From Theory to Practice: Funds of Knowledge as a Framework for Science Teaching and Learning

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

St. Clair, T. & McNulty, K. (2021). From Theory to Practice: Funds of Knowledge as a Framework for Science Teaching and Learning. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/from-theory-to-practice-funds-of-knowledge-as-a-framework-for-science-teaching-and-learning/

by Tyler St. Clair, Longwood University; & Kaitlin McNulty, Norwood-Norfork Central School

Abstract

The phrase "funds of knowledge" refers to a contemporary science education research framework that provides a unique way of understanding and leveraging student diversity. Students’ funds of knowledge can be understood as the social relationships through which they have access to significant knowledge and expertise (e.g., family practices, peer activities, issues faced in neighborhoods and communities). This distributed knowledge is a valuable resource that might enhance science teaching and learning in schools when used properly. This article aims to assist science methods instructors and secondary classroom teachers to better understand funds of knowledge theory and to provide numerous examples and resources for what this theory might look like in practice.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20353

Barton, A. C. (with Ermer, J. L., Burkett, T. A., & Osborne, M. D.). (2003). Teaching science for social justice. Teachers College Press.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of space. Routledge.

Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw‐a‐Scientist Test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213

Ciechanowski, K., Bottoms, S., Fonseca, A. L., & St. Clair, T. (2015). Should Rey Mysterio drink Gatorade? Cultural competence in afterschool STEM programming. Afterschool Matters, 21, 29–37. http://www.niost.org/images/afterschoolmatters/asm_2015_spring/Rey_Mysterio.pdf

Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82(3), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x

Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

Saifer, S., Edwards, K., Ellis, D., Ko, L., & Stuczynski, A. (2011). Culturally responsive standards-based teaching: Classroom to community and back (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.

Whitworth, B. A., & Bell, R. L. (2013). Physics portfolios: A picture of student understanding. The Science Teacher, 80(8), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst13_080_08_38

Supporting Middle and Secondary Science Teachers to Implement Sustainability-Themed Instruction

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Mark, S. L. (2021). Supporting Middle and Secondary Science Teachers to Implement Sustainability-Themed Instruction. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/supporting-middle-and-secondary-science-teachers-to-implement-sustainability-themed-instruction/

by Sheron L. Mark, PhD, University of Louisville, College of Education and Human Development, 1905 S 1st Street, Louisville, KY 40292

Abstract

In today’s society, we face many complex environmental, social, and economic challenges that can be addressed through a lens of sustainability. Furthermore, our efforts in addressing these challenges must be collective. Science education is foundational to preparing students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to engage in this work in professional and everyday capacities. This article describes a teacher education project aimed at preparing middle and secondary preservice and alternatively certified science teachers to teach through a lens of sustainability. The project was embedded within a middle and secondary science teaching methods course. Work produced by the teacher candidates, including case-study research presentations and week-long instructional plans, is described.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Barnett, R. (2011). Environmental issues, Louisvile, KY. Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Bullard, R. D. (Ed.). (1996). Unequal protection: Environmental justice and communities of color. Sierra Club Books.

Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Westview Press.

Colucci-Gray, L., Perazzone, A., Dodman, M., & Camino, E. (2013). Science education for sustainability, epistemological reflections and educational practices: From natural sciences to trans-disciplinarity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(1), 127–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9405-3

Corsey, G. (2019, Oct 17). Rubbertown chemical plant fined $100,000 in settlement with city of Louisville over ‘repeat’ violations. WDRB. https://www.wdrb.com/news/rubbertown-chemical-plant-fined-in-settlement-with-city-of-louisville/article_d18c203a-f04d-11e9-98fc-03a59bdf27cb.html

Mark, S. L. (2021). Preparing for inclusivity and diverse perspectives on social, political, and equity issues in higher education. College Teaching, 69(2), 78-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2020.1820433

McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R. T. (Eds.). (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. https://www.gaiafoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/09/Agriculture-at-a-crossroads-Synthesis-report-2009Agriculture_at_Crossroads_Synthesis_Report.pdf

Jolly, A. (2017, July 19). The search for real-world STEM problems. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2017/07/17/the-search-for-real-world-stem-problems.html

Lemonick, M. D. (2009). Top 10 myths about sustainability. Scientific American, 19(1s), 40–45.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanearth0309-40

LouisvilleKY.gov. (n.d.). Rubbertown air toxics risk assessment. https://louisvilleky.gov/government/air-pollution-control-district/rubbertown-air-toxics-risk-assessment

Mark, S. L. (2016). Psychology of working narratives of STEM career exploration for non-dominant youth. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 976–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9646-0

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290

Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21232

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Smith, E. (2015, November 25). An environmental injustice tour of West Louisville. Leo Weekly. https://www.leoweekly.com/2015/11/an-environmental-injustice-tour-of-west-louisville/

Teaching Tolerance. (2019). Let’s talk! Facilitating critical conversations with students. The Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/TT-Let-s-Talk-Publication-January-2020.pdf

United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Sustainable development goals. https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf

 

 

 

 

Supporting Schoolyard Pedagogy in Elementary Methods Courses

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Feille, K. & Hathcock, S. (2021). Supporting schoolyard pedagogy in elementary methods courses. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/supporting-schoolyard-pedagogy-in-elementary-methods-courses/

by Kelly Feille, University of Oklahoma; & Stephanie Hathcock, Oklahoma State University

Abstract

Schoolyard pedagogy illustrates the theories, methods, and practices of teaching that extend beyond the four walls of a classroom and capitalize on the teaching tools available in the surrounding schoolyard. In this article, we describe the schoolyard pedagogy framework, which includes intense pedagogical experiences, opportunities and frequent access, and continuous support. We then provide an overview of how we are intentionally working toward developing schoolyard pedagogy in elementary preservice teachers at two universities. This includes providing collaborative experiences in the university schoolyard and nearby schools, individual experiences in nature, opportunities to see the possibilities in local schoolyards, and lesson planning that utilizes the schoolyard. We also discuss potential barriers and catalysts for schoolyard pedagogy during the induction years, future needs, and potential for continuous support.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Bricker, P. Faetz, M., Tracy, K. N., & Luke, N. (2015). Poetry rocks. Science and Children, 53(3), 38-45.

Carrier, S. J. (2009). The Effects of Outdoor Science Lessons with Elementary School Students on Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 35-48. doi:10.1007/BF03173683

Feille, K. (2019). A Framework for the Development of Schoolyard Pedagogy. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-9860-x

Gilbert, A., & Byers, C.C. (2017). Wonder as a tool to engage preservice elementary teachers in science learning and teaching. Science Education, 101, 907-928.

Graham, H., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2005). California teachers perceive school gardens as an effective nutritional tool to promote healthful eating habits. Journal of the American Diabetic Association, 105, 1797-1800. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.034

Gross, L., McGee, J., James, J., & Hodge, C. (2019). From play to pedagogy: Formative childhood experiences and development of preservice elementary science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30, 856-871. doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2019.1616516.

Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (2002). The ecological world of children. In P. H. Kahn & S.Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 29-62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klemmer, C. D., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing Minds: The Effect of a School Gardening Program on the Science Achievement of Elementary Students. Horticulture Technology, 15, 448-452.

Laws, J. M., Breunig, E., Lygren, E., & Lopez, C. (2012). Opening the world through nature journaling: Integrating art, science, and language arts (2nd Ed.). California Native Plant Society.

Leslie, C. W., & Roth, C. E. (2003). Keeping a nature journal: Discovering a whole new way of seeing the world around you. North Adams: Storey Publishing.

Lewis, E., Mansfield, C., & Baudains, C. (2008). Getting Down and Dirty: Values in Education for Sustainability. Issues in Educational Research, 18, 138-155.

Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (2005). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. State Education and Roundtable, General Education.

Martin, S. C. (2003). The influence of outdoor schoolyard experiences on students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and comfort levels. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15, 51-63.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press Washington, DC.

Ozer, E. J. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 846-863. doi:10.1177/1090198106289002

Passy, R. (2012). School gardens: teaching and learning outside the front door. Education 3-13, 42(1), 23-38. doi:10.1080/03004279.2011.636371

Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. Harper: New York, NY.

Skamp, K., & Bergmann, I. (2001). Facilitating Learnscape Development, Maintenance and Use: Teachers’ Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices. Environmental Education Research, 7, 333-358.

Skelly, S. M., & Bradley, J. C. (2007). The growing phenomenon of school gardens: Measuring their variation and their affect on students’ sense of responsibility and attitudes toward science and the environment. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 6, 97-104.

Sobel, D. (2002). Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.

Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2009). Reflective practice as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 245-262. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9131-1

Thomas, J. A., Pedersen, J. E., & Finson, K. D. (2001). Validation of the draw-a-science-teacher-ckecklist (DASTT-C): Exploring mental models and teacher beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 295-310. doi:10.1023%2FA%3A1014216328867

Wells, N. M., Myers, B. M., & Henderson, C. R. (2014). School gardens & physical activity: A randomized controlled trial of low income elementary schools. Preventative Medicine, 69, 527-533.

Wolf, Allan. (2003). Step outside. What do you see? In S. Vardell & J. Wong (Eds.), The poetry friday anthology for science (p. 13). Princeton, NJ: Pomelo.

Using Critical Case Studies to Cultivate Inservice Teachers’ Critical Science Consciousness

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Crabtree, L.M., & Stephan, M. (2021). Using critical case studies to cultivate inservice teachers’ critical science consciousness. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/using-critical-case-studies-to-cultivate-inservice-teachers-critical-science-consciousness/

by Lenora M. Crabtree, University of North Carolina Charlotte; & Michelle Stephan, University of North Carolina Charlotte

Abstract

Culturally relevant and responsive science instruction includes support of students’ socio-political, or critical, consciousness. A lack of experience with marginalization, and limited attention to critical perspectives in science content and methods courses, however, may leave educators ill-equipped to address intersections of diversity, equity, and science instruction. Curriculum is needed that supports critical consciousness development among science teachers and their students. We describe an innovation, a critical inquiry case study, designed to address this essential facet of culturally relevant pedagogy. Design research methodology guided our development of an interrupted, historical case study employed as part of a four-day professional development workshop for secondary science teachers. In addition to provoking critical awareness and agency, the case study was designed to highlight ways that science itself may create or perpetuate inequities, or serve as a tool for liberation, a content-specific construct we call critical science consciousness. Implementation of the critical case study and participating teachers’ interactions with case materials are described. In addition, we highlight learning goals developed to support critical science consciousness and provide insights into ways teachers exhibited growth in each area. Teachers report heightened understanding of the role science plays in perpetuating inequities, transformations in ways they think about systemic inequities that impact students and families, and growing awareness of the possibilities inherent in teaching science for liberation.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Allchin, D. (2000). How not to teach historical cases in science. Journal of College Science Teaching30(1), 33.

Atwater, M. M., Freeman, T. B., Butler, M. B., & Draper-Morris, J. (2010). A case study of science teacher candidates’ understandings and actions related to the culturally responsive teaching of science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5, 287-318.

Bollett, A. (1992). Politics and pellagra: The epidemic of pellagra in the U.S. in the early twentieth century. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 65, 211-221.

Brown, B. A., Boda, P., Lemmi, C., & Monroe, X. (2019). Moving culturally relevant pedagogy from theory to practice: Exploring teachers’ application of culturally relevant education in science and mathematics. Urban Education, 54, 775-803.

Campbell, A., Skvirsky, R., Wortis, H., Thomas, S., Kawachi, I., & Hohmann, C. (2014). NEST 2014: Views from the trainees – Talking about what matters in efforts to diversify the STEM workforce. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 587-592.

Chacko, E. (2005). Understanding the geography of pellagra in the United States: The role of social and place-based identities. Gender, Place & Culture12, 197-212.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241.

DeCoito, I., & Fazio, X. (2017). Developing case studies in teacher education: Spotlighting socio-scientific issues. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/developing-case-studies-in-teacher-education-spotlighting-socioscientific-issues/

Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Etheridge, E. (1972). The butterfly caste: A social history of pellagra in the South. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Friere, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

Garibay, J. (2015). STEM students’ social agency and views on working for social change: Are STEM disciplines developing socially and civically responsible students? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 610-632.

Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Goldberger, J. (1916). The transmissibility of pellagra: Experimental attempts at transmission to the human subjects. Public Health Reports, 31, 3159-3173.

Goldberger, J., Waring, C. H., & Willets, D. G. (1915). The prevention of pellagra: A test of diet among institutional inmates. Public Health Reports (1896-1970), 3117-3131.

Goldberger, J., & Wheeler, G. A. (1920). The experimental production of pellagra in human subjects by means of diet. In J. Goldberger (Ed.), Goldberger on pellagra. (pp. 54-94). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

Goldberger, J., Wheeler, G., & Sydenstricker, E. (1920). A study of the relation of diet to pellagra incidence in seven textile-mill communities of South Carolina in 1916. Public Health Reports, 35, 648-713.

Goldberger, J., Wheeler, G., & Sydenstricker, E. (1920). A study of the relation of family income and other economic factors to pellagra incidence in seven cotton-mill villages of South Carolina in 1916. Public Health Reports, 35, 2673-2714.

Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational researcher32(4), 3-12.

Herreid, C., Schiller, N., & Herreid, K. (2012). Science stories: Using case studies to teach critical thinking. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Horton, K. (2015). Martyr of Loray Mill: Ella May and the 1929 textile workers strike in Gastonia, North Carolina. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, Inc.

