Learning The Science Behind Drug Addiction: A School-based . - ERIC

also incorporate teacher familiarity withassigning student roles and responsibilities to complete group work, studentpairs, and whole class group learningtasks (Catalano, 2010; Hsiung, 2012).Careful selection of role assignments forstudent pairing and small group activitiespromotes successful collaboration byhaving students accountable for learning, developing team interactions, andenhancing negotiation during problemsolving events. Students working in pairsand groups have the opportunity to engagein continued interactions with peers, aswell as share written and oral reflection of their understanding of scientificconcepts and content. Additionally, theylearn to not rely solely on the instructorto facilitate the learning event (Catalano,2010; National Center, Quality Teaching and Learning, the Office of HeadStart, 2012).MethodsThe SEADAP research scientist andscience education researcher lead theSEADAP professional development (PD)session for participating teachers. Duringthe PD, teachers participated in demonstrations in inquiry-based, hands-on investigations to lead their own students in thedesign of experiments using planariansfor drug abuse studies. Participating teachers were provided with lessons that addressthe Next Generation Science Standards,National Science Education Standards,and Common Core Essential Standards. This PD introduced teachers tobiomedical research protocols, researchethics, planarian animal model, analysisof drug addiction research, and methodsof analysis of research. The PD consistedof a four-day teacher participant trainingduring the academic year and totaled32 contact-hours.Setting and Sample PopulationSEADAP Professional Developmentsessions were conducted at two majoruniversities in North Carolina (NC)and Pennsylvania (PA). The programwas designed as a four-year project forteachers and students. The current studyfocuses on outcomes for SEADAPprofessional development for teacherSPRING 2019 VOL. 27, NO. 1participants in NC during year one andthe resulting impact of the SEADAP program on participating teachers’ students.Research DesignTeachersTeacher participants were recruitedfrom two school districts in NC duringthe summer prior to the academic year inwhich they were to implement SEADAPlessons. Numerous strategies were usedto recruit participating teachers includingSEADAP staff appearance on a local newsshow and flyers advertising the programsent to targeted school districts, superintendents, principals, department chairs,and science teachers. Presentations weremade at conferences to motivate teacherparticipation, and written announcements were also posted in newslettersand professional development workshops sponsored by state and nationalscience education organizations. Scienceteachers were also telephoned and sentemails to motivate interest to participate in the SEADAP program. The PDincluded sessions led by key SEADAPstaff members, state-level politicians,STEM faculty at a university in NC, andlocal biomedical researchers. Teachers(n 10) were all instructors at the middleschool level and had an average of 10years teaching experience. The majority were female (n 9) with one maleparticipant. Seventy percent were Whiteand 30% Black. Teachers were paid astipend as an incentive to participate inSEADAP, as supported by Mclean andVan Wyk (2006).The research design included both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.One of the program evaluation instruments, the Professional DevelopmentQuestionnaire (PDQ), was developedand validated by the SERVE Center. TheSERVE Center is a regional educationalresearch and development organizationthat is well respected for evaluation ofSTEM and instructional technology projects. Questionnaire items were examinedby multiple parties (SERVE representatives and researchers) revised and editedthrough an iterative process to achieveface validity consensus that the itemswere appropriately stated for collectingdata to measure what the PDQ intended.The PDQ contained Likert scale typeitems based on data sought from teachers’ awareness of science-related careers(particularly biomedical careers); knowledge of the hazards of using addictivesubstances; knowledge about the scienceof drug addiction; skills related to the useof planarians in basic science research.The Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of theinternal consistency for the eight itemLikert statements on the PDQ, was 0.81.Formative data was collected on perceptions of whether the program was of highquality, relevant to teacher needs, provided important resources, and whetherthe program met expectations. The PDQalso included open-ended response itemsto gather data pertaining to the most andleast useful aspects of the SEADAP