Rites

RITES
Rhode Island Technology Enhanced Science Program

A Statewide Partnership
Directors: Principals:
Daniel Murray Robert Tinker
Glênisson de Oliveira Deborah Collins
Peter McLaren David Cedrone
Kathryn Crowley
Partners:
Rhode Island College
University of Rhode Island
Concord Consortium
Rhode Island Department of Education
Johnston School District
Education Alliance at Brown University
Community College of Rhode Island
Brown University
5-Year Strategic Plan Submitted to the National Science Foundation (2nd Draft)
March 27, 2009
Table of Contents
RHODE ISLAND TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED SCIENCE PROGRAM...........1
A STATEWIDE PARTNERSHIP....................................................... .....1
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................... ........I
I. PROJECT SUMMARY............................................ .........................1
II. PARTNERSHIP VISION....................................... ..........................2
III. PROJECT GOALS....................................... .................................3
GOAL 1. INCREASE THE NUMBER AND DIVERSITY OF STUDENTS WHO
ARE PROFICIENT ON STATE SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS AND WHO PURSUE
STEM CAREERS............................................ ......................................5
STRATEGY 1.4 DEVELOP AND PROVIDE RESOURCES AND TOOLS FOR STIMULATING STUDENT INTEREST IN
STEM HIGHER EDUCATION AND CAREER OPPORTUNITIES .........................................................6
OUTCOME 1.5.1 DATA ON STUDENT AND PARENT USE OF TOOLS, GUIDANCE AND ENGAGEMENT OF STEM
RELATED RESOURCES.............................................................................................. ......6
OUTCOME 1.5.2 USE OF EVIDENCE-BASED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT PROGRAM DESIGN ELEMENTS DIRECTED AT
SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT ACROSS ALL STUDENT POPULATIONS.........................................................6
BENCHMARK MATRIX FOR GOAL 1..............................................................................6
GOAL 2. DEVELOP AND PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY TEACHER
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER PREPARATION INCLUSIVE OF
INQUIRY, TECHNOLOGY USE AND RESEARCH BASED STRATEGIES...........7
STRATEGY 2.1 ESTABLISH A DESIGN COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND MATERIALS
DESIGN............................................................................................................. ......7
Outcome 2.1.1 An inclusive, cross-disciplinary effort...............................7
The Design Committee must ensure that the needs of teachers, schools and
Partners are incorporated into the design process and that professional
development adheres to best practices for content knowledge development
and inquiry based pedagogy. ........................................................................7
Outcome 2.1.2 A professional development design document and timeline
........................................................................................................ ...............7
Outcome 2.1.3 Ongoing review and development process......................7
STRATEGY 2.2 INCORPORATION OF SCIENCE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR MIDDLE/SECONDARY SCHOOL PAIRS
WITHIN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS.............................................................................. ..7
OUTCOME 2.2.1 INTEGRATED FOCUS ON TEACHER SCIENCE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT...................7
OUTCOME 2.2.2 ARTICULATION OF MIDDLE TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT LEARNING NEEDS, TEACHER PRACTICE
AND CURRICULA ALIGNMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION ...............................................................7
STRATEGY 2.3 DEVELOP SHORT COURSES AND TRAINING FOR TEACHERS BASED ON SCHOOL PLANS AND NEEDS
FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION...............................................................................................8
Outcome 2.3.1 Functioning technology for authoring and delivering the short
courses................................................................................................. ..........8
Outcome 2.3.2 Introductory short course ................................................8
Outcome 2.3.3 A set of content-specific short courses.............................8
Outcome 2.3.4 A collection of independent study courses ......................8
Outcome 2.3.5 Offer content-rich graduate courses for teachers at RIC and
URI.................................................................................................................. 9
These are three-credit courses that are geared to teachers. Many of them
more thoroughly introduce and reinforce teacher content-knowledge. Others
RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan i

will focus on pedagogical tools needed to deliver high-level science content
through inquiry.................................................................................. .............9
Strategy 2.4 Improve the quality of teacher preparation programs within
the state............................................................................................... ..........9
URI and RIC account for over ninety percent of newly licensed science
teachers in the state. Both institutions will undertake reviews of their pre-
service programs to align them with the approach and materials of RITES, as
well as with mandated standards concerns. An important component of this
improvement will be the incorporation of RITES material for guided inquiry in
courses................................................................................................. ..........9
Outcome 2.4.1 Incorporation of RITES materials into pre-service science
teacher curricula. ..........................................................................................9
STRATEGY 2.5 COORDINATE WITH OTHER PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE PD FOR DIVERSE GROUPS OF TEACHERS
...................................................................................................................... .....9
CURRENTLY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER EFFORTS WITHIN THE STATE THAT ADDRESS THE NEED TO
INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF TEACHERS WITHIN STEM SUBJECT AREAS. SOME OF THESE EFFORTS INCLUDE
RIDER, RECRUIT, AND GK12. WE WILL COORDINATE RITES EFFORTS WITH THESE AND OTHER SIMILAR
PROGRAMS................................................................................................... ............9
Outcome 2.5.1 Increased support for diverse groups of teachers............9
STRATEGY 2.6 SUCCESSIVE ADAPTATIONS OF TEACHER DEVELOPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES BASED
ON EVIDENCE FROM RESEARCH AND EVALUATION COMPONENTS .....................................................9
Outcome 2.6.1 Modification of workshops, curricula, and other instruments
that are used in the professional development of teachers...........................9
OUTCOME 2.6.2 RESEARCH BASED CUSTOMIZATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE THAT ALL
STUDENTS WILL BENEFIT FROM RITES...............................................................................9
STRATEGY 3.1 CHARGE THE DESIGN COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE THE DESIGN OF INVESTIGATIONS THROUGH
TECHNOLOGY THAT ARE SEAMLESSLY INTEGRATED IN THE SHORT COURSES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.10
Outcome 3.1.1 An inclusive and integrated cross-disciplinary effort.....10
Outcome 3.1.2 A materials design document........................................10
Outcome 3.1.3 A review process............................................................10
STRATEGY 3.2 ESTABLISH RESOURCE TEAMS TO GENERATE MATERIALS..................................10
Outcome 3.2.1 Materials for cohort 1.....................................................10
Outcome 3.2.2 Materials for cohort 2.....................................................11
Outcome 3.2.3 Revise materials............................................................11
STRATEGY 3.3 DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY FOR AUTHORING AND DELIVERING LEARNING ACTIVITIES ...11
Outcome 3.3.1 A template for RITES activities.......................................11
Outcome 3.3.2 Student performance feedback to teachers and researchers
...................................................................................................... ...............11
Outcome 3.3.3 Integration with Sakai....................................................11
Outcome 3.3.4 Reliable materials delivery............................................11
STRATEGY 3.4 DEVELOP THE RITES ONLINE COMMUNITY PORTAL ......................................11
Outcome 3.4.1 Technology for the RITES online community portal........11
Outcome 3.4.2 A library of high-quality contributed materials .............12
BENCHMARK MATRIX FOR GOAL 3............................................................................12
STRATEGY 4.3 INCORPORATE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES INTO PROGRAM PROCESSES TO ASSURE
TIMELY, ONGOING PROGRAM FEEDBACK AND PROGRAM/PARTNERSHIP COORDINATION............................14
OUTCOME 4.3.1 PROGRAM PLANS, ACTIVITIES, MATERIALS AND APPROACH CONCURRENTLY REVIEWED AND
ALIGNED WITH RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES.............................................................14
Outcome 4.4.1 Widespread understanding of project goals, theory and
approach................................................................................ ......................14
RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan ii

