(PDF) Persistent Teaching Practices After Geospatial Technology Professional Development

Rubino-Hare, L. A., Whitworth, B. A., Bloom , N. E., Claesgens, J . M., Frederickson, K. M., Henderson-Dahm s, C., Sam ple, J . C. (20 16). Persistent teaching practices after geospatial technology professional developm ent. Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 20 8-285. Persistent Teaching Practices After Geospatial Technology Professional Development Abstract This case study described teachers with varying technology skills who were im plem entin g the use of geospatial technology (GST) within project-based instruction (PBI) at varying grade levels and contexts 1 to 2 years following professional developm ent. The sam ple consisted of 10 fifth- to ninth-grade teachers. Data sources included artifacts, observations, interviews, and a GST perform ance assessm ent and were analyzed using a constant com parative approach. Teachers’ teaching actions, beliefs, context, and technology skills were categorized. Results indicated that all of the teachers had high beliefs, but their context and level of technology skills strongly influenced their teaching actions. Two types of teachers persisting in practices from professional developm ent were identified: inn ovators and adapters. Persistence of practice and im plem entation of the integration of GST within PBI m ust continue after professional developm ent ends, or the sustainability of the positive results experienced during the professional developm ent will not persist. A com m on goal of professional developm ent (PD) is to im prove teachers’ skills, understanding, and pedagogical practices in order to im pact student learn ing (Wallace, 20 0 9; Yoon , Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 20 0 7). However, no sim ple input-output m odel exists; there are m any m ediatin g factors between what teachers experience during PD and how it is translated into student learn in g experiences in the classroom (Desim one, 20 0 9; Guskey, 20 0 2; Whitworth & Chiu, 20 15). Often, evaluation efforts of technology education PD docum ent im plem entation of pedagogical practices during the life of the program , but little is known about whether these practices persist once the program m atic supports end (Baker et al., 20 15; Lawless & Pellegrino, 20 0 7). Recently, a proposed geospatial technology (GST) and learnin g research agenda suggested the identification of the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge required for teachers to im plem en t and use GST as a priority for the field m oving forward (Baker et al., 20 15). The current study begins to address this priority. The purpose of this research was to determ in e what pedagogy persisted followin g a PD institute with project-based instruction integrating GST and what factors prom oted or hindered sustained im plem entation of these practices. 20 8 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Project Based Instruction Project based instruction (PBI) is a teachin g m ethod designed to prom ote students’ developm ent of 21st -century com petencies (critical thin king, com m unication, collaboration, and creativity; Partnership for 21st Century Learnin g, 20 15) through a collaborative, structured inquiry of an en gaging an d com plex question, problem , or challenge (Krajcik, Blum en feld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Larm er, Ross, & Mergendoller, 20 0 9). PBI also requires engagem ent in the practices of science, which translates into a deeper learnin g experience (National Research Council [NRC], 20 12). Man y GSTintegrated PD program s have prom oted the use of PBI integrated with GST (e.g., Bodzin , Anastsio, & Kulo, 20 14; Kolvoord, Charles, & Purcell, 20 14). Professional Development for Geospatial Technologies GST is a powerful tool to support spatial thinkin g, scientific research, and real-world problem solvin g (NRC, 20 0 6; Sinton & Lund, 20 0 7). Teachers who utilize GST within student-centered practices in their classroom s provide opportun ities for students to engage in data collection, analysis, and argum entation based on evidence (MaKinster & Trautm ann , 20 14). PD is a critical com ponent in the overall success of teachers’ developm ent of practices that will lead to effective im plem entation of science and technology in an authentic environm ent. Developing science content understanding, the intellectual capabilities of their students, and specialized pedagogical knowledge requires specialized PD focusing on the core ideas in the discipline and m odeling of how teachers should present the m aterial to their students (NRC, 20 0 7). Koehler and Mishra (20 0 5) stressed the need for authentic, project-based PD activities to help teachers develop this knowledge of how to teach content with technology effectively. To teach effectively with GST, teachers m ust build their knowledge, skills, and practices before they can im plem ent lessons with students and realize instructional chan ges that ultim ately lead to student learnin g gains (Desim one, 20 0 9; Guskey, 20 0 0 ). In addition, PD m ust help teachers integrate knowledge of GST into their existin g schem a (Coulter, 20 14; Kolvoord et al., 20 14). As technology has been infused into m ost schools, an d with greater accessibility of GST tools such as ArcGIS online and Google Earth, teachers can now focus on m ore sophisticated, student-centered technologies. In order to provide teachers with effective PD around GST and PBI, facilitators should im m erse teachers in a real-life problem which in volves the exam ination of spatial data (Borko, 20 0 4; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson , 20 0 3). As teachers grapple with spatial data to resolve a problem , they are able to experience m any of the sam e issues and struggles students encounter. By becom ing a learner of the content via im m ersion in inquiry, teachers broaden their own understandin g and kn owledge of the content they are addressing with their students (McAuliffe & Lockwood, 20 14; Moore, Haviland, Whitm er, & Brady, 20 14). Experiences should focus on teaching with GST and on learning m ore advanced tools as they becom e necessary for the exploration at hand (Barnett et al., 20 14; McClurg & Buss, 20 0 7). Providin g lessons and datasets that can be used im m ediately in classroom s supports im plem entation, but it is im portant to allow for som e adaptation of the teachin g m aterials to m eet teachers’ needs (Kolvoord et al., 20 14; Moore et al., 20 14; Stylinkski & 20 9 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Doty, 20 14). It is also im perative that teachers understand the theory behind the lesson design , so when chan ges are m ade, critical com ponents are m aintained (Sin ger, Marx, & Krajcik, 20 0 0 ). Implementation of Geospatial Technologies in the Classroom When teachers begin im plem enting GST-integrated PBI lessons they face barriers, such as finding tim e to im plem ent projects, pressures of high-stakes testin g, technology access, and com puter glitches (Baker & Kerski, 20 14; Barn ett et al., 20 14). Kerski (20 0 3) said that teachers who expressed an interest in teaching with GST did not actually use it until 1 to 3 years after they received the software. Teachers require adequate support, not only in the form of technology infrastructure, adm inistrative perm ission, and tim e to allow students to engage in authentic inquiries, but also from a com m unity of practice and educational m entors (Blan k, Crews, & Knuth, 20 14; Rubino-Hare et al., 20 13; McClurg & Buss, 20 0 7). Long-term PD allowing tim e for practice, reflection , and discussion with others in creases teacher im plem entation (Baker & Kerski, 20 14; Desim one, 20 0 9; Loucks-Horsley et al., 20 0 3). When teachers see the en gagem ent and learn ing gains from their studen ts, they receive positive reinforcem ent and gain confidence to im plem ent further (Guskey, 20 0 2; Yarnall, Vahey, & Swan, 20 14). Teachers who are com fortable with student-centered approaches such as PBI an d those who are willing to learn alongside their studen ts seem to be drawn to GST as a teachin g tool and have had success in im plem entin g (Baker & Kerski, 20 14; Baylor & Ritchie, 20 0 2; Coulter, 20 14). Charles and Kolvoord (20 0 3) described four stages through which teachers progress as they begin to teach with GST: entry, adopt, adapt, an d innovate. Kolvoord et al. (20 14) presented illustrative cases for the stages. During the entry stage, teachers are able to use GST within PD. The n ext stage sees teachers adopt and teach lessons that use GST to teach content as written, without m odification. Teachers who m odify lessons to m eet instructional objectives an d student needs are in the adapt stage. When teachers begin developing their own original activities, they have reached the innovate stage. The ultim ate goal of GST PD should be to m ove teachers along this continuum . The Power of Data Projects The Power of Data projects sought to increase science, technology, and 21st -century skills through im m ersive PD experiences with PBI, by requiring teachers to propose solutions to authentic problem s through spatial data collection and analysis utilizin g GST (RubinoHare et al., 20 13). Following the PD, teachers were expected to im plem ent sim ilar GSTintegrated PBI un its in their classroom s. The PD team included geology faculty m em bers, science teacher professional developers, GST experts, and science education researchers. PD institutes focused on teaching Earth science with GST. The prem ise for the institutes was that m odeling and practicin g research-based pedagogical m ethods through an im m ersion program focusing on real-life problem s would im prove participant science instruction (Loucks-Horsley et al., 20 0 3; Parker, Carlson, & Na’im , 20 0 7). The expectation was that instructional m odelin g would elicit a deeper level of understanding of how to integrate GST into content in a PBI context. Teacher team s who dem on strated the ability to im plem ent PBI and integrate technology in their classroom s were recruited to increase the likelihood of success durin g im plem entation (as in Blank et al., 20 14; Coulter, 20 14; Kerski, 20 0 3). Durin g the PD 210 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) institutes, spatial analysis with the goal of answering a question and presen tation of projects usin g spatial data as evidence to com m unicate claim s was em phasized (as recom m ended by Bodzin , Anastasio, & Kulo, 20 14; Coulter, 20 14; Zalles & Pallant, 20 14). Teachers experienced an Earth science un it utilizin g com m ercially available GST lessons (as in J ohnson & Schm idts, 20 0 5; Palm er, Palm er, & Malone, 20 0 8; Palm er, Palm er, Malone, & Voigt, 20 0 8 ) organized into a PBI unit designed to build conceptual understanding (as recom m ended in Larm er et al., 20 0 9; Schwartz et al., 1999). Teachers were then asked to im plem ent the lesson with students, encouraging m odifications for local relevancy (as in Coulter, 20 14; Kolvoord, et al., 20 14; Penuel, Fishm an, Yam aguchi, & Gallagher, 20 0 7; Stylin ski & Doty, 20 14). The prem ise was that im plem enting the lessons with students would enable teachers to see the benefits for student learn ing and encourage continued use (Baker & Kerski, 20 14; Guskey, 20 0 2; McAuliffe & Lockwood, 20 14; Trautm ann & MaKin ster, 20 14; Yarnall et al., 20 14). Although the PD content was sim ilar, two m odels of PD were enacted, one that occurred over an intensive, 2-week sum m er institute and one that was im plem ented on weekends throughout the academ ic year (Claesgens et al., 20 13; Rubino-Hare et al., 20 13). After initial PD, both groups were in vited to participate in an advanced 1-week sum m er institute to learn m ore about the theories behind the lesson design and to develop their own PBI units. Because technology was added to the already high dem ands of new student-centered and PBI pedagogies, barriers to im plem entation were anticipated and addressed in the design of the PD. These interventions included developing teachers’ content, pedagogical, and technical knowledge, requiring support from adm inistrators and inform ation technology (IT) specialists to ensure technology access, and providing classroom resources, including software, books, and data collection devices (as recom m ended by Kerski, 20 0 3; Mum taz, 20 0 0 ; Tam im et al., 20 11). In previous studies of the Power of Data projects, teacher skills, knowledge, school support, and student learning were m easured pre and post participation in order to determ in e overall effectiveness of the PD and the im pact of the PD form at on student learnin g (Claesgens et al., 20 13; Rubino-Hare et al., 20 13). Results indicated that when there was a high level of im plem entation of PBI integratin g GST, teachers an d their students im proved their perform ance on a num ber of factors regardless of the PD form at. Purpose A com m on assum ption is that in order for student learning gains to occur following teachers’ participation in PD, changes to pedagogical practices m ust persist beyond the PD (Desim one, 20 0 9; Guskey, 20 0 2). Yet, ability to sustain practices in teacher participants is a challen ge for high-quality PD program s (Lawless & Pellegrino, 20 0 7). Many variables com e into play that affect im plem entation, sustainability, and ultim ately, student learning (Lawless & Pellegrino, 20 0 7; Whitworth & Chiu, 20 15). Lawless and Pellegrino urged for these variables to be system atically investigated and the need identified to determ in e if pedagogical chan ge persisted after PD. Furtherm ore, identification of the support structures needed to m ain tain long-term pedagogical change was suggested (Lawless & Pellegrino, 20 0 7). The challenge is to determ ine what critical factors in high-quality PD program s support persistence of pedagogical practices. Therefore, based on findings from the previous 211 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) study (Claesgens et al., 20 13), the research question s guiding the current study were as follows: 1. 2. 3. What pedagogical practices did teachers sustain following the PD experiences? What contexts were present in schools that supported or lim ited the use of GST as a teachin g and learnin g tool? What characterized teachers who sustain ed practices? The study presented here followed teachers 1 to 2 years post-PD to construct a m ore com plete picture of the aspects that affected the path from professional learnin g experiences to the classroom . Methods This study em ployed a qualitative case study approach (Yin, 20 14) to describe the experiences and perception s of teachers who continued to im plem ent their learnin g in the first and second years after PD ended. When a lack of in -depth understandings of a phenom enon exists, case study designs are appropriate (Creswell, 20 0 9). The unit of analysis for the study was the teacher within the classroom . A variety of data, including artifacts, classroom observations, interviews, and survey results, were collected. Context The Power of Data PD was offered in two form ats: one through an intensive 2-week sum m er institute and the other via m onthly or bim onthly m eetin gs throughout the academ ic year. Both form ats im m ersed teachers as learners in a GST-integrated collaborative PBI unit, with the goal of responding to a driving question related to an Earth science concept (weather and clim ate and m ass wasting, respectively). Global/ regional investigations and inquiry-based science labs were followed by an application of the science concept in a m ore local context to propose m itigation solutions. For exam ple, teachers analyzed world and regional data to understand the differences between weather and clim ate (e.g., Power of Data Unit on Weather and Clim ate; see Appendix A). Arm ed with a greater conceptual un derstanding of how clim ate change can result in extrem e weather and how extrem e weather m ight affect the Earth system , they studied a local watershed and stream system (e.g., Power of Data Un it on Clim ate Chan ge Site Mitigation; see Appendix B). The final products presented were short- and long-term recom m endations to a fictional com m un ity plan nin g com m ission for site m odification alon g the stream system . Teachers were encouraged to replicate this process in their classroom s. They received lessons and datasets that could be im plem ented im m ediately as written or adapted as necessary. They were then encouraged to develop and teach an authentic PBI lesson for their context that required students to collect and analyze local data, integrate n on-GST hands-on science in vestigations, and present solutions. During the PD, participants spent tim e planning lessons an d future im plem entation. As they taught the lessons they received peer feedback through both face-to-face and online discussions to encourage a professional learn ing com m unity. Initial analysis of data from classroom observations, teachers’ self-reports, and students’ work from lessons indicated three levels of in itial im plem entation following PD: high im plem enters, m echanical im plem enters, and nonim plem enters (Rubino-Hare, et al., 20 13). High im plem enters were those who used GST, assigned students authentic 212 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) projects that em phasized claim s and evidence, and often required students to present project findings to stakeholders. In com parison to the high im plem enters, m echanical im plem enters were m ore com fortable im plem entin g step-by-step lessons from a GST text. Lessons and student assignm ents tightly followed the curriculum m aterials presented in the PD, though occasionally teachers adapted m aterials and students collected data in the field. The third group, non -im plem enters, did not im plem ent GST within lessons, and students did not use the software in any capacity. Many of the teachers participated in an advanced 1-week sum m er institute to learn m ore about the theories behind the lesson design , learn an d practice targeted GST skills, and develop and prepare data and base m aps for their own GST-integrated PBI un its (e.g., Advanced Institute Un it on Grand Canyon Ecology an d Advanced Institute Unit on Local Water Resource Analysis; see Appendixes C and D). Durin g the advanced institute, teachers received individualized support from the pedagogical, technical, and subject m atter experts. Participants One year after com pleting the final PD project, all form er Power of Data participants who were still teaching (n = 60 ) were contacted and asked to com plete an online survey to identify what aspects of the PD they were still im plem entin g in their classroom s. A total of 47 participants com pleted this follow-up survey, representin g a total response rate of 78%. Ten of the teachers who com pleted this survey (21% of survey responden ts) were purposefully selected for this study based on two criteria: level of in itial im plem entation and continued use of GST in the classroom . The 10 teachers selected for this study were previously identified as m echanical or high im plem enters during the initial PD and reported on the survey that they were continuing to teach with GST. These criteria for selection were used in order to determ ine if high levels of pedagogical practices continued 1 to 2 years following the PD experience. Descriptive characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. Data Collection Multiple m ethods of data were collected to triangulate findings, identify patterns, and develop a rich description of the patterns of im plem entation and persistence of practice (as in Creswell & Miller, 20 0 0 ). Data sources included artifacts, classroom observations, sem istructured interviews, and GST perform ance assessm ents. Because the research focus was on persistence of pedagogical practices, authentic classroom artifacts generated by each teacher were used as data. Face and content validity for the interview protocol and GST perform ance assessm ent were established through review by a team of geospatial educators. Modifications were m ade to the interview protocol and GST perform ance assessm ent as suggested by the team . Validity of the Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol has been established previously (Horizon Research, Inc., 20 0 0 ). Ar t ifa ct s . Teachers subm itted their lesson plans for GST-integrated, inquiry-based lessons. When applicable, they subm itted course syllabi for the courses where GSTintegrated lessons or PBI units would be im plem ented. Teachers also subm itted student work sam ples for GST-integrated lessons or PBI un its they im plem ented. These artifacts provided insight into how teachers utilized GST in their lessons and if or how they design ed PBI units for their curriculum . 