Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DeKalb County School District is interested in improving their elementary teachers science
content knowledge through the use of hands-on and virtual science labs. The project team for
development is to increase teachers knowledge, skills and disposition for teaching science in the
upper elementary grades. The 20 fourth and fifth grade teachers who participate in the
professional development will attain this goal by participating in a five-day intensive summer
session, two follow-up sessions in the fall, and one follow-up session in the spring. Participants
will receive hands-on training in the use of virtual science labs. They will collaborate to develop
lessons that demonstrate best practices for science content instruction. The project team has also
established a partnership with the Georgia Power to promote partnerships with businesses that
will provide in-school field trips which are science rich and are free for students and teachers.
The project team is seeking $32,048.70 for the purpose of this professional development course
with the course beginning in the summer of 2017 and the final report of the course being
At a time when children are forming their interests and future goals, their teachers often
struggle with science content instruction, not to mention teacher struggles with developing labs
to reinforce and engage students in the sciences. Elementary teachers often present science as
nothing more than nonfiction reading comprehension, where students read a science content
passage and answer questions about it. Standardized test results bear out the lack of engaging
science instruction in the elementary classroom. Researchers have also noted a lack of young
Americans pursuing careers in science and technology (Capobianco, Diefes-Dux, Mena, &
Weller, 2011; Naizer, Hawthorne, & Henley, 2014). Teacher quality is the issue. Improving
teachers understanding of scientific content and pedagogical practice is the answer (Zollman,
Demonstrated Need
has been connected to a lack of student performance on standardized measures (Nadelson et al.,
2013), and DeKalb County School District 4th and 5th graders are having difficulty on
Data Review
Mean test scores and school climate surveys help to convey how well teachers are doing
their jobs. Failing scores on standardized measures like the Georgia Milestones Assessment
System (GMAS), show that students are not being taught the subject matter content.
Consequently, these same failing scores require teacher improvement if they are to be remedied.
Negative school climate scores also point to a teacher improvement issue. Better performing
1
teachers produce better performing students, which in turn, promote a more positive school
climate.
developing learners or below on the state-required GMAS test for science achievement (DCSD,
2015). In 54 of the 83 DCSD elementary schools 75% of the 5th grade students failed to show
mastery of the science curriculum on the GMAS for 2015 (DCSD, 2015). The following year,
2016, was no better. Of the 7,546 DCSD 5th graders tested by the GMAS in science over 5,500
students, again 75%, failed to grasp the science concepts required by the State of Georgia
(DCSD, 2016).
Table 1 compares 4th and 5th graders of DCSD with all 4th and 5th graders in the State of
Georgia on the percentage of students failing to achieve proficiency in science, according to the
GMAS for 2015 (DCSD, 2015) and 2016 (DCSD, 2016a). In both 2015 and 2016, DCSD 4th
and 5th graders fell about 10 percentage points below the State average. While 4th graders in
Georgia maintained a 67% failure rate in science from 2015 to 2016, DCSD 4th graders dropped
another 12% into those failing to achieve proficiency. If the State data had suffered similar
losses during this same time period, the test might be at fault, but since the state scores remained
constant and only the DCSD scores dropped, the future scores of 4th graders in DCSD are
concerning. This drop in 4th grade scores will also have reverberating effects in the years to
come as these same students progress through the District without the proper scientific
2
In Figure 1 the 2016 mean GMAS science scores for 4th and 5th graders in DCSD are
compared to the neighboring districts: Clayton County Public Schools, Fulton County Schools,
Gwinnett County Public Schools, Henry County School District, Rockdale County Public
Schools, and Decatur City Schools (DCSD, 2016a). Clearly, 2016 data demonstrates that DCSD
lags far behind the surrounding districts, with the exception of Clayton County Public Schools
(CCPS), which ranks 162nd out of 191 Georgia school districts according to this same data
(DCSD, 2016a). The deficit in student science achievement in DCSD is most pronounced when
compared to Decatur City Schools which serves the county seat of DeKalb County and ranks 5 th
of the 191 GA school districts in science achievement according to 2016 GMAS data (DCSD,
2016a). DCSD scores for both 4th and 5th grades fall over 10 points below the state averages of
544.4
560
539.0
540
518.3
518.2
516.3
517
509.7
510
500.4
520
496.5
489.8
488.9
487.4
480.7
500
480
460
440
DeKalb Clayton Fulton Gwinnett Henry Rockdale Decatur City
4th 5th
Figure 1. 2016 Mean GMAS Science Scores. This figure compares DCSD 2016
GMAS scores with the scores of neighboring districts.