Create a common set of readings relevant to key program components14
Outcome 4.4.2. Connections with parallel efforts across Rhode Island . .14
GOAL 5. SUSTAIN PROGRAM IMPACT THROUGH A PARTNERED MODEL THAT INCLUDES SECONDARY SCHOOL
THROUGH HIGHER EDUCATION, AND PRIVATE SECTORS COMMITTED TO SCIENCE EDUCATION....................15
STRATEGY 5.1 ESTABLISH AND BUILD MULTIMODAL PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT TO
ENGAGE TEACHERS, HIGHER EDUCATION FACULTY AND RELEVANT K-16 STEM STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS STATE15
OUTCOME 5.1.1 SAKAI/AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE USED TO SHARE RESOURCES.....15
STRATEGY 5.2 INTEGRATE PROJECT MATERIALS AND APPROACHES INTO UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION. .15
OUTCOME 5.2.1 CREATE TWO NEW PERMANENT TENURE-TRACK POSITIONS IN SCIENCE, WITH STRONG
BACKGROUND AND INTEREST IN EDUCATION, TO CONTINUE THE PROJECT AND TO CONTINUE THE INCLUSION OF
CONTENT FACULTY IN K-12 EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS................................................................15
OUTCOME 5.2.3. ADVOCATE EDUCATION IN TENURE DECISIONS. BOTH RIC AND URI WILL INSTITUTE
POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE MORE FACULTY ENGAGEMENT IN SECONDARY EDUCATION BY CONSIDERING EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH AND SERVICE IN PROMOTION AND TENURE. RIC WILL UNDERTAKE THIS REVIEW CENTRALLY; AT URI IT
WILL BE NECESSARY TO WORK WITH EACH DEPARTMENT. .........................................................15
STRATEGY 5.3. ALIGN RELATED STEM POLICY INITIATIVES AND STRUCTURES............................16
ONGOING ALIGNMENT TO SUSTAIN AND SUPPORT PARTNERED APPROACH TO IMPROVING SCIENCE AND MATH
EDUCATION FOR ALL STUDENTS; FACILITATED THROUGH PARTICIPATION OF KEY RITES PERSONNEL IN RIDE’S
SCIENCE EDUCATION LEADERSHIP COUNCIL..........................................................................16
OUTCOME 5.3.1 COORDINATION EFFORTS AROUND NEW POLICY AND PROJECT EFFORTS FACILITATED ACROSS
STEM CENTER INTEGRATION, RIDE, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE....................................................16
OUTCOME 5.3.2.COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION WITH EXTERNAL PARTNER GROUPS REPRESENTING
OTHER STATE BASED STEM INITIATIVES AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED CAPACITY FOR INFORMING, FUTURE
PROJECTS, STREAMLINING EFFORTS, AND LEVERAGING WORK ACROSS STATE (OR COMPARABLY SCALED
DISTRICT/REGION) .............................................................................................. ......16
STRATEGY 5.4 RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABILITY/PARTNERSHIP MODELS .....................................16
a. Student Achievement..........................................................................25
b. Program Benchmarks..........................................................................26
1. Evaluation and Research Matrix..........................................................27
2. Evaluation Benchmarks and Timeline.................................................31
1. Research Questions............................................................................32
2. Data Collection and Analysis...............................................................33
3. Research Benchmarks and Timeline...................................................34
Buckley, B., Gobert, J.D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R., Gerlits, B.,
Wilensky, U., Willett, J., & Dede, C. (March, 2004). Model-based teaching and
learning with BioLogica: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we
know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 13, pp. 23 - 41....35
IV....................................................................MANAGEMENT PLAN
........................................................................................... .........................17
A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................17
B. ORGANIZATION............................................................................................18
1. RITES MEMBERS AND PARTNERS........................................................................18
RITES Management and Leadership.............................................................18
RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan iii

Evaluation Team...........................................................................................18
NationalAdvisory Committee........................................................................18
RITES Members............................................................................................. 19
RITES Partners................................................................................. .............19
Figure 1: Simplified organization of RITES emphasizing members and
partners.............................................................................................. ...............20
Figure 2: Simplified organization of RITES emphasizingassignment of tasks
................................................................................................. .........................21
a. Management & Leadership......................................................................22
b. Communication Committee.....................................................................22
c. External Partnership Committee..............................................................22
d. Design Committee...................................................................................23
i. Resource Teams...................................................................................23
ii. Technology Development Group.........................................................24
e. Research and Evaluation Committee.......................................................24
f. Recruitment and Retention Committee.....................................................25
2. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE..........................................................19
3. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION................................................................................24
B. AGENDAS............................................................................... .......................25
1. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT......................................................................................25
2. PROGRAM BENCHMARKS.....................................................................................25
V. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PLAN....................................................27
A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................27
B. EVALUATION.................................................................................................27
1. EVALUATION AND RESEARCH MATRIX.....................................................................27
Table 1: Research and Evaluation Matrix....................................................28
2. EVALUATION BENCHMARKS AND TIMELINES..............................................................31
Table 2: Five-Year Timeline for Evaluation Benchmarks..............................31
3. ANNUAL REPORTS TO NSF............................................................................... ..31
C. RESEARCH................................................................................................... ..32
1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS.......................................................................................32
RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan iv

2. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS.........................................................................32
3. RESEARCH BENCHMARK AND TIMELINE...................................................................33
D. REFERENCES................................................................................................34
RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan v

I. Project Summary
The University of Rhode Island (URI), Rhode Island College (RIC), Johnston Public Schools
and the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) are Core Partners in a targeted, statewide
effort to improve the quality of science teaching and learning at all secondary schools. The
Education Alliance at Brown University, which will evaluate the project, is a supporting partner
together with the Community College of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Economic
Development Corporation and the Concord Consortium.
Rhode Island Technology Enhanced Science (RITES) is based upon structural reform
initiated with the support of the Governor. An action plan developed by a PK-16 council resulted
in an investment of $15 million to establish a permanent STEM Center that will provide support
to all schools and is an integral part of the RITES project. Comprehensive statewide STEM
education reform also has support from all levels of government and academia and RITES
represents a valuable experiment in organization and structure within that effort.
The RITES project will, in five years of NSF funding, transform the quality of science
teaching and learning at all middle and secondary schools, with the goal of increasing the
number and diversity of students who are proficient in science and pursue careers in Science,
Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics (STEM). The heart of the project is the seamless
integration of all segments of the Rhode Island educational community (i.e., teachers and school
systems, higher education science departments and schools of education, the various state offices
that monitor and support STEM education and the private sector).
RITES will impact all middle school and high school science teachers and all of their 83,000
students with excellent, challenging, computer-based, standards-aligned, materials. High schools
and feeder middle schools will join the Partnership by developing a middle and high school
science action plan that will integrate RITES resources for professional development of teachers
and materials for students with school needs and ongoing school reform. Schools that participate
in the project will be expected to have the active engagement of the school leadership and at least
75% of the science teachers. Teachers will attend short courses not only to deepen their content
knowledge and pedagogy but also to learn how to customize the new curriculum materials for
their own classrooms.
The comprehensive evaluation plan includes annual reviews of the New England Common
Assessments Program (NECAP) science assessment, which was administered for the first time in
Spring 2008. Results will be disaggregated by race, gender, disabilities and income. Specific
benchmarks for student achievement, teacher professional development and workforce diversity
will be used to track progress.
RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 1

II. Partnership Vision
A comprehensive and rigorous science curriculum that is accessible to all students is a high
priority for Rhode Island. As our 21st century society is increasingly driven by science and
technology advances, every citizen will need a solid foundation in relevant subject areas to make
informed individual and community decisions. As our economy evolves toward a greater
number of innovation-based jobs, students prepared for careers in science and engineering at all
levels of the career ladder will enjoy greater opportunities for higher wages, professional growth
and mobility. To support the development of this social and economic change, Rhode Island has
made a strong commitment to significant improvements in science education for ALL students.
Additionally, the state will ensure the sustainability of these improvements through structural
changes in policy, resource alignment, and educational practices throughout our PK-16 education
system.
Student performance in science and mathematics is unacceptably low in Rhode Island and
there is an intolerable gap between the achievements of poor, minority, and urban students and
that of other students. Only approximately one-quarter of all students perform at or above the
proficient level, with about three-quarters of minority students performing below the “basic”
level compared to only one-third of white students—indicative of both unacceptably poor
performance for all students and an inexcusable demographics gap.
Early in his first term, Governor Carcieri commissioned a Blue Ribbon Panel on Science and
Math education to recommend actionable improvements in the PK-16 system. The resulting
report, Project Making the Grade - An Action Plan for Rhode Island, describes four key issues
and related goals and strategies. The PK-16 Council subsequently convened an Advisory Board
on Science Education to assess and report recommendations for science education improvement.
To support this effort, the Governor advocated, and the Rhode Island General Assembly
approved, a $15M capital fund to upgrade the technology infrastructure for STEM teacher
preparation programs at our public higher education institutions, and to create a Center for
Excellence in STEM Education (RI STEM Center) serving the entire state. In concert with these
initiatives of the PK-16 Council, the Board of Regents and Commissioner of Elementary and
Secondary Education, in partnership with the Commissioner of Higher Education, led a sustained
effort to implement statewide curriculum standards and assessments, aligned to new high school
graduation requirements and college readiness requirements.
These structural investments were essential to create the environment for coherent and
sustainable improvement in Rhode Island’s education system and specifically in STEM
education. Now, the state needs to build on this platform with enhancements to curriculum,
classroom educational practices, and sustained collaboration between higher education and K-12
faculty that will leverage this investment to the benefit of every Rhode Island student. This MSP
project is designed to meet these needs, and to ultimately help increase student understanding of
science at the middle and secondary levels statewide.