Johnson, C. C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching48, 170-198.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Put up or shut up: The challenge of moving from critical theory to critical pedagogy (A formative assessment). In D. Hursh & E. W. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for social change. (pp. 149-164). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Yes, but how do we do it? Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In J. Landsman & C. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/diverse classrooms: Creating inclusive schools, building on students’ diversity and providing true educational equity. (pp. 33-46). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate IV, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teacher’s College Record97(1), 47-68.

Marks, H. (2003). Epidemiologists explain pellagra: gender, race, and political economy in the work of Edgar Sydenstricker. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 58(1), 34-55.

Madkins, T., & de Royston, M. (2019). Illuminating political clarity in culturally relevant science instruction. Science Education, 103, 1319-1346.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Rajakumar, K. (2000). Pellagra in the United States: a historical perspective. Southern Medical Journal, 93, 272-277.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Simon, M. (2000). Research on mathematics teacher development: The teacher development experiment. In A. E. Kelly & A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 335-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stephan, M., & Cobb, P. (2013). Teachers engaging in mathematics design research. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research – Part B: Illustrative cases (pp. 277-298). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.

Suriel, R. L., & Atwater, M. M. (2012). From the contribution to the action approach: White teachers’ experiences influencing the development of multicultural science curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1271-1295.

Thoman, D.B., Brown, E.R., Mason, A.Z., Harmsen, A.G., & Smith, J.L. (2015). The role of altruistic values in motivating underrepresented minority students for biomedicine. BioScience, 65, 183-188.

Underwood, J. B., & Mensah, F. M. (2018). An investigation of science teacher educators’ perceptions of culturally relevant pedagogy. Journal of Science Teacher Education29, 46-64.

 

Critical Response Protocol: Supporting Preservice Science Teachers in Facilitating Inclusive Whole-Class Discussions

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Ellingson, C.L., Wieselmann, J.R., & Leammukda, F.D. (2021). Critical response protocol: Supporting preservice science teachers in facilitating inclusive whole-class discussions. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/critical-response-protocol-supporting-preservice-science-teachers-in-facilitating-inclusive-whole-class-discussions/

by Charlene L. Ellingson, Minnesota State University, Mankato; Dr. Jeanna Wieselmann, Caruth Institute for Engineering Education; & Dr. Felicia Dawn Leammukda, Minnesota State University, St. Cloud

Abstract

Despite a large body of research on effective discussion in science classrooms, teachers continue to struggle to engage all students in such discussions. Whole-class discussions are particularly challenging to facilitate effectively and, therefore, often have a teacher-centered participation pattern. This article describes the Critical Response Protocol (CRP), a tool that disrupts teacher-centered discussion patterns in favor of a more student-centered structure that honors students’ science ideas. CRP originated in the arts community as a method for giving and receiving feedback to deepen critical dialog between artists and their audiences. In science classrooms, CRP can be used to elicit student ideas about scientific phenomena and invite wide participation while reducing the focus on “correct” responses. In this article, we describe our use of CRP with preservice science teachers. We first modeled the CRP process as it would be used with high school students in science classrooms, then discussed pedagogical considerations for implementing CRP within the preservice teachers’ classrooms. We conclude this article with a discussion of our insights about the opportunities and challenges of using CRP in science teacher education to support preservice teachers in leading effective whole-class discussion and attending to inclusive participation structures.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Barton, C. (2018). On formative assessment in math: How diagnostic questions can help. American Educator, 42(2), 33-39.

Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 210-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20270

Cohen, E. G. (1990). Teaching in multiculturally heterogeneous classrooms: Findings from a model program. McGill Journal of Education, 26, 7-23.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99-120. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312032001099

Ellingson, C., Roehrig, G., Bakkum, K., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2016). Critical response protocol: A classroom tool for facilitating equitable critical discourse in science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 83(4), 51-54.

Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(11). doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x

Gibson, J. D., Khanal, B. P., & Zubarev, E. R. (2007). Paclitaxel-functionalized gold nanoparticles. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 129, 11653–11661. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja075181k

Haverly, C., Barton, A. C., Schwarz, C. V., & Braaten, M. (2020). “Making space”: How novice teachers create opportunities for equitable sense-making in elementary science. Journal of Teacher Education, 71, 63–79. DOI://1d0o.i.1o1rg7/71/00.10127274/0807212148781010878006706

Hennessy, S. (2014). Bridging between research and practice: Supporting professional development through collaborative studies of classroom teaching with technology. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Lerman, L., & Borstel, J. (2003). Liz Lerman’s critical response process: A method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert. Dance Exchange, Inc.

Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937 – 944. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167297239003

Mallow, J. V. (1978). A science anxiety program. American Journal of Physics, 46, 862. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.11409

Mallow, J. V. (2006). Science anxiety: Research and action. In J. J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 325-349). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: MA, Harvard University Press.

Meyer, D. K., & Smithenry, D. (2014). Scaffolding collective engagement. Teachers College Record, 116, 124.

Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk Science Primer. TERC, An Education Research and Development Organization, Cambridge: MA.

Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Education.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Petkau, J. W. (2013). Critical response and pedagogic tensions in aesthetic space. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (1322974486).

Vandenberg, P. (1999). Lessons of inscription: Tutor training and the “professional conversation.” Writing Center Journal, 19(2), 59-83.

WIDA Consortium. 2006a. Annual Technical Report No. 1-Volume 1 of 3: Description, Validity, and Student Results (2004-2005). Technical Reports and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Available: https://wida.wisc.edu. [December 2018].

Facilitating Preservice Teachers’ Socioscientific Issues Curriculum Design in Teacher Education

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Foulk, J.A., Sadler, T.D., & Friedrichsen, P.M. (2020). Facilitating preservice teachers’ socioscientific issues curriculum design in teacher education. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/facilitating-preservice-teachers-socioscientific-issues-curriculum-design-in-teacher-education/

by Jaimie A. Foulk, University of Missouri - Columbia; Troy D. Sadler, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill; & Patricia M. Friedrichsen, University of Missouri - Columbia

Abstract

Socioscientific issues (SSI) are contentious and ill-structured societal issues with substantive connections to science, which require an understanding of science, but are unable to be solved by science alone. Consistent with current K-12 science education reforms, SSI based teaching uses SSI as a context for science learning and has been shown to offer numerous student benefits. While K-12 teachers have expressed positive perceptions of SSI for science learning, they cite uncertainty about how to teach with SSI and lack of access to SSI based curricular materials as reasons for not utilizing a SSI based teaching approach. In response to this need we developed and taught a multi-phase SSI Teaching Module during a Science Methods course for pre-service secondary teachers (PSTs), designed to 1) engage PSTs as learners in an authentic SSI science unit; 2) guide PSTs in making sense of an SSI approach to teaching and learning; and 3) support PSTs in designing SSI-based curricular units. To share our experience with the Teaching Module and encourage teacher educators to consider ways of adapting such an approach to their pre-service teacher education contexts, we present our design and resources from the SSI Teaching Module and describe some of the ways PSTs described their challenges, successes, and responses to the experience, as well as considerations for teacher educators interested in introducing PSTs to SSI.