student, teacher, and parent perceptions of a schools climate (Georgia Department of Education
3
[GADOE], 2016b, para.4). Based on the School Climate Survey for DCPSs elementary schools,
the schools divide fairly evenly with a third of the schools obtaining negative scores, a third
positive scores, and a third in the middle (GADOE, 2016a). However, the average climate score
is 2.97, which is just left of center (GADOE, 2016a). Consequently, the overall feeling of the
climate in DCSD is negative. Poor student achievement plays a major role in this negative
perception, because all stakeholders want students to do well and, frankly, they are not when
Teacher quality affects test scores and school climate. Teachers, who have a better grasp
of the scientific content and are more skilled in using the technology tools available, are able to
help students navigate even through the most difficult of science concepts. With improved
teachers, students will begin to soar on assessments. Improved teachers also make better
teachers, more confident teachers, and teachers with staying power, which produces a better
Literature Review
collaborative learning and the integration of technology was the resounding answer to the lack of
student achievement in the sciences (Nadelson et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014; Zollman,
Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012). Hanson (2014) demonstrated that low teacher-retention rates
and lack of teacher training in science content areas correlated with lower student performance
on standardized measures than in schools where teachers are retained and are trained in teaching
science. Low teacher-retention and lack of training are also symptomatic of schools and systems
where there is low morale and a negative climate. Fortunately, other studies have shown that
intensive professional developments (PD) can actualize a significant increase in teacher content
4
knowledge, confidence in teaching, and effectiveness in teaching science content (Nadelson et
al., 2013). This increase in content knowledge raises the rigor of the instruction, allows the
teacher to make cross curricular connections, and insures that the teachers are teaching the
correct content.
Technology in education has also been linked to increased student achievement in all
academic areas (Levin & Schrum 2012), especially science (Smith et al., 2014). The problem is
that where technology integration and the classroom actually intersect, technology is not being
used to its full potential (Davies & West, 2014). The teachers truly are not to blame. Often
teachers are given laptops, and the extent of their training on how to use them is limited to how
to turn them on. These teachers, whose planning time is often consumed by meetings,
conferences, and grading, are, then, asked to find time to develop wonderful technology
integration into their lessons. What these teachers need is professional development. Miranda
and Russell (2012) proposed that teacher exposure to technology integration is one of the
greatest influences on their integration in their own classrooms. This 2012 study found that
teachers who had the most experience and knowledge of technology used it most often with their
students (Miranda & Russell, 2012). Teachers need exposure to proper, applicable examples of
technology integration, and this exposure in the form of PDs should last at least a year, if not
longer (Gerard et al., 2011). Gerard et al. (2011) found that the most successful PDs lasted
longer and involved the teachers in an immersive, constructivist-type environment. These PDs
Given the clear answers shown in the research literature and DCSDs problems of low
student science achievement in 4th and 5th grades and negative school climate in their elementary
schools, teacher quality improvement is the logical answer to these problems. This
5
improvement, according to the literature, should focus on the depth of teachers content
knowledge and strengthening teachers technology skills in order to raise student achievement
Teachers cannot teach what they do not understand; therefore, the focus of this PD will
be on developing the teachers understanding of the content knowledge required for teaching 4 th
and 5th grade science. Technology integration will be harnessed as a tool of good instruction.
Two of the more difficult science standards, sound and light from 4th grade and electricity from
5th grade, have been chosen to direct the content. The objectives for the PD were modified from
the Georgia Standards of Excellence (Georgia Department of Education [GaDOE], 2016c) and
the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2016). Based on the standards
from ISTE, several technology tools will be utilized to aid in the process of content acquisition
and collaborative learning. After using these tools, teachers will find that the technology can
transfer to any subject matter to enhance instruction and student engagement. Collaborative
planning and learning will also be utilized. Teachers will be encouraged to share their best ideas
with others on their teams and to embrace times when they can allow their students to engage in
Goals
3. Improve participants disposition toward and use of collaborative planning and learning.
Objectives
6
1. By the end of the PD participants will acquire information to investigate science content
2. By the end of the PD participants will evaluate information to investigate science content
4. By the end of the PD participants will be able to design or adapt relevant learning
experiences that incorporate digital tools and resources to promote student learning (ISTE,
7. By the end of the PD participants will model collaborative knowledge construction (ISTE,
8. By the end of the PD participants will plan for at least 3 collaborative learning experiences
7
Goal 2 Edmodo Gizmos
Objectives 5 & 6 Clickers Virtual labs
Collaborative
Insulators and GASTA
Planning
Goal 3 Conductors Conference
Clickers
Objective 7 Stereo Hanger Field Trip to Plant
Battery Making
Bending Light Yates
Edmodo
Collaborative
Goal 3 Battery Making Field Trip to Plant
Planning
Objective 8 Kahoot! Yates
Clickers
The goals and objectives draw from state academic objectives and ITSE objectives;
consequently, they stand on sure ground. The topics for the professional development have been
aligned with these goals and objectives to insure that as the transition is made into the day-to-day
plan of operations that the purpose of improving teacher quality in science content instruction,
integration of technology, and utilization of collaborative planning and learning is not lost.
Plan of Operations
Zollman, Tahernezhadi, and Billman (2012) noted three characteristics that make
science PDs successful. 1) The PD must bear relevance to the classroom. That is, the PD must
have application to the classrooms of the teachers who are in the PD. If not, no significant
change can be expected. 2) The PD must focus on training the teachers in the content knowledge
and effective teaching of their respective subjects. Teachers must know truth from error when
they are selecting materials, projects, and activities for their students. They also need to know
what kind of questions to ask to get students thinking scientifically. 3) The PD must be
intensive. No passing reference or short-term workshops will do. The more immersive in
content and collaborative in planning the better. Both of these take time, and effective PD takes
time, as well. Yet, the confident, successful teachers, whom these effective PDs and
collaborative-planning efforts produce, have staying power in their schools and achievement-
developing power for their students. The timeline for this project can be found in Table 3.
