Videocase-based, Analysis-of-Practice for Teacher and

Videocase-based, Analysis-of-Practice for
Teacher and Student Learning:
How To’s from a 10‐year Line of Research Jody Bintz, BSCS
Connie Hvidsten, BSCS
Paul Numedahl, BSCS
Chris Wilson, BSCS
Kathy Roth, California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
Goals
• Increase understanding of framework‐
centered, videocase‐based analysis of practice as a focus for transformative professional development • Increase awareness of the power of developing a line of research
© 2015 BSCS
BSCS Mission
To transform science teaching and learning through
research and development that strengthens
learning environments and inspires a global
community of scientifically literate citizens.
© 2015 BSCS
Opening
• Introductions
– Name
– Role
– What attracted you to this workshop?
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Line of Research
Research on Student
Ideas in Science
STeLLA I
ViSTA
STeLLA II
EMAT
RESPeCT
ViSTA Plus
© 2015 BSCS
Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA)
STeLLA is …
• A year‐long, videocase‐based, analysis‐of‐
practice professional development program designed for upper elementary teachers
• An RCT, scale‐up study with exciting results
• A line of research
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA is a PD Program
•
•
•
•
STeLLA theory of teacher learning
STeLLA program substance
STeLLA program form
STeLLA program resources
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Theory of Teacher Learning
• Situated cognition theory of teacher learning
• Cognitive apprenticeship instructional model
Program elements that embody this theory:
1) Learning progression starting with highly scaffolded
experience moving towards greater independence 2) Experiences that create a “need to know,” dissonance
3) Use of experts who plan for and guide teacher learning
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Program Substance:
STeLLA Conceptual Framework
© 2015 BSCS
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Program Substance:
Teacher Learning Goals
• Science content knowledge (CK)
• Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) related to the Student Thinking and Science Content Storyline Lenses
• Ability to use CK and PCK to analyze teaching and learning
• Ability to use CK and PCK in teaching science
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Program Form
Summer Institute
2 weeks (9 days)
58.5 hours face‐to‐face PD
Half‐day content deepening, led by university science faculty
Half‐day videocase‐based, lesson analysis sessions in grade‐level study groups of 5‐10 teachers, each led by a PD leader
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Program Form
Fall
• Grade‐level study groups led by STeLLA PD leaders
• Teachers analyze lesson video and student work from their teaching of Academic‐year: the STeLLA lesson plans Monthly 3.5‐hour study Winter/Spring
group meetings
• Grade‐level study groups led by STeLLA PD leaders
30 hrs face‐to‐face PD
• In a second content area, teachers
o analyze lesson video and student work from other teachers
o plan lessons collaboratively © 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Program Form
End of program
Teachers teach lessons they designed in the second content area
Total hours of face‐to‐face PD
88.5
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Program Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Videocases
Lesson Analysis Process, Norms, and Protocol
Analysis Guides
STeLLA lesson plans and pre‐post tests Features Analysis Charts
Planning Tools
Readings: – STeLLA Strategies booklet – Content/PCK Background for each content area
– Common Student Ideas in each content area
© 2015 BSCS
So STeLLA is …
A one‐year professional development program for elementary teachers
STeLLA Professional Development Program