Introduction

Socioscientific issues (SSI) based teaching is a pedagogical philosophy consistent with current reform movements in K-12 science education (Zeidler, 2014b). SSI are societal issue[s] with substantive connections to science ideas (Sadler, Foulk, & Friedrichsen, 2017, p. 75), which lack structure, are controversial in nature, and for which science understanding is necessary but insufficient to offer complete solutions (Borgerding & Dagistan, 2018; Kolstø, 2006; Owens, Sadler, & Friedrichsen, 2019; Simonneaux, 2007). Because they are values-influenced, lack clear solutions, and bear significant, and often conflicting, implications for society, SSI tend to be contentious (Zeidler, 2014a).

Studies of SSI-focused learning contexts have identified many learner benefits. Students who participated in SSI-based learning experiences have demonstrated gains in understanding of science ideas (Dawson & Venville, 2010, 2013; Sadler, Klosterman, & Topcu, 2011; Sadler, Romine, & Topçu, 2016; Venville & Dawson, 2010), nature of science (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006; Lederman, Antink, & Bartos, 2014; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004); and scientific practices, such as modeling (Peel, Zangori, Friedrichsen, Hayes, & Sadler, 2019; Zangori, Peel, Kinslow, Friedrichsen, & Sadler, 2017) and argumentation (Venville & Dawson, 2010). Beyond these traditional learning outcomes, studies have also identified benefits such as improved reasoning skills (Kolstø et al., 2006; Sadler et al., 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011); moral, ethical, and character development (Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler, 2009; H. Lee, Abd‐El‐Khalick, & Choi, 2006); and increased enthusiasm and interest within science learning contexts (M. K. Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Saunders & Rennie, 2013).

The role of classroom teachers is of primary importance in facilitating reform-oriented learner experiences (Bybee, 1993) such as those based on SSI. Research has revealed that many classroom teachers hold favorable perceptions of SSI; however, despite some K-12 science teachers’ recognition of potential benefits to learners, and acknowledgements of the subsequent importance of incorporating SSI into science classroom contexts, research indicates that K-12 science teachers struggle to incorporate an SSI-focused pedagogy in their classrooms, and those who utilize SSI tend to do so infrequently and superficially (H. Lee et al., 2006; Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 1998; Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006; Saunders & Rennie, 2013). Three notable explanations for teachers’ omission of SSI-focused activities from their classrooms are: teachers’ unfamiliarity, lack of experience, and/or discomfort with an SSI-focused teaching approach (H. Lee et al., 2006; Sadler et al., 2006; Saunders & Rennie, 2013); teachers’ limited access to SSI-focused curricular resources (Sadler et al., 2006); and discrepancies between teachers’ perceptions of SSI and the philosophical basis of the pedagogy (Hansen & Olson, 1996; H. Lee et al., 2006; Sadler et al., 2006).

While a small number of prepared curricular resources for SSI have begun to be made available to teachers (cf. Kinslow & Sadler, 2018; Science Education Resource Center; The ReSTEM Institute; Zeidler & Kahn, 2014a), practical access to SSI curricula remains limited. Literature around SSI features an array of project-specific SSI-focused curricular resources on a variety of topics (Carson & Dawson, 2016; Christenson, Chang Rundgren, & Höglund, 2012; Dawson & Venville, 2010; Eilks, 2002; Eilks, Marks, & Feierabend, 2008; Friedrichsen, Sadler, Graham, & Brown, 2016; Kolstø, 2006; Lederman et al., 2014; H Lee et al., 2013; Peel et al., 2019; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). However, only very few of the studies (Eilks, 2002; Friedrichsen et al., 2016; Zeidler et al., 2011) have focused on the process or products of SSI curricular design and the curricula from this research generally have not been distributed for classroom use. In addition, research has demonstrated the potentially transformative power to teachers of engaging in the design of reform-oriented, including SSI-focused, curricular resources (Coenders, Terlouw, Dijkstra, & Pieters, 2010; Eilks & Markic, 2011; Hancock, Friedrichsen, Kinslow, & Sadler, 2019; Zeidler et al., 2011).

In view of the demonstrated discrepancy between teachers’ perceptions and enactment of SSI; limited access to SSI curricular resources; the transformative value of engaging in reform-oriented curricular design; and the potential of SSI-based pedagogy to promote reform-oriented learning experiences; we view supporting teachers in the design of SSI-oriented curricula as a promising approach to educational reform. This project reflects that view. We sought to support pre-service science teachers (PSTs) in their uptake of SSI-based teaching in a Science Methods course through our design and teaching of an SSI Teaching Module intended to: 1) engage PSTs as learners in an authentic SSI science unit; 2) guide PSTs in making sense of an SSI approach to teaching and learning; and 3) support PSTs in designing SSI-based curricular units. The purpose of this paper is to describe our Teaching Module and share related resources with teacher educators, as well as to provide some examples of PSTs’ challenges, successes, and responses to the experience. It is our hope that the Teaching Module will serve as an inspiration for teacher educators interested in supporting future science teachers’ uptake of SSI.

SSI-TL – A Framework to Operationalize SSI-Based Pedagogy

Our group has developed the SSI Teaching and Learning (SSI-TL) Framework (Sadler et al., 2017) for the purpose of supporting teachers’ uptake of SSI-based teaching. Intended as a guide for classroom teachers, the SSI-TL framework highlights elements we consider to be essential to teaching science with SSI, while also remaining highly adaptable to various subdisciplines, courses, and classroom contexts in K-12 science education. SSI-TL is one instantiation of SSI-based teaching, developed from multiple projects that utilized research-based SSI frameworks featured in previous literature (Foulk, 2016; Friedrichsen et al., 2016; Klosterman & Sadler, 2010; Presley et al., 2013; Sadler, 2011; Sadler et al., 2015; Sadler et al., 2016). This project contributed to the development of SSI-TL, and we drew from an intermediate version of the framework throughout the project (See Figure 1).

Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
SSI-TL Framework

SSI-TL specifies requisite components of SSI-based learning experiences, the sum total of which are necessary for a complete SSI-TL curricular unit. Such a unit consists of a cohesive, two- to three-week sequence of lessons designed around a particular SSI, to promote students’ achievement of a defined set of science learning objectives. Within any SSI-TL curricular unit, a focal SSI is foregrounded in the curricular sequence and revisited regularly throughout the unit, in order to serve as both motivation and context for learners’ engagement in authentic science practices and sensemaking about science ideas. A continuous focus on the selected SSI also guides students in exploration of societal dimensions of the issue; that is, the potential impacts of the issue on society, such as those of a social, political, or economic nature. Participation in an SSI-TL unit is intended to engage students in sensemaking about both the relevant science ideas and the societal dimensions of the issue. Student learning in SSI-based teaching is assessed with a culminating project in which learners synthesize their understanding of scientific and societal aspects relevant to the issue. In this project, our intermediate version of the SSI-TL framework served as both a representation of SSI-based teaching and a tool to support PSTs’ uptake of the approach.