8
Table 3: Teacher Quality Project Timeline
Activity Date Location
Project Submission November 21, 2016 TQ Digital Drop Box
Funding Notification February 1, 2017 Email, phone
PD Portal, DCSD email,
School Science Chair
Meetings, Principal
Recruitment Window February 13 April 3, 2017 Meetings, Instructional
Site Facilitator Meetings,
Target Under-performing
Schools
Registration Window February 13 April 3, 2017 PD Portal
Synchronous and
asynchronous meetings
Project Session Planning April 3 May 31, 2017 between Project Director,
Co-PD, facilitators, and
other collaborators
DCSD Administrative
Intensive Summer Session July 17-21, 2017
Industrial Complex
Follow-up Day 1 August 26, 2017 Plant Yates, Newnan, GA
DCSD Administrative
Follow-up Day 2 September 23, 2017
Industrial Complex
DCSD Administrative
Follow-up Day 3 January 20, 2018
Industrial Complex
Atlanta Evergreen Marriot
GSTA Conference February 1-3, 2018 Conference Center, Stone
Mountain, GA
Final Report Submission May 31, 2018 TQ Digital Drop Box
These characteristics will be the basis for this PD. The participants will be immersed in a
content rich environment with virtual labs and other hands-on activities. All materials will be
filed in a repository on Edmodo which the participants will use throughout the five-day intensive
summer session, when they return to school, and during the 3 follow-up meetings. They will be
challenged to take Edmodo, the content, the experiences, and the labs back to their students. An
Summer Workshop
and attitudinal survey. The pretest will assess the teachers content knowledge prior to the PD.
9
The attitudinal survey will gather information about the teachers disposition toward
collaborative learning, technology integration, and science education. With these two measures
the project team will be able to gather necessary information to guide preparations for the PD.
Day 1. The PD will start with a welcome by the Project Director and Co-PD, who will
also introduce the facilitators of the Summer Sessions. The Director will explain the objectives
and learning targets for the sessions. After this brief introduction, Tenecia Powe, facilitator for
Days 1 and 2, will show teachers how to get on Edmodo, explaining why this is such a valuable
tool for science education. Participants will create their own log-in, create their own classes, and
join the Edmodo group for the professional development class. Mrs. Powe will direct her
students to the battery making lab directions which are included on the class page. Participants
will be assigned lab partners for the day. This lab will close as a whole group lab and a brief Lab
Write-up Form, which will be submitted to the Project Director for this and all subsequent labs
through Edmodo. The use of Edmodo and the Lab Write-up Form is modeling of how the
teachers can utilize these tools in the elementary science classroom, Objective 4.
Mrs. Powe will, then, begin to break down the science concepts of Objective 1,
electricity. She will utilize infographics, hands-on activities, and multimedia to aid content
delivery. The class Edmodo will be the base of daily operations for all subsequent interactions
and presentations, so that teachers will have access to all materials electronically. This class will
include two virtual labs, Circuits & Conductors and Electric Circuit. These labs will reinforce
the concepts presented by Ms. Powe. After submitting the lab write-ups, participants will add all
the virtual labs and other artifacts to their own Edmodo class to be utilized when they return to
school. The class will end with a brief time for questions and a Kahoot!, an on-line, interactive,
customizable game, covering the content from the day. The data collected from the Kahoot! and
10
informal observations of the ensuing discussions will be used to drive instruction for future
sessions.
Day 2. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on day 1 utilizing
clickers as an aid to promote discussion (Smith et al., 2009). Data from clickers will be used to
evaluate topics that need to be reinforced. Tenecia Powe, will drive the teachers to take a deeper
look into electricity and circuits, Objective 2 and 3. Participants will be assigned lab partners
for the day and complete the Virtual Lab and Lab Write-up Form included in Edmodo. After
completing the lab, Mrs. Powe will introduce Gizmos which provide another virtual
Gizmo, making assignments, and linking to Edmodo. Participants will also be introduced to
Claim Evidence Reasoning (CER) (CCPS, 2016). CER leads the students to explain answers to
scientific questions with a claim, supported by evidence, and the reasoning that joins the claim
and the evidence together to answer the question. The CER process will help the participants
and their students, when the school year starts again, to probe deeper into scientific concepts and
to transfer their knowledge to new situations. The Electricity lab in Gizmos will focus on using
CER as a scientific processing tool. The last lab will be the Insulators and Conductors virtual
lab. Participants will add all the virtual labs and other artifacts to their own Edmodo class. The
class will end with a brief time for questions and a Kahoot! covering the content from the day.
