Identifying Levers Related to Student Performance on High-Stakes Science Exams: Examining School, Teaching, Teacher, and Professional Development Characteristics

Abstract

Background: Many students enter into postsecondary education without the college readiness skills that allow them to face the demands of postsecondary education. Increasingly, policymakers and educational researchers are responding to calls for reforming secondary education to provide more opportunity for all students to receive high quality education and to become career and college ready. Purpose: This study attempts to identify levers to increase student performance in secondary education. In particular, it examines relationships of school, teaching, teacher, and teacher professional development characteristics with student scores on high-stakes Advanced Placement (AP) examinations in the sciences.Setting: This study is situated in the context of the large-scale, top-down, nationwide AP curriculum and examination reform in the sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) in the United States. This is an unprecedented opportunity to analyze changing educational landscapes in the United States with large-scale national student-, teacher-, school-, and district-level data sets across multiple science disciplines and different stages of the curriculum reform implementation connected to a standardized and high-stakes student outcome measure.Population: This study analyzes nationwide data samples of the AP Biology, AP Chemistry, and AP Physics population during the first, second, and third year of the curriculum reform implementation. Across disciplines and years, the analytical samples include a total of 113,603 students and 6,046 teachers. Research design: This empirical quantitative study uses data from web-based surveys sent to all AP science teachers. Additionally, College Board provided student- and school-level data for all students taking AP examinations. Data preparation methods included exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Associations towards student achievement were analyzed through multi-level ordered logistic regression analysis separately by science discipline and year of the curriculum reform implementation. Afterwards, the results were aggregated through a meta-analysis. Findings: Student performance is not pre-determined by students’ background, leaving roughly 60% of the AP score variance potentially malleable for teacher and school-level factors. In particular, teachers’ perceived administrative support, self-efficacy, teaching experience, and elements of classroom instruction were related to student performance. Notably, teachers’ professional development participation has a small, mixed impact on student achievement. Conclusion: The identified levers for improving student achievement provide a strong rationale for the continued efforts of policy makers to improve school environments and to support science teachers to ultimately both increase student learning and help all students graduate prepared for college and ready for their future careers.

New Contexts for Professional Learning: Analyzing High School Science Teachers’ Engagement on Twitter

“…This logic model has been mirrored in a range of studies concluding that PD can lead to increases in teachers’ knowledge and modifications to classroom instruction (Fischer, Fishman, et al, 2018; Fishman et al, 2013; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Matsumura, Garnier, & Resnick, 2010; Roth et al, 2011). Additionally, numerous studies detected direct effects of teachers’ PD participation on student performance (Blank & de las Alas, 2009; Fischer et al, 2020; Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Lai & McNaughton, 2016; Penuel, Gallagher, & Moorthy, 2011). Based on decades of teacher education research, Desimone (2009) summarized five core design features necessary for high-quality PD: active learning, content focus, coherence, collective participation, and duration.…”

Adapting to the Large-Scale Advanced Placement Chemistry Reform: An Examination of Teachers’ Challenges and Instructional Practices

“…Participation in professional development (PD) activities is often considered a prime opportunity for in-service teachers to engage in capacity building that enables knowledge and skill growth that lead to instructional changes, ultimately increasing student learning and achievement. − Decades of research on the impact of PD activities on teacher learning and instructional change identified several elements that constitute “high-quality” PD design characteristics such as active learning, focus on student work, coherence, duration, and collective participation. ,− However, empirical research that directly related PD participation to student success indicated mixed results as PD effectiveness is also dependent on a range of latent factors including the PD’s underlying design in supporting teacher learning, teachers’ microlevel interactions while engaging in PD-related activities, and potential misalignment of PD activities with teachers’ ideas and beliefs, among others. − AP Chemistry teachers participated in a broad range of PD activities to prepare for the AP Chemistry reforms. Table lists the most common PD activities AP Chemistry teachers participated in during the first and second year of the AP redesign implementation . Almost all AP Chemistry teachers chose to engage in some forms of PD .…”

“…Table lists the most common PD activities AP Chemistry teachers participated in during the first and second year of the AP redesign implementation . Almost all AP Chemistry teachers chose to engage in some forms of PD . The most popular face-to-face PD activity was College Board’s AP Summer Institute, an intensive 4–5 day training program offered in summers prior to the school year.…”

How do Teachers Collaborate in Informal Professional Learning Activities? An Epistemic Network Analysis

“…This study is tied to a large-scale National Science Foundation-project that broadly examined teachers' PD participation patterns and their impact on classroom instruction and student performance, which distributed web-based surveys to all AP Biology teachers in the nation (e.g., Fischer et al, 2018;Fischer, Foster, et al, 2020;Hübner et al, 2021). Surprisingly at the time, we found that many AP Biology teachers reported their engagement in Twitter communities as an informal learning opportunity on an open-response question on their online activities in response to the AP reform.…”