The SSI Teaching Module in a Methods Course

Project Context, Goals, and Audience

The project described in this paper consisted of a six-week SSI Teaching Module that was implemented during a semester-long Science Methods course for secondary PSTs. The Science Methods course was the last in a sequence of three required methods courses in an undergraduate secondary science education program, and occurred immediately prior to the student teaching experience. The focus of the 16-week course was curricular planning and development, and the primary course goal was that PSTs would be able to design a coherent secondary science curricular unit, consisting of a two- to three-week sequence of related lessons organized around selected NGSS performance expectations. The purposes of the six-week SSI Teaching Module were to facilitate PSTs’ familiarity with SSI-based teaching; to explicate and challenge, as appropriate, PSTs’ perceptions about SSI; and to promote PSTs’ learning about SSI-based science teaching, as evidenced by their ability to develop cohesive science curricular units consistent with the SSI-TL framework.

A cohort of 13 PSTs in their final year of undergraduate coursework completed the SSI Teaching Module during Fall 2015. The first author developed and taught the SSI Teaching Module and the Science Methods course and conducted assessment of PSTs’ work in the course. The second author served in an advisory capacity during design, enactment, and assessment phases of the Teaching Module and Methods course. Both the second and third authors served as advisors during the writing stages of the project.

Project Design

The SSI Teaching Module consisted of three distinct phases, in which PSTs engaged with SSI-based science education from the perspectives of learner, teacher, and curriculum maker. (See SSI Teaching Module Schedule, below). In the first phase of the SSI Teaching Module, PSTs participated as learners of science in a sample secondary science unit designed using the SSI-TL framework, learning science content which was contextualized in an authentic SSI. (See SSI units for secondary science at our project website: http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules.) In the second phase of the SSI Teaching Module, the PSTs spent time considering their SSI learning experience, this time from a teacher perspective, with explicit attention to the SSI-TL framework and key components of the sample SSI unit. Finally, in the third phase, the PSTs created SSI-based curricular units for use in their future secondary science classrooms. In all phases of the SSI Teaching Module, PSTs were asked to engage in personal reflection about their perceptions of SSI and its potential utility in their future teaching practice, with various writing prompts used during class, reflective writing assignments, and in-class discussion. More detailed description of each phase of the SSI Teaching Module follows (See Table 1).

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
SSI Teaching Module Schedule

SSI Teaching Module – Phase 1: Learning Science with SSI

The first phase of the SSI Teaching Module focused on PSTs’ engagement with a sample SSI-TL unit. The sample unit was developed for an Advanced Exercise Science course at the secondary level, using NGSS standards relevant to the topic of energy systems, and presented through a nutritional science lens. The focal SSI for the nutrition unit was taxation of obesogenic foods. The SSI nutrition unit, as representation of the SSI-TL approach, engaged PSTs in several learning activities appropriate for incorporation into their own secondary-level SSI curricular unit designs. During this phase PSTs explored societal dimensions of the issue and engaged in sensemaking about the relevant science ideas, just as secondary students would do. Find the complete “Fat Tax” SSI-TL unit plan on our project website: http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules/Fat Tax/intro.

The nutrition focus of the sample SSI unit was purposely selected for several reasons. First, this choice of topic leveraged the first author’s personal background and interest in nutritional sciences. Second, a pair of teaching partners in a local secondary school had approached the first author for help with preparing a unit for a new course they would be teaching. Finally, this topic offered opportunities for the methods students who had content backgrounds in different science disciplines to see the integration of diverse science ideas, and to build upon their own content knowledge. The SSI nutrition unit and the secondary course for which it was prepared represented authentic possibilities for PSTs’ future teaching assignments.

As specified in the SSI-TL framework, the SSI nutrition unit was introduced with a focal SSI. PSTs began by reading an article about a proposed “fat tax,” and were then asked to articulate and share ideas about the issue, providing reasoning to support their positions. Various positions were proposed, and a lively discussion followed. “Henry,” who had previously worked in a grocery store, shared initial support for the tax, justified by his personal observations of patterns in consumer buying habits. “Gregg” pushed back on what he considered to be stereotyping in Henry’s example, and argued that taxation of groups of food items toward controlling consumer choice was not within the purview of government agencies and could place an unnecessary burden on population subgroups such as college students and young families, who might depend on convenience foods during particular life phases. Various PSTs shared about personal and family experiences linking nutrition and health, which highlighted the challenge of defining “healthful” nutrition. The result of this introductory activity was PSTs’ recognition of their need to better understand both scientific and societal dimensions of the issue.

Because societal dimensions of SSI are a key focus of SSI-based teaching, and because research indicates that science teachers may struggle most with this component of SSI (Sadler et al., 2006), the relevant social aspects of the nutrition focal SSI were heavily featured in the SSI Teaching Module. An example of a nutrition lesson that emphasized societal dimensions of the focal SSI was one that incorporated an SSI Timeline activity (Foulk, Friedrichsen, & Sadler, 2020). In small groups, PSTs explored historically significant nutrition recommendations, summarizing their findings and posting them on a collaborative class timeline. Then the PSTs discussed their collective findings, comparing and contrasting nutrition recommendations through the years, and proposing significant historical events that may have impacted recommendations. Next, the small groups reconvened to research scientific, political, and economic events, which had been selected for their historical significance to nutritional health. PSTs summarized the impact of their assigned events, color coded according to the nature of impacts on historical nutritional recommendations. The result was a very engaged group of learner-participants, and a great deal of discussion about their new understandings of nutrition policy. Following the introduction of the issue and participation in this timeline activity, PSTs expressed an awareness that meaningful interpretation and assessment of commonly shared nutrition advice (e.g., “eat everything in moderation” or “avoid cholesterol and saturated fat”) depends on an understanding of scientific ideas about nutrition. Specifically, the PSTs recognized their need to be able to make sense of the structure and function of nutrition macromolecules and their significance in metabolic pathways. As learners, PSTs benefitted from this activity by identifying science concepts they needed to know in order to address the focal issue (See Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
SSI Timeline Activity

Figure 3 (Click on image to enlarge)
SSI Timeline Categories of Societal Dimensions

SSI Teaching Module – Phase 2: Teaching Science with SSI

The second phase of the SSI Teaching Module allowed PSTs to reflect on their learner experiences with the SSI nutrition unit, from the perspective of teachers. After participating in selected portions of the SSI nutrition unit, the PSTs began the process of unpacking their experience and making sense of the teaching approach. They were first asked to inspect the SSI-TL framework, and then they received written copies of the SSI nutrition unit for comparison. In small groups PSTs discussed elements of the framework they were able to distinguish in the nutrition unit, as well as the purposes they saw for each activity they had identified. A whole class discussion of the unit resulted in a mapping of the unit to the SSI-TL framework (See Figure 4).