The data collected from the Kahoot! and informal observations of the ensuing discussions will be
Day 3. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on days 1 and 2
utilizing clickers as an aid to promote discussion (Smith et al., 2009). Data from clickers will be
used to evaluate topics that need to be reinforced. Dr. Esma Jennings will take over as facilitator
11
on day 3. She will begin with instruction on student-centered collaborative learning and
demonstrations of how the participants own learning has been enhanced through collaborative
learning. Dr. Jennings will then begin to break down the science concepts of Objectives 1, 2,
and 3 on light. She will utilize infographics, hands-on activities, and multimedia to aid content
delivery. After some instruction and demonstration of light and its properties, the participants
will be assigned lab partners for the day complete the hands-on lab, Bending Light, and the Lab
Write-up Form included in Edmodo. Jennings will use concepts presented in the lab to discuss
reflection and refraction. Two virtual labs, Fun House Mirrors and How We See will follow.
After submitting the lab forms participants will add all the virtual labs and other artifacts to their
own Edmodo class. The class will end with a brief time for questions and a Kahoot! covering the
content from the day. The data collected from the Kahoot! and informal observations of the
Day 4. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on the first three
days utilizing clickers as an aid to promote discussion and collaboration (Smith et al., 2009).
Data from clickers will be used to evaluate topics that need to be reinforced. Jennings will
introduce the concepts of transparent, translucent, and opaque. The virtual lab, Transparent,
Translucent, and Opaque, will then be completed. After lab forms are submitted, participants
will be directed back to Gizmos for more practice with light and an introduction to sound
concepts, Objectives 1, 2, and 3 on sound. Participants will use Gizmos for CER with sound and
light. Two other labs will follow, Stereo Hangers (hands-on) and Sound Waves and Propagation
(virtual lab). After submitting the lab forms participants will add all the virtual labs and other
artifacts to their own Edmodo class. The class will end with a brief time for questions and a
12
Kahoot! covering the content from the day. The data collected from the Kahoot! and informal
Day 5. This day will begin with discussions of the materials covered on the first 4 days
utilizing clickers as an aid to promote discussion and collaboration (Smith et al., 2009). Data
from clickers will be used to evaluate topics that need to be reinforced in follow up sessions.
The Co-PD Melissa Sloan will facilitate day 5. She will wrap up any concepts that data show
teachers are still misunderstanding. Then, Ms. Sloan will address classroom-management issues
with technology integration and collaborative learning. The remainder of the time will be spent
in collaborative planning with participants grouped by location and grade level. The class will
end with a brief question and answer session followed by a course satisfaction survey.
8:00- Team Briefing Team Briefing Team Briefing Team Briefing Team Briefing
8:30
13
9:30- Introduction to Deeper in Introduction to Deeper in Wrapping up:
12:00 Edmodo, Electricity, Student- Sound and Electricity
account utilizing Centered Light, utilizing and Sound
creation, content from Collaborative content from and Light
joining a class, Edmodo Learning Edmodo
creating a class Collaborativ
Virtual Lab Bending Transparent, e Science
Battery Light Translucent, Labs
Making and Opaque
4:00- Question and Question and Question and Question and Question and
4:30 Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer
Session/ Session/ Session/ Session Session; Post-
Feedback Feedback Feedback /Feedback test and
Kahoot! Kahoot! Kahoot! Kahoot! Satisfaction
Survey of
Course
Follow-Up Sessions
14
After the initial 5 day intensive training in the summer of 2017, there will be 3 follow-up
days once the participants have returned to their classrooms. Recognizing that this follow-up
must be immediate and supportive of real-life-implementation issues, these sessions will begin
just as the teachers are settling in for their year. The focus of the follow-up sessions will be dual
1) to encourage the teachers in collaborative planning and allowing for collaborative learning
especially in science and 2) to utilize the digital tools presented in the summer institute. Other
tools and sites will be presented for teacher resource purposes, as well.
Follow-Up Day 1. This follow-up meeting has been scheduled for the fourth Saturday in
August, 2017. Teachers will take a field trip to Plant Yates in Newnan, GA. The field trip will
include a tour of the plant with explanations of electrical concepts, the Georgia Power Student
Follow-Up Day 2. This follow-up meeting has been scheduled for the fourth Saturday in
September, 2017. The project team will present other digital resources and invite the participants
to share ones they have discovered on the class Edmodo page. Technical support and further
instruction will be provided for Edmodo and Gizmos. Teachers will be introduced to the Science
Olympiad and encouraged to bring a team to the DCSD sponsored event or to sign up to help
with the Olympiad, which will be held the first weekend in May 2018. After sharing a brief
video from the 2017 event, the project team will lead 3 or 4 events, as time allows, for the
Follow-Up Day 3. This follow-up meeting has been scheduled for the third Saturday in
January, 2018. Teachers will present the changes they have made in their classrooms as a result
of their learning. They will discuss student outcomes and improvements on county common
assessment measures in science compared to their previous classes tested with the same
15
measures. This session will end with a course satisfaction survey, a post-assessment, and a
GSTA Conference. While all of the participants will be encouraged to attend the GSTA
Conference, held February 1-3, 2018, DCSD has agreed to provide substitutes for 5 of the
participants to attend the full conference, where they will also present the results of their
professional learning. No transportation or lodging will need to be provided for the teachers
since the GSTA has elected to hold their conference at the Atlanta Evergreen Marriot Conference
Center in Stone Mountain for the second year in a row. Five DCSD teachers who participated in
the summer institute, have made substantial changes in their science instruction, and have seen
significant gains in student achievement will be selected to attend the conference to present their
results.
