The California Science Project Maria Freeman Abstract I. Introduction II. Background III. The Structure and Goals of CSP IV. Further Considerations V. References * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Abstract The California Science Project (CSP) is a professional development network serving the state of California in 18 regions. It is part of a larger network serving a variety of disciplines, the California Subject Matter Project (CSMP). State funding is allocated via competitive grants to the University of California, Office of the president (UCOP) for distribution to programs in higher education institutions. This paper describes the philosophy, goals, and organization of the California Science Project. I. Introduction The California Science Project (CSP) presents a professional development model for university and school collaborations. It is a university-based professional development network of 18 regional sites across the state of California. The CSP provides professional development opportunities and access to the resources of either the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU) or independent colleges and universities. Our service area is the entire state of California with sites in most of the regions of the state from CSU Humboldt, near the Oregon border, to the San Diego State Imperial Valley Campus in the Imperial Valley by the border with Mexico. All of the regional sites of the CSP have leadership teams that represent collaborative efforts between local teachers, schools and university faculty. The work of the CSP is grounded in fundamental beliefs about teaching, teachers, and the development of knowledge. These beliefs are core to all the work and can be seen as visible and key elements in the institutes, workshops, seminars, and events that constitute teacher professional development. CSP work is anchored in the fundamental assertions that: Go back up • Academic content knowledge is central and core to all the work. Teachers need to hold a deep and profound understanding of the content they are asked to teach in the science programs and curriculum in their schools and districts (Driel, 2001). Teachers cannot teach what they do not know. A deep understanding of content is essential as students look to their teachers for guidance in the development of their understanding of the natural world. As interactions and experiences with phenomena are more common place in classrooms, and as questioning becomes a more integrated teacher practice in developing critical thinkers, teachers need to have a strong command of the content and a deep understanding of the fundamental ideas and models that are the underpinnings of the discipline. Our work is about increasing teacher’s content knowledge, about assuring that teachers engage in the discipline, and that they understand the fundamental beliefs and models of the discipline. • Teacher’s knowledge of teaching and learning is central to the enterprise. Teachers bring a great deal of knowledge about the classroom, about students, and about learning to the professional development context (Loucks-Horsley, 2003). Teachers have much to say and contribute with regards to the classroom dynamic, the concepts or ideas that are difficult for students to learn, and about which science concepts or ideas are difficult to teach. This knowledge is critical in any professional development experience as it centers the work on the classroom and the student. It is always an important voice and component in the design and development of professional development. • Collaborations are critical. Professional development requires that those who hold different funds of knowledge be vested in the work (Cameron, 1996). The knowledge that discipline faculty, classroom teachers, and science education faculty hold and have developed through their professional practices is critical for the robust and rich experience that needs to be developed and proposed for teacher development. While each of these components is essential, no one of them alone is sufficient. The various lenses that each of the collaborators brings to the work adds to the richness of the work, helps to simplify and clarify many of the confounding problems that impact the classroom, and addresses the varied needs of participating teachers and schools. Go back up II. Background The CSP network was established as one of nine California Subject Matter Projects (CSMP) authorized by an assembly bill that was passed by the 1989 session of the California state legislature. As a result, resources were granted to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), for projects responsive to the professional development needs of teachers of science. This was especially timely since the California State Department of Education was developing new curriculum frameworks and assessment systems. These would require teachers to have greater knowledge of science, instruction that would focus on direct experience with phenomena and performance-based assessment systems. In response to this, a solicitation was developed that requested proposals from institutions of higher education (IHE) to host a regional site of the California Science Project, one of the CSMPs. The CSP Advisory Board and the CSP Executive Director reviewed proposals. Successful proposals were funded and the various regional sites established. The funding is granted under memorandums of understanding (MOU) between UCOP and the Offices of Contract and Grants of the host IHEs. All 18 sites of the CSP are physically located on an IHE, be that a UC, a CSU or an independent college or university. This positions the regional CSP site with a very friendly and clear face for the IHE within the region. Local schools and teachers are able to draw upon accessible and supportive faculty that provide positive and substantive interactions around science. The leadership teams are comprised of faculty from the college of arts and sciences, from the schools