Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2005 The oI wa Chemistry Education Alliance, ICEA: process and product Kathleen Annette Burke Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Instructional Media Design Commons, Science and Mathematics Education Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons Recommended Citation Burke, Kathleen Annette, "The oI wa Chemistry Education Alliance, ICEA: process and product " (2005). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 1716. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1716 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Iowa Chemistry Education Alliance, ICEA: Process and product by Kathleen Annette Burke A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Education (Curriculum and Instructional Technology) Program of Study Committee: Thomas J. Greenbowe, Major Professor Gary Downs Larry Ebbers Dennis Johnson Rex Thomas Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2005 Copyright © Kathleen Annette Burke, 2005. All rights reserved. UMI Number: 3200403 Copyright 2005 by Burke, Kathleen Annette All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3200403 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ii Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation of Kathleen Annette Burke has met the dissertation requirements of Iowa State University Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. immittee Member Signature was redacted for privacy. Committee wember Signature was redacted for privacy. C ittee M ibi Signature was redacted for privacy. or Signature was redacted for privacy. For the Major Program iii Prologue This work is a documentation of the process and product called the Iowa Chemistry Education Alliance. Four central Iowa high school teachers had a vision of what could be an exciting addition to the secondary school chemistry curriculum for them and for their students. They jumped into the task of making their vision a reality, drafted an outline, assumed their creative roles, and never looked back. Through the marvels of technology, they spent hours together, whether virtually (via electronic mail) or in face-to-face real time interactive audio-video exchanges. By sheer tenacity and determination, the outline became a draft, the draft was implemented, modifications were made, and the final product was finely crafted. At the end of eighteen months, the creative process yielded a worthy outcome—eight supplemental instruction modules with three supporting videotapes for the high school chemistry curriculum. The product was so good that other high school chemistry teachers wanted to use it, not one or two locally, but twenty-five teachers across the state of Iowa. Not a few hundred students, but 1600 of them! Not one year, but three succeeding years under federal funding and another three without funding! The original four teachers in Phase I shared their enthusiasm with eight new teachers in Phase II. Those twelve recruited fourteen more in Phases III and IV. Each veteran group mentored the novices. And all communicated the "right chemistry" to their students. Words cannot convey the good will, collegiality, and professionalism that have sprung from their Project. For each successive new group of students, however, the wellspring of the "right chemistry" was tapped and the excitement of statewide collaboration began again. This is their story... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iv Figure 1. ICEA Diagnostic Question 252 LIST OF TABLES iv Table 1. ICEA Diagnostic Pretest and Posttest Scores 245 ABSTRACT xv IOWA CHEMISTRY EDUCATION ALLIANCE MISSION STATEMENT 1 I. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW DESCRIPTION OF THE 2 IOWA CHEMISTRY EDUCATION ALLIANCE PROJECT A. The Problem 2 B. The Iowa General Chemistry Network 2 C. The Iowa Chemistry Education Alliance 2 1. The use of interactive technology 4 2. Communication 6 3. Interactive learning environment 6 4. Product and process 7 5. The ICEA Project—Phase I 8 6. The ICEA Project—Phase II 10 7. The ICEA Project—Phase III 11 8. The ICEA Project—Phase IV 11 9. The ICEA Project after funding 12 D. Dissertation goal 12 E. Author's Role in the ICEA Project as a Whole 12 II. CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16 A. Communication Technologies and Distance Education 16 1. Factors