III. Project Goals
The RITES project aims to help transform the quality of science teaching and learning at all
middle and secondary schools, while helping to increase the number and diversity of students
who are proficient in science and pursue careers in Science, Engineering, Technology, and
Mathematics (STEM). In order to be effective, the project will support the seamless integration
of all segments of the Rhode Island educational community (i.e., teachers and school systems,
higher education science departments and schools of education, the various state offices that
monitor and support STEM education and the private sector). This partnership-driven project
intends to increase participation of scientists in science education project in four different
institutions of higher learning, while engaging education professors and K-12 faculty. A main
strategy is to foster new collaborations and partnerships between higher education and school
districts.
In order to contribute to the overarching vision of transforming science education in Rhode
Island, the project will focus on teacher quantity, quality, and diversity, by providing intense,
challenging, and content-rich courses that will better equip teachers with computer-based,
standards-aligned science materials for guided inquiry in the classroom. The activities to be
developed through RITES will be aligned with state standards, with the purpose of enriching and
improving the science curriculum.
To achieve these ambitious goals, the RITES Partners are committed to a statewide,
coordinated, research-based, and sustained effort, with a rigorous assessment component,
including formative assessment that will inform the project and help establish best practices. A
plan has been developed that incorporates proven approaches that are widely used in science
education reform, enhanced by novel uses of the cyberinfrastructure to increase the project’s
impact.
Finally, it is important to point out that Rhode Island College alone is responsible for at least
partial training (at least one degree) of 94% of the teachers in the state. Additionally, many of the
teachers in the state receive training in the other three higher education partners, thus ensuring
that the project will affect almost 100% of the pre-service teachers in the state. Therefore, a
crucial goal is to affect institutional changes, especially in the core partners in this project.
In Summary, the main goals of the RITES project are to 1) increase the number and diversity
of students who are proficient on state science assessments and who pursue STEM careers; 2)
develop and provide high quality teacher professional development and teacher preparation
inclusive of inquiry, technology use and research based strategies; 3) implement rigorous, inquiry
based, technology enhanced secondary science curriculum materials statewide; 4) provide
evidence based outcomes through integrated research and evaluation that supports ongoing
program improvement and development; and 5) sustain program impact through a partnered
model that includes secondary school through higher education, and private sectors committed to
science education.
As presented below, the goals are part of a seamless fabric. Nevertheless, they represent five
unique components of the project. Goal 1 defines the overarching purpose of RITES, to effect
change in the classroom. Goal 2 limns our method to achieve that purpose through the training
of a cadre of teachers who are conversant in the STEM concepts and the ways in which they can
be presented to students in an inquiry-based classroom environment. Goal 3 focuses on a critical

component of that teacher development, the incorporation of state-of-the-art software and related
materials into the classroom. Goal 4 continuously evaluates the success of this project, and
provides feedback, as well as research, as to how it can be improved. Finally, Goal 5 addresses
the issue of sustainability, that is how can we insure that RITES will continue beyond the
duration of this funding effort, and how can it be used as a template for projects elsewhere in the
country. In this sense, Goals 1 and 5 may be seen as bookends for RITES, Goals 2 and 3 as the
work plan for accomplishing them, and Goal 4 as the method by which we continually monitor
our progress, as well as provide data of use to not only our project, but also to inform other NSF
MSP efforts.

Goal 1. INCREASE THE NUMBER AND DIVERSITY OF STUDENTS WHO ARE PROFICIENT
ON STATE SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS AND WHO PURSUE STEM CAREERS
Strategy 1.1 Implement program to assure participation by all representative populations and
across middle and high school levels of science education curriculum
Outcome 1.1.1 Development of multi-stage recruitment plan to reach all districts statewide
• Program recruitment plan assures representation of all educational contexts based
on consideration of student demographics, student performance, and district/school
location (urban/non-urban)
• Recruitment plan successfully engages cohort of six school pairs in year 1, and
cohorts of thirteen school pairs in years 2-4
Outcome 1.1.2 Recruitment of and participation by middle-high school pairs to assure
curricular alignment and coordination
• Use of middle/high school pairs facilitates focus on full spectrum of science
instruction at feeder/middle level through high school and informs curricular
coordination across the two levels
• Teacher use of state-developed curricular alignment tools informs decisions on
actions that augment school improvement plans and focuses attention on science
achievement
Strategy 1.2 Development and use of school plans as driver for improving science
education and student performance
Outcome 1.2.1 Inclusion of benchmarks for student science achievement in school plans
• Teacher use of disaggregated data to document and track student progress
• Ongoing use of data to guide program and school-based approaches to improving
achievement for all student populations
Strategy 1.3 Use of customized, inquiry-based instructional practices and materials to

improve and enhance student learning
Outcome 1.3.1 Use of multiple learning experiences
• Development and use of guided inquiry instruction to engage students in
investigating real or simulated systems that invite student investigation
• Use of computer based models and tools to facilitate student learning of science and
complex relationships
Outcome 1.3.2 Teacher customization of project materials
• Use of data—including state assessments and program-based resource assessments
—to customize student materials
• Attention to learning standards to assist adjustments in instruction that will increase
student performance
• Emphasis by participating schools’ on integrating program materials and inquiry
based approach into instruction plus detailed analysis to link materials to student

performance
Strategy 1.4 Develop and provide resources and tools for stimulating student interest in
STEM higher education and career opportunities
Outcome 1.4.1 Multiple options for student access to information about STEM
opportunities
• Identify and develop range of optional resources for students demonstrating interest
in STEM—apprenticeships, informal educational programs
• Develop, adapt and use outreach tools to address, guide and assist middle/high
school students and families on STEM career and academic preparation
Strategy 1.5 Study student interest, performance and proficiency in STEM subject areas
Outcome 1.5.1 Data on student and parent use of tools, guidance and engagement of
STEM related resources
• Test outreach tools with student and parent participants, improve as needed and
assess efficacy
• Ongoing monitoring of student interest and patterns of course enrollment
• All students will have access to RITES curricula, either through classroom
computer labs or other venues (such as libraries and homes)
Outcome 1.5.2 Use of evidence-based findings to support program design elements
directed at science achievement across all student populations
• Participating schools’ emphasize integrating program materials and inquiry based
approach into instruction providing opportunity for detailed analysis to link
materials to student performance
• Disaggregation of research, evaluation and program data to explore how diverse
students are being affected and why
• Ongoing assessment of knowledge integration and progress towards achievement of
science standards and proficiency through student achievement data, student logs,
student records and related project based data
Benchmark Matrix for Goal 1

Goal 2. DEVELOP AND PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY TEACHER PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER PREPARATION INCLUSIVE OF INQUIRY, TECHNOLOGY
USE AND RESEARCH BASED STRATEGIES
Increase the quality of science education instruction across Rhode Island through high
quality, research-based teacher professional development and improvements in the quality of
science teacher preparation. RITES will have a major impact on teacher preparation because
the institutions in the Partnership design work produce about three-quarters of newly licensed
science teachers in Rhode Island (at the undergraduate level), and ultimately more than 95%
of teachers earn degrees from the Partnership institutions. Through its Design Committee and
Resource Team efforts, RITES will engage faculty, educators and curriculum resource
developers in creating content rich, inquiry drive professional development opportunities to
improve ongoing teaching and learning and inform pre-service education across the state.
Strategy 2.1 Establish a Design Committee to oversee professional development and

materials design
The Design Committee is responsible for the intellectual work of the project. It will
coordinate the design and implementation of short courses and the work of Resource
Teams. It is appointed by the PIs and reports to them and the Management Team.
Outcome 2.1.1 An inclusive, cross-disciplinary effort
The Design Committee must ensure that the needs of teachers, schools and Partners are
incorporated into the design process and that professional development adheres to best
practices for content knowledge development and inquiry based pedagogy.
Outcome 2.1.2 A professional development design document and timeline
The RITES PD design document will describe the necessary content, mode, skills and
sequencing of teacher development activities produced by the project: content
challenging, inquiry-based, standards driven, technology based and adaptive. The latter
elements will further address suitability for use in classrooms with one or many
computers.
Outcome 2.1.3 Ongoing review and development process
The Design Committee will coordinate data collection processes with the Research and
Evaluation Team to establish ongoing review of PD activities and use of PD in
classroom settings. Program feedback through the delivery of PD and online
implementation in actual classroom settings combined with observations, interviews
and teacher logs will provide multiple feedback streams for formative development of
PD activities over the course of the program.
Strategy 2.2 Incorporation of science improvement plans for middle/secondary school pairs
within School Improvement Plans
Outcome 2.2.1 Integrated focus on teacher science education development
Outcome 2.2.2 Articulation of middle to high school student learning needs, teacher
practice and curricula alignment in science education