professional development.StudentsAll NC students were in grades 6-8from two public school districts andwere the students of the 10 SEADAPteacher participants. Of a total of 304participating students, approximately52% were female (n 158) and 48%(n 146) were male. Two percent (n 5)were American Indian /Alaska Native,1% (n 4) were Asian, 38% (n 114)were Black or African-American,10% (n 29) were Hispanic/Latino,34% (n 103) were White, and 15%(n 46) indicated multiple ethnicity/racegroup. Three students did not indicateethnicity/race.Pretests and PosttestsThe pretest and posttest instrumentswere developed by SEADAP researchersin collaboration with the SERVE Centerto assess student knowledge related tothe program goals. Pretests and posttestitems were examined by SERVE representatives, SEADAP researchers, andNC teacher participants of SEADAP toagain address face validity and to measure the extent the SEADAP programaccomplished the goals of the program.A pretest instrument was administeredto students of teacher participants priorto SEADAP-related instruction. Anidentical posttest was administered to35

student participants after SEADAPrelated instruction had concluded. Thepre/posttest instrument items addressedGoal 1 (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and9), Goal 2 (items 10 and 13) and Goal 3(items 11 and 12) - see Appendix C. Threehundred eighty-four students took thepre or posttests. Of these 384 students,304 completed both the pre and posttests which were explicitly matched foranalysis.ObservationsThe SERVE evaluators used an observation protocol designed specificallyfor the SEADAP program and observedat least one class period (which rangedfrom 50 to 90 minutes) in which studentsof teacher participants were conductingexperiments with planaria (i.e., stereotypy, motility, chronic drug exposure,and place conditioning). The observation protocol was designed by SERVEwith input from the SEADAP researchers. The observations were not intendedto judge nor rate teacher performances inany way, but instead to help identify challenges and/or successes that emerge asstudents increase their knowledge aboutbiomedical research and gain knowledgerelevant to conducting SEADAP-relatedexperiments in the classroom. To support further validity evidence, qualitativedata from the observation protocol washand coded (Patton, 2002) and analyzedusing the constant comparative method,an iterative process of coding qualitative data or recurring themes (Merriam,2001) by SEADAP researchers. Inter-raterreliability was present among SEADAPresearchers as achieved in reportingemergent themes from qualitative dataanalysis.in Table 1, responses were based on afive-point Likert scale (SA stronglyagree, A agree, N neutral, D disagree,and SD strongly disagree). Teachersreported (mean scores ranged from a lowof 4.30 to a high of 4.70) the PD sessionsincreased their awareness of sciencerelated careers (particularly biomedical careers), increased their knowledgeof the hazards of using addictive substances, increased their knowledge aboutthe science of drug addiction, increasedtheir skills related to the use of planarians in basic science research, were ofhigh quality, were relevant to their needs,provided important resources, and metexpectations.Teacher participants were also askedto respond to open-ended questions onthe PDQ about what were the most andleast useful parts of the PD. Based oncontent analysis of open-ended questionson the questionnaire, the following components were considered the most andleast useful parts of the PD opportunitiesprovided.Focus Group Sessions (FGS)Focus Group Sessions (FGS) were alsoconducted near completion of the PD toassess teacher perceptions of their learning experience. To decrease bias, FGSwere conducted by SERVE staff and notby the SEADAP researchers, with eachsession lasting for approximately 45minutes. Before implementation, FGSwere conducted face-to-face with teacherparticipants (n 10) near the completionof the PD.The after implementation FGS wereconducted via Google Hangout videoconference with teachers (n 6). Teachers were asked two questions: 1) whatwere the most successful aspects ofimplementation? and 2) what were themost challenging aspects of implementation? FGS were analyzed by SEADAPresearchers. Qualitative analyses wereconducted using a constant comparativemethod, an iterative process of codingqualitative data for recurring themes(Merriam, 2001). Researchers werecautious during the analysis process toreport emergent themes grounded indata (Patton, 2002).Most useful: Knowledge gained about drugaddiction and effects of addictivesubstances Availability of resources to assistwith implementation of SEADAPlessons Collaboration with other teachersto plan SEADAP-relatedinstruction Access to researchers and staff toanswer