Teacher Science Content Knowledge
Teaching Practice
Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Student Science Content Knowledge
In the context of videocase‐based analysis of practice © 2015 BSCS
STeLLA is also: A scale‐up study
© 2015 BSCS
Population 77 schools, 144 4th and 5th grade teachers from ~2,800 students
Sample
77 Schools
STeLLA
Comp
42 Schools
35 Schools
© 2015 BSCS
Treatments
STeLLA
COMPARISON
Lesson Analysis + Content Deepening
Content Deepening
88.5 hours
(2‐week summer institute & monthly meetings)
88.5 hours
(2‐week summer institute & monthly meetings)
Same science content learning goals
© 2015 BSCS
Overview of STeLLA PD
Content Deepening Program
Summer Institute,
2 weeks
Full‐day science content sessions with university science faculty
•
•
STeLLA PD Program
Half‐day science content sessions with university science faculty
 4th grade: food webs, Earth’s changing surface
 5th grade: water cycle, Sun’s effect on 5th grade: water cycle, Sun’s effect climate and seasons
on climate and seasons 4th grade: food webs, Earth’s changing surface
Half‐day lesson analysis study groups with BSCS PD leaders
 4th grade: Earth’s changing surface
 5th grade: Sun’s effect on climate and seasons
Academic year, 30 hours
Content sessions with university science faculty Lesson analysis study groups
Fall: Content Area 1
Winter/Spring: Content Area 2
© 2015 BSCS
Theory of Change and Focus Today
STeLLA Professional Development Program
Teacher Science Content Knowledge
Teaching Practice
Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Student Science Content Knowledge
© 2015 BSCS
An Issue: Instructional Sensitivity
PD Program
Student Outcomes
Teacher Learning
Trickle Down
`
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Treatment Comparison
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Treatment Comparison
Teacher Level Student Level
© 2015 BSCS
An Issue: Instructional Sensitivity
“Education reform usually arrives with fanfare, great expectations, and overconfidence. Truth be known, typical education‐reform effects tend to be small. Evaluations, if done at all, burst the reform balloon, having difficulty finding effects.”
Ruiz‐Primo et al., 2002
© 2015 BSCS
Due to the scale of many efficacy studies, we are often limited to crude measures.
(e.g. 150 teachers, pre and post, 4 topics, 30 student per class = ~36,000 student tests)
© 2015 BSCS
Use Validated Instruments
© 2015 BSCS
Instructional Sensitivity
•
•
•
•
Learning goal specification and monitoring
Developing construct models
Item selection and development
Pilot testing and item/instrument analyses
Learning Goals
Item Difficulty Difficulty
Number
Pre
NOVICE
7
.32
8
.12
9
.21
Post
.65
.53
.29
Curriculum Item Materials
Item‐Total 1
Discrimination
EXPERT Correlation
.77
.33
.21
Backward Design
(Wiggins and McTighe, 1998)
.51
.52
.19
Pre‐Post 2
Difference
.33
.41
.08
Learning Goals
Instructional Sensitivity
.49
.47
.10
Flag
X
Curriculum Mapping
(Ruiz‐Primo et al., 2010)
© 2015 BSCS
Increase in Sensitivity Example
© 2015 BSCS
Findings
STeLLA Professional Development Program
Teacher Science Content Knowledge
Teaching Practice
Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Student Science Content Knowledge
© 2015 BSCS
Group Similarity
School‐level demographics % Female
% Limited English proficiency
% Free/reduced price lunch
% Asian
% Black
% Hispanic
% White
Urbanicity
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Overall % for all treatment schools
(n = 42)
Overall % for all comparison schools (n = 35)
48
12
44
2
5
28
59
% of schools in treatment group (n = 42)
48
13
41
3
3
28
59
% of schools in comparison group (n = 35)
43
40
17
63
23
14
© 2015 BSCS
Outcome Measures
• Four separate outcome measures
– Food Webs
– Earth’s Changing Surface
– Water Cycle
– Sun’s Effect on Climate and Seasons
• Twenty‐four multiple choice items on each test
