{"id":187,"date":"2023-08-01T23:37:23","date_gmt":"2023-08-02T03:37:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.horizon-research.com\/RAPID\/e-mis-methodology-copy\/"},"modified":"2023-10-20T13:45:49","modified_gmt":"2023-10-20T17:45:49","slug":"ebola-2015-findings","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.horizon-research.com\/RAPID\/ebola-2015-findings\/","title":{"rendered":"EBOLA 2015 Findings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \t\t\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t
<\/div>\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t

\n \n\t\t\t\t\tFINDINGS\t\t <\/span>\n\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\t\tStopping an Epidemic of Misinformation: Leveraging the K-12 Science Education System to Respond to Ebola (EBOLA 2015)\t\t <\/span>\n <\/h1>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t

\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/span>\n\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\t\tFINDINGS\t\t <\/span>\n <\/h1>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

The results that follow include all grade ranges and are organized in four categories:<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n
\n

Teaching about Ebola<\/a><\/h3> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n
\n

Factors in Teachers’ Decision Making<\/a><\/h3> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n
\n

Teachers’ Sources of Information<\/a><\/h3> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n
\n

Teachers’ Knowledge about Ebola<\/a><\/h3> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t

\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/span>\n\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\t\tTeaching about Ebola\t\t <\/span>\n <\/h1>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

The survey asked teachers about whether they had spent class time on Ebola and what influenced <\/span>their decisions to address Ebola or not. Those teachers reporting they addressed Ebola were also <\/span>asked how much class time was devoted to the topic and what instructional activities were used. <\/span>The findings related to teaching about Ebola are presented below.<\/span><\/p>\n

A large proportion of teachers, regardless of grade range, devoted some class <\/span><\/strong><\/em>time to Ebola. Life science teachers were the most likely to focus on the topic.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Table 1 show the percent of respondents who devoted class time to Ebola. Overall, the <\/span>percentage of teachers who did increased from elementary school (46 percent) to higher grade <\/span>ranges (81 percent for middle and 76 percent in high school). In middle and high school, over 90 <\/span>percent of those who taught only life science devoted some class time to Ebola. Also, middle <\/span>school, non-life science teachers were more likely than high school non-life science teachers to<\/span>
devote class time to Ebola (68 percent and 44 percent, respectively).<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

Of those who spent class time on Ebola, most elementary teachers spent one <\/span><\/strong><\/em>class session, while most middle and high school teachers devoted more than <\/span><\/strong><\/em>one class session.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The majority of elementary teachers who taught about Ebola devoted one class session, while <\/span>most middle and high school teachers devoted more than one class session (see Table 2). High <\/span>school life science classes were more likely than non-life science classes to spend more than one <\/span>class period on Ebola. The average lesson on Ebola lasted 25\u201330 minutes (see Table 3).<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

Although most teachers spent about one class period on Ebola, some spent substantially more. <\/span>The following vignette, based on an interview with a high school biology teacher, illustrates <\/span>extensive class time on Ebola.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t\t\t

Vignette 1: Extensive Class Time on Ebola in a Life Science Class<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ms. Donnelly2<\/sup> teaches several 9th\u201312th grade Biology classes at a semi-rural, public school in North Carolina.<\/span>
\nShe has a degree in Biology and has been teaching for 27 years. <\/span><\/p>\n

Ms. Donnelly\u2019s Ebola-related instructional decisions occurred during the early days of the outbreak, in the <\/span>spring of 2014, when she and a fellow biology teacher were planning for the upcoming year. They were <\/span>discussing a text for the honors-level class to read for a semester-long book project: \u201cI just said, \u2018You know,<\/span>
\nmaybe we should do [The Hot Zone] now because I just heard on the news that there was a case of [Ebola],\u2019 or<\/span>
\nsomething. We talked about it, and we just made that decision right then\u2026We put together this book project<\/span>
\nbefore we went home for the summer.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Donnelly and her colleague found a wealth of resources to go along with the text: \u201cThere were 300 and some <\/span>questions that go with this book. We went through really quickly and picked the ones that we thought were<\/span>
\nappropriate for our students.\u201d The students generally did reading assignments and answered questions at home<\/span>
\nand then had in-class discussions during subsequent class periods. In addition to the book project, Ms. <\/span>Donnelly played National Public Radio stories for her classes, mainly about the human impact of the outbreak. <\/span>Students also explored a Howard Hughes Medical Institute virtual virology lab, watched the movie Outbreak, <\/span>and completed a viral timeline that was used to document the history of Ebola and compare Ebola to other <\/span>viruses. The near-constant media reports also became rich sources of classroom discussion material. Her <\/span>students discussed how the 2014 outbreak compared to the outbreak discussed in The Hot Zone, the viral <\/span>lifecycle of Ebola, and various media stories throughout the semester-long unit.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n