Figure 4 (Click on image to enlarge)
Unit Map

In another lesson during the second phase of the SSI Teaching Module, a whole class discussion of the philosophical assumptions of the SSI-TL framework helped PSTs to consider broader educational purposes of the approach (Zeidler, 2014a). The instructor again provided a copy of the framework and asked PSTs to consider ways it compared and contrasted to their experiences as learners of science, and their ideas about teaching science. During the discussion, “Travis” shared, “I would’ve eaten this up as a high school student, because I didn’t always like science classes. I think connecting science to real life is a great way to reach students who might not like science otherwise.” Conversely, “Dale” expressed his concerns about shaking up tried and true teaching methods in his subdiscipline, arguing that there are more beneficial ways to teach than forcing science learning into SSI: “Everything we teach at the high school level for physics was settled 200 years ago. Why should students spend time looking at news stories and history?” The group revisited these conversations about educational philosophy and socioscientific issues frequently.

Following a whole class discussion about the SSI-TL framework and nutrition unit as an exemplar, PSTs used the framework to collaboratively analyze examples of externally created SSI-focused curricula. Small groups identified components of SSI-based teaching such as the focal issue, opportunities to consider societal dimensions of the issue, and connections to relevant science ideas. (Friedrichsen et al., 2016; Schibuk, 2015; Zeidler & Kahn, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). Finally, individual PSTs completed a structured analysis of these assigned SSI curricular units. This activity served to further help the PSTs in identifying key components of SSI-based science curricula, and to see varied ways that classroom activities, lessons, and units might be created to align with the approach. See the analysis rubric tool designed to support PSTs’ individual curricular analyses (See Figure 5).

Figure 5 (Click on image to enlarge)
Curriculum Analysis Rubric

SSI Teaching Module – Phase 3: Designing SSI Curricula

The third and final phase of the SSI Teaching Module focused on curricular design. Because curricular design was the primary goal of the Science Methods course, activities prior to the SSI Teaching Module had been designed to engage PSTs in utilizing NGSS and other educational standards, as well as in structuring and planning for meaningful learning activities in secondary science classrooms. This phase of the SSI Teaching Module was designed to build upon the PSTs’ prior experiences with elements of curriculum planning, and to integrate them with the activities of the previous phases of the module.

Over a series of lessons, in various formats, and with numerous feedback opportunities, the PSTs were supported in their development of a cohesive SSI-focused curricular unit designed around the SSI-TL framework, which served as the culminating course project. With regular instructor feedback, in both in-class collaborative settings and as out-of-class assignments, PSTs selected topics applicable to their science certification areas, brainstormed potential focal SSIs in which to contextualize their science units, and identified NGSS standards most relevant to their topics. In addition to feedback from both instructor comments and class discussions, PSTs used several resources intended as tools to guide their process, including the SSI-TL framework, written requirements for the SSI Curriculum Design task, access to the SSI nutrition unit from phase one of the SSI Teaching Module, and an electronic template in which to create their units (See Figure 6).

Figure 6 (Click on image to enlarge)
Curriculum Design Task Requirements

All activities in phase three of the SSI Teaching Module served to help PSTs draft detailed unit overviews consisting of a two- to three-week sequence of lessons with multiple detailed lesson plans, specifically focused on introducing the focal SSI, exploring societal dimensions of the issue, and activities for mastery of related science content ideas. Assessment of PSTs’ units was based upon a detailed scoring rubric collaboratively constructed with the PSTs during the third phase of the Teaching Module. Together the course instructor and PSTs used the Curriculum Design Task Requirements and the SSI-TL framework, as well as the Curriculum Analysis Rubric, to prioritize elements and characteristics of SSI units. Finished units were later assessed for alignment to the SSI-TL framework in terms of unit structure, principles of SSI, and general quality of activities and lessons. See the scoring rubric for the unit design task, below. Note also that NGSS-aligned lesson plan design was a requirement for the PSTs in a previous methods course and continued as an expectation throughout PSTs’ education program. Selected PSTs’ SSI unit design products are summarized (See Figure 7 and Table 2).

Figure 7 (Click on image to enlarge)
SSI Unit Design Task – Scoring Rubric

 

Table 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
Table of Selected PST Curricular Units

 

Discussion & Conclusion

In this project, we sought address the tension between K-12 science teachers’ favorable perceptions of SSI-based pedagogy and their simultaneous unlikelihood to utilize SSI in their science classrooms. Specifially, we designed and implemented an SSI Teaching Module intended to leverage the transformative potential of the curriculum design process, in an effort to address commonly cited barriers to SSI-based pedagogy enactment, including: unfamiliarity or discomfort with SSI-based teaching; lack of access to SSI curricular resources; and misalignment between teachers’ perceptions and the pedagogical philosophy of SSI. We observed several specific examples of favorable impacts for the PST participants in this experience.

First, PSTs expressed excitement about learning with SSI. In a whole class conversation following phase one of the teaching module, Adam described his positive experience as a learner of SSI. Referring specifically to the use of SSI and related societal dimensions in the learning experience, he commented, “I think as a [secondary] student I would’ve been, like, sucked in from the very first day of the nutrition unit.” Adam’s sentiment echoed the enthusiasm that Travis had clearly demonstrated during phase one of the SSI Teaching Module. Having previously spoken to the first author privately regarding his uncertainty about a career path in education, Travis exceeded task expectations during the learner phase of the project. In ways that were atypical for him, Travis assumed leadership responsibilities for his group, encouraging his peers to explore and make connections among science and societal dimensions of the issue they were studying. On one occasion, Travis stayed after class to make additional contributions to the collaborative activity from that day’s lesson, describing to the first author his own engagement during participation in the SSI nutrition unit in class. During a whole class discussion in phase two of the SSI Teaching Module, Travis spoke favorably of his firsthand experience with SSI and enthusiastically shared with his peers his perception of the potential for SSI to promote learner engagement, particularly for those students who, like himself, are likely to find traditional K-12 science coursework unenjoyable.

