Scholarship & Research
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/1
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Classroom climate in a rural school context: reflection, modification, and improvement in the science classroom(Montana State University - Bozeman, College of Letters & Science, 2018) Kessler, Aaron William; Chairperson, Graduate Committee: Greg FrancisWhen the tardy bell rings and the door closes behind the last student, a very peculiar thing happens. In an age that promotes complete and total connectivity, classrooms are very often being ran in isolation. Only during passing periods or time outside of the teacher/students class periods do conversations regarding student behavior, best practices and classroom climate take place amongst the teachers. This study was an attempt to modify this common occurrence and challenge teachers to learn from their peers during the most critical part of the school day, the time teachers and students were interacting during class time. Instructors observed their own students in different settings, commonly exhibiting different strengths and weaknesses academically, socially and behaviorally. Observing teachers learned from other teacher's good instructional strategies as well as learned from watching poor teaching strategies. Professional conversations regarding what happened during each aspect of the class period were held. Teachers collaboratively identified what works and what needs to be modified to work better. The results of the surveys that were given to the participating teachers indicated that for the first time in many of their careers, they feel that they had an honest assessment of their classroom climate as well as new strategies and teaching methods that could transform their teaching.Item The effects of technical writing strategies on student writing and scientific comprehension(Montana State University - Bozeman, Graduate School, 2016) Hutson, Ruth Lehmann; Chairperson, Graduate Committee: Peggy Taylor.For this research project, two writing strategies, Self-directed Inquiry (SDI) and Calibrated Peer Review (CPR), were evaluated to determine which strategy would be most effective in improving students' technical writing and science comprehension. Students from a small rural high school in Northeast Kansas (N=49) were evaluated. Class sizes ranged from three to sixteen. The data collection techniques included individual interviews, student surveys, Classroom Assessment Techniques (CAT) assessments, a teacher reflection journal, student writing samples assessed with both a Content and Ideas Rubric and Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), and comparison of pre-test and post-test scores. For one week, students learned through traditional classroom teaching methods in a comparison unit delivering content about Yellowstone National Park. It was followed by six weeks of implementing SDI, in which students learned about the biology, geology, and chemistry of the thermal features of Yellowstone National Park. Finally, for two weeks, students studied about the models scientists use to explain a primordial Earth using CPR. Results revealed that CPR was very effective in increasing students scientific comprehension based on normalized gain. Responses from student surveys indicated that they enjoyed using this approach to technical writing. Results were inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of the SDI approach to technical writing. There was no significant increase in student comprehension based on normalized gain when SDI was compared to the comparison group. In addition, student surveys indicated that they did not prefer this method to other technical writing approaches. More study is needed to determine how to best implement SDI in a high school science classroom.Item Does peer review improve lab report quality in high school science students?(Montana State University - Bozeman, Graduate School, 2011) Acker, Melanie S.; Chairperson, Graduate Committee: Peggy Taylor.My students are, for the most part, potentially very good writers. However, when I get these students, their lab report writing skills are quite limited, and therefore, are very poor. Focus for doing labs thus far in their science career has been how well they can perform the lab from verbal instructions not written instructions. The students have a difficult time reading and understanding what the protocol wants them to do, and they have an even more difficult time explaining what they performed during the lab activity in a lab report. This project investigated how well the students discussed their course of action after performing the lab activity in a written report. The students were given written lab protocols and were expected to follow the procedure and make observations along the way. The labs were all completed in one 45 minute class period. The students were then given one day in class to work on their lab report following the lab report rubric (Appendix A). Data collection for this project not only included lab report writing, but what the students' comfort levels were in different elements of the lab, how well they reviewed their own work, how well they reviewed other peer's work, and how they felt about the whole lab report writing process throughout the year. Several teachers were also asked to evaluate how well these particular students processed and followed directions in their classrooms as well. The resulted indicated that by implementing a peer review session into the lab report writing process the report score significantly improved. The students who struggled at the beginning of the process were now completing quality lab reports in half the time and the peer review rubrics were being scored with the highest marks. Because of these positive outcomes, I know that peer review is an integral part of the learning process to produce quality lab reports and I will continue to conduct this practice in my classroom in years to come.