or departments of education, and expert teachers from local schools. The members of the leadership teams frequently teach the science methods course for pre-service teachers, or special studies in science education, or are the teachers of record in field and student teaching placements. The CSP leadership team members are seen as valuable clinical faculty and contributors to science teacher education programs. How and the degree to which the leadership teams focus their work or participate in programs is governed by “the internal logic” that is determined by faculty expertise, teacher expertise, and local needs. Go back up III. The Structure and Goals of CSP The oversight of the CSP network is through a hierarchical structure where the Regents of the University of California, through the UCOP, are charged and responsible for the work of the CSMP and thus the CSP. There is an Executive Director of the CSMP at UCOP that manages the nine networks and their resources. Each of the nine networks has an Executive Director and a statewide office that reports directly to the CSMP Executive Director and is charged with the management and oversight of the regional sites. The funds allocated to each of the regional sites are transferred from UCOP and administered through the appropriate financial office on the host campus or IHE. The work of the various regional CSP sites is situated within a context where the development of science content knowledge is through inquiry, as both an epistemological and pedagogical approach, and the direct experience of phenomena. In so far as it is possible, the focus is on developing a deep and profound understanding of content through an approach that might be categorized as “doing the discipline.” Thus, inquiry is core to the way the work is organized and serves as a key design principle. Direct experience refers to that event wherein the learner is the observer and participant in an experience where the resultant phenomena is observed, studied, analyzed, quantified, and hypothesized (National Research Council, 2005). The experience is subject to a deep analysis and requires that the participant be intellectually engaged and able to integrate the insights and knowledge into the evolving models that constitute an emerging understanding of the science in consideration. The teaching of science requires more than deep content knowledge (Zhang, 2005). It is explicit that the teaching of science requires other kinds of knowledge to be effective. In science, there are concepts and theories that are frequently difficult for teachers to grasp easily and are likewise difficult for students to understand. Experienced teachers know this well. Some concepts are difficult to teach, such as molarity as a ratio of particle density to volume. It is very difficult for students to operationalize the concept of dynamic equilibrium. There are a myriad of student misconceptions that enter into the teaching of science that need to be known and understood so that accurate student learning is achieved. Students have very naïve understandings about weak and strong acids and dilute and concentrated solutions of acids. Thus, the pedagogical components of CSP programs need to have robust understandings of what is difficult to teach, difficult to learn as well as misunderstood. Programs also support the instructional designs and materials used by teachers. To have programs that are absent the materials that are used day in and day out by the teachers would be a disservice to their development and practice. Research studies indicate that when professional development builds upon or is designed with the instructional materials used, there is a more direct impact on student learning (America;s Choice, 2002). Thus, CSP leadership teams need to be knowledgeable about the materials in use in classrooms. It is quite common to have CSP participants bring the books that they and their students use. It is also quite common for the institute to focus on the accuracy of the content, the effectiveness of the proposed activities or to analyze the tests, quizzes, projects, and assessments. Much can be gained by using instructional materials as a key element of the professional development experiences of teachers. As teachers participate in the work of the CSP, many of the teachers demonstrate varying degrees of expertise and leadership. These teachers are developing a practice that can readily be put on public display and scrutiny to support the development of their colleagues. Thus expert and experienced teachers can become instructional leaders, if provided with the support and development needed for leadership. CSP regional sites have leadership development programs that are invitational and serve to provide deeper content knowledge while also honing interpersonal skills so as to develop leaders, coaches, or mentors for more novice teachers. While not all teachers become teacher leaders, through the years, the CSP has developed a large pool of teacher leaders. The CSP develops and designs professional development experiences focused on the effective teaching of science. This is done through various mechanisms. These include a myriad of structures, the most common of which include: summer institutes, intersession institutes for year long schools, workshops of varying duration, short courses for graduate, extension or undergraduate, graduate or extension credit in science, seminars, and academic year programs. The programs may be differentiated by grade level or subject matter. So in any given summer, the CSP has a set of offerings that are designed for elementary, middle, or high school teachers and focused on life science, biological, or physical science. All of these offerings are anchored to inquiry as the key element of analysis of teacher learning, teacher discourse, teacher practice, and student work. The length of summer institutes, which is most accommodating to teacher schedules, is of one to two-weeks in