• Equated to one overall test to preserve randomized sample using common person equating and the Rasch Measurement Model
© 2015 BSCS
Impact Findings
Level Two Parameter Estimates (Fixed Effects)
Level 2 fixed effects
Unstandardized coefficient
Standard t‐ratio
error
DoF
p‐value
INTERCEPT
53.22
0.42
127.77
74
p < .001
TREAT
6.11
0.84
7.27
74
p < .001
PRETEST
0.39
0.15
2.66
74
p = .01
© 2015 BSCS
Practical Significance
• Effect size (Hedge’s g) = 0.68
• Larger‐than‐average effect for elementary school interventions with this type of outcome (avg = 0.33)
• Nearly a two‐year advantage
• 23 percentile points
• Advantage in reasoning
© 2015 BSCS
Nationally Generalizable Result
State
(N)
B‐index
Generalizability
USA
57,763
0.86
High
CO
1,150
0.95
Very high
MA
1,177
0.87
High
IL
2,673
0.85
High
NY
2,992
0.80
High
NV
429
0.80
High
© 2015 BSCS
. | WSPO23
Harder Items
Group 1: Items with high difficulty in .##### |
both treatment groups
. | FSPO3 SSPO1
.###### S| WSPO24
.### |T
60 .###### + ESPO7 WSPO14
Treatment group Comparison group ## |
(pretest adjusted) (pretest adjusted) ####### |
mean = 56.03
mean = 50.57
.###### | ESPO16 SSPO23
Group 2: Items the average .####### | ESPO9 FSPO5
treatment group student had a .###### |S ESPO19 FSPO14 SSPO12 SSPO7 WSPO4
greater than 50% chance of .######### | ESPO21 FSPO6 SSPO11
answering correctly, and the .####### M| ESPO11 ESPO12 ESPO15 FSPO16 SSPO15
average comparison group .########### | ESPO24 FSPO15 SSPO2 SSPO24 SSPO6
student had a less than 50% .#### | ESPO22 ESPO6 ESPO8 FSPO4 SSPO22 WSPO2 WSPO5
chance of answering correctly.
50 .############ + SSPO17 SSPO9 WSPO21 WSPO7
.#### | ESPO2 ESPO20 FSPO20 SSPO3 SSPO5
.###### |M ESPO1 ESPO14 ESPO23 SSPO13 SSPO4 WSPO13 WSPO17
.########## | ESPO3 FSPO1 FSPO21 SSPO19 SSPO21 WSPO15 WSPO16 WSPO19 WSPO20
.### | FSPO8 SSPO16 SSPO18 WSPO18
.####### | FSPO10 SSPO14 WSPO12
.#### S| ESPO10 ESPO13 ESPO4 SSPO20
.## | FSPO23 FSPO24 SSPO8 WSPO9
.###### | ESPO5 FSPO12 FSPO13
.## |S ESPO18 FSPO11 FSPO18 SSPO10 WSPO10
40 .## + ESPO17 FSPO2 FSPO22 WSPO22
.## |
.## | FSPO19 WSPO6 WSPO8
.# | FSPO9 WSPO1
.# | WSPO3
. T|T FSPO17
. | FSPO7
Group 3: Items with low difficulty in Low Ability . |
both treatment groups
Easier Items
. |
Students
. |
30 + WSPO11
High Ability Students
© 2015 BSCS
. | WSPO23
Harder Items
.##### |
. | FSPO3 SSPO1
WSPO23: Which of the following statements about condensation is true?
.###### S| WSPO24
A. During condensation, water turns from a liquid to a gas.
.### |T
B. During condensation, energy is lost.
60 .###### + ESPO7 WSPO14
C. During condensation, water gets heavier.
## |
####### |
D. During condensation, water is created.
.###### | ESPO16 SSPO23
.####### | ESPO9 FSPO5
.###### |S ESPO19 FSPO14 SSPO12 SSPO7 WSPO4
.######### | ESPO21 FSPO6 SSPO11
.####### M| ESPO11 ESPO12 ESPO15 FSPO16 SSPO15
.########### | ESPO24 FSPO15 SSPO2 SSPO24 SSPO6
.#### | ESPO22 ESPO6 ESPO8 FSPO4 SSPO22 WSPO2 WSPO5
50 .############ + SSPO17 SSPO9 WSPO21 WSPO7
.#### | ESPO2 ESPO20 FSPO20 SSPO3 SSPO5
.###### |M ESPO1 ESPO14 ESPO23 SSPO13 SSPO4 WSPO13 WSPO17
.########## | ESPO3 FSPO1 FSPO21 SSPO19 SSPO21 WSPO15 WSPO16 WSPO19 WSPO20
.### | FSPO8 SSPO16 SSPO18 WSPO18
.####### | FSPO10 SSPO14 WSPO12
.#### S| ESPO10 ESPO13 ESPO4 SSPO20
.## | FSPO23 FSPO24 SSPO8 WSPO9
.###### | ESPO5 FSPO12 FSPO13
.## |S ESPO18 FSPO11 FSPO18 SSPO10 WSPO10
40 .## + ESPO17 FSPO2 FSPO22 WSPO22
FSPO7: In what order do a hawk, grass, and rabbit form a food chain in a .## |
meadow? .## | FSPO19 WSPO6 WSPO8
.# | FSPO9 WSPO1A. Hawk Grass Rabbit
.# | WSPO3
B. Grass Hawk Rabbit
. T|T FSPO17
C. Rabbit Grass Hawk
. | FSPO7
D. Grass Rabbit Hawk
Low Ability . |
Easier Items
. |
Students
. |
30 + WSPO11
High Ability Students
© 2015 BSCS
. | WSPO23
Harder Items
.##### |
. | FSPO3 SSPO1
SSPO11: Which position shows summer in Earth’s Southern Hemisphere?