Evaluation Plan
According to the literature, the process of a PD, that is, the length and intensity, is
directly related to the outcome of the PD, that is, teacher improvement evidenced by increased
knowledge and change in pedagogical practice (Nadelson et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014;
Zollman, Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012). Therefore, an accountability piece of this PD project
will include the evaluation of the project process and outcomes. Recognizing the gravity of this
evaluation, Dr. Adriana D Alba, PhD, will perform the third-party evaluation.
External Evaluator
West Georgia and teaches graduate courses in the Department of Educational Technology and
16
member of the American Educational Research Association, the Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education, the International Society of Teacher Education, and the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Her expertise in the areas of
instructional design and technology integration will prove invaluable in the assessment of this
professional development project. Dr. D Alba will oversee the formative and summative
evaluation of the project, as well as, the development of these measures, the teacher attitudinal
In order to be sure that the data collection is reliable, multiple measures will be used to
provide data from the PD. Some examples of the instruments can be found in Appendix D.
Table 5 provides a summary of the instruments, the data collection times, and the alignment with
the PD objectives. The instruments fall into 3 categories. First are pre-assessments. During
registration via the online portal, participants will be asked to complete 2 instruments: the pre-
assessment and the pre-attitudinal survey. These will provide a baseline for the rest of the data
collection. Next, there are instruments to collect data during the PD itself. These will include
Kahoot!, clickers, and Lab Write-up forms. The final instruments will be used at the conclusion
of the PD or on Day 5 and the last follow-up meeting. These summative instruments will record
growth in and attitudinal changes toward collaborative planning and learning, technology
17
Lab Write-up Form Days 1-5
Rubric for Instructional
2. Objective 4 Final meeting
Plans
Rubric for Edmodo and
3. Objective 4, 5, & 6 Final meeting
Gizmo usage
Rubric for Instructional
4. Objectives 5 & 6 Final meeting
Plans
5. Objective 5, 6, & 7 Effectiveness Survey Day 5 & Final meeting
Rubric for Instructional
6. Objective 8 Final meeting
Plans
Pre/Post-Attitudinal
7. Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 Registration/Final meeting
Survey
Process Evaluation
The process evaluation will be tracked by the sign-in (and out) sheets verifying that the
full eight hours were utilized and that all participants were present. Demographic data will be
collected at the time of registration. Finally, as a part of the attitudinal survey the participants
will answer questions regarding their view of the success or failure of the PD to accomplish the
Outcomes Evaluation
The outcome evaluation will be tracked, first, by the change between the pre- and post-
assessments for science content knowledge. The evaluation of lessons created by the participants
will provide further verification that the goals and objectives of the PD were met. Finally, the
participants usage of Edmodo and Gizmos will be evaluated according to the rubric to verify
The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the PD classes, the impact of the classes
on the participants science and technology knowledge base, and the teachers attitudes toward 1)
elementary science concepts and 2) the integration of technology into the elementary science
18
classroom. The evaluation will also probe the impact of the project on the teachers pedagogical
practices.
Partnerships
To insure the success of the project, certain partnerships have been sought that will bring
valuable resources and subject matter experts (SME) to the aid of the project team.
Partners
Metropolitan RESA will contribute a collection of web resources, as well as, elementary
science SMEs for consultation. Georgia Power will contribute web resources, in addition to
science SMEs for consultation, hands-on activities, and a meeting space for a follow-up class
while participants are on-site for their field trip at Plant Yates. Fernbank Museum of Natural
History will provide web resources and follow-up opportunities for participants and their
students. DCSD will supply the meeting space with tech-support for the use of their presentation
equipment, laptops, hands-on lab materials, bus for the field trip (driver fee and mileage paid
through this grant), substitute teachers and conference fees for teachers attending the Georgia
Science Teachers Association (GSTA) conference, and janitorial support. Summer intensive
sessions and two of the follow-up meetings will be held at the DeKalb County Administrative
Participant Recruitment
Using 2015 and 2016 GMAS science scores, the Project Director and Co-PD will recruit
participants from the lowest performing DCSD elementary schools. The target population will
be 4th and 5th grade science teachers. They will be contacted individually via email with an
attached copy of the recruitment poster. Principals and Science Coordinators at these same
schools will be targeted to receive information soliciting their 4 th and 5th grade science teachers
19
participation in the project. In the address to the principals special attention will be given to the
teacher improvement aspect of the project. If space remains, the project will be opened to higher
performing schools, recognizing that a majority of DCSD schools are underperforming schools.
Conclusion
This project is designed to improve teacher quality through increasing their science
content knowledge, their use of technology as a tool of good teaching, their practice of
successful science PDs (Zollman, Tahernezhadi, & Billman, 2012) will be utilized. Participants
will find this PD to bear relevance to their classrooms, the PD will focus on training teachers in
science content knowledge and effective teaching, and finally, the PD will be intensive. The
schedule starts with the 5-day summer intensive and continues with on-going access to the
summer-class materials and cohort through the Edmodo classroom. Then, follow-up sessions are
strategically scheduled for maximum impact on the teachers learning and practice. The
culmination of the PD is the challenge for all to attend the GSTA conference, which will provide
more training and support to the teachers at the lagging DCSD schools.