in distance learning research 17 2. Myths about distance learning 18 3. Some facts of distance learning 19 4. Shortcomings of distance education research 20 5. Gaps in distance education research 21 6. Concerns for secondary teachers 22 7. Evaluation will guide practice 23 8. Technology is a teaching and learning tool 23 9. Two-way interactive distance learning 24 B. The Iowa Communications Network, ICN 26 1. Overview of the ICN 26 V 2. The ICN classroom 27 a. ICN technology 27 b. Students 27 3. Suggested changes for ICN classrooms 28 4. Professional development 28 5. Mentoring 31 6. Teacher preparation time 32 7. Development of materials 33 8. Principles and strategies for effective teleteaching 33 C. Electronic Mail 37 D. The Internet 39 E. Focus Group Evaluation 40 1. What is a focus group? 40 2. Advantages and strengths of focus groups 42 3. Features of the focus group 44 a. Moderator 44 1) Moderator characteristics 45 2) Moderator involvement 47 b. Moderator guide 47 c. Participants 48 1) Time 48 2) Number of groups 48 3) Members 48 4) Group size 49 5) Timely arrival 49 d. Record of the focus group 49 1) Audiotaping 49 2) Handwritten notes 50 3) Dual recording 50 e. Problems with focus groups 50 f. Group dynamics 52 g. Participant authenticity 52 h. Dominant personalities 53 i. Session descriptions 53 j. Ground rules 53 k. Bias 54 I. Interest level 54 m. Analysis 54 F. The Changing Emphasis in the Classroom— 55 Away from "Coverage" to "Understanding" 1. The learning process 55 2. A new path 57 3. Lecture is not the answer 59 4. Focus on students 63 a. Student learning 63 vi b. Learning styles 66 5. A student-centered classroom 69 a. Students must be actively involved in the learning process 69 b. Teacher adaptations 71 c. Learning theory 72 c. Diversity in learning techniques 75 6. Cooperative and collaborative learning in groups 78 7. Learning to use cooperative strategies 80 a. Instructor role 80 b. Student response 82 8. Student groups 84 a. Group tasks and strategies 86 b. Some direct instruction 87 9. Cooperative Laboratory Experience 87 a. Hands-on, minds-on inquiry vs. verification exercises 88 1) Verification 89 2) Incorporating constructivism and inquiry 91 b. Cooperative work in the laboratory 94 10. Focusing on the group and group dynamics 95 a. Facilitating effective cooperative learning 96 1) Appropriate grouping 96 2) Distributed leadership 99 a) Roles 99 b) Design of work 99 3) Team building 100 4) Positive interdependence 100 5) Skills acquisition 101 6) Group autonomy 101 7) Individual responsibility and accountability 102 8) Teacher as facilitator 102 9) Group processing and self-evaluation 103 10) Equal opportunities for success among all members 103 11 ) Tearn competition 104 12) Individual needs adaptations 104 13) Social relationships in a cooperative group 104 14) Tasks 105 11. Problem-solving and learning tasks 105 12. Benefits of cooperative learning 106 a. Subject benefits 107 b. Student benefits 108 c. Peer mentoring 112 13. Why does group learning work? 114 14. Drawbacks 115 a. "Covering" course material 115 b. Time factor 115 vii c. Classroom management 116 d. Freeloading 116 e. Student absence 117 f. Students who prefer not to work in a group 117 15. Obstacles 117 16. Group consistency 119 G. Summary of the Literature Review 120 III. CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW AS APPLIED TO THE ICEA 121 PROJECT A. Communication Technologies 121 1. The role of the ICN in the ICEA 124 a. Students 124 b. Teachers 127 B. Focus Groups—An Integral Part 132 C. The Iowa Chemistry Education Alliance Project— 133 A Blend of Collaboration with Distance Technologies 1. The ICEA Project Curriculum 134 a. Teacher facilitator 135 b. Exploring to learn 135 c. National Science Education Standards 136 d. Integrating more content areas 137 e. Teacher mentoring and networking 137 IV. CHAPTER 4. THE IOWA CHEMISTRY EDUCATION ALLIANCE 139 PHASE I-ESSENCE AND ESSENTIALS A. Development of the Idea 139 1. Teacher training 139 2. The ICEA Model 140 3. Four ICEA Phase I teachers 142 4. New skills 144 5. Prototype module development 145 6. Support personnel 146 7. Supplemental materials 147 8. "Staff meetings" 147 B. Modules 148 1. Module development—a dynamic ongoing process 148 2. Overview description of the eight ICEA learning modules 150 3. First year use of modules 153 a.