.###### S| WSPO24
A. A
.### |T
B. B
60 .###### + ESPO7 WSPO14
C. C
## |
####### |
D. D
.###### | ESPO16 SSPO23
.####### | ESPO9 FSPO5
.###### |S ESPO19 FSPO14 SSPO12 SSPO7 WSPO4
.######### | ESPO21 FSPO6 SSPO11
.####### M| ESPO11 ESPO12 ESPO15 FSPO16 SSPO15
.########### | ESPO24 FSPO15 SSPO2 SSPO24 SSPO6
.#### | ESPO22 ESPO6 ESPO8 FSPO4 SSPO22 WSPO2 WSPO5
50 .############ + SSPO17 SSPO9 WSPO21 WSPO7
FSPO6: The diagrams below show three food chains. Each food chain uses .#### | ESPO2 ESPO20 FSPO20 SSPO3 SSPO5
100 pounds of green plants as a source of food. In which of the three food .###### |M ESPO1 ESPO14 ESPO23 SSPO13 SSPO4 WSPO13 WSPO17
.########## | ESPO3 FSPO1 FSPO21 SSPO19 SSPO21 WSPO15 WSPO16 WSPO19 WSPO20
chains is the most energy available to people?
.### | FSPO8 SSPO16 SSPO18 WSPO18
.####### | FSPO10 SSPO14 WSPO12
.#### S| ESPO10 ESPO13 ESPO4 SSPO20
.## | FSPO23 FSPO24 SSPO8 WSPO9
.###### | ESPO5 FSPO12 FSPO13
.## |S ESPO18 FSPO11 FSPO18 SSPO10 WSPO10
40 .## + ESPO17 FSPO2 FSPO22 WSPO22
.## |
ESPO24: Which of the following figures best shows the location of the .## | FSPO19 WSPO6 WSPO8
earth's tectonic plates?
.# | FSPO9 WSPO1
.# | WSPO3
. T|T FSPO17
. | FSPO7
Low Ability . |
Easier Items
. |
Students
. |
30 + WSPO11
High Ability Students
© 2015 BSCS
Findings
STeLLA Professional Development Program
Teacher Science Content Knowledge
Teaching Practice
Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Student Science Content Knowledge
© 2015 BSCS
Teacher Effects
PD Program
Student Outcomes
Teacher Learning
effect size
= 0.66
(teacher effect: B = 4.79, SE = 0.72, p < .001)
pretest posttest pretest posttest
treatment comparison
effect size
= 0.68
pretest posttest pretest posttest
treatment comparison
Teacher Level Student Level
© 2015 BSCS
Next Steps
• Dissemination
• Mediation analysis: folding in teacher PCK and teacher practice measures to examine how teacher learning and practice predicts student learning
• Moderation analysis with student demographics
• Examining which STeLLA strategies were most predictive of student learning • Studies in different contexts
• Qualitative analyses
• PD leader studies
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA is also a line of research
Research on Student
Ideas in Science
STeLLA I
ViSTA
STeLLA II
EMAT
RESPeCT
ViSTA Plus
© 2015 BSCS
What is the PD research terrain for the STeLLA line of research?