20
Appendix A: Budget Summary
Participant Costs
$500 each for 20 participants ($500X20) $10,000.00
Total Participant Costs $10,000.00
Travel-list lodging costs, meals, mileage reimbursements, etc. (per person costs)
DCSD Transportation Department Driver fee ($20/hrX7hrs) $140.00
DCSD Transportation Department (1) bus from DCSD AIC to Plant Yates @ $60.50
($.55mileX110 miles)
Total Travel Expenses $200.50
Additional Costs list each piece of equipment, food, registration fees, etc. (per person or per
school costs)
Participant (20) lunches @ $9 each per day for 5 days SU2017 ($9X20X5) $900.00
Participant (20) lunches @ $9 each per day for 3 days FA2017&SP2018 ($9X20X3) $540.00
Facilitators (1) lunch @ $9 each per day for 4 days SU2017 ($9X1X4) $36.00
Project Director and Co-PI (2) lunches @ $9 each per day for 5 days SU2017 $90.00
($9X2X5)
Project Director and Co-PI (2) lunches @ $9 each per day for 3 days $54.00
FA2017&SP2018 ($9X2X3)
21
TEACHER QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Itemized Budget Page 2
Total Additional Costs $1620.00
Evaluation CostsList external evaluator and associated costs
Dr. Adriana D' Alba, External Evaluator $3500.00
Food and Travel Expenses (2) days @ 72.1 one way (72.1X2X2X$.55) + (2) lunches $176.62
@ $9 (2X$9)
Total Evaluation Costs $3676.62
Suppliesplease attach a detailed list at the end of this budget
DK Eyewitness Books: Electricity (20X$13.99) $279.80
All about Light and Sound (20X$8.39) $167.80
Total Supplies $447.60
Institution:
DeKalb County School District
Address of Department or School:
1. Personnel $11,400.00
2. Fringe $2,250.00
22
TEACHER QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Itemized Budget Page 3
4. Participant Costs $10,000.00
5. Travel $200.50
10. Indirect Costs All subgrants should use one of the two following $2,373.98
indirect cost calculations, whichever is lower: 1) 8%, excluding tuition
or 2) the institutions federally negotiated indirect cost rate.
Grand Total (9 & 10) $32,048.70
23
Appendix B: Budget Narrative
Burt Parker will serve as the project director for this PD, developing the grant proposal
topics and activities for the improvement of teacher quality in elementary science education. Mr.
Parker reviewed the past test scores and CCRPI data to discover the need for teacher
improvement in DCSD. He will be responsible for the recruitment of the 20 teachers and serve
as the facilitator during the 3 follow-up sessions. He will also, with the help of the Co-PD,
develop the course schedule. He will also be attending the GSTA with the DCSD teachers who
are making their presentation. The TQ grant will provide a salary of $5,000 and fringe benefits
of $1,250.
Melissa Sloan will be the Co-PD for the development of this course. She will aid in
developing the course schedule and serve as the facilitator of the last of the 5-day summer
intensive. She will also aid Dr. D Alba in the development of the data collection instruments.
Ms. Sloan will assist in the recruitment of the 20 participants for the project and in the daily
administration of the PD. The TQ grant will provide a salary of $4,000 and fringe benefits of
$1,000.
Tenecia Powe will serve as a facilitator of the first 2 days of the summer intensive. She
will be provided 2 days for preparation for the 2 days of instruction. Her depth of knowledge in
science and technology integration will be of immense value to the teachers who participate in
the PD. The TQ grant will provide remuneration of $600 for the 2 days of facilitation and $600
Dr. Esma Jennings will serve as a facilitator during the summer intensive. She will be
provided 2 days for preparation for her 2 days of instruction. Her depth of knowledge in science
24
and experience in teaching professional developments will be of immense value to the teachers
who participate in the PD. The TQ grant will provide remuneration of $600 for the 2 days of
facilitation and $600 for the 2 days of preparation for a total of $1200.
Each of the 20 4th and 5th grade science teachers will receive a $500 stipend for
participation in the PD. Each participant will be expected to attend all 5 days of the summer
intensive and all 3 follow-up days during the school year. The stipend will be held until the
All funds in this area will go to provide lunches for the participants, facilitators, and
project directors during the PD so that the time usually given to a lunch break can be utilized as a
working lunch. The cost includes 20 boxed lunches a day for the participants during the summer
intensive and 2 boxed lunches a day for the Project Director and Co-PD during the summer
intensive and 1 boxed lunch per day for the facilitators during the summer intensive (20
per lunch X 4 days) = $1026. TQ funds will also provide lunches for the participants and staff
for the 3 follow-up days (20 participants X $9 per lunch X 3 days) + (2 staff X $9 per lunch X 3
data from before the course begins to establish the baseline. She will also evaluate all of the data
collected throughout the course and provide the course evaluation after the final session of the
course. The evaluation will require 2 trips to Stone Mountain from Carrollton. TQ funds will
provide Dr. D Alba $3500 in evaluator fees and $176.62 for meals and travel expenses.