213 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Table 1 Description of Participants, n = 10 Descriptor n (%) Middle School High School Public Charter Rural Urban Suburban Science CTE One Two Attended Did not attend Mechanical High 3 (30%) 7 (70%) 7 (70%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 9 (90%) 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 4 (40%) 6 (60%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%) 6 (60%) Demographic Category Grade level School type School location Subject Matter Years Post PD Advanced PD Initial Implementation Designation Se m i-s t r u ct u r e d in t e r v ie w . The interviews were design ed to be com pleted in 30 m inutes and were conducted by researchers external to the PD delivery team to discourage bias and to elicit honest responses from participants (see Appendix E). The goal of the interview was to understand what, if anythin g, teachers were still using from the PD and why. Teachers were first asked questions about their background with technology integration in general. Other question s were asked to construct an understanding of teachers’ school context, and specific questions were asked about what from the PD they were im plem entin g and why. Participants were also asked to identify barriers to im plem entation and how they m ight have overcom e these obstacles. Finally, teachers were asked about perceived or actual im pacts on student learning and attitudes and plans for future instruction. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Cla s s r o o m o b s e r v a t io n s . Teachers were asked to identify a GST-integrated inquirybased lesson in order for the researchers to conduct classroom observations. Prior to the lesson teachers were asked to identify the purpose of the lesson , the context of the lesson (days prior and following lesson), and the elem ents of inquiry that were present in the lesson. Classroom observations were conducted usin g a m odified instrum ent based on Inside the Classroom Observation and Analytic Protocol (Horizon Research, Inc., 20 0 0 ). Sections of im plem entation from the protocol were chosen as a focus (Table 2). Observers were looking for evidence of high-quality teaching, based on the degree of studentcentered teaching as opposed to direct instruction, an d the degree to which in quiry was valued and encouraged. 214 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Table 2 Dom ains and Item s in Observation Protocol Implementation • The instructional strategies were consistent with investigative mathematics/science. • The teacher appeared confident in his/her ability to teach mathematics/science. • The teacher’s questioning strategies were likely to enhance the development of student conceptual understanding/problem solving (e.g., emphasized higher order questions, appropriately used "wait time," identified prior conceptions and misconceptions). Mathematics/Science Content • Students were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the lesson. • Appropriate connections were made to other areas of mathematics/science, to other disciplines, and/or to real-world contexts. Classroom Culture • The climate of the lesson encouraged students to generate ideas, questions, conjectures, and/or propositions. GST Pe r fo r m a n ce As s e s s m e n t . A GST perform ance assessm ent was adm in istered pre- and post-PD to teacher participants. This assessm ent m easured participants’ abilities to use the ArcGIS software and was developed and used to m easure GST skills as part of the original Power of Data projects. Teachers were asked to perform increasingly com plex tasks, from opening an existing m ap docum ent and obtainin g inform ation from data tables to creating a m ap layout that com m unicates inform ation from the data in a choropleth m ap. Data Analysis A constant com parative an alysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990 ) was em ployed to analyze the qualitative data collected and to evaluate the sustained pedagogical practices of teachers. A sum m ary of the alignm ent between the research questions, data sources, and data analysis is provided in Table 3. Data were analyzed to identify the level of teachers’ teachin g actions, beliefs about teaching and learnin g, teachin g context, and technology ability. The criteria and categories em erging from the data and describing the levels in each of these areas are described in Appendix F. Further description of the analysis follows. 215 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Table 3 Alignm ent Between Research Questions, Data Sources, and Data Analysis Research Question What pedagogical practices did teachers sustain following the professional learning experiences? What contexts were present in schools that supported or limited the use of GST as a teaching and learning tool? • • • • • • Data Sources Classroom observations Artifacts Interview transcripts Data Analysis • Coded observations and artifacts for how teachers sustained pedagogical practices. • Confirmed coding with interview transcripts. Interview transcripts Classroom observations Artifacts • • What characterizes teachers who sustained practices? • • • Interview transcripts GST Performance Assessment Artifacts • • • Coded interview transcripts for teaching contexts that supported or limited GST use. Confirmed coding with classroom observations and artifacts. Coded interview transcripts for beliefs. Coded GST performance assessment for technological skill using GST. Confirmed coding with artifacts. Te a ch in g a ct io n s . Im plem ented pedagogical practices were categorized as teachin g actions. The following teachin g actions were identified from a review of all the data: • Opportun ities for students to engage in authentic projects. • Opportun ities for students to collect and analyze data. • Opportun ities for students to work with or present fin dings to local stakeholders and professionals. • Opportun ities for students to use GST to learn content and com m unicate ideas. These actions were inform ed by the PBI literature (Krajcik, Blum enfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1999). Teachers who used all four of these teachin g actions were 216 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) coded high (Appendix F). Those teachers who m et three of these criteria were coded m edium . For exam ple, one m edium -action teacher m odified a lesson about a hazardous spill from a GST text to provide a local, authentic context, and the students used GST to com m unicate their ideas. If fewer than three teaching actions were present, the teachers were coded as low . Teachers who were coded low were not com pletely void of student-centered teaching. For exam ple, one low-action teacher attem pted to m ake learnin g relevant for students by delivering a lecture and providin g news articles about current natural disasters, but students followed step-by-step instructions to study old data from a text provided during the PD rather than explorin g current data or a relevant local natural disaster. Teachers who used none of the identified teaching actions were coded none. Be lie fs a n d co n t e xt . Them es em erging from teachers’ interview responses about supports or barriers to teaching with GST were exam ined. Transcriptions of interview data were read individually by three researchers and open coded to classify elem ents of the data and look for em ergin g categories or them es. Three researchers reviewed these initial codes. To ensure interrater reliability, sim ilar codes were m erged, redundant codes were elim inated, and definitions and codes were developed into the initial codebook. Each interview was then recoded by two researchers, and 10 0 % agreem ent was reached through discussion. The codes were crosschecked and then revised to form m ore broad categories. Patterns in the interview responses form ed around (a) beliefs about teachin g and student learnin g and (b) context. Teachers’ discussions of beliefs about teaching and learnin g were coded as beliefs. Teachers’ discussions centered around the followin g six ideas: student-centered approaches, high outcom e expectancy for students (Bandura, 1977), the im portance of m akin g learning relevant for students, data collection and analysis opportun ities for students, engagin g com m unity m em bers as stakeholders in student learnin g, and recogn ition of GST as a tool for student learning and com m un ication instead of a learn in g goal in itself. Following the developm ent of these categories, we further exam ined transcripts to code teachers as high, m edium , or low in the category. Teachers who described four or m ore of these beliefs about teaching and learning were coded as high beliefs, teachers who discussed three of these beliefs were coded m edium beliefs, and teachers who scored two or fewer of these beliefs were coded low beliefs (Appen dix F). The code context describes the school structure and en viron m ent, includin g the course in which the teacher im plem ented GST, technology support, and school support. Teachers’ discussions of context were coded based on the following: class size, flexibility in subject m atter and curricular decisions, access to reliable technology, extended tim e to work on projects, adm in istrative, IT, and teachin g supports (e.g., resources such as texts, lessons, and equipm ent). If five or m ore of these conditions were in place for a teacher, they were categorized as high context (Appendix F). High-context teachers had a great deal of flexibility, tim e, access to com puters, and support to im plem ent projects using GST with students. If a teacher had three or four of these conditions in place, they were coded as m edium context. For exam ple on e m edium -context teacher had larger class sizes and only seven com puters, but had a great deal of support from adm in istration and a supportive colleague who helped with projects. Those teachers who had fewer than three of the conditions in place were categorized as low context. One low-context teacher had sm all class sizes but an adm in istrator who was very focused on readin g and m athem athics and 217 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) did not support the use of technology with students and provided little access to reliable com puters. Te ch n o lo g y . To provide insight into teachers’ abilities with GST and classroom im plem entation, teaching actions again were exam in ed and teachers’ technology skills were studied to create a better characterization of the teachers. To understand teachers’ technological knowledge, teachers’ perform ance on the GST perform ance assessm ent was exam in ed . This assessm ent m easured participants’ abilities to use ArcGIS software to display layers, obtain inform ation, and com m un icate variability in data (Appendix F). Teachers who were able to obtain or create data of their choosin g, gen erate m aps, and create graphical representations from data to com m unicate bigger ideas were scored as high in technology. M edium -level technology teachers could gen erate m aps an d create graphical representations from data provided to com m unicate ideas. Teachers who could create basic m aps from provided data and obtain inform ation from data to answer or generate their own questions were coded as low . Results The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the critical factors im pactin g teachers’ persistence with integration of GST within PBI units 1 to 2 years following PD. Ratings for teachers in teaching actions, context and beliefs, and technology are found in Table 4. All teachers had high beliefs at the tim e of the study, but displayed a range of levels in technology, context, and teachin g actions. Further exploration of these findin gs is presented first, followed by a presentation of two illustrative cases. Table 4 Teachers and Categories 1 to 2 Years Post PD Teacher A B C D E F G H I J Teaching Actions high high high high high med low low low low Teaching & Learning Beliefs Teaching Context high high high high high high high medium high medium high low high low high low high medium high medium Technology Ability high high high high high medium medium low medium low Te a ch in g Actio n s Results indicate that all teachers persisted at som e level with the pedagogical practices presented during the in itial PD. Five of the 10 teachers displayed all four of the teachin g actions and were identified as high action . For exam ple, one high-action teacher recognized the value students placed on a stream that runs behind their school. The teacher capitalized on students’ concerns about the quality of the water to engage them in an authentic environm ental study (e.g., Power of Data Lesson Plan on 218 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Macroinvertebrates, Appen dix G). The students collected water quality data such as pH and turbidity. They also captured and cataloged m acroinvertebrates at different points in the stream . They m apped and analyzed these data using GST and then used the data as evidence to m ake claim s about stream health. One teacher used three of the teachin g actions, identified as a m edium action, and four used two of the teaching actions, identified as low action. The m edium -action teacher m odified a lesson about a hazardous spill from a GST text to provide a local, authentic context. Since the school was near a nuclear power plant, the teacher invited the fire departm ent to share a story about an aerosol can spill that happened a few years prior, which resulted in the closing of a m ajor interstate for 7 hours. The students used this story to consider em ergency response of another potential hazard. They researched the worst-case scenario effects of a possible explosion at the plant, calculated the extent of the hazard area, developed an em ergency plan to divert traffic and keep the area safe, and presented and defended their plans to each other. In the future the teacher plans to have students present to the school board and the fire departm ent. Low im plem enters generally did not include authentic experiences. For exam ple, one low action teacher attem pted to m ake learnin g relevant for students by deliverin g a lecture and providin g news articles about current hazardous weather events, but students studied data about an older weather event from a text provided during the PD rather than current weather data, which would have resulted in a m ore authentic project (e.g., Power of Data Lesson Plan on Weather an d Clim ate; Appendix H ). Context Context is an essential elem ent of teachers’ ability to im plem ent new technology and pedagogical practices (Cox, 20 0 8). Three teachers scored high in context, four scored m edium , and three scored low. Based on the experiences of all teachers studied, four critical contextual factors were identified as especially im portant for persistence of practice: subject m atter alignm ent, curricular flexibility, assessm ent, and support. All teachers in this study taught science or technology classes. Earth, environm en tal, and life sciences seem ed particularly suited to conducting fieldwork, data collection, and the analysis GST affords, possibly because the nature of these disciplin es gen erally requires exam ination of spatial data to identify patterns, and relies on a system s perspective for their theories. Teachers in these content areas appeared to be able easily to integrate pedagogy and technology into the curriculum bein g taught. For exam ple, an Earth science teacher described how GST was used to gather and explore data students collected after a nearby fire and how the students used these data to m ake claim s about erosion: Earth science, it’s real easy to use the GIS….[It] really helps with the evidence part, and not just, “Here’s a m ap with everything on it.” It’s better for [students] to explore [a site] and find [data] them selves…. I think it’s beneficial because you can visualize and you can sort the data. It’s som ethin g useful in lookin g for patterns, and that’s really som ething I wanted m y students to do, like, “Do they see a pattern in the data they collected?” …We can just talk about fires or just talk about erosion , or we can talk about a real exam ple. (Teacher D) This teacher was able to connect the subject m atter to the technology easily; thus, she was able to im plem ent the technology within her classroom . 219 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Second, curricular flexibility, or the ability to choose the pedagogical strategies and sequencing of lessons necessary to arrive at learning goals, also affects im plem entation. For exam ple, Teacher H felt constricted by curriculum : In 6-8, we're departm entalized, so the sixth graders get their reading tim e using a scripted reading program that the rest of the school is using. So that's very restrictive….Tim e is prescribed, the teacher's m anual tells the teacher exactly what to say and what m aterials to have ready at every point in the lesson . No flexibility at all. I would say that at this point in tim e, the readin g program overrides the curriculum . (Teacher H) The lack of flexibility in the curriculum and inability of Teacher H to change this prescribed curriculum led to reduced im plem entation. It also reduced the teacher’s ability to choose the best pedagogical approach to utilize in lessons. In addition to a supportive context, teachers who understand how particular technologies and pedagogies im pact student learnin g are able to understand m ore easily how to m eet educational objectives usin g these technologies (Cox, 20 0 8). In this study, som e teachers struggled to see how teachin g their particular content with GST would m eet student learnin g objectives. On e exam ple of this was Teacher G: “I have to write lesson plans and I have to [identify] what standard I am teachin g to. Would you please show m e standards for the state of [om itted] for GIS?” This teacher did not see GST as a tool for helping students learn the content. He was still thinking about the technology as the learnin g goal. Given there were no explicit state standards for GST and his lesson plans were checked by his adm inistration, Teacher G had difficulty identifying standards and was con cerned about im plem entin g the project in his classroom . In contrast, Teacher E recogn ized the pressure of high-stakes testing, but was allowed flexibility in his teaching approach, which em powered him to m ake the best pedagogical choices for his students: We do have a…district test for every class. And then, in m y [Advanced Placem ent] AP class I have…that AP exam . But…there’s nobody telling m e the road I need to take to get there. So it’s kin d of like, “This is where we want you to be successful in these things, but we’re very open to…how you get students there.” (Teacher E) This teacher m ay have had a m ore developed sense of how the GST was an appropriate tool to help his students reach their learn ing objectives. He displayed a higher level of ability for usin g GST to teach en viron m ental science by understandin g how to best incorporate the technology and pedagogy with the content. Like Teacher E, those who did not feel the external pressures of the school system or state testing and had support from their district or school were able to accom plish m ore in their classroom s. Teacher C is a representative exam ple of this circum stance: We have m ore freedom within our school because our school’s agenda is one of innovation….They are trying to lead...in innovative, m ore technologically advanced approaches to teaching. And so from that standpoint we have m uch m ore freedom than m any m ight... (Teacher C) In his classroom , he was able to have m ore control over the curriculum because of the support and vision of his school and adm in istration . 