questions related to thedevelopment and implementationof lessons.ResultsTo address the research question: towhat extent did SEADAP provide highquality PD for the participating teachers? Teachers were asked to completethe PDQ regarding their professionaldevelopment experience at the conclusion of the workshop sessions. As seenTable 1. Professional Development Questionnaire (PDQ)1. Increased my awareness of STEM careers (particularly biomedical careers).2. Increased my knowledge of the hazards of using addictive substances.3. Increased my knowledge about the science of drug addiction.4. Increased my skills as they related to the use of planarians in basic science research.5. Was of high quality.6. Was relevant to my needs.7. Provided important resources for me.8. Met my n4.604.404.304.604.404.404.704.40SCIENCE EDUCATOR

Least useful: Skype and video lectures did nothave a human connection Some lunchtime speakers wereperceived as presenting irrelevantinformation Limited opportunities to do handson experiments Unavailability of pretest to guidelesson plan development Some of the content knowledgewas too in depth for studentsThe researchers and SERVE reconciled any inconsistencies. If any teacherresponse did not align to the questionthen responses were dropped.To address the research question:to what extent did the SEADAP participating teachers transfer the goals ofthe program to their own teaching andlearning environments? Paired samplet-tests were conducted to determine ifthere was a significant change for student pre and post test scores (see Tables2 and 3). Pretest and posttest scores forthe total number of student participants(N 304) comparison indicated that themean pretest score was 5.27(SD 2.13)and mean posttest score was 7.09(SD 2.99). A significant increase frompretest posttest was found (t (303) -10.939, p 0.001). Upon further analysis it is interesting to note that a pairedsample t-test was conducted and significant increases from pretest to posttestwere found for the students by teacher.For teacher 3 the mean pretest studentscore was 5.07 (SD 2.05) and meanposttest score was 11.06 (SD 1.50).A significant increase from pretest toposttest was found (t (53) -19.227,p 0.001). For teacher 7 the mean scoreof the pretest was 5.73 (SD 2.33),and the mean posttest score was 7.05(SD 2.92). A significant increasefrom pretest to posttest was found(t (61) -3.73, p 0.001). No significant differences were found for theremaining student scores by teachermean pretest and posttest scores. Therewere also no significant differences forthe students of the SEADAP teacher byethnicity or gender.SPRING 2019 VOL. 27, NO. 1Table 2. Paired Sample t test All ionsObservations of the teachers wereanalyzed and coded by the researchersand SERVE. Themes pertaining to challenges and successes emerged. The following challenges were perceived by theteacher participants for the students. Off task behavior Time to complete an experiment Unwilling to design their ownexperiment Planarians dying Unfamiliarity with the scientificmethod Mathematics calculationsTeacher participants were able to provide student instruction related to theSEADAP curricula in the classroom andwere observed successfully: Grouping (2-3 students) to complete laboratory investigations Implementing afterschool programwith small of group of students(fewer than 10) Incorporating the scientific method Providing written materials forstudents to read to implementlaboratories Writing laboratory proceduresprior to implementation Assisting students with conductinglaboratories by adult volunteersM7.09SD2.99t-10.939df303p0.000*Teachers faced challenges and successes during the implementation of theSEADAP curricula within their studentlearning environments. Timing allocation issues in conducting experimentsand familiarity with science and mathematics content/concepts were majorchallenges for students. However, assisting groups of students with the writingand implementation of the experimentswas observed as successful.Before Implementation Protocol:Near the completion of the PD all tenNC teachers were asked to discuss theirexperience before implementation ofSEADAP lessons with students. Constantcomparative method was used ( Merriam,2001), and seven themes emerged: 1)Relevancy of topic 2) Knowledge aboutthe topic 3) Comfort with implementation 4) Knowledge about scientific process 5) Student engagement 6) Issueswith implementation 7) Program focus.During Implementation Protocol: AllNC SEADAP teachers provided their students with instruction about the anatomy and movement of planaria. In allteacher classroom settings students wereobserved working in pairs or in groups.Teachers were required to implementtwo lessons which included the use ofplanaria and the substances caffeine,Table 3. Paired Sample t Test ge number .0060.0570.000*0.0090.0220.0010.000*37