25
Materials and Supplies $447.60 (TQ Funds)
Every participant in the PD will receive a copy of 2 nonfiction childrens books to utilize
in his classroom upon returning to school. The book DK Eyewitness Books: Electricity costs $13.99
each (20 X $13.99) = $279.80, and the book All about Light and Sound costs $8.39 each (20 X $8.39) =
3. Support
$80.00 $80.00
Personnel
8. Materials and
$447.60 $447.60
Supplies
Total $32,048.70
26
Appendix C: Capacity
The goal of the project team is to deliver the highest quality professional development for
the teachers of DCSD while improving the participants knowledge of elementary science
concepts, skills in teaching using hands-on and digital tools, and disposition toward science,
technology, and collaborative learning. The experiences created by the project team and the
interactions between the participants will build lasting learning constructs for the teachers to use
Project Team
helping students struggling in reading and mathematics. Before moving into this position he was
the Science Lab teacher for Hawthorne. He has also taught middle school science in a private
school setting. Burt earned his bachelor of science in education at the University of Georgia,
majoring in early childhood education. He has earned two masters degrees and is currently
public education and 20 years in adult and youth education in the nonprofit sector. During these
20 years serving nonprofits, Mr. Parker has organized and led many projects and managed
budgets over $500,000. His leadership and vision will provide stability to this team.
Ms. Sloan is a Teacher Development Specialist for CCPS and has also served as the
District Science Coordinator. She has taught numerous PDs in her 19 years in education. These
Organize Science Labs in Elementary, New Generation Standards Presentation, How to Create
27
Common Assessments in Science, Using Science Data to Drive Instruction, Classroom
certified in middle grades and elementary science education. In addition, Melissa holds a
Coaching Endorsement and Educational Leadership certificate. Because of her vast experience
in professional development, as well as, working in a county with lagging science test scores,
Mrs. Powe is currently a Digital Learning Specialist for CCPS. On a daily basis she
engages teachers in her district, training them on the use of technology in the classroom. She
also focuses on utilizing technology for collaborative learning. She holds a bachelor of science
in chemistry and a masters degree in instructional technology. Her certifications include 6-12
science, gifted, and instructional technology. Tenecia has 10 years experience in education.
Mrs. Powe will bring not only her understanding of technology and collaborative learning but
also her deep understanding of science concepts to aid in the professional development of the
teachers in DCSD.
Dr. Esma Jennings teaches gifted students at Hawthorne Elementary School and the
gifted-endorsement classes for CCPS. Dr. Jennings has taught numerous other professional
development classes in her 25 years in public education. She, in years past, she has trained all
the elementary science teachers in CCPS in Project Learning Tree, Project Wild, and Project
Wet. She also trained teachers in the use of CCPSs Star Lab, a mobile planetarium. She is a
National Science Foundation grant recipient and Georgia Science Foundation grant recipient.
Currently, Dr. Jennings serves Grand Canyon University as an adjunct professor in its M. Ed.
28
program. As a member of the implementation team for this project, Dr. Jennings will bring
many years of experience, not only in science, but also in teaching teachers.
Facilities
All classes, with the exception of the fieldtrip, will be held at the DCSD Administrative
Industrial Complex (AIC) in Stone Mountain. Within the AIC, DCSD has agreed to supply an
ample classroom for the 20 participants, tables and chairs for all participants, whiteboards and
projectors, a rolling cart of 20 Professional Learning Department laptops, technical support for
the facilitators in using DCSD devices, janitorial services, climate control, and lighting. In
addition, DCSD will handle the boxed-lunch order each day through their local vendor network.
Finally, DCSD has agreed to supply a class set of the lab supplies for the electricity unit and
sound and light unit that each teacher should have access to at his local school.
29
Appendix D: Data Collection Tools
Attitudinal Surveys
2. How do you rank yourself on the integration of technology into your teaching practices?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
3. If you had to implement a new piece of technology in your classroom, how would you
feel towards implementing it?
Confident
Uncomfortable
5. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating technology in your
classroom?
7. How do you rank yourself on the integration of collaborative learning into your teaching
practices?
Novice
Beginner
30
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
9. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating collaborative learning
in your classroom?
10. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of the science content for your grade level?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
11. How do you rank yourself on the ability to teach engaging science lessons?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
13. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when teaching science in your
classroom?
31
Post-Attitudinal Survey of Technology Integration, Collaborative Learning,
and Science Content Instruction
2. How do you rank yourself on the integration of technology into your teaching practices?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
3. If you had to implement a new piece of technology in your classroom, how would you
feel towards implementing it?
Confident
Uncomfortable
6. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating technology in your
classroom?
7. How has participating in this professional development course changed your attitude
toward the implementation of technology in the classroom?
9. How do you rank yourself on the integration of collaborative learning into your teaching
practices?
Novice
Beginner
32
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
11. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when integrating collaborative learning
in your classroom?
12. How has participating in this professional development course changed your attitude
toward the implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom?