220 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Even teachers who were able to im plem ent at the highest levels struggled with the curricular issue of how to m easure learnin g within the traditional gradin g system . For exam ple, Teacher E im plem ented a highly successful project in an AP environm ental science course where students were able to conduct an energy audit, share it with teachers and adm in istrators, and effect change at their school. For this course, students pay a fee and m ust pass a standardized, rigorous content test to gain college credit. Although the energy audit project was relevant and engagin g for students, it did not adequately prepare them for this high-stakes test. The teacher was considerin g goin g back to a m ore traditional way of teaching, because success is conventionally viewed as students doing well on an AP exam . The conflict is obvious. The teacher knew the project was powerful for students but could not reconcile that success with the pressures for the students to pass the AP exam . Another teachin g team also recogn ized positive student learn ing outcom es that are difficult to m easure with a letter grade: We had a kid who [couldn’t find available data]….Oh, wow. He was determ in ed to get this on his m ap. [after teacher encouragem ent] the kid went nuts....He was just so excited to be able to include that in his thin kin g....The reward for that was his original thought that would then be recogn ized in the grading. But beyond that it was just that he knew that he had done som ething that was not yet available elsewhere. (Teacher B) The team struggled with how to assess the student project. Teachers and students viewed a rubric as a way to delineate m in im um requirem ents for final student products: That approach [rubrics] really got great results out of kids, saying, “This is bottom line, but if you want to im press us and get a high grade then show us what you can do. But you really have to say that up front, because kids need to know how they are being evaluated, and that’s always the hard part, and we were strugglin g with that last year. (Teacher C) Within a system that values grades, and because a num eric gradin g system was assigned to each category of the rubric, teachers and students had difficulty thin kin g about the rubric as a com m unication tool to exam in e the quality of work and learnin g displayed and to provide feedback and suggestions for revision. Finally, successful teachers often had support or found support. If they did not have support at their schools, they sought out com m unity m em bers to collaborate with the class. Com m unity GST experts becam e m entors to students and m ay have provided support for teachers who lacked GST skills. Partn ers in the com m un ity also posed problem s for students to tackle or acted as an audience of stakeholders to m ake student projects m ore authentic. For exam ple, Teacher J team ed up with a un iversity faculty m em ber whose specialty was the fishing industry. Students m apped fish behavior to exam in e capture m ethods and freshwater residency. They reported their results to an advisory com m ittee for the Departm ent of Fish and Wildlife. It is evident that contextual factors played a critical role in whether teachers were able to im plem ent and sustain the teachin g practices from the PD. Teachers with strong subject m atter align m ent, curricular flexibility, and support from their school or districts were able to persist in their teaching practices beyond the PD. 221 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Beliefs All 10 teachers were coded high in the beliefs category, indicatin g higher levels of pedagogical knowledge. They m ention ed m ore than three beliefs about teaching and learnin g aligned with research on effective student learnin g. They consistently talked about bein g im pressed by students’ abilities an d how they wanted to provide opportun ities for students to “use their brains.” For exam ple, Teacher D identified som e issues with im plem enting in quiry and how she decided to address it: “I thin k m y students really struggled with the inquiry...although these students were bright...they have been pam pered....So, instead of doin g less inquiry I decided to do m ore.” Another teacher recogn ized the im portance of allowing students to have ownership over their projects: “But the big GIS projects that we do...are done basically to em power students....The students realized that they have power” (Teacher E). Teachers recognized the im portance of allowin g students to have choice and the struggle this m ay involve. Teachers discussed usin g current events and local issues to m ake learning relevant for students and suggested students were m ore en gaged if they could actively explore and analyze data. For exam ple, Teacher F described the following: It is m y students' future….This is going to be an asset for them ....I wanted to brin g this tool to them to use as they use tech with their friends. I want them to be that fam iliar with it....I am excited about the program . I'm getting ready to work with the fire departm ent this sum m er. They are a big stakeholder. You don't know how im portant this is. If our students get trained in ArcGIS, they could get jobs. (Teacher F) Teacher F recogn ized GST was a m ean s to m ake learning relevant to students and to supply them with skills that could aid them in future career paths. Other teachers recognized the im portance of m aking learning relevant, student-centered, and engagin g for students, as exem plified by the following quotation: Prior to m y in volvem ent [in Power of Data] I didn’t use any of this stuff and taught traditionally....Students over tim e had becom e less and less willin g to learn from the 1950 ’s m odel of education....using technology and using the inquiry based approach, with the students generating questions and the m aterial that they learn, is relevant to their existence....If you package all of those thin gs together I thin k you m ake a m uch happier and effective learnin g environ m ent for the student. (Teacher J ) None of the teachers in this study fell into m edium (on ly discussing three of the item s) or low (discussing fewer than three of the item s) categories. However, analysis indicates that high beliefs did not consistently translate to practice. Te ch n o lo gy Five teachers had high technology skill level usin g GST. Three teachers had a m edium skill level, and two teachers had a low level of GST skill. Technology skill level was predictive of levels of teaching action im plem entation that were closer to the vision of the 222 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Power of Data project team . We also found that teachers with high technology skill were able to overcom e certain contextual barriers. We observed that barriers such as large class size, lack of access to com puters or IT support, or lack of adm inistrative support were overcom e by teachers with higher technology skills. For exam ple, one high technology teacher at a large urban school had no access to com puter labs, but he was able to obtain com puters for his class to use for GST projects. I join ed the [Power of Data] crew and cam e back with just such a thrill for it and kind of told m y adm inistrator, “You know, you sign ed the paper. What are we going to do? How are we going to do this?” And we were able to scroun ge up seven unused com puters. And from that we built, we added…additional RAM to [them ]. (Teacher E) This teacher had confidence in his ability to upgrade and m aintain the hardware necessary to run the software, indicatin g his strong technological knowledge. In com parison to the high technology Teacher E, who overcam e his contextual barriers, Teacher G, a m edium technology teacher who did not attend the Advanced Institute, was not able to overcom e the contextual barriers at his school: Last year I had adequate tim e [to collect data in the field] and that was great. Now we have a problem . I was in a block schedule, for 90 m inutes. I'm now in a seven-period day. Fifty m inutes. In a 90 m inute class, I could actually take m y kids out to collect the data. Now I can’t take m y kids. By the tim e I take attendance, it's over. (Teacher G) Teacher G was lim ited by the chan ges to the structure and schedule of his classes. He was unable to find ways to com plete the work n eeded in a shorter tim e fram e; therefore, he gave up on im plem enting in the classroom . In con trast, Teacher F, also a m edium technology teacher at a rural high school, had little com puter lab access, unreliable Internet, and no support from adm inistration or IT. H owever, she attended the Advanced Institute where she had an opportunity to practice and learn additional GIS skills. Determ ined to im plem ent a GST project, she partnered with a graphics arts teacher who had a lot of com puters. She was able to add 1 hour each day over an extended period of tim e for her GST project, thus, overcom ing her contextual barriers. Though she had m edium technology skills, she sought out som eone with higher skills to help. Teachers in this study were initially characterized by two levels of im plem entation, m echan ical and high. The categories align well with Charles and Kolvoord’s (20 0 3) stages of tool use for teachers followin g the entry stage of PD, (adopt, adapt, innovate): Adapters and In novators (Table 5). Innovators as a group have high beliefs, high action s, high technology skills, and m edium to high context com pared to the Adapters, who also have high beliefs, but are low to m edium in technology, actions, and context. In this study, five stand out as Innovators and five as Adapters. Usin g these categorizations, illustrative case sum m aries were developed to describe these stages of teachers. In n o v a t o r s . In novators were high in both beliefs and actions and displayed higher levels of ability to integrate technology within their context. Qualities that exem plify Innovators included the teacher not only believing the learnin g should be relevant, authentic, and experiential for students, but also acting upon these beliefs by im plem enting lessons that exem plified those stated convictions. 223 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Table 5 Innovators and Adapters Teacher A B C D E F G H I J Category Innovator Innovator Innovator Innovator Innovator Adapter Adapter Adapter Adapter Adapter Teaching & Learning Beliefs high high high high high high high high high high Teaching Context high high high medium medium low low low medium medium Technology Ability high high high high high medium medium low medium low Teaching Actions high high high high high med low low low low Because they had higher technology skill, the In novators orchestrated experiences for students that included conducting fieldwork, analyzin g spatial data, and working directly with and m akin g presentations to com m unity stakeholders. These teachers believed all students could learn and provided opportunities for students to explore their world and struggle with real problem s. The teachers understood that the power of GST lies not in the technology itself, but in its potential to build spatial thinking, scientific practices, and 21st -century skills in studen ts. Innovators were risk takers and willin g to cede control and learn alongside the students. They encouraged students to explore data in a GST and then create new products for com m unication usin g GST. Som e evidence indicated that the initial required im plem entation and resulting evidence of student learning influen ced Innovators to continue. Teacher E cam e into the program with high technological knowledge; he was pursuing a graduate degree in GIS and had the technical ability to create his own classroom lab, load the software, and troubleshoot. He also hinted at his tendencies to m odify lessons to m eet his students’ needs, indicating his knowledge of pedagogy and content: We had really…poor screens to start out with, I m ean hand m e, hand m e, han d m e downs....Then also we had to upgrade the RAM. We were given 1 gig and that was just crashing terribly. And so we had to find the funding to up that, and we did. I just m odified [the lessons provided in PD] a little bit...based on what I saw the first tim e I used it. I was takin g on a lot as a teacher as m y first year of teaching AP. It was m y first year getting a lab up and runnin g in m y classroom that could use GIS. So there’s a lot of firsts in there. And so I kin d of stum bled through the lesson. But I also did find som e really good points and som e really good thin gs to change and to utilize. So I’m using it again . Claim s and evidence, we did that....It’s all really based on the real world problem s. (Teacher E) Another Innovator teachin g team talked about how they had used sim ilar pedagogical skills before the program , but refined them as a result of the PD. In an interview with the two teachers, they discussed the followin g: 224 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) I think the Backward Design and the problem -based approach we have found to be a really fantastic idea, and it has pretty m uch structured what we’ve don e in the course, both the last year when we were doing it for [the PD program ] and this year as the follow-up year. (Teacher B) Even before that we had used a sim ilar thing not quite as well structured, but a sim ilar approach….[Students] knew that the courses that I would teach, they would not be deadbeat courses. They wouldn’t be courses that are just tim ekeepers. They would be doin g som ething where they would have to, you know, use their brain , an d they like that….That’s the expectation. If you can perform and analyze and tell m e responses that m ake sense that you can draw from the data you have that are appropriately lin ked, yeah, you’ll be fine. (Teacher C) The teachers began with high, standards-based expectations for their students and described that students would need to analyze spatial data critically using GST in order to m ake claim s based on these data. These behaviors indicate an advanced understanding of pedagogical practices within their context. Innovators like Teachers B and C held high expectations for their students and encouraged students to develop 21st -century skills through their interaction with the technology. Innovators recognized im portant concepts that could be enhanced by the exam ination of spatial data within a GST. They identified authentic connections and provided opportunities for students to analyze and present evidence-based explanations and solutions based on these data collaboratively to stakeholders. Ad a p t e r s . In com parison, Adapters were successful in adapting and teachin g at least once a lesson that was provided durin g PD, but often began to revert to adopting lessons as written in GST texts. Adapters had lower technological skills and were gen erally m ore com fortable using resources and data already created. They frequently played the role of deliverer of knowledge. Adapters preferred a m ore controlled classroom environm ent. After the PD had ended, they continued to teach with GST to som e degree. The pedagogical practices presented during the Power of Data PD were persisting in their classroom s at som e level. However, there was som ethin g preventing these teachers from fully teaching in the way they expressed was best for student learnin g. Teacher J is an exam ple of an Adapter. Initially, this teacher’s students tackled a local issue with the help of GST professionals and local wildlife scientists, indicating som e understanding of the im portance of students engagin g in an authentic problem . A year later, the teacher sounded like an Innovator, em phasizin g teachin g “using the inquirybased approach” and “students generating question s.” Yet, the actual teachin g observed in this classroom was a traditional teacher-centered lecture on current natural disasters. The lecture was followed by com puter lab tim e in which students followed a set of stepby-step instructions. Instructions guided them to exam ine 15-year-old data sets provided by the teacher and answer low-level questions provided on a traditional worksheet. The assessm ent of this lesson was provided by the curriculum and required students to create an evacuation plan for inhabitants rather than m ake a claim about how populations are affected by weather events, which was the goal of the lesson , according to the teacher. This instruction som ewhat followed the m odel provided in PD, but based on our definition of teaching action (Appendix F) this lesson fell on the low end of im plem entation practices. 225 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Additionally, contextual barriers such as tim e, curricular flexibility, and access to com puters were som etim es m ore than could be overcom e. For exam ple, one Adapter said, “...You can't do this in a 50 -m inute period unless you have a lab settin g. In a public school, that's kind of hard” (Teacher G). Another Adapter said: “So we use the M apping Our W orld lessons [GIS text] to kind of supplem ent, or to give the kids a break....” (Teacher I). These statem ents exem plified typical views held by the Adapters: that GST is a skill taught in isolation, as an elective course, or to supplem ent instruction. Overall, they placed an em phasis on teaching about the capabilities of the technology rather than on utilizing the technology as a tool to help students develop content understanding through data analysis and for com m unicatin g ideas. Adapters viewed the GST as a skill to learn that is tangential to the content learnin g. They did n ot see GST as im portant for helping students analyze spatial data to find patterns, understand content, or com m unicate ideas. Discussion The goal of this study was to determ ine if teachers who im plem ented lessons at a m echan ical or high level during PD would continue to im plem ent 1 to 2 years following PD and to what extent they would im plem ent. The intent was to determ in e which practices they sustained an d in what contexts and to attem pt to characterize teachers who persisted in these teachin g practices. Persistent Pedagogical Practices Evidence dem onstrates that practices consistent with teachers’ goals for student learnin g persisted following the PD. Participating teachers all im plem ented GST-in tegrated lessons at an innovate or adapt stage. PD em phasized the im portance of allowing students to experience learnin g science as scientists do by en gaging in the practices of science around authentic issues. Teachers recogn ized career connections and the potential of GST to engage students who are interested in technology but m ight not norm ally be drawn to the natural sciences. Teachers experienced the collaborative use of GST to explore solutions to problem s and built on the strengths of team m em bers during PD. These practices were also enacted in their classroom s. This m odel resonated with teachers. They saw the value of im plem enting lessons for developing 21st -century workforce skills, such as critical thin king, collaboration, and com m unication . They en gaged com m un ity m em bers as stakeholders to provide an authentic context and gave students the opportun ity to work in team s to explore geographic questions. Teachers recognized the cross-disciplinary nature of GST tools and wanted to give their students opportun ities to en gage with the technology as well. PD providers should keep these unique affordances of GST in the forefront as they work to support teachers to teach with GST. Teachers with less-developed technology skills were m ore likely to im plem ent if they had m aterials and datasets that could be adapted to fit within their curricular needs. This findin g is consistent with literature on coherency and best practices for GST PD (Kolvoord et al., 20 14; Moore et al., 20 14; Stylin kski & Doty, 20 14). Our findin gs further confirm the im portance of providing teachers with resources and supports during PD, especially those with lower technology skills. In order to see higher levels of im plem entation contin ue, m ore tim e should be spent on developing the technology skills of science teachers. This study does not address whether 226 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) teachers learned GST skills better within the context of engaging in a real-world problem than they would have learn ed it in isolation. However, participants had the opportunity to experience som e of the lim itations and abilities of the tool for teachin g specific Earth science concepts during PD, which m ay have been helpful for learning. As Baker et al. (20 15) recom m ended, additional research is n eeded to determ in e if the use of GST in different content areas require different levels of technological and pedagogical skills. We are currently conducting a design-based research study to determ ine if the Power of Data PD m odel can be translated into new contexts to achieve sim ilar desired outcom es. Persistence of practice and im plem entation of the integration of GST within PBI m ust occur after PD ends or the sustainability of the positive results experienced during the PD will not persist. If teachers are able only to im plem en t with support from PD staff, GST will never see widespread