Life science teachers were much more likely than non-life science teachers to <\/span><\/strong><\/em>address Ebola as a part of their curriculum.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

When they addressed Ebola, life science teachers were almost twice as likely as non-life science <\/span>teachers to address Ebola as a part of their curriculum (see Table 4). Interestingly, almost half of <\/span>life science teachers reported addressing Ebola as a standalone topic, suggesting that for at least <\/span>some, part of their treatment fell within their curriculum while other parts did not. Not <\/span>surprisingly, non-life science teachers were more likely than their life science counterparts to<\/span>
treat Ebola as a standalone topic, unrelated to the rest of their science curriculum.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

Ebola appears to have been taught through whole class discussions and driven <\/span><\/strong><\/em>by student questions.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The survey presented teachers with a list of instructional activities that could have been used to <\/span>address Ebola (see Table 5). Regardless of grade range or focus of the class (life science or not), <\/span>the most prevalent instructional activities used by all teachers were question-and-answer, with <\/span>students asking questions (around 85 percent of teachers), and whole class discussion (just under <\/span>70 percent). Teachers of life science classes were much more likely than those of non-life <\/span>science classes to have students watch videos about Ebola.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

The following vignette illustrates how students\u2019 questions shaped one teacher\u2019s instruction about Ebola.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t\t\t

Vignette 2: How Students\u2019 Questions Shaped One Teacher\u2019s Instruction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Calabria teaches both 8th grade science and 12th grade Environmental Systems in adjacent middle and high<\/span>
schools in rural Texas, near Dallas. Though not a science major in college, Mr. Calabria has a longstanding<\/span>
interest, and has taken several science courses at the University of Texas. He follows science advances in the <\/span>news, and student questions about Ebola heightened his interest: \u201cI keep up with all science news. It would<\/span>
have been based on Washington Post and New York Times reports. Then, after the kids were bringing it up, I<\/span>
started really looking at the CDC [to] make sure I had as accurate information as I could get them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Being near Dallas, where a nurse was diagnosed with Ebola virus disease, the level of talk about Ebola ran high<\/span>
in Mr. Calabria\u2019s community. Intense student interest, frequent questions, and widely expressed <\/span>misconceptions were important factors in shaping his Ebola instruction for his classes. \u201cThey didn\u2019t understand <\/span>how it was transmitted. They thought if you were so much on the same block as somebody who had Ebola, you<\/span>
were going to get Ebola.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Several factors worked together to lead Mr. Calabria to treat Ebola differently in his two courses. For the 12th<\/span>
grade Environmental Systems course, students\u2019 questions about Ebola tied to learning standards by bringing up<\/span>
population limits and growth, impacts of environmental factors on organism interactions, and dependence of <\/span>transmission rates on changes from rural to urban culture. The lack of standardized testing for his 12th grade<\/span>
course allowed more time for addressing student questions about Ebola. In addition, Mr. Calabria found that<\/span>
the depth of student interest encouraged a welcome break from a \u201cweak textbook\u201d to explore a topic with real-world <\/span>relevance. Ebola did not fit as well with his 8th grade science standards; however, the intensity of Ebola<\/span>
interest drove him to take time to respond to students\u2019 questions despite his reluctance to diverge from<\/span>
preparing students for standardized testing.<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n

The most commonly addressed topics by all teachers were defining Ebola and <\/span>how the virus is transmitted, including how to prevent transmission.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The survey also provided a list of topics teachers could have addressed during Ebola instruction <\/span>(see Table 6). Regardless of grade range, the topics most commonly addressed by teachers were <\/span>defining Ebola (more than 90 percent of teachers) and how the virus is transmitted (ranging from <\/span>68 percent of elementary teachers to 93 percent of high school teachers), including how to <\/span>prevent transmission (ranging from 58 percent of elementary teachers to 79 percent of high <\/span>school teachers). In general, it appears that life science classes addressed more topics than nonlife <\/span>science classes. Specifically, life science classes were more likely to address the following <\/span>topics: symptoms of Ebola in humans, how Ebola is diagnosed, how Ebola is treated, and history <\/span>of Ebola. These findings are consistent with life science teachers spending more time than nonlife <\/span>science teachers on Ebola (see Tables 2 and 3).<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

The following vignette illustrates how one teacher addressed multiple topics about Ebola.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t\t\t

Vignette 3: In-Depth Exploration of Ebola in a Biology Class<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Fisher has been teaching various levels of Biology for five years. His current assignment is in suburban<\/span>
New Jersey at a large public high school. Due to his personal interest in microbiology and infectious diseases<\/span>
and a strong background in the sciences, Mr. Fisher is very familiar with Ebola. A trip to Africa also spurred<\/span>
additional research.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Fisher provided Ebola-related instruction through a multi-day unit in all of his life science classes. Several<\/span>
factors encouraged him to explore this topic in depth: student interest, the abundance of misconceptions about<\/span>
the disease in his classes, the availability of resources (particularly through the CDC website), his own<\/span>
understanding of Ebola, and the age appropriateness of the topic for his students.<\/span><\/p>\n