13. How do you rank yourself on the knowledge of the science content for your grade level?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
14. How do you rank yourself on the ability to teach engaging science lessons?
Novice
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
16. What do you see is your biggest obstacle, if any, when teaching science in your
classroom?
17. How has participating in this professional development course changed your attitude
toward the teaching of science at your grade level?
33
Electricity Pre/Post Assessment
1. When several lightbulbs are connected in a series circuit, what will happen if one bulb
burns out?
A) All of the lightbulbs will go out. C) The other bulbs will burn brighter.
B) The other bulbs will continue to burn. D) There will be a short circuit.
9. If you took a woolen cloth and rubbed it briskly over your hair, your hair would stand
on ends. What has been created?
A) insulator C) chemical change
B) lightning D) static electricity
34
11. Gary walks in the house and turns on the light. What could he do that would make this
circuit open?
A) remove the light bulb C) replace the bulb with a dimmer bulb
B) leave the light operational D) extend the wire from the switch to the
light
12. Larry connects a wire from a battery to each of the listed items. Which item would allow a
current from the battery to pass through if connected to another wire on an opposite end?
A) brass door knob C) rubber ball
B) wooden door D) cotton shirt
14. What material would be safest to use as an insulator to cover electrical wires?
A) Aluminum C) Rubber
B) Tin D) Water
15. Many electrical wires are wrapped with a plastic coating because plastic is
A) less expensive than steel. C) able to keep its shape.
B) more dense than copper. D) a good insulator.
16. Carletta and Terry are given a box of materials to use for an investigation on static
electricity. The students add air to the balloons and tie each to a string. The balloons hang
from the strings without moving. The students rub the two balloons together and nothing
happens. They rub the balloons with a piece of woolen cloth and the balloons move away from
each other as shown below.
Part A: Explain why the balloons at first hang from the string without moving.
Part B: Explain why even though the balloons are rubbed together nothing happens.
Part C: Explain why the two balloons move away from each other after the students rub them
with a piece of woolen cloth.
Part D: What type of electricity produces lightning during a rainstorm? Explain your answer.
35
18. Some students want to build an electric circuit that will make a light bulb glow. The
students search a reference book and find a diagram of materials to construct an electric circuit
as shown below.
Part A: Describe the three steps that should be followed to assemble this electric circuit. Be sure
to include the materials used in each step.
Part B: All the parts of the electric circuit are connected and the battery is new. Explain what
else is necessary to make the light bulb work.
19. Laura and Kelly are asked to build and test an electromagnet. The students are given the
materials shown below.
Part A: List the steps the students should take to build the electromagnet. Provide specific
details for each step.
Part B: Describe how to test the electromagnet to be sure it is functioning.
Part C: Explain how you can increase the magnetic strength of an electromagnet.
Part D: A heavy bar magnet was made available. What test can be performed to compare the
difference in the strength of the bar magnet and the electromagnet?
Note: This instrument is adapted from GOFAR (Georgia Online Formative Assessment Resource) (GaDOE,
2016d).
36
References
Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S., & Warren, S.
Bethke Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content
Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer?
Clayton County Public Schools. (2016). Professional development portal. Retrieved from
https://pdexpress.clayton.k12.ga.us/pdexpress/catalog_list.aspx
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68
DeKalb County School District. (2014). ITBS elementary schools [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/itbs-elementary-
schools.pdf
DeKalb County School District. (2015). Elementary schools: Science and social studies [Data
37
DeKalb County School District. (2016a). End of course 2015-2016 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/test-scores/
http://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/about/
Department of Education. (2014). Teacher quality partnership grant program notice inviting
applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Federal Register, 79(102), 30584-
12346/applications-for-new-awards-teacher-quality-partnership-grant-program
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
Georgia Department of Education. (2016a). School Climate Star Ratings [Data file]. Retrieved
from http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx
https://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Policy/Pages/School-
Climate.aspx#_ftn1
from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Pages/Science.aspx
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M.C. (2011). Professional development for
38
Gruenert, S., & Whitaker, T. (2015). School culture rewired : How to define, assess, and
Hansen, M. (2014). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM: Evidence from two states
doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.823364
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for teachers.
Lehman, J. D., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working
Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2012). Leading technology-rich schools: Award-winning models for
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. K. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration
Mayer, R. E., William, B., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more:
Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.
Miranda, H. H., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed
39
Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning.
Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC). Quincy, MA: Nelle Mae Education
Foundation.
Mongillo, G. (2008). Play, games, and attitude: Student and teacher perspectives of educational
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM
Naizer, G., Hawthorne, M. J., & Henley, T. B. (2014). Narrowing the gender gap: Enduring
changes in middle school students' attitude toward math, science and technology. Journal
Ragan, L. C. (1999). Good teaching is good teaching: An emerging set of guiding principles and
practices for the design and development of distance education. CAUSE/EFFECT, 22(1).
Rawson, C. H. (2014). Every flower in the garden: Collaboration between school librarians and
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T.
Zollman, A., Tahernezhadi, M., & Billman, P. (2012). Science, technology, engineering and
mathematics education in the United States: Areas of current successes and future needs.
40