use. Context Supports and Limitations Based on the experiences of all the teachers studied, four critical contextual factors were identified as especially im portant for persistence of practice: subject m atter alignm ent, curricular flexibility, assessm ent, and support. Im plem entation within the context of a traditional school system plays a huge role in determ ining what practices persist. Our goal was im proved teacher instruction and use of technology to bring authentic learnin g to the classroom . We wanted teachers to use data to help students visualize phenom ena, look for patterns, and propose solutions to authentic problem s using data as evidence for claim s. We were focused on im plem entation leading to im proved student learnin g as a m easure of success. However, in spite of these goals and PD provision, traditional school system s constrained teachers, and structured courses dictated what should be taught and how students should be assessed. Those teachers who recogn ized and described student learning sim ilar to our definition and the definition in the literature (Krajcik et al., 1999) were m ore able to persist with the practices presented in the PD. They had such high beliefs in the value of teachin g with GST and PBI that they m ade it work by squeezin g it into an overloaded curriculum or offering a special elective course. Those teachers who did not recognize the value or who ran into too m any barriers were less likely to persist with the initial chan ge in their practice followin g im plem entation. This findin g is consistent with the literature that context will determ ine persistence (Borko, 20 0 4; Desim on e, 20 0 9; Penuel et al., 20 0 7). Perhaps expectin g teachers to be innovating constantly is un realistic. High levels of in novation are difficult to m aintain , and if teachers are utilizing existing high-quality GST lessons from texts, even if the lessons are not authentic, it is a step in the right direction. Regardless of the level of innovation, we can still celebrate the fact that students are being exposed to spatial analysis and GST tools. Sadly, authentic GST-integrated projects that stress relevant learnin g and build students’ 21st-century workforce skills m ay never truly fit into a traditional science course. These types of projects m ay be doom ed to be on the fringes of curriculum —som ethin g to be experienced as an elective or add-on if all the other requirem ents are m et or only for those students who have tim e in their elective schedules. It is tim e to ask the questions: What is the purpose of required science courses? Are they solely for content learning, or are the tools of scientists im portant to learn as well? Do GST-integrated projects fit better in lower level, introductory courses, in order to encourage students to consider additional 227 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) courses in STEM? Is the goal to prepare the workforce of tom orrow or to prepare students for college readiness? Must teachers dispense critical science knowledge or have students understand and appreciate the nature of science? Movin g forward, school system s and the science education com m unity need to reflect on these questions. Characteristics of Persistent Teachers Shulm an (198 6) identified pedagogical content knowledge as the ability of an expert teacher to understand how specific content is best taught and com m unicated through appropriate lesson design. Koehler and Mishra (20 0 5) added technology to the discussion to describe technological pedagogical content knowledge (later referred to as technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, or TPACK). Cox (20 0 8) defined TPACK as the “transactional negotiation” between these elem ents and noted that essential features include choosing appropriate technology for teaching specific content using a particular pedagogical strategy within an educational context for a particular student learn in g goal. Although the teachers we described as Innovators struggled with fitting new ways of teachin g into a traditional gradin g and school system and realized GST projects could not m eet prescribed curricular goals/ standards, these teachers persisted, perhaps due to their higher levels of GST skills and knowledge and im plem entation of the pedagogy. They created electives and special courses to allow studen ts to com plete authentic projects. These types of courses are often im plem ented after students have com pleted required courses and go above and beyond graduation requirem ents. All of our Innovators had to take risks and approach their adm in istrators to create pathways for students. All of the teachers had a strong understanding of how to integrate pedagogy in their disciplines, and m ost teachers were experienced in their fields. Adding technology or pedagogy to their repertoire stren gthened their teachin g practices, as they developed their understanding of how GST could enhance their instruction. Rogers (20 0 3) described a diffusion of innovation as it progresses from the innovators to early adopters, early m ajority, late m ajority, and laggards through norm al distribution across social system s. Horsley and Loucks-Horsley (1998) described change as a process and stated that changes in classroom s can take up to 5 years to m aterialize. This tim eline has been found to be true with GST integration also (Baker & Kerski, 20 14). Kolvoord et al. (20 14) illustrated cases of teachers as they progressed through stages of concern: entry, adopt, adapt, and in novate. The teachers in our study were at different points along the adoption continuum and experienced natural stages of concern as they progressed at their own pace. Those who persisted were further along the continuum of learnin g. In the current study, we recruited teachers who could explain how they were already im plem enting PBI or student-centered, inquiry-based m ethods. We asked them to describe how they were currently integrating technology into their classroom s. We chose teachers who were naturally m ore ready to progress in their practice, then we focused on buildin g their understanding of how to incorporate GST in the areas where they needed m ore support. This strategy led to teachers who were in the adapting and inn ovating stages and whose practices persisted at som e level beyond the PD. Studying whether targeted assessm ent of existin g TPACK com pon ents followed by individualized interventions would yield higher levels of TPACK an d im plem entation after PD support ends would be interestin g (Baker et al., 20 15). 228 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) For m any teachers, PBI is a novel way to teach. If a teacher is new to PBI, layerin g com plex technology on top of it m akes PBI m ore challengin g to im plem ent, especially when educational institutions value academ ic test perform ance over less-traditional learnin g outcom es, such as problem solving and com m unication skills. Knowing this, PD providers m ust offer differentiated support to teachers that m eets their needs and builds upon their individual knowledge and skills as they adopt new teachin g m ethodologies within their particular con texts. In other words, their abilities should be built through differentiated PD. Limitations All teachers in this study believed that students should learn through experience and had high expectations for students. It is not possible from our data to determ ine whether the teachers cam e into the program with these beliefs, found the PD to be consistent with their existin g beliefs and, thus, continued to im plem ent lessons with GST, or if the PD influenced their beliefs, or if beliefs chan ged as a result of im plem enting and seein g student learnin g gains, as Guskey (20 0 2) surm ised. Because all teachers’ beliefs were coded as high, context seem s to be the m ost influential m ediatin g factor. Conclusion This study described teachers with varying technology skills who were im plem enting GST and PBI at m any grade levels in various contexts, while m aintain in g consisten tly high beliefs about teachin g and learnin g. From these findings, we delin eated contexts that m ust be addressed as PD providers to encourage persistence of practice. Like others, we found the keys to helpin g teachers persist with even the m ost m echanical levels of im plem entation in volve access to software and resources that integrate technology with subject m atter, support from adm inistrators who understand the ben efits of these practices (includin g allowing extended periods of tim e and curricular flexibility required for PBI) and havin g a partner in the school or the com m unity who also supports efforts (Baker et al., 20 15; Claesgens et al., 20 13; Kerski, 20 0 3; Mum taz, 20 0 0 ). Guskey (20 0 2) stated that for PD to be effective teachers m ust learn and im plem ent before student learn ing an d a change in beliefs can occur. The teachers in our study were satisfied with PD, learn ed from the experience, applied their newfound knowledge and skills in the classroom , an d recognized in itial positive student learning outcom es. Upon closer exam ination , however, and looking 1 to 2 years past the PD, the practices som e teachers originally enacted did not sustain at their highest stage (adaptation or innovation). Som e teachers, when faced with classroom constraints, fell back to using m aterials as written . Although all the teachers in this study expressed sim ilar beliefs about teaching with GST and the power of allowing students to conduct inquiry using relevant data, and all were continuing to teach with GST to som e degree, they were not all able to teach with pedagogical practices that aligned with these beliefs. Science educators want to see action that is consistent with beliefs, yet the observed m ism atch is consistent with research in teacher education (Mansour, 20 0 9). In spite of high beliefs, teachers displayed a ran ge of teachin g actions. Contextual factors were m ore predictive of action than belief, yet context was not the only factor. Certain teachers were able to overcom e contextual barriers. 229 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Coulter (20 14) asserted that teacher com petence, capacity, and readin ess is critical before GST can be successfully in tegrated into classroom s. Our findin gs support this assertion. Sim ilar to other findin gs, teachers in our study who were m ost successful with im plem enting lessons were teachers who knew their content well and were actively seeking new ways to engage students (Baker & Kerski, 20 14; Kerski, 20 0 3; Kolvoord et al., 20 14). Our research illum inates teachers’ beliefs that students should struggle with data and solving problem s; they know it em powers their students. Unfortunately, sim ilar to what Baker and Kerski (20 14) reported about teachers in the 1990 s, teachers often find m easurin g and recogn izin g authentic, real-world student learning outcom es to be difficult, especially when the traditional academ ic establishm ent defines success as student perform ance on standardized exam s. A prevalent, though possibly m isguided, focus on grades persists as the m ost im portant m easure of student learn in g. This focus on grades appears to im pact the pedagogical approaches teachers are willing an d able to take with respect to the im plem entation of GST in their classroom . If evidence of higher student learnin g gains as a result of teaching and learning with GST can be effectively m easured and gathered, im plem entation m ay increase. MaKinster and Trautm an n (20 14) and Coulter (20 14) stressed that in order to be successful at teaching science with GST, teachers need strong TPACK to develop and guide students through authentic, geospatial inquiries. We did not explicitly m easure teacher levels of TPACK in this study but our findings are som ewhat consistent with this idea. We are intrigued by the work being done to better defin e the construct of TPACK. We agree with Rosen berg and Koehler (20 15) that instrum ents m ust be developed to m easure teachers’ existin g and growing TPACK m ore accurately, takin g into account the critical elem ent of context, which we have found to be the m ost influential m ediating factor to im plem entation . If it can be accurately m easured, PD efforts m ust focus on building teachers’ TPACK when teachin g with GST. Supporting teachers to m ove to higher levels of im plem entation and sustained pedagogical practice will require additional learnin g experiences to help them see beyond the technology itself and how to utilize and integrate technology within PBI to m eet curricular goals. Additional research to determ in e which learnin g experiences m ight advance TPACK growth the m ost and knowin g when interventions are m ost effective is necessary before m oving forward (Baker et al., 20 15). A possible way to connect the dots to build teacher TPACK is the PBI fram ework. PBI seem ed to resonate with teachers in this study. PD providers can introduce this as a pedagogical strategy that results in student learnin g. Even if the driving question is not com pletely authentic, it provides students with a reason to engage in the analysis of geospatial data usin g GST. PD providers can help teachers consider what specific content m ight benefit from a geospatial perspective and which geospatial analyses and technical skills are m ost appropriate and necessary to support the investigation. Teachers need help craftin g drivin g questions centered on disciplinary core ideas. Once the drivin g question is established, teachers can build cohesive units of instruction that culm inate in students’ developing evidence-based argum ents or explanations of scientific phenom ena. Teachers should recognize how each in vestigation of geospatial data helps students develop a bit m ore understandin g of the con tent that will allow them to com e closer to answerin g the drivin g question. Obviously, any in vestigations that do not contribute to students’ explanations or argum ents should be elim inated. 230 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Beyond the integration of technology and consideration of pedagogical strategy, teachers need guidance in the assessm ent of student learnin g that m ight differ from the traditional assign ing of grades. Experiences should also assist teachers to articulate and m easure 21st -century skills, such as collaboration, creativity, com m unication, and critical thin kin g. This organ izational support and change is critical for persistence of new pedagogical practices following PD. Perhaps as teachers im plem ent student-centered teachin g m ethods that engage students in the practices of science and 21st -century skills and recognize learn ing gains that cannot be m easured on standardized tests, school system s will also acknowledge these m ethods as ben eficial for learnin g and support their use. References Baker, T., Battersby, S., Bednarz, S., Bodzin , A., Kolvoord, B., Moore, S., ... & Uttal, D. (20 15). A research agen da for geospatial technologies and learn ing. Journal of Geography , 114, 118-130 . doi: 10 .10 80 / 0 0 221341.20 14.950 684 Baker, T., & Kerski, J . (20 14). Lon ely trailblazers: Exam ining the early im plem en tation of geospatial technologies in science classroom s. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm an n, & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 251-268). New York, NY: Sprin ger. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward change. Psy chological Review , 84, 191-215. a unifying theory of behavioral Barnett, M., Houle, M., Mark, S., Minner, D., Hirsch, L., Strauss, E., … Hufn agel, B. (20 14). Participatory professional developm ent: Geospatially enhanced urban ecological field studies. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 13-34). New York, NY: Springer Baylor, A., & Ritchie, D. (20 0 2). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher m orale, and perceived student learn ing in technology-using classroom s? Com puters and Education 39, 395-414. Blank, L., Crews, J ., & Kn uth, R. (20 14). Spatial Sci: Forwardin g geospatial technology innovations in the classroom . In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 65-8 2). New York, NY: Springer. Bodzin, A., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (20 14). Designin g Google Earth activities for learnin g Earth and environ m ental science. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann, & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp 213-232). New York, NY: Sprin ger. Borko, H. (20 0 4). Professional developm ent and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15. doi: 10 .310 2/ 0 0 13189X0 330 0 80 0 3 Carles, M.T., & Kolvoord, R.A. (20 0 3). Teachers’ stages of developm ent in using visualization tools for in quiry-based science. In C. Crawford, N. Davis, J . Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Inform ation Technology & Teacher 231 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Education International Conference 20 0 3 (pp. 2994-2997). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancem ent of Com putin g in Education Claesgens, J ., Rubino-Hare, L., Bloom , N., Fredrickson, K., Henderson-Dahm s, C., Menasco, J ., & Sam ple, J .C. (20 13). Professional developm ent integrating technology: Does delivery form at m atter? Science Educator, 22(1), 10 -18. Coulter, B. (20 14). Movin g out of flatland: Toward effective practice in geospatial inquiry. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann, & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 287-30 2). New York, NY: Springer. Cox, S.M. (20 0 8 ). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content kn owledge (Doctoral dissertation). All Theses and Dissertations, Paper 1482. Retrieved from http:/ / scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=2481&context=etd Creswell, J . W. (20 0 9). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and m ixed m ethods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Creswell, J ., & Miller, D. (20 0 0 ). Determ inin g validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130 . Desim one, L. (20 0 9). Im provin g im pact studies of teachers' professional developm ent: Toward better conceptualizations and m easures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181-199. Guskey, T. (20 0 0 ). Evaluating professional developm ent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Guskey, T. (20 0 2). Professional developm ent and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8 , 381– 391. Horizon Research, Inc. (20 0 0 ). Validity and reliability inform ation for the LSC classroom observation protocol. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Horsley, D., & Loucks-H orsley, S. (1998). CBAM brin gs order to the tornado of change. Journal of Staff Developm ent, 19(4), 17-20 . J ohnson, A., & Schm idts, M. (20 0 5). Landslide susceptibility . Paper presented at the Esri Education User Conference, San Diego, CA. Kerski, J . (20 0 3). The im plem entation and effectiven ess of geographic inform ation system s technology and m ethods in secondary education. Journal of Geography , 10 2, 128-137. Koehler, M.J ., & Mishra, P. (20 0 5). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The developm ent of techn ological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Com putin g Research, 32, 131-152. Kolvoord, R., Charles, M., & Purcell, S. (20 14). What happens after the professional developm ent: Case studies on im plem entin g GIS in the classroom . In J . Makin ster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barn ett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental 232 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 30 3-322). New York, NY: Springer. Krajcik, J .S., Blum enfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (1999). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classroom s. In J . Minstrell & E. V. Zee (Eds.), In quiry into inquiry science learning and teaching, Part 3 (pp. 283315). Washin gton, DC: Am erican Association for the Advancem ent of Science Press. Krajcik, J ., Blum enfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative m odel for helping m iddle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elem entary School Journal, 94, 483-497. Retrieved from http:/ / www.jstor.org/ stable/ 10 0 1838 Larm er, J ., Ross, D., & Mergendoller, J . R. (20 0 9). PBL starter kit: To-the-poin t advice, tools and tips for y our first project in m iddle or high school. Buck Institute for Education. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J . W. (20 0 7). Professional developm ent in integrating technology into teachin g and learnin g: Knowns, un knowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Rev iew of Educational Research, 77, 575-614. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., & Hewson , P.W. (20 0 3). Designing professional developm ent for teachers of science an d m athem atics (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. MaKinster, J ., & Trautm an n, N. (20 14). The nature of teacher knowledge necessary for the effective use of geospatial technologies to teach science. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barn ett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 333-353). New York, NY: Springer. Mansour, N. (20 0 9). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, im plications and research agenda. International Journal of Environm ental & Science Education, 4(1), 2548. McAuliffe, C., & Lockwood, J . (20 14). Eyes in the sky: facilitating classroom research using geospatial technology. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann, & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 83-98). New York, NY: Springer. McClurg, P., & Buss, A. (20 0 7). Professional developm ent: Teachers’ use of GIS to enhance student learning. Journal of Geography , 10 6, 79-87. Moore, S., Haviland, D., Whitm er, A., & Brady, J . (20 14). Coastlines: com m itm ent, com fort, com petence, em powerm ent, and relevance in professional developm en t. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 99-118 ). New York, NY: Sprin ger. Mum taz, S. (20 0 0 ). Factors affecting teachers' use of inform ation and com m un ications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Inform ation Technology for Teacher Education, 9, 319-342. 233 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) National Research Council. (20 0 6). Learning to think spatially : Geographic inform ation science as a support sy stem in the K– 12 curriculum . Washin gton, DC: Geographical Sciences Com m ittee. Board on Earth Sciences and Resources. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National Research Council. (20 0 7). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8 . Washin gton, DC: The National Academ ies Press. National Research Council. (20 12). A fram ew ork for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washin gton, DC: The National Academ ies Press. Palm er, A. M., Palm er, R., & Malone, L. (20 0 8). Analy zing our w orld using GIS (Vol. 3). Redlands, CA: Esri, Inc. Palm er, A. M., Palm er, R., Malone, L., & Voigt, C. (20 0 8). Mapping our w orld using GIS (Vol. 2). Redlands, CA: Esri, Inc. Parker, C.E., Carlson, B., & Na’im , A. (20 0 7). Building a fram ew ork for researching teacher change in ITEST projects: a literature review . Retrieved from http:/ / stelar.edc.org/ sites/ stelar.edc.org/ files/ Researching_ Teacher_ Chan ge_ %20 in_ ITEST%20 Projects.pdf Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (20 15). P21 Fram ew ork definitions. Retrieved from http:/ / www.p21.org/ storage/ docum ents/ docs/ P21_ Fram ework_ Defin itions_ New_ Logo_ 20 15.pdf Penuel, W., Fishm an , B., Yam aguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (20 0 7). What m akes professional developm ent effective? Strategies that foster curriculum im plem entation. Am erican Educational Research Journal, 44, 921-958. doi: 10 .310 2/ 0 0 0 283120 730 8221 Rogers, E. M. (20 0 3). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rosen berg, J .M., & Koehler, M. (20 15). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A system atic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47, 186-210 . Rubino-Hare, L., Claesgen s, J ., Bloom N., Fredrickson, K., Henderson-Dahm s, C., & Sam ple, J ., (20 13, April). Investigating w hat pedagogical practices persist w hen professional learning institutes end. A paper presented at the annual m eeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teachin g, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico. Schwartz, D.L., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J . (1999). Software for m anagin g com plex learn ing: Exam ples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research and Developm ent, 47, 39-59. Shulm an, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. Singer, J ., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J . (20 0 0 ). Constructing extended in quiry projects: Curriculum m aterials for science education reform . Educational Psy chologist, 35, 165– 178. 234 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Sinton, D.S., & Lund, J .J . (20 0 7). Understanding place: GIS and m apping across the curriculum . Redlands, CA: ESRI Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J . (1990 ). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Stylinski, C., & Doty, C. (20 14). The in quiring with GIS (iGIS) project: Helpin g teachers create and lead local GIS-based investigations. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 119-138). New York, NY: Springer. Tam im , R., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Abram i, P., & Schm id, R. (20 11). What forty years of research says about the im pact of technology on learnin g: A second-order m etaanalysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4– 28. Trautm ann , N., & MaKinster, J . (20 14). Meeting teachers where they are and helpin g them achieve their geospatial goals. In J .Makinster, N. Trautm ann, & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 51-64). New York, NY: Springer. Wallace, M. R. (20 0 9). Makin g sense of the links: Professional developm ent, teacher practices, and student achievem ent. Teachers College Record, 111, 573-596. Whitworth, B. A., & Chiu, J . L. (20 15). Professional developm ent and teacher change: The m issing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 121-137. doi: 10 .10 0 7/ s10 972-0 14-9411-2 Yarnall, L., Vahey, P., & Swan, K. (20 14). Designing geospatial exploration activities to build hydrology understanding in m iddle school studen ts. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann, & M. Barnett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 233-250 ). New York, NY: Springer. Yin, R. K. (20 14). Case study research: Design and m ethods (5th ed.). Thousan d Oaks, CA: Sage. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (20 0 7). Review ing the evidence on how teacher professional developm ent affects student achievem ent (Issues & Answ ers Report, REL 20 0 7– N o. 0 33). Washington, DC: U.S. Departm ent of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Zalles, D., & Pallant, A. (20 14). The data sets and inquiry in geoscience education project: m odel curricula for teacher capacity buildin g in scientific in quiry tasks with geospatial data. In J . Makinster, N. Trautm ann , & M. Barn ett (Eds.), Teaching science and investigating environm ental issues w ith geospatial technology : Designing effective professional developm ent for secondary teachers (pp. 193-212). New York, NY: Springer. 235 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Author Notes This work has been supported by the National Scien ce Foundation (DRL 0 928 46) and Science Foundation Arizon a (MSAG 0 412-0 9). Any opin ions do not necessarily reflect those of NSF or SFAz. We would like to thank the teachers for their dedication to their students and for agreeing to participate in this research. We also thank Esri for their continued support of K-12 education. Lori A. Rubino-Hare Northern Arizona University Em ail:

Brooke A. Whitworth Northern Arizona University Em ail:

Nena E. Bloom Northern Arizona University Em ail: Nena.Bloom @nau.edu J ennifer M. Claesgens Weber State University Em ail: jenn @jclaes.com Kristi M. Fredrickson Northern Arizona University Em ail:

Carol Henderson -Dahm s Southwest Evaluation , Inc. J am es C. Sam ple Northern Arizona University Em ail: J am es.Sam

Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the print version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include video and audio files, which can be accessed online at http:/ / www.citejournal.org 236 Appendix A  Project  Planning  Form  –  Local  Water  Resource  Analysis   Begin  with  the  End  in  Mind   • Water  distribution  and  cycling  on  Earth • Human  use  of  and  impact  on  water • Colorado  distribution  of  surface  and  subsurface  water  supplies, related  to population • Local  County  water  sources  and  population  impact Identify  the  content  standards  that  students  will  learn  in  this   project   Colorado  Earth  Science  Content  Standards  –  High  School:    There  are  costs,   benefits,  and  consequences  of  exploration,  development,  and  consumption   of  renewable  and  nonrenewable  resources.   Evidence  Outcomes  –  Students  can:   a. Develop, communicate, and justify an evidence-based scientific explanation regarding the costs and benefits of exploration, development, and consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources b. Evaluate positive and negative impacts on the geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere in regards to resource use c. Create a plan to reduce environmental impacts due to resource consumption d. Analyze and interpret data about the effect of resource consumption and development on resource reserves to draw conclusions about sustainable use National  Science  Education  Standards  –  Science  in  Personal  and  Social   Perspectives:    Content  Standard  F,  grades  9-­‐12,  Specifically:   a. Populations can reach limits to growth. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals that can be supported in a given environment. The limitation is not the availability of space, but the number of people in relation to resources and the capacity of Earth systems to support human beings. b. Human populations use resources in the environment in order to maintain and improve their existence. Natural resources have been and will continue to be used to maintain human populations. c. The earth does not have infinite resources; increasing human consumption places severe stress on the natural processes that renew some resources, and it depletes those resources that cannot be renewed. d. Natural ecosystems provide an array of basic processes that affect humans. Those processes include maintenance of the quality of the atmosphere, generation of soils, 237 control of the hydrologic cycle, disposal of wastes, and recycling of nutrients. Humans are changing many of these basic processes, and the changes may be detrimental to humans. Craft  the  Driving  Question   Where  does  your  water  come  from,  how  is  it  used,  and  can   current  population  growth  trends  continue  while  maintaining  a   sustainable  water  supply?   Performance  Objectives/Targets-­‐   Early:   By  modeling  water  distribution  on  Earth  and  graphing  the  results,   students  will  illustrate  how  a  finite  water  supply  on  Earth  is  distributed   Among  different  sources  (graph  and  summary  statement)   By  following  the  many  routes  of  a  water  molecule  through  a  complex   branching  water  cycle  (Hydro),  students  will  organize  the  various   sources  and  sinks  of  water  in  the  cycle  and  create  a  schematic  (poster,   graphic,  Inspiration  web)  of  the  sources  and  sinks   Through  Internet  research,  students  will  evaluate  the  many  human  uses   of  water  and  the  possible  disruptions  of  water  availability  or  quality   that  result  from  each  use  (written  document,  poster,  or  PowerPoint)   During:   Using  GIS,  students  will  calculate  surface  water  availability  per  capita  in   the  state  of  Colorado  and  analyze  the  visualization.    Based  on  this   analysis,  they  will  assess  possible  conflicts  due  to  different  human  uses   238 for  the  water  and  availability  throughout  the  state.    (Map  of  surface   water  riverflow  data;  map  of  population;    map  of  land  use;  map  of   surface  water  per  person;  written  document,  poster,  or  powerpoint  for   analysis  summary)   End:   Through  their  research  and  analysis,  students  will  determine  the   source(s)  and  uses  of  their  local  water  supply.    Based  on  understanding   of  current  population  growth  trends  in  the  area,  they  will  compile   possible  threats  to  their  water  quality  and  quantity  and  propose   community  action  to  protect  a  sustainable  water  supply.       Plan  the  Assessment   Step  1:    Define  the  products  and  artifacts  for  the  project:   Early  in  the  Project:   Water  Sources  –  Graph  and  Summary  Statement  comparing  predicted   and  actual  %  of  total  water  stored  in  different  water  sources.   Water  Cycle-­‐  Inspiration  Water  Web  detailing  sources  and  sinks  in   complex  water  cycle   Water  use  and  population  impacts  –  Option:    Essay,  Poster,  Powerpoint   During  the  Project:   GIS  Products  –  3  Layouts  detailing  water  availability,  population,  and   water  availability  per  person  –  Option:    Poster  or  Powerpoint   239 End  of  Project:   Presentation  of  recommendation  to  the  community  –  Visual  Display   and  Oral  Presentation,  including  source(s)  of  local  water,  uses  of  local   water,  local  population  trends,  threats  to  water  supplies,  proposal  for   community  action  to  protect  a  sustainable  water  supply.   Map  the  Project   Product:    PowerPoint  or  Poster,  including  GIS  layouts,  summary   compilations,  recommendations   Knowledge  and  Skills  Needed                Already          Before            During   Know  water  distribution  on  Earth                          X   Know  complex  water  cycle                  X   Have  Internet  research  skills                  X   Know  ArcMap  skills                  X   • Add  data                          X   • Perform  math  operation  on  data  X   • Selection  criteria  X   • Display  decisions        X   • Produce  layouts        X   Know  local  water  source(s)  and  population   Presentation  skills     X   240  X    X    X    X    X            X    X   Map  the  Project:   Week  1   Week  2   Week  3   Where  is  the   water  activity   Hydro  Water   Cycle  Webbing   Activity   Research  Water   Use  and   Population   Impacts     Selection  and   GIS-­‐Introduction   Adding  data,   basic   o perations,   display  options,   using  state   math  operations   Layouts   riverflow  data   and  population   as  context   Research  local   Group  work  on   Group  work  on   water  sources,   final  project   final  project use,  population   growth  statistics   Form  groups   Set  project   expectations   Presentations-­‐ Gallery  tour   (Peer  and  others   review)   Rubric  Template:   Component   Claim-­‐   Level  0   Does  not  make  a   An  assertion  or   claim,  or  makes  an   conclusion  that  answers   inaccurate  claim.   the  original  question.   Evidence-­‐   Level  1   Level  2   Makes  an  accurate   Makes  an  accurate   but  incomplete  claim.   and  complete  claim.   Does  not  provide   Scientific  data  that   evidence,  or  only   supports  the  claim.    The   provides   data  needs  to  be   inappropriate   appropriate  and   evidence  (Evidence   sufficient  to  support   that  does  not  support   the  claim.   the  claim.   Provides  appropriate,   but  insufficient   evidence  to  support   claim.    May  include   some  inappropriate   evidence.   Provides  appropriate   and  sufficient   evidence  to  support   the  claim.   Reasoning-­‐   Provides  reasoning   that  links  the  claim   and  evidence.     Repeats  the  evidence   and/or  includes  some   scientific  principles,   but  not  sufficient.   Provides  reasoning   that  links  evidence  to   claim.    Includes   appropriate  and   sufficient  scientific   principles.   A  justification  that  links   the  claim  and  evidence   and  shows  why  the   data  counts  as  evidence   to  support  the  claim  by   using  appropriate  and   sufficient  scientific   principles.   Does  not  provide   reasoning,  or  only   provides  reasoning   that  does  not  link   evidence  to  claim.   241 Plan  the  Assessment:   Step  2:    State  the  criteria  for  exemplary  performance  for  each  product:   Product:      Graph  of  Global  Water  Distribution   Criteria:          Using  scoring  rubric:   Data  correct  and  complete   Axes  labeled  and  scaled  correctly   Quality  Criteria  (neat,  color-­‐coded)   Product:          Water  Web  or  Graphic   Criteria:              Rich  display  of  sources  and  sinks  ,  specify  #  of  each  required   Quality  Criteria  (neat,  pleasing)   Demonstrates  complexity  of  cycle  (vs.  simple  single  cycle)   Product:          Poster/PowerPoint   Criteria:          Specify  x  #  human  uses,  with  matching  impacts   Extension  into  specific  uses/impacts  of  local  water   Summary  based  on  evidence  gathered   Source  documentation  and  references  (#)   Quality  Criteria   Product:          GIS  Products  Presented  in  Poster/PowerPoint   Criteria:            4  layouts   Quality  Criteria:    correct,  well-­‐organized,  visually  pleasing   Description  of  potential  conflicts  and  consequences     #   based  on  data  and  analysis   Quality  Criteria   Product:          Poster  or  PowerPoint  or……   Criteria:            Content:   Correct  results  of  research   Water  sources  ID’d   Human  Uses  ID’d source  documentation  and  references  (#)   Population  Growth  Projections   Description  of  threats  to  quality  and  quantity   #   based  on  data  and  analysis   GIS  Visualization  and  Presentation   242 Layout(s)  including  required  data   Display  of  Summary  Points   #   based  on  data  and  analysis   Proposal  for  Community  Action   #        based  on  data  and  analysis   Presentation  Quality  Criteria   243 Appendix B Climate Change Site Mitigation Plan Identify course objectives These are statements of what a student will know and do as a result of instruction: Through watershed and stream system analysis, data collection across the region, and climate models that predict changes in climate and weather events in the area, students will identify factors that might affect an assigned area of the city that sits on the Rio de Flag stream system and develop a comprehensive plan for site modification in the short and long term. Big Idea/Concept Explain how solar energy is transferred to different forms on Earth and how this energy modifies the Earth system via stream systems. The CHALLENGE Design challenges for instruction – these are statements that pose a complex goal to the students. Interesting challenges engage students in a process of inquiry that requires them to apply the desired concepts beyond simple manipulation of mathematics. (Anticipatory set or Engage; GIS workflow: Define the problem or scenario) The City of Flagstaff is planning to develop an area surrounding downtown, but there is a river, the Rio de Flag, that runs straight through several of the proposed areas. You have been tasked to report to the community planning committee the likely behavior of the stream system in the short and long term, and develop a plan to mitigate possible problems. The Earth’s climate is likely to change, so plan for these changes in the long term and propose a sustainable improvement and site management plan. Lesson Introduction/Summary Students have an opportunity to explore what they currently know about the challenge. This includes their naïve concepts or models of the domain and will provide a baseline or pre-assessment of what they know about the challenge. (Elicit Prior Knowledge) GENERATE IDEAS Some things to consider: • • • • • Different areas respond to change in different ways Extremes of seasonal weather may increase Severity of individual storms may increase Changes in precipitation amounts How and when precipitation occurs (snow vs. rain) 244 Target Questions for Generate Ideas: • • MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES What are some things that might affect how a stream system behaves or where a watershed begins and ends? (ex: Sharp bends, changes in width, type of soil or bedrock, pervious and impervious surface cover, drains and culverts, and vegetation growth, divides) What factors might you need to consider when proposing improvement plans? (ex: Stakeholders, infrastructure, recreation) These are statements by “experts” describing what they see in the challenge. Their comments provide insights into various dimensions of the challenge, but do not provide a direct solution to the challenge. Students can compare their initial thoughts with the experts. (Explore or Point out/present important information, Input, Modeling) 15 minutes at most City of Flagstaff ideas for floodplain management and Rio de Flag plan? Rio de Flag watershed maps? RESEARCH AND REVISE Students engage in a series of learning activities (such as simulations, lectures, homework, labs, and readings) designed to help them focus on the important dimensions of the challenge. These activities are designed to help the students make a link to the original “Challenge.” (Explain or Guided Practice) • • • • • TEST YOUR METTLE Stream Table Activities from Landforms – FOSS Kit GIS Investigations on Rio de Flag floodplain zonation Rio de Flag Basemap Creation and Investigation using Historical Aerial Photos Fieldwork and data collection Lectures/Presentations on flood hazards, flood mitigation, stream processes This assessment method (homework questions, online quizzes, essays, etc.) provides students the opportunity to apply what they know and evaluate what they need to study more. It also allows the students to reflect on how well they’ve learned the content and to evaluate if they are ready to Go Public with what they know. (Elaborate or Check for Understanding) Apply what was learned to their particular city using GIS to create a presentation Identify the deliverables needed to support the decision (maps) In applying GIS to a problem, you must have a very clear understanding of the problem or scenario. 