© 2015 BSCS
Mapping the PD Research Terrain (Borko, 2004)
Phase 1. Existence proof
Phase 2. Well‐specified
PD program
Phase 3. Multiple programs
Single program
Single program Multiple programs
Single site
Multiple sites
Multiple sites
Developers are PD leaders
New PD leaders
New PD leaders
Document teacher learning
Document teacher learning
Document student and teacher learning
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Line of Research
Research on Student
Ideas in Science
STeLLA I
ViSTA
STeLLA II
EMAT
RESPeCT
ViSTA Plus
© 2015 BSCS
Mapping the PD Research Terrain: Existence Proof
Phase 1, Borko
STeLLA I
Existence proof
Existence proof
Single program
Lesson analysis program compared to existing content deepening program of shorter duration
Single site
Single site (San Gabriel Valley, CA), four study groups
Developers are PD leaders
Developers are PD leaders
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning, teaching practice, student learning
Quasi‐experimental design
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Line of Research
Research on Student
Ideas in Science
STeLLA I
ViSTA
STeLLA II
EMAT
RESPeCT
ViSTA Plus
© 2015 BSCS
Mapping the PD Research Terrain:
Testing a well‐specified program Phase 2, Borko
Phase 3, Borko
STeLLA II
Well‐specified program
Well‐specified programs
Well‐specified program
Single program
Multiple programs
Two programs
Multiple sites
Multiple sites
New sites (Front Range, CO), multiple lesson analysis study groups and
content deepening groups
New PD leaders
New PD leaders
New PD leaders (BSCS)
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning, student learning
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning, teacher practice, student learning
Experimental design: RCT
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Line of Research
Research on Student
Ideas in Science
STeLLA I
ViSTA
STeLLA II
EMAT
RESPeCT
ViSTA Plus
© 2015 BSCS
Mapping the PD Research Terrain: Adapting STeLLA for scalability and sustainability
Phase 3, Borko
ViSTA Plus, EMAT, RESPeCT
Well‐specified programs
Adapting a well‐specified program for new audiences and for sustainability
Multiple programs
Multiple variations of the STeLLA program – variations in both substance and form
Multiple sites
Multiple sites, multiple audiences
New PD leaders
New PD leaders (including teacher leaders)
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning, student learning
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning,
teacher practice, student learning
Multiple quasi‐experimental studies
© 2015 BSCS
Mapping the PD Research Terrain: Adapting STeLLA for scalability and sustainability
ViSTA Plus
EMAT
RESPeCT
Adapted STeLLA program for work with preservice –
first‐year teachers
Adapted STeLLA program for online work with HS teachers
Adapted STeLLA program
for K‐6 teachers and students in a high‐needs urban district Single 2‐year program compared to BaU
Single semester course, quasi‐experimental design
Single year‐long program compared to BaU
Two university sites
Online site
Pomona Unified School District, CA
New and experienced STeLLA PD leaders
New PD leaders
Teacher leaders as PD leaders
Outcomes focus: Teacher learning, teacher practice, student learning
Outcomes focus: Teacher Outcomes focus: Teacher learning, teaching practice, learning, student learning
student learning
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA Line of Research and the Consensus Model of Effective PD
How does this line of research build on and contribute to research‐based knowledge about effective professional development? © 2015 BSCS
Consensus Model of Effective PD (Yoon et al., 2007; Desimone, 2009; Wilson, 2013)
Effective PD …
• Focuses on specific subject matter content • Engages teachers in active learning • Is coherent (aligned with teachers’ prior knowledge and beliefs; aligned with reform documents and school policy and practice)
• Is of sufficient duration
• Involves the collective participation of teachers (all teachers in a school, grade level, or dept.)
© 2015 BSCS
Research supporting the consensus model
• Relies heavily on teacher self‐report • Rarely looks at impact on student learning
• And when the research does look at student learning, the results are mixed © 2015 BSCS
STeLLA contributes to knowledge about effective PD: Beyond the Consensus Model • The professional development program is guided by a theory of teacher learning.