Strategy 2.3 Develop short courses and training for teachers based on school plans and needs
for science education
Develop short courses for teachers that will use effective, research-based designs. The
project will engage participating schools for two years of intensive activities followed by
optional support during the balance of the project. A minimum program for teachers will
consist of six short courses and an accepted, peer-reviewed report on classroom
implementation of RITES materials. This implementation report, which will be uploaded to
the RITES Online Community and linked to the instructional materials, will include student
achievement data, a description of data-driven customizations of the materials, and an
analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Teachers completing their program
will receive a RITES Certificate.
Outcome 2.3.1 Functioning technology for authoring and delivering the short courses
This Outcome has two parts: 1) The creation of functioning technology, either by the
Concord Consortium or the adaptation of pre-existing open source technology; and 2)
The creation of a generic syllabus, to be used by all short courses.
Outcome 2.3.2 Introductory short course
Develop and deliver the first short course that all teachers take to introduce the intent,
expectations, and methods for this project. All participants will take an introductory
short course that orients them to the project, acquaints them with learning from guided
inquiry with and without technology, reviews their school plan, and describes
supporting resources that they can access. This should require about 15 hours and
eventually be available in both face-to-face and online formats. Key activities will be 1)
an overview of the project and approach, 2) an inquiry activity, and 3) an overview of
student activities. Participants should experience the fun and power of some
applications.
Outcome 2.3.3 A set of content-specific short courses
Create 16 content-specific short courses for teachers, two each in middle school math,
biology, physical science, and earth science, and in high school biology, chemistry,
physics, and earth science. Pairs of courses should be designed for sequential
registration (i.e., high school chemistry I and II.) Each of the first set of courses will be
based on a small number of representative RITES activities in the appropriate content
and grade range. These activities will be subjected to in-depth analysis of the
educational design, particularly their approach to inquiry-based learning, technology,
student conceptions, and the background content. The second collection of courses will
each be a continuation of the first set, intended for enrollment after a teacher
implements one of the RITES activities. Each will focus on student assessment data
from the classroom trial, identifying why parts of the materials may have been
educationally unsuccessful for some students. Participants will then customize the
materials to address these problems for later use in their classrooms. For summer 2009,
middle and high school courses will be combined, for the total of eight short courses.
Outcome 2.3.4 A collection of independent study courses
Independent study courses will be developed to support participants in analyzing and
interpreting the data from their classroom trials, and then writing the implementation

report according to specific criteria. Most participants will enroll in two versions of this
course. The initial course will be offered to each cohort in its first academic year. This
course will consist of both on-line and face-to-face sessions, where teachers implement
and adapt RITES materials. Another course supports analysis and reporting of their
customized implementation. These courses will be informed by the work of the
Research Team
Outcome 2.3.5 Offer content-rich graduate courses for teachers at RIC and URI
These are three-credit courses that are geared to teachers. Many of them more
thoroughly introduce and reinforce teacher content-knowledge. Others will focus on
pedagogical tools needed to deliver high-level science content through inquiry.
Strategy 2.4 Improve the quality of teacher preparation programs within the state
URI and RIC account for over ninety percent of newly licensed science teachers in the
state. Both institutions will undertake reviews of their pre-service programs to align them
with the approach and materials of RITES, as well as with mandated standards concerns.
An important component of this improvement will be the incorporation of RITES material
for guided inquiry in courses.
Outcome 2.4.1 Incorporation of RITES materials into pre-service science teacher
curricula.
Strategy 2.5 Coordinate with other programs that provide PD for diverse groups of teachers
Currently there are a number of other efforts within the state that address the need to
increase the diversity of teachers within STEM subject areas. Some of these efforts include
RIDER, RECRUIT, and GK12. We will coordinate RITES efforts with these and other
similar programs.
Outcome 2.5.1 Increased support for diverse groups of teachers
Strategy 2.6 Successive adaptations of teacher development and instructional activities

based on evidence from research and evaluation components
Outcome 2.6.1 Modification of workshops, curricula, and other instruments that are used
in the professional development of teachers.
Outcome 2.6.2 Research based customization of instructional activities to ensure that all
students will benefit from RITES.

Goal 3. IMPLEMENT RIGOROUS, INQUIRY-BASED, TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED
SECONDARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIALS STATEWIDE
RITES will develop an exciting collection of free, highly interactive online educational
resources, assembled, developed, customized, and evaluated by teams of faculty, teachers,
and educational experts. These will be suitable for use in computer labs or classrooms,
with equipment availability ranging from one computer per class to one per student. The
materials will be organized into short activities and modules that can be easily used in
study units or otherwise imbedded in the science curricula of the different districts. The
content of these materials will be matched to the state science standards and their
associated assessments (NECAP).
Strategy 3.1 Charge the Design Committee to oversee the design of investigations through
technology that are seamlessly integrated in the short courses and professional
development
The Design Committee is responsible for the timely production of high quality student
materials and teacher short courses. It is appointed by the PIs and reports to them and the
Management.
Outcome 3.1.1 An inclusive and integrated cross-disciplinary effort
The committee will ensure that the needs of teachers, schools, other projects, and the
Partners are represented in the materials development process. The committee will
also ensure that the materials are accurate science and good education. It will work
closely with the technology development group to ensure seamless integration of
the technology-based investigations into the short courses.
Outcome 3.1.2 A materials design document
The RITES materials design document will describe the characteristics of the
activities produced by the project: research-based, standards-based, inquiry-based,
entirely online, and suitable for use in classrooms with one or many computers. The
design document will include a rubric for evaluating student materials based on the
AAAS textbook review criteria. The design document will be reviewed regularly
and edited on the basis of evaluation results.
Outcome 3.1.3 A review process
The committee will set up a review process that will ensure that all student materials
are reviewed after their first use and revised on the basis of evaluation results. The
review will be based on the rubric for evaluating student materials described in the
design document.
Strategy 3.2 Establish Resource Teams to generate materials

Four or more Resource Teams will be created by the Design Committee in different
disciplines and levels as described in the materials design document. These teams will be
responsible for developing, testing, and revising student materials in their area.
Outcome 3.2.1 Materials for cohort 1
Approximately 40 student activities will be reviewed and tested prior to the summer
2009 for use by teachers in workshops for cohort 1. These materials will focus on
high-impact topics that are tested in the NECAP assessments and judged most

important by the resource team.
Outcome 3.2.2 Materials for cohort 2
Approximately 60 student activities will to be reviewed and tested prior to the
summer 2010 for use by teachers in workshops for cohort 2. The total of 100+
activities will provide at least two activities for each GSE in science and applied
math. The new activities will be released to all RITES teachers as they become
available.
Outcome 3.2.3 Revise materials
Revise all project-generated materials on the basis of data, observations, and surveys
provided by the research team.
Strategy 3.3 Develop the technology for authoring and delivering learning activities
Outcome 3.3.1 A template for RITES activities.
The project will create a template that meets state requirements and incorporates
research-based learning patterns. This online template will simplify materials
development and provide a standard format that will become familiar to students
and teachers. It will have links to teacher notes designed to assist teachers to select
and implement appropriate activities.
Outcome 3.3.2 Student performance feedback to teachers and researchers
The project materials will provide timely feedback on student progress to teachers so
they can change instruction during class or between classes, based on data. More
detailed feedback on student actions will be provided for researchers. Coordinate
with the research and evaluation team to ensure that the activities generate the
required research and evaluation data. These data will preserve student and teacher
privacy and project IRB requirements.
Outcome 3.3.3 Integration with Sakai
Sakai is a LMS that is used in Rhode Island schools primarily for describing and
storing portfolio projects. It is supported by Rhode Island Network for Education
Technologies (RINET). Student and teacher authentication for RITES will be
provided by Sakai so that users can sign into RITES through Sakai from any
networked computer. This will make it possible to track users, even if they change
schools.
Outcome 3.3.4 Reliable materials delivery
The Design Team will decide how to serve all the online materials so they are
delivered to students and teachers quickly and reliably. One possibility is that there
would be a production server provided by RINET.
Strategy 3.4 Develop the RITES online community portal

The project will disseminate its research findings, evaluation reports, and technology
widely through presentations, peer-reviewed articles, magazines, and reports. Its
materials, software, and reports will be freely available on the community portal. All
software and materials will be free for nonprofit educational use.
Outcome 3.4.1 Technology for the RITES online community portal
The portal will provide a variety of collaboration services and a teacher-friendly
database of standards-based student materials linked to teacher notes and research
data.

Outcome 3.4.2 A library of high-quality contributed materials
The portal will feature a place where new student resources or customizations of
existing ones can be submitted along with data on student performance with the
materials. The technology will support sending submissions to reviewers,
monitoring the review process, sending comments back to authors, and publishing
the approved materials.