As expected in a multi-day unit, Mr. Fisher provided students with various instructional activities focused on<\/span>
Ebola. The class read and answered questions about an article focused on infection called, \u201cYou Can\u2019t Catch<\/span>
Ebola From a Giraffe in Tanzania;\u201d linked the spread of Ebola to a lab activity that modeled disease<\/span>
transmission; watched news clips on YouTube as well as a PBS documentary focused on outbreak in the<\/span>
Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire) during the 1990s; and even had a guest speaker from<\/span>
the county health department who addressed the basic biology of the virus along with its transmission and<\/span>
history. Throughout the unit, Mr. Fisher identified student misconceptions in discussions and tailored his<\/span>
instruction to replace misinformation with facts about the disease. When asked about the misconceptions<\/span>
students brought to the classroom, he stated, \u201cThey think that it\u2019s airborne. They think that Africa is a country<\/span>
when it\u2019s a continent, and they think that every country in Africa has Ebola, that there\u2019s an outbreak going on in<\/span>
New Jersey, and that they\u2019re gonna get it in the United States.\u201d This abundance of misinformation was another<\/span>
reason Mr. Fisher chose to include varied aspects of the Ebola situation in his instruction. He was also able to<\/span>
loosely tie his Ebola instruction to his cellular biology unit, which is when he discusses viruses. He stated, \u201cIn<\/span>
our curriculum\u2026you cover eukaryotes and prokaryotes, and of course, you cover bacteria with prokaryotes, and<\/span>
that\u2019s where I kind of throw in viruses.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

\n
\n

Regardless of grade range, about 8 in 10 respondents indicated that their <\/span><\/strong><\/em>students asked about the virus before the class discussed it.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The survey included a question about whether students asked about Ebola before teachers began <\/span>addressing it. For all grade ranges, about 80 percent of teachers who reported devoting some <\/span>class time to Ebola indicated that their students asked about the virus first (see Table 7). There <\/span>was no significant difference between life science classes and non-life science classes.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

The percentage of teachers who would have addressed Ebola if students had not <\/span><\/strong><\/em>asked increases with the grade range.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The survey also asked respondents to indicate if they would have addressed Ebola if students had <\/span>not asked. Approximately half of elementary teachers said they would have addressed the topic <\/span>(see Table 8). In secondary grades, life science teachers were much more likely than non-life <\/span>science teachers to indicate that they would have addressed Ebola even if students had not asked. <\/span>Still, the percentage of non-life science teachers is quite substantial\u201455 percent of middle grade <\/span>teachers and 64 percent of high school teachers.<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Table\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

2<\/sup> All teacher names are pseudonyms.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t

\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/span>\n\n\t\n \n\t\t\t\t\tFactors in Teachers' Decision Making\t\t <\/span>\n <\/h1>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\n

\"\"A major focus of the questionnaire was identifying factors that influenced teachers\u2019 decisions regarding whether to address Ebola or not. The survey presented a list of potential factors and asked teachers to respond on a three-point scale where 1 was \u201cdiscouraged me from addressing Ebola with my students\u201d; 2, \u201cnot a factor\u201d; and 3, \u201cencouraged me to address Ebola with my students.\u201d An exploratory factor analysis suggested that the items formed three categories of influences: Likelihood of Lesson Success, Policy, and Influence of Others. The items in each of these categories are shown in Figure 2 along with the accompanying internal reliabilities.3<\/sup>
Tables 9\u201311 present the results grouped by these overarching factors and grade range. Note that
only two points of the response scale (discouraged and encouraged) are presented; all other
responses were in the \u201cnot a factor\u201d category.
<\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n\t\t \"Figure\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n \n \t<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

Students\u2019 interest and age appropriateness of the topic were the most <\/span>encouraging factors in teachers\u2019 decision to address Ebola.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

All teacher respondents who taught about Ebola indicated two factors as the most encouraging in <\/span>their decision to address the topic: student interest (93 percent or above for all grade ranges) and <\/span>age appropriateness (ranging from 52 percent of elementary to 90 percent of high school <\/span>teachers). See Tables 9\u201311. Also, two-thirds of high school respondents indicated their <\/span>knowledge of Ebola as an encouraging factor. Among elementary school teachers who did not <\/span>address Ebola, appropriateness of topic for the age group they teach was one major discouraging <\/span>factor (62 percent). Among the middle and high school teachers who did not address Ebola, over <\/span>one-third indicated state\/district curriculum standards for science discouraged them from <\/span>addressing the topic (see Tables 9\u201311). Regardless of grade range, several factors were indicated <\/span>by one-third or more of teachers who did not teach about Ebola as discouraging them from <\/span>addressing the topic:<\/span><\/p>\n