• The program substance is organized around a conceptual framework.
• Science content learning is intertwined with analysis of practice.
• Analytical tools and videocases support collaborative, deep analysis of science teaching, student learning, and science content. • There is an internal coherence of program form and substance.
• Learning is directed and scaffolded by knowledgeable PD leaders.
© 2015 BSCS
Our Assertions • The consensus model is not enough to guide the design of professional development opportunities that will support NGSS. • The STeLLA line of research contributes to building a research‐based model of effective PD—beyond the consensus model. • More strong lines of research on effective PD are needed.
© 2015 BSCS
Research
BSCS Strategies for Effective Science Teaching:
Using the Student Thinking and Science Content Storyline Lenses
Lesson Analysis Conceptual Framework
STUDENT
THINKING
Learning to analyze science teaching
through two lenses
SCIENCE
CONTENT
STORYLINE
© 2015 BSCS
The Lenses
• What is the Student Thinking Lens and why is it important?
• What is the Science Content Storyline Lens and why is it important?
© 2015 BSCS
© 2015 BSCS
Strategies
Read the strategy document and complete the graphic organizer about asking questions to elicit, probe, and challenge student thinking. Be prepared to share your chart with a partner.
– What is the purpose of each strategy?
– What are the key features of each strategy?
In your table group, create a chart for your assigned strategy.
© 2015 BSCS
What are questions that elicit and probe student thinking?
• What is the difference between a question that elicits student thinking and a question that probes student thinking?
© 2015 BSCS
What are questions that probe and challenge student thinking?
• What is the difference between a question that probes student thinking and a question that challenges student thinking?
• What is a leading question? How is it different from an effective challenge question?
© 2015 BSCS
Lesson Analysis: The Basics
• Viewing Basic #1: Look past the trivial, the little things that “bug” you.
• Analysis Basic #1: Focus on student thinking and the science content storyline.
• Viewing Basic #2: Avoid the “this doesn’t look like my classroom” trap.
• Analysis Basic #2: Look for evidence to support any claims. • Viewing Basic #3: Avoid making snap judgments about the teaching or learning in the classroom you are viewing. • Analysis Basic #3: Look more than once.
• Analysis Basic #4: Consider alternative explanations and teaching strategies.
© 2015 BSCS
Lesson Analysis: Classroom
• Identify
• Analyze
• Reflect
© 2015 BSCS
STeLLA PD Program and Results
• Program substance – Conceptual Framework
• Program form – Teacher study group (focused on videocase‐based analysis of practice)
• Program results – 0.68 effect size on student learning and 0.66 effect size on teacher learning
Given what you’ve seen so far, how might you explain the impact on student and teacher learning?
© 2015 BSCS
Lesson Analysis: PD Leader
• Identify
• Analyze: What does the PD leader do (or not do) to make teacher thinking visible?
• Reflect
© 2015 BSCS
Analysis of Practice
• What are your key insights about this line of research so far?
• What are your questions?
© 2015 BSCS
Panel Discussion
• Theoretical Frameworks and Lines of Research: Kathy Roth
• Partnership Development: Paul Numedahl
• PD Program and Variations: Connie Hvidsten
• Research Methods and Results: Chris Wilson
• PD Leader Development: Jody Bintz
© 2015 BSCS
Closing
• What is one take‐away from this session?
© 2015 BSCS
References
•
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3‐15.
•
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181‐199.
•
Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). Journal of Research in Science Education, 39(5): 369 – 392.
•
Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340: 310‐313.
•
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
© 2015 BSCS
Contact
Kathy Roth
[email protected]
Connie Hvidsten
[email protected]
Chris Wilson
[email protected]
Paul Numedahl
[email protected]
Jody Bintz
[email protected]
Betty Stennett
[email protected]
Download presentations at bscs.org/sessions.
[email protected]
This material is based upon work supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation under Grants DRL‐0918277, DRL‐220635, DRL‐1321242, DRL‐1118643. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
© 2015 BSCS