Goal 4. PROVIDE EVIDENCE BASED OUTCOMES THROUGH INTEGRATED RESEARCH
AND EVALUATION THAT SUPPORTS ONGOING PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT
Strategy 4.1 Establish research and evaluation team to support effective and efficient
coordination of activities across external evaluator, higher education faculty and research
groups, state agencies and school/district participants
Outcome 4.1.1 Development and use of integration tools
• Logic models developed and adapted to clarify program components, document
program and/or outcome adjustments, provide feedback, and facilitate integration
and efficiency of research and evaluation studies.
• Research and evaluation studies are aligned with program goals through
coordination of research studies, data resources and data collection activities to
afford complementary streams of research and date use to inform and produce
evidence of program outcomes
Outcome 4.1.2 Coordination of communications lead to effective program
implementation and feedback to program participants
• Team membership disbursed across management, design, communication and site
development efforts to assure coordination and ongoing communication of
program activities and developments
• Use and ongoing development of online resources inherent in program
management and ongoing program communications
• Demonstrated evidence of partnered approach to program development, inquiry
and feedback
Strategy 4.2 Establish and implement evaluation and research studies along four strands
aligned with goals of RITES program: student performance, teacher professional
development, technology enhanced curriculum resources and partnership sustainability.
Outcome 4.2.1 Research and evaluation of key elements of program design lead to new
knowledge of instructional theory, teacher development and student learning
• Coordination of qualitative protocols and quantitative measures
• Multiple methods and lines of inquiry used to inform evaluation and research
questions
Outcome 4.2.2 Program reflection and knowledge development ensured through
comprehensive approach to research and evaluation
• Integrated approach streamlines efforts while affording consideration of multiple
and complimentary theory frameworks
• Enhanced opportunity for emergence of new, concurrent studies

Strategy 4.3 Incorporate research and evaluation activities into program processes to assure
timely, ongoing program feedback and program/partnership coordination
Outcome 4.3.1 Program plans, activities, materials and approach concurrently reviewed
and aligned with research and evaluation activities
• Program recruitment, planning and implementation activities consider internal
program documentation and are planned concurrently with attention to
research/evaluation data collection needs
Outcome 4.3.2 Ongoing data collection and review of program indicators used to refine
the project
• Indicator data and research findings shared and reviewed with program design,
management and site development efforts to provide information for ongoing
program and partnership planning and improvement
Strategy 4.4 Disseminate evaluation and research information widely to engage external
feedback and inform ongoing knowledge development and program models for science
education
Outcome 4.4.1 Widespread understanding of project goals, theory and approach
• Create a common set of readings relevant to key program components
• Post readings for facilitated discussion of institutional change, student learning and
teacher professional development.
• Provide online discussion forums to archive, summarize and sustain information
sharing.
Outcome 4.4.2. Connections with parallel efforts across Rhode Island
• Collect information on parallel efforts in RI.
• Engage in inquiry-based learning across state STEM related initiatives and
stakeholders
Outcome 4.4.3 Development, review and distribution of study findings
• Summary and reporting of program indicator data in annual program reports
• Review of research/evaluation designs, methods, tools by external expert panel
• Dissemination of program findings, tools, research reports through MSPnet,
conferences, program publications, journals and web sources as appropriate

Goal 5. SUSTAIN PROGRAM IMPACT THROUGH A PARTNERED MODEL THAT INCLUDES
SECONDARY SCHOOL THROUGH HIGHER EDUCATION, AND PRIVATE SECTORS
COMMITTED TO SCIENCE EDUCATION.
Facilitate institutional change in the core partners that will sustain and institutionalize the
project goals and accomplishments.
Strategy 5.1 Establish and build multimodal professional learning community

environment to engage teachers, higher education faculty and relevant K-16 STEM
stakeholders across state
Outcome 5.1.1 SAKAI/available technology infrastructure used to share resources
RITES information and materials shared, dialogue around the same is engaged, creating
a culture that is welcoming and encourages sharing and learning together
Outcome 5.1.2 Introduce and expand school partnership and development team to model
principles of professional learning communities and adapt methods for effective,
ongoing sharing across RITES and other state STEM initiatives
Outcome 5.1.2 Identify and organize network of extended STEM partners external to
education community and connect them to virtual environment and RITES teams’
informational channels to stimulate relationships and sharing
Strategy 5.2 Integrate project materials and approaches into undergraduate education
Outcome 5.2.1 Create two new permanent tenure-track positions in science, with strong
background and interest in education, to continue the project and to continue the
inclusion of content faculty in K-12 educational efforts.
RITES information and materials shared, dialogue around the same is engaged, creating
a culture that is welcoming and encourages sharing and learning together
Outcome 5.2.2 Conduct action research studies collaboratively among RITES
teachers/program team and higher education faculty to identify practices and
adaptations of materials connected to improved teaching and learning
Outcome 5.2.3. Advocate education in tenure decisions. Both RIC and URI will institute
policies that encourage more faculty engagement in secondary education by
considering educational research and service in promotion and tenure. RIC will
undertake this review centrally; at URI it will be necessary to work with each
department.

Strategy 5.3. Align related STEM policy initiatives and structures
Ongoing alignment to sustain and support partnered approach to improving science and
math education for all students; facilitated through participation of key RITES personnel in
RIDE’s science education leadership council.
Outcome 5.3.1 Coordination efforts around new policy and project efforts facilitated
across STEM Center integration, RIDE, Governor’s office
Outcome 5.3.2.Coordination and communication with external partner groups
representing other state based STEM initiatives and development of enhanced capacity
for informing, future projects, streamlining efforts, and leveraging work across state (or
comparably scaled district/region)
Strategy 5.4 Research on sustainability/partnership models

Outcome 5.4.1 Communication with other efforts throughout the country, whose goal is
to effect systemic change in STEM culture in K-12.

IV. Management Plan
A. Introduction
During the first six months of RITES, our management efforts have largely focused on
creating the infrastructure necessary to carry the project forward. Specifically, they entailed the
following activities: 1) Establishment of working committees consistent with the proposal; 2)
Creation of internet-based communication networks for internal communication and external
dissemination of RITES materials; 3) Formalization of partnerships; 4) Hiring of personnel; and
5) Creation of fiscal instruments, such as subawards. Those activities are covered in more detail
in the Year One Implementation Plan. Here we describe the structure of RITES, as it pertains to
project personnel and partnerships, and as it relates to the five-year goals outlined above.
We begin by providing an organizational diagram (see Figure 1) of the project that shows the
relationships among the various components of the project, as envisioned at the onset. As can be
seen from that figure, the emphasis is not only on the short courses, which although essential to
the project are not the heart of RITES. Instead, the heart of this project is the seamless
integration of all segments of the Rhode Island educational community (i.e., teachers and school
systems, higher education science departments and schools of education, the various state offices
that monitor and support STEM education, and the private sector) into a STEM culture that is in
sync with the technological future for the region. In that context, the involvement of all relevant
components of the state’s STEM infrastructure in a coordinated effort to affect change is a key
aspect of the project.
As well, the nature of the partnership between the pre-college community and scientists from
academia is also an important feature. In particular, we envision the RITES partnerships as true
learning communities, in which all members (i.e., school educators, scientists, and
administrators) contribute equally to the project’s goals. For example, important components of
the short courses are teacher customizing of tool-based materials (such as probes and models)
according to their curricular needs. This engenders a true sense of ownership of the modules they
will construct and empowers teachers to contribute to the project. Moreover, through partnering
with teachers—instead of simply instructing them—Rhode Island College, University of Rhode
Island, Community College of Rhode Island, and Brown University faculty will profit from
teacher insights and experience.
Lastly, we should point out that other activities besides the short courses would be available
through the project to affect change. Secondary teachers will learn much about science content,
and best practice instruction, in the short courses. Nevertheless, they may also learn much about
science pedagogy from their extracurricular experiences in RITES. Some examples of other
resources include the website, the use of Collaborative Learning Environment (Sakai), visitations
to schools by higher education science and educator teachers, and involvement in the research
agendas of higher education faculty.
The project structure, as summarized in Figures 1 and 2, was designed to achieve the
following objectives:
Balance fidelity and flexibility. We want to avoid imposing solutions that are not needed or
will not work. This why we insist that each school pair come up with their own plan,
informed by the gap analysis, and why individual teachers can complete the program

different ways. This flexibility is constrained, however, by the overall commitment to:
alignment with state standards and assessments; guided inquiry as realized by the materials;
the development of the materials and courses in groups that always include members of the
core design team; the establishment of a common set of readings; the requirement that all
participants (incl. faculty and collaborators) complete a version of the introductory short
course; and involvement of project leaders in the development of materials and short
courses.
Full utilization of the partners' expertise. We have taken care that both pre-college teachers
and post-secondary faculty are able to contribute meaningfully to all the substantive aspects
of the project. The focus on materials development provides a way for busy teachers and
faculty to make lasting contributions in limited time. The pervasive use of technology
improves communication and increases personal impact.
Representation and responsibility. RITES decision-making will be transparent and
democratic. All partners are represented on the Leadership Team to which the PIs, working
groups, and administrative team will report. There are clear lines of responsibility and shared
staffing to ensure a unity of policy and balance of responsibilities.
B. Organization
1. RITES Members and Partners
For the convenience of the reader, here we provide brief descriptions of components of RITES,
in terms of member and partner institutions and agencies, as shown in the simplified sketch of
the organization (see Figure 1).
RITES Management & Leadership — The five Co-PI’s, (K. Crowley, G. de Oliveira, P.
McLaren, D. Murray, & R. Tinker), the Evaluator (D. Collins), the RI Economic Development
STEM Coordinator (D. Cedrone), and the Project Manager. The Team reports directly to NSF.
Evaluation Team — The Alliance for Education at Brown University is the evaluator for the
project. They are also involved in the research activities.
National Advisory Committee — These nationally recognized authorities on STEM education