245 We find it helpful to answer these four questions, which test your understanding and divide the problem into smaller problems that are easier to solve. Q1 What geographic area are you studying? Q2 What decisions do you need to make? Q3 What information would help you make the decisions? Q4 Who are the key stakeholders for this issue? Identify, collect, organize, examine the data needed to address the problem. Document your work Create a process summary Document your map Set the environments Prepare your data Create a basemap or locational map Perform geospatial analysis Produce deliverables, draw conclusions and prepare a presentation for a scientific convention. GO PUBLIC LOOK AHEAD AND REFLECT BACK This is the final assessment of what students know at the end of the module. This assessment could be a presentation of the content, a quiz or test, an essay, homework, etc. (Evaluate) • Presentations shared in scientific convention • present the results Elaborate, apply to a new situation 246 Appendix C Proposal: Grand Canyon Ecology GIS Unit Theme/ Big Idea Human beings are part of the earth’s ecosystems. Human activities can deliberately or inadvertently alter the equilibrium in ecosystems. Content Standards (National) Science in Personal and Social Perspectives Natural and Human-induced hazards Natural and human-induced hazards present the need for humans to assess potential danger and risk. Many changes in the environment designed by humans bring benefits to society, as well as cause risks. Students should understand the costs and trade-offs of various hazards. Strand 3: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives Concept 1: Changes in Environments Describe the interactions between human populations, natural hazards, and the environment. Concept 2: Science and Technology in Society Develop viable solutions to a need or problem. Concept 3: Human Population Characteristics Analyze factors that affect human populations. Content Standards (Arizona) Identify key skills students will learn Identify district or school or district outcomes in this project A need to know (motivator) Essential question or problem Define the products and artifacts for the project including criteria Collaborate Critically solve problems Rigor – Higher levels of Blooms Taxonomy Yellowstone Fire (Playing God in Yellowstone book) Wallow Fire Grand Canyon Fire The Wallow Fire burned 519,319 acres costing more than $53 million taxpayer dollars. How can we prevent or minimize the impact of fire in our state treasure – The Grand Canyon. Early (Identify misconceptions and ideas) Take a Stand – Rank Fire good/ bad, fold and discuss During (Formative Assessment – artifacts) Notebook and Classroom Discussion  Demonstrates clear understanding of concepts for each of the objectives  Teacher to use this as a tool to check understanding End: (Summative Assessment) Student Proposal / Recommendation Criteria:  Use GIS data to show the problem  Applies fire ecology theory in identification of problem  Evaluates how to best address the problem  Integrates GIS data and fire ecology theory to produce a carefully planned solution. 247 Map the Project Students evaluate fire based on prior knowledge. Take a Stand Yellowstone Fire - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNhaZHyiE1s Big Question: What impact would a large fire in the Grand Canyon have on Arizona? KWL - wildfire Students will use GIS to measure Wallow Fire and predict future fire activity in given conditions Resources: Wallow geodatabase including native vegetation and Wallow fire geoimage (Wallow _fire.mxd) Homework: Why study fire Close: Add to KWL Students will develop scenarios that present a variety of environmental factors and predict their impact on possible fire in the area. Brainstorm environmental factors that impact fire behavior. Homework: Read Weather, Fuels and Topography Handout Assessment: Student choice of transmission method matching objective above. Close: Add to KWL Students will compare and contrast a variety of fuels and their contribution to fire based on weather and fuels lab. Weather and Fuels Lab Close: Add to KWL Based on the topography and fuel density lab students will evaluate the wildfire potential for a given topography. Topography and Fuel Density Lab Close: Add to KWL Homework: revisit Wallow fire prediction and revise as necessary – see Wallow Fire Rubric. (Wallow _fire.mxd) Students will evaluate a fire ignitions in GCNP to determine where most fires are started and the source of most fires. Fire ignition mxd will be symbolized to determine the cause of most fires, location and size of most fires. Students will use the map analyze the data and to present their findings 248 Students will criticize or define fire suppression based on the movie Fire Wars and Fire on the Landscape Handout. Fire Wars Movie Students create a roleplay demonstrating the various points of view represents Close: Add to KWL Homework: Read Fire on the Landscape Assessment: Fire Suppression Rubric Students will create criteria to assess if a fire was a high-intensity fire or a low intensity fire after participating in the Fire and the Web of Life Activity. Fire and the Web of Life Close: Add to KWL Students will compare and contrast Ponderosa, Pinyon and Juniper Woodland ecosystems from Internet research. Students will use their knowledge of Ponderosa pine adaptation to create a tree that will not burn under low-intensity fire conditions. Students will use GPS devices and cameras to collect forest data about fuel load. (Teacher to load Lat/Long data and set up tables for students to use. ) Students will assess the fire potential based on GIS map. Introduction: Fire Potential MXD Show the same map with different symbologies. Have the students determine which is more informative and why. Demonstrate how to create symbology. Students will use the already created map with data about fuel load. They will use symbology to analyze and predict areas with greater fire load. Students will use maps to support their point of view. Fire Potential Rubric Students will create a GIS map that compiles fuel data collected. They will return to the school and input data into a standardized format table with possible subtypes to prevent input error table created by their teacher. (Teacher to append tables for later use) Grand Canyon MXD 249 Students will compare and contrast fire management options and students will propose a plan of action for a given situation. Management Choices Activity Close: KWL Students will create a proposal to limit the fire potential in the area of investigation. GIS Activities: Import Points Create Slope from DEM file Add Photos to points Students will create a proposal supported by their map on how to handle fuel overload in the areas that they investigated in the Grand Canyon. Fire Management Choices Rubric Data sources used: http://fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/default.asp GCNP data files obtained from NAU (Mark Manone) Natural Resource Information Portal (GIS data source for National Parks) Lesson References: http://www.nps.gov/grca/forteachers/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=523000 250 Rubrics Wallow Fire Students will predict the progression based on information given. They need to make a claim and justify that claim with evidence from the map and fire incident website http://inciweb.org/incident/2262/ and June 15, 2011 Landsat 5 satellite image http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51064 Component Unsatisfactory (Below Performance Standard) Claim: An assertion or conclusion that answers the original question Evidence: Scientific data that supports the clai. The data needs to be appropriate and sufficient to support the claim Reasoning A justification that links the claim and evidence and shows why the data counts as evidence to support the claim by using the appropriate and sufficient principles Level Proficient (Acceptable) Advanced (Demonstrates exceptional performance) Does not make a claim or makes an inaccurate claim -----------------------------------------States that the fire will jump to Washington state Makes an accurate but incomplete claim -----------------------------------------Vague statement like “the fire will continue to burn” Makes and accurate and complete claim -----------------------------------------Explicitly states “The fire will move in a southerly direction until it runs out of fuel” Does not provide evidence or only provides inappropriate evidence. (Evidence that does not support claim) -----------------------------------------Provides no evidence for fire prediction, inaccurate evidence (“the elements of fire are not present”) Provides appropriate but insufficient evidence to support claim. May include some inappropriate evidence -----------------------------------------Provides evidence for fire prediction based on only one or two of the factors that impact fire. Provides appropriate and sufficient evidence to support claim -----------------------------------------Provides evidence for fire prediction based on three or more of the factors that impact fire. Does not provide reasoning or only provides reasoning that does not link evidence to claim or provides incorrect reasoning. -----------------------------------------Provides inappropriate statement (“because that is what I think”) or incorrect reasoning (“wind will blow the fire out”) Provides reasoning that links the claim and evidence. Repeats the evidence and/or includes some scientific principles but not sufficient. -----------------------------------------Justifies prediction by explaining how one or two factors impact fire. (“Fire needs oxygen and additional oxygen is being provided by…”) Provides reasoning that links evidence to claim. Includes appropriate and sufficient scientific principles. -----------------------------------------Justifies prediction by explaining how three or more factors impact fire. (“Factors that impact fire intensity are…… 251 Fire Suppression Policy Students will criticize or define the US policy of fire suppression. Component Unsatisfactory (Below Performance Standard) Claim: An assertion or conclusion that answers the original question Evidence: Scientific data that supports the clai. The data needs to be appropriate and sufficient to support the claim Reasoning A justification that links the claim and evidence and shows why the data counts as evidence to support the claim by using the appropriate and sufficient principles Does not make a claim or makes an inaccurate claim -----------------------------------------States that “all fires are allowed to burn” Does not provide evidence or only provides inappropriate evidence. (Evidence that does not support claim) -----------------------------------------Provides no evidence for claim, inaccurate evidence (“fire is never a helpful tool”) Does not provide reasoning or only provides reasoning that does not link evidence to claim or provides incorrect reasoning. -----------------------------------------Provides inappropriate statement (“because that is what I think”) or incorrect reasoning (“wind will blow the fire out”) Level Proficient (Acceptable) Advanced (Demonstrates exceptional performance) Makes an accurate but incomplete claim -----------------------------------------Vague statement like “fire suppression has led to problems such as …” Provides appropriate but insufficient evidence to support claim. May include some inappropriate evidence -----------------------------------------Provides some correct evidence for claim (“Without fire forests ….”) Makes and accurate and complete claim -----------------------------------------Explicitly states “The US policy of fire suppression was instituted because… however we now know that…” Provides reasoning that links the claim and evidence. Repeats the evidence and/or includes some scientific principles but not sufficient. -----------------------------------------Justifies prediction by explaining how one or two factors impact fire. (“Fire needs oxygen and additional oxygen is being provided by…”) Provides reasoning that links evidence to claim. Includes appropriate and sufficient scientific principles. -----------------------------------------Justifies prediction by explaining how three or more factors impact fire. (“Factors that impact fire intensity are…… 252 Provides appropriate and sufficient evidence to support claim -----------------------------------------Provides multiples points of evidence for claim. “Without fire forests ….”) Fire Potential Assignment Level Proficient (Acceptable) Component Unsatisfactory (Below Performance Standard) Claim: An assertion or conclusion that answers the original question Evidence: Scientific data that supports the clai. The data needs to be appropriate and sufficient to support the claim Reasoning A justification that links the claim and evidence and shows why the data counts as evidence to support the claim by using the appropriate and sufficient principles Does not make a claim or makes an inaccurate claim -----------------------------------------States that “fire will burn with the same intensity everywhere” Does not provide evidence or only provides inappropriate evidence. (Evidence that does not support claim) -----------------------------------------Incorrectly identifies areas area of higher fire potential Makes an accurate but incomplete claim -----------------------------------------n/a Makes and accurate and complete claim -----------------------------------------Identifies an area with higher fire potential Provides appropriate but insufficient evidence to support claim. May include some inappropriate evidence -----------------------------------------Provides some GIS data to support claim. Uses some symbology. Provides appropriate and sufficient evidence to support claim -----------------------------------------Provides multiple GIS data sources showing higher fuel concentration through appropriate symbology Does not provide reasoning or only provides reasoning that does not link evidence to claim -----------------------------------------No relationship between fuel load and fire intensity is given Provides reasoning that links the claim and evidence. Repeats the evidence and/or includes some scientific principles but not sufficient. -----------------------------------------Explains how fuel load contributes to fire intensity (“The larger symbols show areas with larger concentrations of 1000 hr downed wood which would provide the fire much fuel to burn”) Provides reasoning that links evidence to claim. Includes appropriate and sufficient scientific principles. -----------------------------------------Explains the difference between each fuel type and how it would impact the intensity of the fire. (“Litter as shown in the green symbols provides little fuel for fires to burn. Howevever, ….”) 253 Advanced (Demonstrates exceptional performance) Management Choices Students will describe why fire is a greater danger today since our policy of fire suppression has started. Students will the negative impacts of fire on a environmental communities and human communities. They will then propose management choices to reduce or eliminate the impact of fire on human populations and ecosystems. Level Proficient (Acceptable) Component Unsatisfactory (Below Performance Standard) Science and Social Perspectives Lists human activities that have contributed to fire. Lists some of fires impacts Claim: An assertion or conclusion that answers the original question Does not explain why fire is a greater danger today Does not describe fire’s impacts on the environment or the human populations Does not make a claim or makes an inaccurate claim -----------------------------------------Polygon drawn around an area not investigated. Evidence: Scientific data that supports the clai. The data needs to be appropriate and sufficient to support the claim Does not provide evidence or only provides inappropriate evidence. (Evidence that does not support claim) -----------------------------------------No evidence or inaccurate mapping in ArcGIS Provides appropriate but insufficient evidence to support claim. May include some inappropriate evidence -----------------------------------------Uses at least one source of evidence collected and GIS data to support claim. (“Non-fire treatment should be used because the fuel load here is …”) Reasoning A justification that links the claim and evidence and shows why the data counts as evidence to support the claim by using the appropriate and sufficient principles Does not provide reasoning or only provides reasoning that does not link evidence to claim -----------------------------------------Analyzes the costs, benefits and risks associated with proposed management method. (“Hand thinning such as …. would be the best because its cheaper) Provides reasoning that links the claim and evidence. Repeats the evidence and/or includes some scientific principles but not sufficient. -----------------------------------------Limited reasoning without looking at costs, benefits and risks associated with proposed management method. (“Prescribed fire would be better because it would get rid of the fuel load”) Makes an accurate but incomplete claim -----------------------------------------NA 254 Advanced (Demonstrates exceptional performance) Assesses the reasons for fire danger today in relation to US Fire policy current and historical and the impacts of fire on both humans and the environment. Makes and accurate and complete claim -----------------------------------------Identifies areas to be managed and management method to be used using GIS tools. (Draw a polygon around the area to be targeted and note that it will be thinned using non-fire treatment) Provides appropriate and sufficient evidence to support claim -----------------------------------------Uses multiple sources of evidence collected and GIS data to support claim. (“Non-fire treatment should be used because the fuel load here is … and the slope is … and there is little human habitation in the area”) Provides reasoning that links evidence to claim. Includes appropriate and sufficient scientific principles. -----------------------------------------Analyzes the costs, benefits and risks associated with proposed management method. (“Hand thinning such as …. would be the best because A– BC– ”) Wallow Fire Map – June 15 255 Basic Information Wildfire Incident Type Cause Under Investigation Date of Origin Sunday May 29th, 2011 approx. 