duration. During these 40-80 hour institutes, a single content area is the focus of study and is designed to meet the content learning needs of either elementary or secondary teachers. Previous experience has proven that mixed groups of teachers from elementary, middle and high school do not serve well the content and pedagogical needs of all participating teachers. Thus, the institutes are highly differentiated by both discipline and school level. Academic courses in science are also developed and provide a more in-depth study of content. These courses are usually co-taught by both faculty and teacher leaders and grounded in the California Science Content Standards. Such a narrow emphasis is necessitated as a result of the overlap of teacher knowledge and the content focus of instructional programs in schools. The professional development that usually begins in the summer is continued through academic year sessions. These are either follow-up sessions that extend the summer institute focus or teacher study groups that focus on lessons, student work or the analysis of videos of teacher practice. These groups meet during the school year for intensive work that has evolved to form very productive learning communities. These communities are generating new understandings about sharing knowledge of teaching and the development of practice. Go back up IV. Further Considerations While it may seem that 18 regional sites can do a great deal of work and reach many teachers, the leadership teams can only develop and implement a given number of programs. Teacher leaders are our way to extend and include more teachers and also provide the reach of the regional CSP site. To develop teacher leaders, the site leadership team needs to be selective about candidates for such work. Leadership development is intensive work in both content knowledge and group dynamics and change theory. So the CSP regional sites offer invitational institutes that are for the specific purpose of developing instructional leaders. The invitational institutes deepen knowledge of both science and science pedagogy, focus on the current theory and research on learning in science, and focus on strategies for working with fellow teachers. These invitational institutes provide structures for coaching and mentoring others, whether they are new or experienced teachers, new to the teaching of science or new to teaching a new science program, or new to the school site or the district. Teacher leaders are the way that we expand the capacity of sites, as they strive to meet the local needs of teachers and schools in a way that is authentic and grounded in experience. It is these leaders that will share their knowledge, insights and strategies as effective teachers of science, and one whose students achieve. So what is the reach of the CSP? During the 2004-5 academic year the work of the CSP can be summed up in the following manner: • CSP regional sites designed and conducted 550 professional development events • CSP Directors worked with 5,108 distinct teachers • CSP regional sites developed Partnerships with ~ 60 schools • Overall, the CSP worked with ~ 200 schools Sustaining such a network is not without effort and without intentionality. However, there are key elements that are critical for this to occur. The CSP network thrives and maintains its vitality because: • Sites all have a jointly shared vision and the same goals. All strive to have every student taught by a highly qualified and caring teacher that develops in them a love of science and learning, and that honors and respects all people; • Open communication exists among and between sites, and between sites and the statewide office. Such communication is evidenced in the sharing of work, insights, tools and resources; • Technical support is the on-going work of the CSP statewide office. It is provided in various forms, through an external ombudsman, and through content experts that work with the entire project; • Professional growth comes about through opportunities such as attendance at various professional meetings, presentations by experts on topics of importance and relevance to the work, and by the review and analysis of research articles and findings at CSP network meetings; • Network meetings and retreats to enable the reaffirmation of common goals, open communication, and as opportunities and forums that enable professional growth; • Statewide database system used to document services provided by each region; and • Institutional support and commitment of the university to their community. Absent these key elements, sustaining these networks is difficult at best and may in fact prove fatal. The CSP has a collective life that needs all of these elements to continue thriving and working in the very difficult context of ever changing education policy and mandates. So, if asked, what would be key to this model? I would most assuredly affirm what is needed is: • Institutional support and commitment • Collaborative enterprises among schools, teachers and faculty • Dedicated funding • Service to local teachers and schools. Go back up V. References America’s Choice. (2002). America’s choice school design: A research-based model. The consortium for policy research in educational. National Center on Education and the Economy. Cameron, D. (1996). The role of teachers in establishing a quality- assurance system. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 225-227. Driel, J. (2001). Professional development and reform in science: The role of teacher’s practical knowledge [Electronic Version]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 38 (2), 137-158. Loucks-Horsley, S. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. National Research Council. (n.d). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Retrieved on December 15, 2005. Zhang, B. (n.d). A model-based reasoning framework for science teaching and learning. Michagan State University. Retrieved on December 15, 2005. Go back up