will meet once a year with the Management & Leadership Team, as well as provide advise on a
more regular basis through teleconference, etc.
RITES Members — Higher education members include Rhode Island College, University of
Rhode Island, Community College of Rhode Island, and Brown University. Personnel are
involved in all aspects of the project. Secondary education members are our core partner
Johnston Public School District and the high school and middle school pairs that develop
acceptable two-year plans for optimal use of project resources. Each plan features increasing the
number and diversity of students proficient in the state science assessment and choosing STEM
careers and calls for increasing the quality and diversity of science teachers. Six school pairs
start in year one, then 13 each in years 2-4. The RI Department of Education (RIDE) includes
one of the co PI’s, and is involved with recruitment activities. RINET manages the statewide

web network that hosts SAKAI, and is the method through which all schools conduct web
activities. They will be an essential link in the incorporation of web-based activities in the
classrooms. Others represent non-academic members of the project, such as the aforementioned
Alliance for Education at Brown University. The Concord Consortium has primary
responsibility for the development of the following materials for the short courses, such as
probes, virtual environments, and other software.
RITES Partners — Formal partners include, in addition to the Concord Consortium and the
Alliance for Education at Brown University, those organizations listed in the proposal as integral
components of RITES. The Director of the RI STEM Center (housed at Rhode Island College) is
a Co-PI, and the RI STEM Coordinator is on the Management and Leadership Team. The RI
EPSCoR program is tightly linked to RITES, through shared personnel and other resources. The
EPSCoR Academy Director will have primary responsibility for coordinating the interactions
between external partners and resources in the region with our two programs. Other External
Partners include a wide-ranging group of STEM initiatives in the region, some of which were
listed in the proposal, and others who have contacted us since we began. Examples are listed
elsewhere, as part of the description of the External Partnership Committee.
2. Management and Operational Structure
For the convenience of the reader, here we provide brief descriptions of components of RITES,
in this case in terms of the tasks as they align with the Goals (see Figure 2). In this context, the
Design Committee, at least in the early stages of RITES, assumes a central role—the delivery of
the program to the teachers, as a necessary first step towards changing the STEM culture in
Rhode Island. RITES has committees that deal with specific aspects of the Work Plan, and that
report to the Management & Leadership Team. Their functions and personnel are described
below under Management Objectives.

Figure 1 Simplified organization of RITES emphasizing members and partners (see text above
for discussion)

Figure 2. Simplified Organization of RITES, emphasizing assignment of tasks, as presented in the Goals.

a. Management & Leadership – Management and Leadership is responsible for the strategic
planning, as well as budgetary and overall oversight of the project.
o Personnel [Co-PI’s (*) and other core members]:
 Glênisson de Oliveira* (Co-Chair) Rhode Island College
 Daniel Murray*(Co-Chair) University of Rhode Island
 Robert Tinker* Concord Consortium
 Project Manager TBA (K. Bell, current Acting Project Manager)
 Peter McLaren* RI Department of Education
 Kathryn Crowley* Johnston Public Schools
 Deborah Collins Brown University (Evaluator)
 David Cedrone RI Department of Economic Development
 Jay Fogleman University of Rhode Island
 Laura Creighton Rhode Island College
b. Communication Committee – This committee is responsible for the efficient and reliable
sharing of information among the diverse components of RITES. Currently, its focus is upon
the development of user-friendly lines of communication within the project, and the
maintenance records of RITES activities. As RITES progresses, this committee will evolve
to address the issue of dissemination of our work to a larger community of STEM scholars.
o Personnel [Co-PI’s (*) and other core members]:
 David Cedrone (Chair) RI Department of Economic Development
 Glênisson de Oliveira* Rhode Island College
 Daniel Murray* University of Rhode Island
 Andrew Zucker Concord Consortium
 Project Manager TBA
 Stephanie Feger Brown University (Evaluator)
 Steve Foehr RINET (RI Network for Educational Technology)
c. External Partnership Committee –One of the strengths of the RITES project is that it has
access to many other resources in the region. These include recently funded STEM efforts
by NSF, FIPSE, NASA, etc., in which materials and personnel have been made available to
RITES. For example, we are currently in negotiation with the following programs, for the
purpose of submitting proposals to them, or for working with them, on STEM activities in
the region: Department of Homeland Security, EPSCoR, NSF GK-12 (through Brown
University), NSF ARISE (through Brown University), Weston Observatory-Boston College.
For EPSCoR in particular, we have already established a strong working relationship, which
includes the sharing of personnel and resources. Specifically, Dr Kenneth Payne who has
extensive experience dealing with private and public STEM stakeholders in RI, will serve as

our liason between RITES and the RI community. Dr. Andrew Staroscik, the Director of the
Academy in RI EPSCoR, will serve as Co-Chair of the External Partnership Committee,
where he will have primary responsibility for coordination of RITES efforts with the
aforementioned partnership activities.
We see this partnership being an active component of RITES over the course of this program.
Over subsequent years, we see the collaborative efforts of partner members manifested in
joint publications and other dissemination and development efforts.
In particular, the work of this committee informs Goal 5, which addresses the long-term
sustainability of RITES.
o Personnel:
 Andrew Staroscik (Co-Chair) Rhode Island EPSCoR
 Glênisson de Oliveira* (Co-Chair) Rhode Island College
 David Cedrone RI Department of Economic Development
 David Targan Brown University
 Peter Woodberry Community College of Rhode Island
 Deborah Collins Brown University (Evaluator)
d. Design Committee– This committee is responsible for the intellectual work of the project. It
will coordinate the design and implementation of short courses and the work of the Resource
Teams and Technology Group. The Resource Teams focus on design as elucidated in Goal
2, and the Technology Development Group addresses the concern of Goal 3, the
incorporation of state-of-the-art technology into the classroom. Together, the Design
Committee and Resource Teams design a seminar that introduces everyone to the project—its
methods, innovations, and strategies—and design and conduct the Leader Workshops. The
following personnel provide the management for all activities within the Design component
of RITES:
 Laura Creighton (Co-Chair) Rhode Island College
 Jay Fogleman (Co-Chair) University of Rhode Island
 Chad Dorsey Concord Consortium
 Peter McLaren* RI Department of Education
 Frieda Reichsman Concord Consortium
 Stephanie Feger Brown University (Evaluator)
i. Design Committee Resource Teams
There will be four Resource Teams consisting of at least one scientist or mathematician, an
educational researcher, a technology developer and at least one K-12 teacher (i.e., a middle
school and/or a high school teacher). The teams will be responsible for developing the short
courses, ongoing support activities and course materials for the four STEM areas that are
addressed by RITES: Physical Sciences, Earth & Space Sciences, Life Sciences, and Applied
Mathematics. Members of the Resource Teams were chosen during the first four months of
the project. Our Year One Implementation Plan provides a detailed list of team members and
the process for identifying and orienting these individuals to this task.
Resource Team members and the Design Committee develop the Leader Workshops. In these
workshops, all short course leaders learn about the project and its resources and strategies,
which are specific to a discipline area and prepares a leader for several future short courses.
This year, we expect ten to fifteen teacher/PD experts, many of whom may be Resource
Team members, to become short course leaders. By including members of the Resource
Teams in the Leader Workshop development and delivery, we assure continuity in the
transference of short course content and resources between Resource Teams and science
education classrooms.
ii. Technology Development Group
This group has primary responsibility for the development and incorporation of innovative
technology into the classroom. The Concord Consortium will create resources to be used in
the classroom, as well as adapt preexisting materials.
o Personnel:
 Robert Tinker* Concord Consortium
 Chad Dorsey Concord Consortium
 Andrew Zucker Concord Consortium
 Frieda Reichsman Concord Consortium
e. Research and Evaluation Committee – The Education Alliance at Brown (“the Alliance”)
will provide external evaluation. In addition, the Alliance will partner with researchers from
all partners to undertake related educational research. Committee members will coordinate
research and evaluation activities across project components. This committee has primary
responsibility for Goal 4.
o Personnel:
 Deborah Collins (Chair) Brown University (Evaluator)
 Elise Aruda Brown University

