5A:|d.|e.(@ 8`l88K`8`B88c8|#x|e.8`8H9A; |d.~|.(@,|c.HɀA8`l88K`8`BH:B4~4T@.8:<~~x|c.88HQA:~4,A4~; |.|cK`,AD~|c.HA~8|c.HA8`l88K`8`B~8|c.8l~|P8|.~|P8|.:B8~4T8|88c|#x|#x|#x|`HA:~4,A8[8b[48T 6x8!p|N |!|~x4|&p4`8[8|d.(A HA8[8b[W>H8!@|N |!|`4`8[8|.(A8c|dK`H8!@|N |a!|`4|&p`4;[;|.(A|cK`.H1A*d|c.HA8 |c.(A HA`488 |.8|.X8!P|aN (8[8@8`N B8|4,@8|.|@@|4,@ 8`N |;xN |!|}x;[xK}|`5Ax8|.| .8B a>:8a8HxyAD@HAT`?@L8a8HxUA8}HA8`H̀A8aH8DK|`5@D`4T:}.:h >|!|c֨8<|!|+#+֨h||4$48|F8P8P@ ;#B944D48|@ ;CBZ4`4T:|.cx |2||2|H(`|~.cH%`|~.|P |~.|P|~.||~. | B K=`|~.c|dxH&Q`|`5A8Bl,AH A|xxHـA||@@`4T:|~.8 |~.8 C|~.8|.cx|x|x 88 BH'`|~.cH$`B Ky`|~.c|dxH%`|`5A8BHUA|Bl |)֨an|1֨|h|3|(P8p8 H)`|~.8pc8KA`8aL8/yH6e`|~.8Lc8KA`KD1`HA|8!|N |!||x|#x|+x828;[|#x|3x8a8H}A(Ax88HA|`x,ApxT>T>8HA4T:|(.|P  !"#$&'()*+,./012346789:;<?Root Entry F<`AData 1Table`xuolsy considderesir d yksicesnoi%gn dWordDocumentlurat poci.s iFanll yetcaehsre pmahitTR tPOa llowed t mehg otediudna dub "8tr SummaryInformationB biilgoarhp:yS wada,aD (oclaen,r K., Tur,yel,.J neB drof.R ,-I . DocumentSummaryInformationA ECTPI 8th Kpt/:/purcellyhp.uan.ude.TZA/R/CE5htCompObjuae.udA/TZCER/OT/PDPFS wada,aD .na diPubnr ,demrT aeching ObvresXianignM naau.l CAPE TNI0-,2h tt:p//upcrle.lhp.yan.ude/uZAET/CTRPOP/1( .99)9. Standsdrasab m deledo gni dnahcetonlo FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8T:|.4||Z@59"A$@4,A 5A 4, /@T@5@ ;@B@4,@ ;@BZ4 5@ ; B 4, /@ ; /B944T:|.:|uA$dP08}.H}A4T:|.$|.Dx8!p|aN |!;=8\;xB4T:|d.;4,A;B 4`P8}.HA;4,A܀H8!@|N |!|xxH=|`5A