01:30 PM Location Eastern AZ near Alpine, Nutrioso, and Springerville Incident Commander Area Commander Jim Loach Current Situation Total Personnel 2,846 Size 534,639 acres Percent Contained 67% Fuels Involved 10 Timber (litter and understory) Fire Behavior Zone 1: Small islands of interior heat became active after sun up and produced short runs in stringers of interior fuels. Smoldering 1000 hr fuels are being totally consumed by fire. Zone 2: Aggressive backing and flanking fire on the south perimeter with frequent torching. Zone 3: Backing and flanking with single tree torching. Significant Events Zone 1: Community meeting in the City of Springerville. Zone 2: Pincha-Tulley IMT1 assumed command at 0600 today, June 23rd. Resources held the fire north of Blue River drainage. Resources made good progress constructing dozer line from HWY 191 toward the Primitive Area boundary in the Strayhorse drainage area. Zone 3: Continue mop-up, patrol, and rehab. Outlook Planned Actions Zone 1: Mop-up and secure firelines while providing for point protection as needed. Rehab will continue including chipping along roads and seeding dozer lines. Zone 2: Structure protection in Luna, Alpine, and Blue River area. Strengthen, secure, and burn out prepared lines. Continue indirect line and prepare for burn out east of HWY 191 in the Strayhorse drainage. Zone 3: Continue mop-up, patrol, and rehab in all areas. Growth Potential High Terrain Difficulty High Remarks Zone 1: Two injuries occurred over the last two days but were determined today to be lost time incidents this morning. Will continue demobilization of excess resources. Zone 2: One injury reported was non-traumatic and is pending diagnosis. Contingency planning is in progress to address concerns on the southern portion of the fire. Zone 3: None. Current Weather Wind Conditions 19-31 mph SW Temperature 85-97 degrees 256 Ignition Map Students will copy the ignition layer. They will symbolize the layer initially based on source (M-L) The will also symbolize it based on fire size. 257 Fire Prediction Map Students will symbolize each layer based on attributes of the layer. Data attribute documentation is at http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/database-documentation/ (Phase 3) 258 Grand Canyon Fire Analysis Map provided by NPS with data points 259 260 Appendix D  Project  Planning  Form  –  Local  Water  Resource  Analysis   Begin  with  the  End  in  Mind   • Water  distribution  and  cycling  on  Earth • Human  use  of  and  impact  on  water • Colorado  distribution  of  surface  and  subsurface  water  supplies, related  to population • Local  County  water  sources  and  population  impact Identify  the  content  standards  that  students  will  learn  in  this   project   Colorado  Earth  Science  Content  Standards  –  High  School:    There  are  costs,   benefits,  and  consequences  of  exploration,  development,  and  consumption   of  renewable  and  nonrenewable  resources.   Evidence  Outcomes  –  Students  can:   a. Develop, communicate, and justify an evidence-based scientific explanation regarding the costs and benefits of exploration, development, and consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resources b. Evaluate positive and negative impacts on the geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere in regards to resource use c. Create a plan to reduce environmental impacts due to resource consumption d. Analyze and interpret data about the effect of resource consumption and development on resource reserves to draw conclusions about sustainable use National  Science  Education  Standards  –  Science  in  Personal  and  Social   Perspectives:    Content  Standard  F,  grades  9-­‐12,  Specifically:   a. Populations can reach limits to growth. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals that can be supported in a given environment. The limitation is not the availability of space, but the number of people in relation to resources and the capacity of Earth systems to support human beings. b. Human populations use resources in the environment in order to maintain and improve their existence. Natural resources have been and will continue to be used to maintain human populations. c. The earth does not have infinite resources; increasing human consumption places severe stress on the natural processes that renew some resources, and it depletes those resources that cannot be renewed. d. Natural ecosystems provide an array of basic processes that affect humans. Those processes include maintenance of the quality of the atmosphere, generation of soils, 261 control of the hydrologic cycle, disposal of wastes, and recycling of nutrients. Humans are changing many of these basic processes, and the changes may be detrimental to humans. Craft  the  Driving  Question   Where  does  your  water  come  from,  how  is  it  used,  and  can   current  population  growth  trends  continue  while  maintaining  a   sustainable  water  supply?   Performance  Objectives/Targets-­‐   Early:   By  modeling  water  distribution  on  Earth  and  graphing  the  results,   students  will  illustrate  how  a  finite  water  supply  on  Earth  is  distributed   Among  different  sources  (graph  and  summary  statement)   By  following  the  many  routes  of  a  water  molecule  through  a  complex   branching  water  cycle  (Hydro),  students  will  organize  the  various   sources  and  sinks  of  water  in  the  cycle  and  create  a  schematic  (poster,   graphic,  Inspiration  web)  of  the  sources  and  sinks   Through  Internet  research,  students  will  evaluate  the  many  human  uses   of  water  and  the  possible  disruptions  of  water  availability  or  quality   that  result  from  each  use  (written  document,  poster,  or  PowerPoint)   During:   Using  GIS,  students  will  calculate  surface  water  availability  per  capita  in   the  state  of  Colorado  and  analyze  the  visualization.    Based  on  this   analysis,  they  will  assess  possible  conflicts  due  to  different  human  uses   262 for  the  water  and  availability  throughout  the  state.    (Map  of  surface   water  riverflow  data;  map  of  population;    map  of  land  use;  map  of   surface  water  per  person;  written  document,  poster,  or  powerpoint  for   analysis  summary)   End:   Through  their  research  and  analysis,  students  will  determine  the   source(s)  and  uses  of  their  local  water  supply.    Based  on  understanding   of  current  population  growth  trends  in  the  area,  they  will  compile   possible  threats  to  their  water  quality  and  quantity  and  propose   community  action  to  protect  a  sustainable  water  supply.       Plan  the  Assessment   Step  1:    Define  the  products  and  artifacts  for  the  project:   Early  in  the  Project:   Water  Sources  –  Graph  and  Summary  Statement  comparing  predicted   and  actual  %  of  total  water  stored  in  different  water  sources.   Water  Cycle-­‐  Inspiration  Water  Web  detailing  sources  and  sinks  in   complex  water  cycle   Water  use  and  population  impacts  –  Option:    Essay,  Poster,  Powerpoint   During  the  Project:   GIS  Products  –  3  Layouts  detailing  water  availability,  population,  and   water  availability  per  person  –  Option:    Poster  or  Powerpoint   263 End  of  Project:   Presentation  of  recommendation  to  the  community  –  Visual  Display   and  Oral  Presentation,  including  source(s)  of  local  water,  uses  of  local   water,  local  population  trends,  threats  to  water  supplies,  proposal  for   community  action  to  protect  a  sustainable  water  supply.   Map  the  Project   Product:    PowerPoint  or  Poster,  including  GIS  layouts,  summary   compilations,  recommendations   Knowledge  and  Skills  Needed                Already          Before            During   Know  water  distribution  on  Earth                          X   Know  complex  water  cycle                  X   Have  Internet  research  skills                  X   Know  ArcMap  skills                  X   • Add  data                          X   • Perform  math  operation  on  data  X   • Selection  criteria  X   • Display  decisions        X   • Produce  layouts        X   Know  local  water  source(s)  and  population   Presentation  skills     X   264  X    X    X    X    X            X    X   Map  the  Project:   Week  1   Week  2   Week  3   Where  is  the   water  activity   Hydro  Water   Cycle  Webbing   Activity   Research  Water   Use  and   Population   Impacts     Selection  and   GIS-­‐Introduction   Adding  data,   basic   o perations,   display  options,   using  state   math  operations   Layouts   riverflow  data   and  population   as  context   Research  local   Group  work  on   Group  work  on   water  sources,   final  project   final  project use,  population   growth  statistics   Form  groups   Set  project   expectations   Presentations-­‐ Gallery  tour   (Peer  and  others   review)   Rubric  Template:   Component   Claim-­‐   Level  0   Does  not  make  a   An  assertion  or   claim,  or  makes  an   conclusion  that  answers   inaccurate  claim.   the  original  question.   Evidence-­‐   Level  1   Level  2   Makes  an  accurate   Makes  an  accurate   but  incomplete  claim.   and  complete  claim.   Does  not  provide   Scientific  data  that   evidence,  or  only   supports  the  claim.    The   provides   data  needs  to  be   inappropriate   appropriate  and   evidence  (Evidence   sufficient  to  support   that  does  not  support   the  claim.   the  claim.   Provides  appropriate,   but  insufficient   evidence  to  support   claim.    May  include   some  inappropriate   evidence.   Provides  appropriate   and  sufficient   evidence  to  support   the  claim.   Reasoning-­‐   Provides  reasoning   that  links  the  claim   and  evidence.     Repeats  the  evidence   and/or  includes  some   scientific  principles,   but  not  sufficient.   Provides  reasoning   that  links  evidence  to   claim.    Includes   appropriate  and   sufficient  scientific   principles.   A  justification  that  links   the  claim  and  evidence   and  shows  why  the   data  counts  as  evidence   to  support  the  claim  by   using  appropriate  and   sufficient  scientific   principles.   Does  not  provide   reasoning,  or  only   provides  reasoning   that  does  not  link   evidence  to  claim.   265 Plan  the  Assessment:   Step  2:    State  the  criteria  for  exemplary  performance  for  each  product:   Product:      Graph  of  Global  Water  Distribution   Criteria:          Using  scoring  rubric:   Data  correct  and  complete   Axes  labeled  and  scaled  correctly   Quality  Criteria  (neat,  color-­‐coded)   Product:          Water  Web  or  Graphic   Criteria:              Rich  display  of  sources  and  sinks  ,  specify  #  of  each  required   Quality  Criteria  (neat,  pleasing)   Demonstrates  complexity  of  cycle  (vs.  simple  single  cycle)   Product:          Poster/PowerPoint   Criteria:          Specify  x  #  human  uses,  with  matching  impacts   Extension  into  specific  uses/impacts  of  local  water   Summary  based  on  evidence  gathered   Source  documentation  and  references  (#)   Quality  Criteria   Product:          GIS  Products  Presented  in  Poster/PowerPoint   Criteria:            4  layouts   Quality  Criteria:    correct,  well-­‐organized,  visually  pleasing   Description  of  potential  conflicts  and  consequences     #   based  on  data  and  analysis   Quality  Criteria   Product:          Poster  or  PowerPoint  or……   Criteria:            Content:   Correct  results  of  research   Water  sources  ID’d   Human  Uses  ID’d source  documentation  and  references  (#)   Population  Growth  Projections   Description  of  threats  to  quality  and  quantity   #   based  on  data  and  analysis   GIS  Visualization  and  Presentation   266 Layout(s)  including  required  data   Display  of  Summary  Points   #   based  on  data  and  analysis   Proposal  for  Community  Action   #        based  on  data  and  analysis   Presentation  Quality  Criteria   267 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Appendix E Semi-Structured Interview Protocol Backgro u n d w ith te ch n o lo gy in te gra tio n Briefly describe the technology you have taught with: Briefly describe the technology you have had students use in your classes: Co n te xt Briefly describe the school environm ent in which you work: How m uch flexibility are you allowed within your curriculum ? Im p le m e n tatio n 1. Provide specific exam ples of what (if anythin g) from the PD you have im plem ented in your classes. (Based on response, use the following probes:) a. Lessons from PD: Mapping our World, landform s, graham cracker lab, etc. b. Own lessons c. Projects based on “real-world problem s” d. Claim s and evidence e. Use of geospatial technologies, Labquests etc. f. CTS g. FACTS/ rubrics/ sum m ative assessm ents (Based on response, probe): Which classes are you im plem entin g these technologies/ strategies in? 2. Identifying one exam ple, what was the reason for im plem enting this specific lesson/ activity/ strategy? 3. What type of support did you have as you im plem ented the lesson/ activity/ strategy? 4. What went well in the lesson? What would you do differently? (Probes: technology challen ges, student respon se to the lesson, etc.) 5. Was the lesson/ activity effective for student learnin g? What is your evidence for this? 1. What areas of student learn ing are you referrin g to (subject m atter, com m unication skills, technology skills, data analysis skills)? 6. Was the lesson/ activity/ instructional strategy effective for student engagem ent in the subject m atter? What is your evidence for this? 268 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) 7. How did you assess student learnin g in this lesson/ activity? 8. If you have taught this lesson before, do you thin k GIS helped, hindered or had no effect on student learnin g? Barrie rs 9. If you encountered obstacles attem ptin g to im plem ent lessons/ activities from the PD, how did you overcom e them ? 10 . Where there any barriers that prevented you from teachin g these lessons/ activities/ strategies? 11. What com puter resources do you have available at your school? a. Do you have reliable access to the com puter lab? b. Has a com puter support person been available, helpful? 12. Are there any things at the local/ school/ state levels that influence the use of geospatial technology in teaching? What are som e exam ples of this? Im p a cts 13. Have you participated in other geospatial activities/ professional developm ent because of this experience? a. Have you m entored other teachers at your school in the use of geospatial technology? 14. Have your conceptions changed about the role of geospatial technologies in the classroom ? Explain based on your experiences. 15. As a result of your im plem entation of the PD, was there any im pact on student interest in STEM/ geospatial careers? Please elaborate with specific exam ples. Fu tu re 16. Do you plan to continue teaching with geospatial techn ologies in the future? Why or why not? 17. What additional support, if any, would help you contin ue to teach with geospatial technologies? 18. Do you plan to continue teaching with other strategies (PBI etc.) in the future? Why or why not? 269 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) Appendix F Data Analysis and Emergent Codes Coding Category Coding Criteria High Medium Teaching 1. Opportunities for students All 4 criteria 3 of these Actions to engage in authentic projects were met criteria were 2. Opportunities for students met to collect and analyze data 3. Opportunities for students to work with and/or present findings to local stakeholders and professionals 4. Opportunities for students to use GST to learn content and communicate ideas during observations Beliefs about 1. Student-centered 4 or more of 3 of these Teaching approaches these criteria criteria were and Learning 2. High outcome expectancy were met met for students 3. Importance of making learning relevant 4. Data collection and analysis opportunities for students 5. Engaging community members in student learning 6. Recognition of GST as a tool for student learning and communication instead of a learning goal in itself Teaching 1. Manageable class size 5 or more of 4-3 of these Context 2. Flexibility in subject matter these criteria criteria were and curricular decisions were met met 3. Access to reliable technology 4. Extended time to work on projects 5. Administrative support 6. IT support 7. Teaching supports Technology 1. Level 0 = Inability to use Level 3 or Level Level 2 Ability the map or data to obtain 4 information to answer the question. 2. Level 1 = Able to use the map and/or data to obtain information to answer the question. 3. Level 2 = Able to use the map and/or data to obtain information to answer the question and to create a basic 270 Low 2-1 of these criteria were met None 0 of these criteria were met 2-1 of these criteria were met 0 of these criteria were met 2-1 of these criteria were met 0 of these criteria were met Level 1 Level 0 Contem porary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3) map adding points, lines and polygons to the map to represent geographic features. 4. Level 3 = Able to use the map and/or data to obtain information to answer the question and create a basic map, add points, lines and polygons to the map to represent geographic features and symbolize geographic features based on levels of variability in data across a region (choropleth map). 5. Level 4 = Able to use the map and/or data to obtain information to answer the question and create a basic map, add points, lines and polygons to the map to represent geographic features, symbolize geographic features based on levels of variability in data across a region (choropleth map) and create a layout with a graphic (bar graph or pie chart) and/or include other graphical representations to communicate ideas. 271 Appendix G Macroinvertebrate Lesson Why is there a difference between the macroinvertebrate population at [omitted] Park and the [omitted] Trail sites located along [omitted] Creek? I. Subject Area Chemistry II. National Standards a. Content Standard F: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives Environmental Quality: i. Natural ecosystems provide an array of basic processes that affect humans. . . Humans are changing many of these basic processes, and the changes may be detrimental to humans. ii. Materials from human societies affect both physical and chemical cycles of the earth. b. Content Standard B: Physical Science Chemical Reactions: i. Chemical reactions occur all around us, for example in healthcare, cooking, cosmetics, and automobiles. Complex chemical reactions involving carbon-based molecules take place constantly in every cell in our body. II. State Standards a. Strand 3, Concept 1, PO 2 Describe the environmental effects of the following natural and/or human-caused hazards: pollution b. Strand 3, Concept 1, PO4 Evaluate the following factors that affect the quality of the environment: urban development c. Strand 5, Concept 4, PO11 Predict the effect of various factors (e.g., temperature, concentration, pressure, catalyst) on the equilibrium state and on the rates of chemical reaction. d. Strand 5, Concept 1 PO 2 Describe substances based on their chemical properties. III. Key Skills a. Information: Acquire and evaluate data b. Computing: Use computers to process information c. Critical thinking and doing: problem solving, research, analysis, project management. d. Communication: Use media effectively to communicate results 272 IV. Habits of Mind • Questioning and posing problems V. Lessons a. Launch – review previous data collected and conclusions b. Research Environmental Variables c. Create Poster with key findings from research paper d. How to use Labquests e. Analyzing Data using ArcMap – [omitted] Fire Exercise f. Write procedure for data collection g. Collect Data on Variable h. Adding Data to ArcMap i. Analyze Data and Form Conclusions j. Power point presentation VI. Statement of Problem Human practices can affect factors critical to the health of ecosystems. These practices include but are not limited to development, farming, mining, water usage and recreation. Do the communities of [omitted] affect the ecosystem of [omitted] Creek? So far we have discovered that macroinvertebrates, biological indicators of ecosystems, have a smaller and less diverse population near [a park and] another site along [omitted] Creek located outside of town. Why is the macroinvertebrate population at [omitted] Park smaller and less diverse than other areas along [omitted] Creek? VII. Performance Objectives a. Students will research how their assigned environmental variable affects ecosystems using classroom and online resources. b. Students will create a poster displaying key findings from their research paper. c. Students will write a procedure on how they will collect data. d. Students will collect and organize data on their assigned environmental variable using a Labquest. 