 Stephanie Feger Brown University
 Andy Zucker Concord Consortium
 Anne Seitsinger University of Rhode Island
f. Recruitment & Retention Committee – Develops criteria for prioritizing K-12 school
recruiting and selection into RITES cohorts. This committee is responsible for gathering and
analyzing data for the school districts prior to their own gap analyses. Objective criteria are
to be developed for the purpose of selecting the schools that will participate in the project, so
assessment and research will have an adequate sample of schools during every phase of the
program implementation. In addition, the committee is charged with developing strategies
for retaining district and school engagement during and beyond the timeframe of this project.
As the committee most directly involved with schools and their students, its efforts
support all RITES efforts in general, and those of Goals 1 and 5 in particular.
o Personnel:
 Peter McLaren* (Chair) RI Department of Education
 Elise Aruda Brown University
3. Agendas
We are in the process of finalizing personnel and time lines geared to benchmarks, for the
tasks of the aforementioned working groups. Because student achievement goals and
recruitment of school are so critical to the success of the project, we describe them in more
detail. Additionally, the section on Evaluation provides further information on our agenda, as it
pertains to students.
a. Student Achievement
RITES student achievement will be measured by the annual statewide NECAP science
assessments conducted each year. The first administration of this test in fall 2008 will provide the
baseline. The project will work with the RIDE to disaggregate the data by school and student
characteristics—race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender and disability. RITES expects to
see significant gains for all categories of students in participating schools in the year that each
school completes its two-year plan and in subsequent years. By the end of the project, RITES
expects that at least 50% of all categories of students will reach proficiency. Baseline data will
become available after administration of the first NECAP science assessment in spring 2008.
Annual benchmarks that can be used to measure progress toward the 50% goals will be
established accordingly within the first year of RITES.
Student pursuit of science careers will be measured by a number of indicators: enrollments in

prerequisite and advanced STEM courses, surveys of career preferences, graduates entering
STEM occupations, and matriculating students enrolling in undergraduate STEM courses. A
baseline for these indicators will be established in the first year of the project. RITES expects to
see significant gains in these indicators for all categories of students in participating schools in
the year that each school completes its two-year plan and in subsequent years. By the end of the
project, RITES expects that there will be a significant increase in these indicators aggregated
statewide for all categories of students.
b. Program Benchmarks
Year One. During the first year, six school pairs (the first cohort) broadly representative of
the diversity of RI schools will have submitted RITES plans that were approved by the
Leadership Team. These plans will involve at least 60 teachers who will have begun enrolling in
RITES short courses. At least ten short courses will have been designed and offered by eight
leaders selected by the Design Team. The four Resource Teams will have identified
approximately 50 standards-based activities with embedded assessments and made them
accessible through the RITES Online Community website. The technology to support this will
have been available by the end of the first half-year. The Research Team will have identified an
initial set of studies and will begin the process of collecting and analyzing data.
Years Two-Four. By the end of the second year, the first cohort of schools will complete
their RITES plans, resulting in 44 implementation reports that will be available online. By the
end of years 2-4 second year, 13 new school pairs will be added. All anticipated short courses
would have been designed and staffed. The four Resource Teams will complete their work in
year three.
Year Five. During the fifth year, the fourth and last cohort of schools will complete their
RITES plans adding 115 more implementation reports that will be available online. The Research
Team will submit papers addressing the project questions based on its completed analysis of
project data. By the end of the project, a total of 44 middle schools and 44 high schools
representing 75% of all 58 RI middle schools and 58 high schools, working in pairs, will have
completed RITES plans. Each of these plans will have involved at least 75% of the science
teachers in the paired schools, representing a statewide total of at least 390 teachers who earn
RITES certification. Certification requires the completion of six RITES one-credit short courses
and the successful completion of an implementation report.

V. Research and Evaluation Plan
A. Introduction
RITES has built upon its unique blend of scale, program elements, broad support and
technologies to provide an integrated framework of research and evaluation activities.
Ultimately, this integrated approach provides operational, programmatic and transformational
benefits both to the program and the respective research and evaluation components together.
Using integrated tools to define and coordinate research/evaluation questions against program
goals, RITES will achieve coordination of data resources, efficiency (and minimal burden) of
data collection efforts, alignment with and coverage of program goals while contributing to
ongoing formation of the program and knowledge development.
The evaluation activities for the RITES Program incorporate systematic evaluation inquiry so
that data collection techniques are integrated into work processes and program feedback is
ongoing. At the same time, these data collection efforts will be aligned with program goals and
targeted research studies to assure coordination of data collection and archival efforts and
support complementary research and evaluation lines of inquiry. Based on the previous work of
Koszalka and Grabowski (2003), the RITES research and evaluation team has initiated a matrix
framework to document and inform this integrated approach. Figure x provides a working draft
of the formative and summative evaluation matrix, which will be further enhanced to display
research questions, sample members and data requirements. Clearly, from this integrated
framework approach, the research and evaluation work is effectively mapped against and
developed in support of program goals (see program logic model in Goal 5 section to review
linkage of program inputs to strategies to goals).
B. Evaluation
1. Evaluation and Research Matrix
Within this integrated approach, RITES will engage a formative evaluation of program
implementation and summative evaluation of the intended impacts of the RITES program. This
external evaluation strand conducted by The Education Alliance will employ quasi-experimental
approaches as well as qualitative methods to continuously inform RITES staff and partners on all
aspects of program implementation and improvement efforts. Specifically, the overarching goal
of the evaluation plan is to support stakeholders in understanding (a) how to enhance program
implementation to meet MSP objectives, and (b) how to leverage program activities to ultimately
contribute to gains in student achievement.
The plan allows for triangulation of findings, identification of consistencies and
inconsistencies across data and considers alternative explanations for the findings identified.
Similar to the research strands described below, the five-year evaluation plan centers on four
components of the RITES program: professional development, classroom instruction, student
achievement, and structural systems (including partnerships and institutional systems). Each of
these program components warrants ongoing external investigation in order to offer program
improvements toward sustainability. Evaluation of each component requires a specific
methodological strategy to adequately respond to these questions. The methods to be used to
provide measures for each component in the external evaluation and a timeline are presented in
Table 1. Moreover, using data collected both by the RITES program to assess program

Table 1. Research and Evaluation Matrix
Formative Evaluation:
Goal I: Statewide Goal IV: Evidence Goal V: Partnered
Program Outcome participation and Goal II: Instructional Goal III: Rigorous sci based student model--integrated k-16
Components implementation quality ed outcomes science education
How and in what ways To what extent is RITES

To what extent are
are the professional building partnerships
participating teachers
development between/among higher
implementing reformed
Evaluation questions [see Goal V] opportunities offered education and k-12
instructional strategies
by RITES contributing partners? Factors
around science in the
to teacher knowledge contributing/hindering
classroom?
and practice? partnership?
Stakeholders/Instruments
Data Source Info:
1. Expert Panel
(national adv council
members, teacher
educators, teachers
Scoring rubric for
short course
materials
rating: challenging
content
rating: quality ped'l
[Instrument/data]
practices
[Info needs]
[Frequency/iterations] rating: relevance to
instructional needs
Freq/iteration: 1
multi-rater review per
short course; annually
for each new set of
courses

Goal I: Statewide Goal V: Partnered
Program Outcome participation and Goal II: Instructional Goal III: Rigorous sci Goal IV: Evidence based model--integrated k-16
Components implementation quality ed student outcomes science education
How and in what ways To what extent is RITES

To what extent are
are the professional building partnerships
development between/among higher
implementing reformed
Evaluation questions [see Goal V] opportunities offered education and k-12
instructional strategies
by RITES contributing partners? Factors
around science in the
to teacher knowledge contributing/hindering
classroom?
and practice? partnership?
Data Source Info:
2. Teachers
RTOP interviews/ Web-based teacher PRISM rubric
observations log
Interview: student pop Count/type:PD Rating: vision/goals
info opportunities
Interview: lesson context Rating/score: PD Rating: communication
quality
Rating: implementation of Msr of perception: Rating: decision-making
[Instrument/data] inquiry strategies; content content knowledge
[Info needs]
[Frequency/iterations] Freq/iteration: Y2 & Y4-- Msr of perception:
10% of participating inquiry based Rating: responsibility/
teachers instruction accountability
Freq/iteration:
monthly logs collected Rating: change/
throughout school sustainability
year for all
3. Secondary sources for:

RITES program: District/RITES:
Students, Teachers, RITES program: teacher pre/post teacher Student course
RITES partners PD enrollment/retention content knowledge enrollment patterns
[Instrument/data] Freq/iteration: Y1 Freq/iteration: Y1
[Info needs] baseline data; ongoing baseline data; ongoing
[Frequency/iterations] =========>
updates to data updates to data
warehouse warehouse

Summative
Evaluation:
Goal I:
Statewide Goal III: Goal V: Partnered
Goal II:
Program Outcome participation Rigorous Goal IV: Evidence based model--integrated
Instructional
Components and science student outcomes k-16 science
quality
implementatio education education
n
To what extent RITES
linked to improved
student academic
Evaluation questions achievement in science?
Magnitude of effect (if
observed)? Impact on
minority students?
Data Sources:
1. Students
Secondary data:
NECAP assessments
(a) 8th graders test
scores
(b) 11th graders test
scores
[Instrument/data] (c) Student
[Info needs] demographics (prior
[Frequency/iterations achievement, race,
] gender, SES)
Freq/iteration: Y1
baseline data; ongoing
updates to data
warehouse annually for
each cohort
(a) Career Decision-

Making System tool &
(b) Students'
Motivation Toward
Learning scale
msr--student interest
msr-student motivation
Freq/iteration: Y1
baseline data from
tool/scale/enrollment
patterns (see formative);
annual survey/scale data
for each cohort
benchmarks and by researchers to study specific features of program components, evaluators will
integrate these resources into analyses for each component.
2. Evaluation Benchmarks and Timeline

Benchmarks for key evaluation activities and reporting/feedback events are outlined in Table
2. Articulation of secondary data collection and warehousing will be coordinated across the
evaluation and research strands pursuant to aligned efforts for each program goal. Timeline
parameters for these benchmark activities are also provided by project year in this same table.