alcohol, sucrose or nicotine. The lessoninvestigations were noted to incorporatestereotypy, motility, chronic drug exposure, anxiety, withdrawal, or place preference conditioning.Focus Group SessionAfter Implementation: During FocusGroup Session (FGS) via Google Hangout (n 6), teachers were asked todescribe their successes and challengesassociated with the implementation oftheir SEADAP curricula. The videosession was approximately 45 minutes.Various challenges were consistentlyreported and there were a few challenges discussed. Limited knowledgeabout using planarians in SEADAPexperiments were difficult for boththe teacher participants and their students. Snow days were an obstaclewhich delayed plans to use planariansin the classroom. Planarians would bedelivered to school and, as result ofschool cancellations due to inclement weather, upon return to schoolthe planarians would not be viable touse. Additionally, teachers commentedthat they did not know what to expectwhen facilitating laboratory investigations using planarians in prescribed drugenvironments. This uncertainty made theteachers feel uncomfortable, especiallywhen students would seek confirmationof results. One teacher said that one ofher three classes was unable to focuson SEADAP activities, and thereforedecided not to implement SEADAPinvestigations with that particular class.Finally, one teacher reported that implementing SEADAP lessons in a 50-minute period was a struggle and wouldstrongly recommend carrying out investigations with middle school studentsduring 90-minute block schedules.In spite of reported challenges, therewere several successes related to theimplementation of SEADAP lessons.One teacher incorporated the use of microscopes for the first time, and anotherinvited a guest speaker to the class toshare expertise about drug addiction. Inaddition, one teacher was able to connectSEADAP curricula to other health anddrug prevention programs occurring at38her school. Similarly, one teacher notedthat SEADAP instruction allowed students actually to see the effects of drugs,such as nicotine on planarians whichexpanded the experience beyond the “justsaying no” often found in existing drugprevention programs.DiscussionThis study reports preliminary findings addressing research questions forthe first year of the four-year SEADAPproject for middle school teachers andstudents. NC teachers responded favorably regarding their participation inSEADAP. Study data revealed that uponthe completion of the PD, a resultingincrease was reported in teacher awareness of careers related to biomedicalresearch, knowledge of the hazards ofusing addictive substances, knowledgeabout the science of drug addiction,and skills related to the use of planarians in scientific research was achieved.Teacher participants reported that thePD was of high quality, relevant to theirneeds, met expectations, and providedimportant resources. Data collected fromopen-ended questions mirrored FGS findings. Teachers gained relevant knowledge about drug addiction, the effects ofsubstance abuse and how to incorporatewhat they learned into the instruction ofthe scientific process.Drug prevention programs assist withlearning emotional and developmentalskills to engage in social environments,to lessen risk-taking behaviors associatedwith drug abuse, to debunk misinformation about drug addiction or abuse andto provide information about drugs currently being abused (Olsson & Fritzell,2015). The underlining resolve of teacherparticipation in SEADAP is to deterstudent use of illicit drugs which, haveadverse health effects, and to lower criminal activity (Mumola & Karberg, 2006;National Drug Intelligence Center, 2011;National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2012).Examining a change in student attitudes,possibly via reflective journals, aboutthe consequences of drugs of abuse isalso a focus of the SEADAP programand will continue in future study. Current research advocates having studentsengage in meaningful activities in programs like SEADAP which link scienceto aspects of health risks associatedwith illegal drug use as a key componentin education (Grace, Woods-Townsend,Griffiths, Godfrey, Hanson, Galloway,Inskip, 2012). The hope is to promoteinformed decision making for healthychoices when presented with situationswhere potentially addictive drugs arewithin a student’s reach.Future work and conclusionWhile a number of studies

of drug addiction to students and to expose middle and high school students to drug addiction research. The goals of the pro-gram during the fi rst year were to increase: 1) knowledge about the science of drug addiction, 2) knowledge about biomedical careers, and 3) understanding about how animal models are used to advance knowl-