273 e. Students will produce a map with data they collected using ArcMap. f. Students will form a conclusion based on their research and data analysis on why there is a difference in the macroinvertebrate population [between two sites]. g. Students will present their maps and their findings using a Power Point presentation. VIII. Map the Project Knowledge and skills needed 1. Navigating GIS (basic) Already have learned X 2. Ecosystems Taught before proj. X Taught during proj. X 3. Geochemical Cycles X 4. Elements & Compounds X 5. Chemical Reactions X 6. Environmental Pollutants X 7. Research and gathering information X 8. How to use Labquests X X 9. Testing water samples/ collecting data in the field X 10. Adding data to ArcMap X X X 11. Analyzing data/looking for patterns X 12. Making a claim and presenting it X IX. Implementation Schedule of Lessons • Week 1 o Day 1: Launch - Review last year’s data and results, handout project outline o Day 2: Variables are assigned. Bibliography tips. Students begin research. o Day 3 & 4: Research Papers. Teacher goes over how to use a Labquest with individual students. 274 • Week 2 • o Day 1: Students make a poster listing key findings about their variable to share with the class. Students take notes on the posters. o Day 2: Students organize materials needed for data collection. Students write out their procedure for data collection. o Day 3 & 4: Field Trips to Creek to collect data. Data is put into a spreadsheet. Week 3 • o Day 1: How to analyze data using ArcMap –Fire Exercise o Day 2: Computer Lab – Students begin making their maps, adding data and organizing it with teacher guidance. Adding Data directions o Day 3 & 4: Students work on finishing their maps and making power points. Week 4 -5 o Day 1: Finish up Power point and add map to power point. How to Save map as a jpeg o Day 2 & 3: Make power point presentation X. Manage the Process/Differentiated Instruction Lessons will be delivered using various teaching techniques that cater to different learning styles. These include but are not limited to use of visual aids, modeling, and guided practice. XI. Procedure Students will Follow to Create Deliverables a. Write a research paper on assigned environmental variable (chemical pollutant) b. Create a poster with key findings on assigned variable to share with other students. Take notes on other posters so you have some background on other variables when making claims. c. Write a procedure for collecting data in the field d. obtain data on assigned environmental variable from the field using test kits and Labquests e. add data to excel spreadsheet , teacher adds data to geodatabase f. add data from geodatabase to ArcMap g. add field collected data to ArcMap h. conduct analysis 275 i. form conclusions j. create presentation that includes research, findings (maps)and conclusion XII. Data Collection a. Data – Student Collected variables i. Water pH ii. Phosphate concentration iii. Nitrate concentration iv. N:P ratio v. Dissolved oxygen vi. BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) vii. Temperature viii. Turbidity ix. Depth x. Hardness xi. Copper xii. chlorine xiii. fish/crayfish b. Data – Online sources i. Aerial Imagery ii. Public iii. Landcover iv. Slope v. Hillshade vi. Golf courses vii. Farms viii. Pavement ix. drainage 276 XIII. Analysis/Evaluation Creek Analysis Using GIS 4. Distinguished 3. Proficient 2. Apprentice 1. Novice All data was complete and accurately labeled. Data was preprocessed correctly for GIS. All data was complete and accurately labeled. Attempted to preprocess data for GIS. Data was incomplete. Some data was not labeled using appropriate units of measure. Data was not preprocessed for GIS. Included little or no relevant data. Data was not preprocessed using GIS. Pertinent data was added correctly to an ArcMap document. Features/layers are labeled and easy to distinguish from one another. Pertinent data was added correctly to an ArcMap document. Features/layers are labeled. Unpertinent data was added correctly to an ArcMap document. Features/layers are labeled. Data was not added correctly to an ArcMap document or data is missing. Features/layers are not labeled. Lab Work-Data Analysis: Student analyzed data and identified trends Identified and described patterns. Made appropriate conclusions based on the (Final Assessment data. Used Power Point) ArcMap document to support conclusion. Identified and described patterns. Made conclusions based on the data. Limited use of ArcMap document to support conclusion. Only identified obvious patterns or found patterns not fully supported by the data. Limited use of ArcMap document to support conclusion. Patterns were missing or were not supported by the data collected. Obvious patterns were overlooked. ResearchPaper is at least one page in Overview: Quantity, quality, length and clearly describes topic. Project Paper is at least one page in length and clearly describes topic. Project Paper is less than one page in length or vaguely describes topic. Project Paper is less than one page in length or vaguely describes topic. Bibliography or Lab Work-Data Quality: Accurate measurement and labeling (Excel Spreadsheet) Lab Work-Data Display: Data is displayed using graphs, charts, and tables (Map) 277 and documentation (Research Paper) bibliography or credits were complete. bibliography or credits were missing or incomplete. XIV. Deliverables a. .mxd (ArcMap document) b. PowerPoint Presentation 278 bibliography or credits were complete. credits were missing or incomplete. Appendix H Weather and Climate Lesson Plan Narrative: Weather and climate is the theme for the STEM 1 course. All subjects and projects are related to this theme. Some Topics and Themes (All have math associated) Atmospheric Wind Currents (physical Science) Ocean Currents (physical Science) Coriolis Effect (physical Science) Global Warming (physical Science) Ocean Acidification (chemistry) Sea Level Rise ((physical Science) Storm Surges (physical Science) El Niño & La Niña (physical Science & biology) Lesson Observed (videotaped) This lesson is a continuation in the impacts associated with climate change. The focus was storm surges and their impacts on coastal communities. The class had just finished World 2, Modules 7, and Lesson 1 – Sea Level Rise. Their final assessment in that lesson was to create a short and long term plan for a city that would adversely be affected by a significant increase in sea level. They researched and documented the impacts on the population and tried to plan for predicted events. Finding timelines for sea level rise was problematic and the models projecting the future are not credible given the lack of data available on the loss of land-based glaciers. This was a perfect opportunity to look at circumstances that are more immediate and dire in nature – the storm surges caused by hurricanes. Hurricanes are the topic for lesson 2 so this seemed to be a logical segue into the impacts associated with hurricanes. As with lesson 1 and the focus on at-risk communities, lesson 2 also looks at at-risk but from a weather event, not a change related directly to climate change. The PowerPoint used will be sent along with this document. Beginning of lesson: It was time for the students to reflect on the definitions of weather and climate. We added to that the attempt to connect the dots between seal level rise and these two. The final question dealt with whether the two could be connected – “Do you think that changes in climate may cause changes in the weather?” 279 Storm Surge: The concept of “storm surge” was introduced to the class. Since coastal destruction was fresh in their minds, it was a natural to show the impact of large storm surge in real situations. The hope was that this would show the devastation that might be associated with sea level rise. ArcGIS: After the presentation the class was divided in half. The group that stayed with me went over the objectives of Module 2, Lesson 1. We then moved into the computer lab to begin a three-day lesson. The students are working in groups of two or three – each having a computer. In the groups with two students one computer will have the ArcMap and the second will have the directions (only the answer sheet is printed). We spent two days in the computer lab and then I showed the video The Fire Below Us which is a documentary about the eruption of Mount Saint Helens. The video shows the eruption and consequential mud flows as a result of the flash melting of the glaciers on the mountain. The devastation was wide spread and gave the students an opportunity to visualize what might happen to a population center near a volcano or mountain after severe weather events – such as a hurricane – Mitch in 1998 in particular. A supplemental article was also provided with questions concerning changes in technology (see attachment). ArcGIS – World 2, Module 7, and Lesson 2 is a very adaptable lesson. I chose to have the students work in small groups (2 or 3 students in a group). Each student had their own computer to work on but one would open the ArcMap and the other student(s) would have the directions open. Note: To save paper we put the instruction files on our server so that students could access them easily. Prior to Module 7 students had to do independent work and could split their screens to view both. The result of the student work is submitted for this project. Students were not required to submit maps with their assessments but some decided to do so. The ArcGIS modules provide a comprehensive lesson. It is used in our STEM 1 curriculum. We believe that the “silo” method of teaching does not provide the best type of learning environment for our students. The areas that the ArcGIS lessons touch on are as follows: World Geography: This greatly enhances our approach to the weather and climate focus. Our students do not get geography in any applied manner. Technical Reading: Even though our students receive reading instruction from first grade they have not been exposed to the type of detailed, technical reading that they are required to do in the ArcGIS lessons. Many struggle with following written directions. It is a battle to constantly reinforce the point that they have to read and comprehend before they are successful. Research and Technical Writing: The new common core standards require students to be proficient in technical, and non-fiction reading and writing. There are virtually no classes 280 currently that address these requirements. The social studies department is becoming more aware of these requirements bust as of yet has not complied. The ArcGIS lessons require students to look at data and develop plans and approaches to problems that are real or perceived (see student assessments in materials sent). Collaborative Work: Once again students do not really work in collaborative environments. The STEM courses are 90% collaborative and the rest individual. The world of work is very much the same ratio. Assessments: Our assessments are nearly all authentic in nature. That means that we do not given “multiple guess” tests. Each project has outcomes and students are scored on those outcomes. On large projects that require weeks to complete there are intermediary steps that are assessed. Math and Science: Every lesson that we teach requires math and science. We teach the math and science the students need when it is appropriate. We do statistical analysis almost with every project because students are collect data and they must use their data to support their claims. Some projects require algebra and geometry. The science could fall into these categories – earth science, physical science, and biology. Language Arts: Our students are required to write reports and research papers. They are required to make presentations based upon their findings. Everything is integrated and everything is important. The students see the need to be able to read and write in the projects that we choose. Social Studies: We really don’t look for specific historic events, but every project requires that students understand that the past is part of the present and future. We have looked a records of data on carbon dioxide concentrations, seal levels over time, the industrial revolution and its impact, and the students have learned to model from their data collect to look into the future. Common Core Standards: Math – HS.MP.2 Reason abstractly and quantitatively. S.IC.1 Understand statistics as a process for making inferences about population parameters based on a random sample from that population. S.IC.2 Decide if a specified model is consistent with results from a given data-generating process. Science – 281 9-10.RST.2 Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; trace the text’s explanation or depiction of a complex process, phenomenon, or concept; provide an accurate summary of the text. 9-10.RST.3 Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks, attending to special cases or exceptions defined in the text 9-10.RST.8 Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in a text support the author’s claim or a recommendation for solving a scientific or technical problem. 9-10.WHST.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. Attachment: 282 Mount Saint Helens - Yesterday and Today October 12, 2004 At Mount St. Helens, the Big Eruption Is of Data, Not Lava By KENNETH CHANG When Mount St. Helens was last erupting in the 1980's, Dr. Elliot Endo recalls using a ruler to measure the size of the squiggles on seismographs. Now he tracks St. Helens with a high-end cellphone. "I look at my plots on a Treo 600, and it's really cool," said Dr. Endo, scientist-in-charge at the United States Geological Survey's Cascades Volcano Observatory in Vancouver, Wash. Technology developed over the last two decades "has allowed us to do a better job of monitoring and allowed us to interpret the data much more quickly," he said. It has also made the work safer. Dr. David A. Johnston, a 30-year-old geologist with the geological survey, was one of 57 killed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, because he was at an observation post five miles from the volcano. Today scientists observe the volcanoes from much greater distances. Global positioning system sensors send signals to orbiting satellites, which triangulate the sensors' locations within a fraction of an inch. Radar from other satellites provides a three-dimensional view of the landscape and detects subtle deformations as magma pushes up from below. Those data fly across the Internet to scientists around the world. "In 1980, we had to rely on surveying techniques that required people on the ground and clear weather in order to be able to see targets," Dr. William E. Scott, a geological survey scientist, said at a news conference last week. When St. Helens reawakened three weeks ago, scientists were better prepared to analyze the situation. So far, they expect some eruptions, but nothing approaching the 1980 cataclysm. In 1980, scientists did catch the warning signs of an impending eruption. Swarms of earthquakes and the appearance of a bulge alerted them, and they persuaded officials to close surrounding areas, saving lives. But they were still caught off guard by the ferocity of the eruption, which sent up a cloud of ash that blanketed the Pacific Northwest and carried as far as Oklahoma. "People decided we better try to work at understanding what's happening inside volcanoes," said Dr. Bernard Chouet of the geological survey's volcano hazards program. Most volcanoes form at the edges of tectonic plates, where hotter material can rise up from below, although a few, like those in Hawaii, occur in the middle of a plate. Those, most geologists believe, are created by hot plumes of rock rising from the core, melting the underside of the earth's crust. Whether an erupting volcano explodes, raining ash over a wide region, or less destructively dribbles out lava depends primarily on the amount of water in the molten rock. As the underground molten rock, or magma, moves toward the surface, the water, held in by extreme pressures underground, separates out and turns into the steam. That provides the explosive potential. (Hawaiian volcanoes rarely spew ash. In the plume model, the reason for the smooth flowing lava is that deep magmas contain little water.) 283 Dr. Chouet, working on St. Helens during smaller eruptions after May 1980, noticed that the seismic signals from earthquakes around volcanoes were different from those from ordinary earthquakes. When an earthquake fault slips, breaking rocks, the seismograph reading is a messy, patternless jumble of squiggle. But around St. Helens, the seismic signal often contained a single characteristic frequency, almost as if the earth were singing a particular note. Indeed, steam rising up through rock cracks resonates "almost like an organ pipe," Dr. Chouet said. Such resonant earthquakes, particularly if nothing is occurring at the surface, indicates pressures are building, he said. Dr. Chouet said that in the current volcanic episode at St. Helens, the seismic signals of the initial earthquakes, which started Sept. 23, looked like just the breaking of rocks. About four or five days later, the resonant signal appeared. The first steam and ash eruption occurred Oct. 1. To get a better idea of the plumbing below some of the world's most worrisome volcanoes, scientists have made what are essentially sonograms of the earth. At Mount Vesuvius in Italy, scientists set off a series of small explosions around the mountain and then precisely measured the seismic signals. The carefully monitored mountain has been quiet of late, but the data showed a large magma chamber exists about six miles below the mountain. "This is quite large," said Marcello Martini of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Naples. "The problem is we don't know how deep this goes. We know the top level of this magma chamber." A similar underground image created for Mount Kilauea in Hawaii showed a complex network of fractures carrying the magma to the surface. While most textbooks depict a single chamber of magma underground with a large conduit leading to a volcano's crater, "We're finding there is no such thing," Dr. Chouet said. "It's going to be much richer than the simple picture you see in textbooks." Technology for measuring volcanic gases has also improved. The amount of steam rising out of a crater does not tell by itself much about the explosive potential of the magma below because the steam could have come from water percolating down from above and boiling when it hit the magma. Accompanying water in magma, however, are three other gases: carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide. In 1980, scientists could detect only sulfur dioxide, but sulfur dioxide dissolves in water, and that could lead to misleadingly low measurements. Now instruments exist to measure all three. Even precise gas measurements are not enough to predict the explosiveness of an eruption. Dr. Michael Manga, a professor of earth and planetary science at the University of California at Berkeley, said identical gas-rich magma coming out of the same volcano would not always produce the same eruption. "Sometimes it explodes, and sometimes it doesn't," he said. "How you get gases out of a volcano is an interesting question. You would think after hundreds of years of studying volcanoes, we'd have that answer. But we don't." So a member of his research group, Dr. Atsuko Namiki, built a volcano in the basement at Berkeley to help provide answers. Instead of red-hot magma, the model volcano erupts gooey xanthan gum, a food additive used as a thickener in pudding, fruit fillings and chewing gum. "We want to do this at room temperature," Dr. Manga said. 284 Dissolving the gum in water and infusing it with bubbles, Dr. Namiki videotaped the behavior of the gum when the surrounding pressure was suddenly released. That simulates what happens to magma as it rises toward the surface. To erupt explosively, the magma must break into pieces. On the other hand, if all the gas escapes before the magma reaches the surface, there is no force left to throw the magma into the air. "We can vary all these parameters and conditions in the lab," Dr. Manga said. "We can use models to extrapolate to real volcanoes." In 1980, a magnitude 5.2 earthquake on the morning of May 18 caused the bulge on the northern flank of Mount St. Helens to slide away. That uncovered the highly pressurized magma below, like popping a cork from a Champagne bottle. The analogous xanthan gum lava also exploded. "Our lab experiments are at least consistent with Mount St Helens," Dr. Manga said. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Questions: 1) What determines if a volcano will erupt with and explosion (like in 1980) or just ooze (like in Hawaii)? 2) How has advances in technology made it safer to study active volcanoes? 3) How has the advancement in technology allowed scientists to do a better job in evaluation and prediction? 4) How has advances in technology made it possible to share information around the world in "real time"? 285