Table 2. Five-Year Timeline for Evaluation Benchmarks by Program Component
RITES Program
Component Benchmark Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Professional Comprise Expert Panel X
Development Implement Expert Panel reviews X X
Design/pilot/refine PD log
Implement Web-based teacher PD X
logs X X X X
Pilot/refine observation tool X
Classroom
Instruction
Conduct classroom observations X X
Design/pilot/refine teacher interview X
protocol
Conduct teacher interviews X X
Coordinate on Secondary Data

X
collection/archival of state student
assessment data
Student Achievement
Develop/implement sampling frame
X
for comparative analysis
Annual collection of NECAP data
X X X X
Pilot/refine student beliefs survey X

Conduct student beliefs surveys X X
Design/pilot/refine stakeholder X
Structural Systems interview protocols
Conduct stakeholder interviews X X X X
Design/pilot/refine stakeholder focus X
group protocols
Conduct stakeholder focus groups X X X X
X
Develop rating rubric for
document/artifact review
Conduct document & artifact review
X X X X X
Online Professional Learning
Community Dialogue analysis X X X X X
Ongoing data inquiry and feedback X X X X X
Analysis/Reporting Interim evaluation report X
Final evaluation report X
C. Research
1. Research Questions
As noted, the research strands planned for RITES will also have extensive access to a range
of data and observations that will support evidence-based tests of key elements of its design. The
coordinated data collection efforts of the research and evaluation teams will support a range of
research initiatives designed to answer questions in the following areas:
Student achievement. Can patterns be identified in student learning with these materials?

How do student, teacher, and school variables influence learning? What was the impact of
program elements that are designed to increase the achievement of underserved populations?
Teacher professional development. How did participating teachers' and teacher leaders'
understandings and beliefs about classroom inquiry change? Did these understandings help
teachers frame problems and plan instruction? Was the project effective in creating
communities of practice that supported teacher change?
Technology enhanced curriculum resources. Do the computer-based materials support
student inquiry that leads to knowledge integration? Do teachers customize digital resources
effectively to better meet their students’ needs? Do the assessments and feedback supported
by project technologies enhance learning? What are teachers’ and students’ beliefs and
experiences about using technology to learn science?
Sustainability. Were there specific strategies that contributed to a sense of ownership by
the schools? Were project strategies able to develop the capacity of teacher leaders to conduct
and continue effective professional development? Is the RITES Online Community
generative and sustainable?
2. Data Collection and Analysis

To address these questions, the project will have access to rich data sets that will include:
Student achievement data will be available from multiple sources. The most
comprehensive will be the NECAP science assessments, disaggregated by student sub-group
and school. The computer-based materials will all have standards-based assessments that will
be scored on a knowledge integration scale using Item Response Theory (Hambleton,
Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991) and the Rasch Partial Credit Model (Wright & Masters,
1982).
Student exposure to inquiry-based learning can be inferred from the logs generated by
student use of the materials (Buckley, Gobert, Kindfield, Horwitz, Tinker, Gerlits, Wilensky,
Willett, & Dede, 2004; Gobert, Buckley, Dede, Horwitz, Wilensky & Levy, 2004; Horwitz,
Gobert, & Buckley, 2006) . These logs will be processed to generate indicators of student
systematicity, time using inquiry, total time on task, and graph analysis skill.
Teacher variables will be obtained from data collected by the project evaluation effort,
including reactions to project activities, exposure to scientists, demographics and educational
attainment, RITES courses completed, and implementation reports.
School environment indicators will be collected from teachers and students at all Rhode
Island schools by the Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy at URI using
the Learning Support Indicators (Felner, Brand, Seitsinger, & Hupkau, 2006; Felner Shim,
Seitsinger, & Brand 2002) and the High Performance Learning Community (HiPlaces)
Assessment (Felner, Favazza Shim, Brand, Gu, & Noonan, 2001).
Student records. RITES data will be matched to individual students who are tracked over
time because RI is implementing a single student identifier. With the cooperation of RIDE,
we will be able to correlate project data on student performance with student grades and
demographic data longitudinally.

3. Research Benchmarks and Timeline
Benchmarks for key research activities by and reporting/feedback events by strand are
outlined in Table 3. Again, articulation of secondary data collection and warehousing will be
coordinated across the evaluation and research strands pursuant to aligned efforts for each
program goal. Using the matrix framework to combine and align research and evaluation efforts
across program goals, it is anticipated that shared primary data collection efforts will also be
afforded. Timeline parameters for selected benchmark activities are also provided by project year
in this same table.
Annual Reports to NSF

The evaluation program data will be incoporated in annual reports, and other documents,
submitted to NSF,

D. References
Buckley, B., Gobert, J.D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R., Gerlits, B., Wilensky, U.,
Willett, J., & Dede, C. (March, 2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica:
What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and
Technology, vol. 13, pp. 23 - 41.
Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Seitsinger, A., & Hupkau, A. (2006). The development of learning
support indicators for school improvement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Felner, R. D., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Brand, S. (2002). Learning support indicators for
RIDE schools: Instruction, parent engagement and involvement, and school climate. National
Center on Public Education and Social Policy at the University of Rhode Island, Kingston,
RI.
Felner, R. D., Favazza, A., Shim, M., Brand, S., Gu, S. & Noonan, N. (2001). Whole school
improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: Lessons from STEP and the
Project on High Performance Learning Communities. Journal of School Psychology, vol. 39,
pp. 177-202.
Gobert, J., Buckley, B., Dede, C., Horwitz, P, Wilensky, U., & Levy, S. (2004). Modeling across
the curriculum (MAC): Technology, pedagogy, assessment, & research, in American
Educational Research Association San Diego, CA.
Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., and Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response
theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Horwitz, P., Gobert, J., & Buckley, B. (2006). Interactive Models: Helping students learn and
helping teachers understand student learning. @Concord, vol. 1.
Koszalka, T. A., & Grabowski, B.L. (2003). Combining assessment and research during
development of large technology integration projects. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26,
203-213.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.


Rites - Strategic Plan Draft 3-27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rites - Strategic Plan Draft 3-27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhode Island Technology Enhanced Science Program

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan i

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan ii

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan iii

V. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PLAN....................................................27

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan iv

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan v

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 1

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 2

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 3

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 4

Strategy 1.3 Use of customized, inquiry-based instructional practices and materials to

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 5

Benchmark Matrix for Goal 1

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 6

Strategy 2.1 Establish a Design Committee to oversee professional development and

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 7

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 8

Strategy 2.6 Successive adaptations of teacher development and instructional activities

Benchmark Matrix for Goal 2

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 9

Strategy 3.2 Establish Resource Teams to generate materials

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 10

Strategy 3.4 Develop the RITES online community portal

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 11

Benchmark Matrix for Goal 3

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 12

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 13

Benchmark Matrix for Goal 4

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 14

Strategy 5.1 Establish and build multimodal professional learning community

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 15

Strategy 5.4 Research on sustainability/partnership models

Benchmark Matrix for Goal 5

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 16

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 17

National Advisory Committee — These nationally recognized authorities on STEM education

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 18

2. Management and Operational Structure

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 19

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 20

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 21

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 22

ii. Technology Development Group

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 24

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 25

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 26

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 27

How and in what ways To what extent is RITES

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 28

How and in what ways To what extent is RITES

3. Secondary sources for:

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 29

(a) Career Decision-

2. Evaluation Benchmarks and Timeline

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 31

Coordinate on Secondary Data

Pilot/refine student beliefs survey X

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 32

2. Data Collection and Analysis

RITES 5-Year Strategic Plan 33