Second, PSTs expressed enthusiasm for teaching with SSI during phases two and three of the SSI Teaching Module. In class conversations about the SSI-TL framework as well as in written reflections about SSI unit design required with the Unit Design Task, multiple PSTs expressed enthusiasm for SSI and plans to use it, despite its challenges. For example, after designing his unit, “Cooper” wrote, “I found that creating this [SSI] unit about waves was challenging, but also sort of exciting, because it makes me think about how much I’m looking forward to being a teacher.” Similarly, during our whole class discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of SSI, Adam repeatedly expressed his perception of the value of teaching science with SSI. Adam’s SSI curricular unit design was exceptional for his thoughtful choice of issue and the complex connections he made among science ideas and societal dimensions related to the issue, and his comments throughout the learner experience indicated his consideration of the challenges and possible solutions to utilizing SSI in the classroom. During his third year of teaching, Adam reached out to the first author to describe his own use of SSI-based pedagogy and asked for help in supporting veteran teachers in his department to take up the approach. Adam expressed a highly favorable view of teaching with SSI, and the project seemed to prepare him to do so.

Finally, PSTs demonstrated success in designing coherent SSI-TL curricular resources. Consistent with our framework, we considered an SSI unit to be successfully designed if it met the criteria specified in the Curriculum Design Task and Scoring Rubric, by including essential elements and characteristics of SSI and by representing the intent of the approach. Regarding elements and characteristics of SSI and by representing the intent of the approach. Regarding elements and characteristics, a unit overview was required, with specific reference to the science topic and related standards from NGSS, a thorough explanation of pertinent science ideas, and the selected focal SSI in which the unit was contextualized. The overview would also include a brief timeline describing a coherent sequence of lessons related to the topic. In addition, units were to include detailed plans for three specific types of lesson: introduction of the focal issue, exploration of societal dimensions of the issue, and explicit sensemaking about science ideas. Finally, a successful unit would describe plans for assessment, including requirements for a culminating unit project in which learners would demonstrate understanding of science ideas and societal dimensions related to the issue. Throughout the unit design, the selected SSI would feature prominently, and activities would allow for students’ meaningful sensemaking about the science ideas and societal dimensions relevant to the issue.

With participation in the SSI Teaching Module, support from their instructor, and interactions with the learning community in their methods course, each of our participant PSTs satisfied the requirements of the unit design task and designed curricular units consistent with the SSI-TL framework. PSTs were able to identify learning standards relevant to their selected science topics, provide explanations of their topics, and contextualize science learning opportunities within authentic, real-world issues. In addition, PSTs were able to create broad, cohesive overviews of their units, as well as detailed plans for specific lessons. Most notable with regard to the emphasis on SSI, PSTs were able to select relevant, appropriate socioscientific issues for their topics, and to thoughtfully weave these issues into their unit designs. PSTs reflected about general struggles related to selecting focal issues or integrating science ideas and societal dimensions, and the experiences in the SSI Teaching module that they found especially helpful, such as small group discussions during the planning process, and peer feedback on the drafts of their units.

Consistent with current calls for science education reform, we know SSI offer valuable opportunities for student learning, and we believe SSI curriculum design to be a beneficial way to support teachers’ uptake of SSI-based teaching. Furthermore, we view teacher education to be an appropriate context to support pre-service and early career teachers’ in making sense of and adopting the approach. We share the design of SSI Teaching Module to support other teacher educators in innovating pre-service methods courses toward promoting PSTs’ uptake of SSI.

References

Borgerding, L. A., & Dagistan, M. (2018). Preservice science teachers’ concerns and approaches for teaching socioscientific and controversial issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29, 283-306.

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Leadership, Responsibility, and Reform in Science Education. Science Educator, 2(1), 1-9.

Carson, K., & Dawson, V. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teaching science, 62(1), 28.

Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S.-N., & Höglund, H.-O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyze Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342-352.

Coenders, F. G., Terlouw, C., Dijkstra, S., & Pieters, J. (2010). The effects of the design and development of a chemistry curriculum reform on teachers’ professional growth: A case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 535-557.

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing High School Biology Students to Argumentation About Socioscientific Issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4).

Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching ‘Biodiesel’: A sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching and students’ first views on it. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(1), 77-85.

Eilks, I., & Markic, S. (2011). Effects of a Long-Term Participatory Action Research Project on Science Teachers’ Professional Development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(3).

Eilks, I., Marks, R., & Feierabend, T. (2008). Science education research to prepare future citizens–Chemistry learning in a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach. Promoting successful science learning–The worth of science education research, 75-86.

Foulk, J. A. (2016). Changes in pre-service teachers’ ideas about socioscientific issues teaching and learning in a science methods course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, Maryland.

Foulk, J. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Sadler, T. D. (2020). Embedding Science in Socio-scientific Issues: Teaching with A Timeline Activity. The Science Teacher, 87(7),

Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 279-296.

Friedrichsen, P., Sadler, T. D., Graham, K., & Brown, P. (2016). Design of a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit: Antibiotic resistance, natural selection, and modeling. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1).

Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting Socio-scientific Issues for Teaching. Science & Education, 28, 639-667.

Hansen, K. H., & Olson, J. (1996). How teachers construe curriculum integration: The science, technology, society (STS) movement as Bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 669-682.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395-418.

Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2018). Making Science Relevant: Using Socio-Scientific Issues to Foster Critical Thinking, 40.

Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level Assessment of Scientific Content Knowledge Gains Associated with Socioscientific Issues‐based Instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017-1043.

Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk‐focused Socio‐scientific Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689-1716.

Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., . . . Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632-655.

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285-302.

Lee, H., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio‐scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 97-117.

Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12).

Lee, M. K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science–technology–society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1315-1327.

Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 123-135.

Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Teaching Practices for Enactment of Socio-scientific Issues Instruction: an Instrumental Case Study of an Experienced Biology Teacher. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9799-3

Peel, A., Zangori, L., Friedrichsen, P., Hayes, E., & Sadler, T. (2019). Students’ model-based explanations about natural selection and antibiotic resistance through socio-scientific issues-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 41, 510-532.

Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A Framework for Socio-Scientific Issues Based Education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26-32.

Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (Vol. 39): Springer Science & Business Media.

Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353-376.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.

Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a Model for Socio-Scientific Issue Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1).

Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., Graham, K., Foulk, J., Tang, N., & Menon, D. (2015). The derivation of an instructional model and design processes for socioscientific issues-based teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago IL.

Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 45-77): Springer.

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 1622-1635.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.

Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A Pedagogical Model for Ethical Inquiry into Socioscientific Issues In Science. Research in Science Education, 43(1).

Schibuk, E. (2015). Teaching the Manhattan Project. The Science Teacher, 82(7), 27.

Science Education Resource Center. Using Issues to Teach Science. Pedagogy in Action: Connecting Theory to Practice. Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/issues/examples.html

Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 179-199). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

The ReSTEM Institute. [RI]^2 Modules. Rigorous Investigations of Relevant Issues. Retrieved from http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules

Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952-977.

Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model‐based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio‐scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 1249-1273.

Zeidler, D. L. (2014a). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 711-740): Routledge.

Zeidler, D. L. (2014b). STEM education- A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response.

Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 277-305): Springer.

Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014a). It’s Debatable!: Using Socioscientific Issues to Develop Scientific Literacy K-12: NSTA press.

Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014b). “Mined” Over Matter. In It’s Debatable!: Using Socioscientific Issues to Develop Scientific Literacy K-12 (pp. 221-260): NSTA Press.

Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014c). “Pharma’s” Market. In It’s Debatable!: Using Socioscientific Issues to Develop Scientific Literacy K-12 (pp. 262-292): NSTA Press.

 

 

A Framework for Science Exploration: Examining Successes and Challenges for Preservice Teachers

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Croce, K. (2020). A framework for science exploration: Examining successes and challenges for preservice teachers. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/a-framework-for-science-exploration-examining-successes-and-challenges-for-preservice-teachers/

by Keri-Anne Croce, Towson University

Abstract

Undergraduate preservice teachers examined the Science Texts Analysis Model during a university course. The Science Texts Analysis Model is designed to support teachers as they help students prepare to engage with the arguments in science texts. The preservice teachers received instruction during class time on campus before employing the model when teaching science to elementary and middle school students in Baltimore city. This article describes how the preservice teachers applied their knowledge of the Science Texts Analysis Model within this real world context. Preservice teachers’ reactions to the methodology are examined in order to provide recommendations for future college courses.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Arnold, N. (2013). Comment ca marche? Moteurs et voitures. Paris: Gallimard Jeunesse

Croce, K. (2014). Assessment of Burmese refugee students’ meaning making of scientific informational texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14, 389-424.

Croce, K. (2015). Latino(a) and Burmese elementary school students reading scientific informational texts: The interrelationship of the language of the texts, students’ talk, and conceptual change theory. Linguistics and Education, 29, 94-106.

Croce, K. (2017). Navigating assessment with linguistically diverse learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing

Colman, J. & Goldston, J. (2011). What do you see? Science and Children, 49(1), 42-47.

Colman, J. & McTigue, E. (2013). Methods & Strategies: Unlocking the power of visual communication. Science and Children, 50(5), 73-77.

Cosgrove, B. (2004). Weather. New York: DK Publishing.

Dusling, J. (1998). Bugs! Bugs! Bugs! New York: DK Publishing

Fang, Z. & Coatom, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult literacy, 56, 627-632.

Gibbons, G. (1991). From seed to plant. New York: Holiday House.

Green, R. (1986). Caterpillars. New York: Mondo publishing

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press

Kress, G. (1999). Genre and the changing contexts for English language arts. Language Arts, 76, 461-469.

Mawyer and Johnson (2017). Read like a scientist. The Science Teacher, 84(10). 43-48.

Miller, D. & Czegan, D. (2016). Integrating the liberal arts and chemistry: A series of general chemistry assignments to develop science literacy. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 864-869.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Seeing students learn science: Integrating assessment and instruction in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K–12. Science education standards. Board on science education, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Next Generation Science Standards (2013). Connections to the Common Core Standards for literacy in science and technical subjects. http://static.nsta.org/ngss/AppendixM-ConnectionsToTheCCSSForLiteracy-6.12.13.pdf

Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.

Shore, L. (2010). How to make slime. Mankato: MN, Capstone Press.

Simon, S. (1999).Tornadoes. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.

Simon, S. (2006). Volcanoes. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.

Parsons, A. (1990). Amazing Spiders. Dorling Kindersley: London.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st Century Learning. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Wicks, M. (2016). Science Comics: Coral Reefs: Cities of the Ocean. New York: First Second.

Wiesner, D. (2006). Flotsam. New York: Clarion Books

Introducing the NGSS in Preservice Teacher Education

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hill, T., Davis, J., Presley, M., & Hanuscin, D. (2020). Introducing the NGSS in preservice teacher education. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/introducing-the-ngss-in-preservice-teacher-education/

by Tiffany Hill, Emporia State University; Jeni Davis, Salisbury University; Morgan Presley, Ozarks Technical Community College; & Deborah Hanuscin, Western Washington University

Abstract

While research has offered recommendations for supporting inservice teachers in learning to implement the NGSS, the literature provides fewer insights into supporting preservice teachers in this endeavor. In this article, we address this gap by sharing our collective wisdom generated through designing and implementing learning experiences in our methods courses. Through personal vignettes and sharing of instructional plans with the science teacher education community, we hope to contribute to the professional knowledge base and better understand what is both critical and possible for preservice teachers to learn about the NGSS.

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2010) Designing and teaching the elementary science methods course. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bybee, R.W. (1997). Improving İnstruction. In Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Davis, E.A., Petish, D., Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607-651.

Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science teachers’ views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93, 1050-1075.

Duncan, R. G., & Cavera, V. L. (2015). DCIs, SEPs, and CCs, oh my! Understanding the three dimensions of the NGSS. Science and Children, 53(2), 16-20.

Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science teachers’ views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93, 1050-1075.

Duschl, R. A. (2012). The second dimension–crosscutting concepts. Science and Children, 49(6), 34-38.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA.  

Hanuscin, D., Arnone, K.A., & Bautista, N. (2016a). Bridging the ‘next generation’ gap: Teacher educators implementing the NGSS. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 1(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/bridging-the-next-generation-gap-teacher-educators-enacting-the-ngss/

Lee, E., Cite, S., & Hanuscin, D. (2014). Mystery powders: Taking the “mystery” out of argumentation. Science & Children, 52(1), 46-52.

Hanuscin, D. Cisterna, D. & Lipsitz, K. (2018). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the structure and properties of matter. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29, 665-692. DOI 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1488486

Hanuscin, D. & Zangori, L. (2016b) Developing practical knowledge of the Next Generation Science Standards in elementary science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 799-818.

King, K., Hanuscin, D., & Cisterna, D. (In Press). What properties matter? Exploring essential properties of matter. Science & Children.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington D.C.

National Research Council. 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536.

Lynch, M. (1997). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.

Nollmeyer, G. E., & Bangert, A. (2015). Assessing K-5 elementary teachers understanding and readiness to teach the new framework for science education. The Researcher, 27(2), 7-13.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Reiser, B. J. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Invitational Research Symposium on Assessment, K-12 Center at ETS. Retrieved from http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser.pdf

Ricketts, A. (2014). Preservice elementary teachers’ ideas about scientific practices. Science & Education, 23, 2119-2135.

Smith, J., & Nadelson, L. (2017). Finding alignment: The perceptions and integration of the next generation science standards practices by elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 117, 194-203.

van Drie., J. H., Bijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practice and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158.

Windschitl, M., Schwarz, C., & Passmore, C. (2014). Supporting the implementation of the next generation science standards (NGSS) through research: Preservice teacher education. Retrieved from https://narst.org/ngsspapers/preservice.cfm

Winkler, A. (2002). Division in the ranks: Standardized testing draws lines between new and veteran teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 219-225.

 

Piloting an Adaptive Learning Platform with Elementary/Middle Science Methods

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Vick M.E. (2019). Piloting an adaptive learning platform with elementary/middle science methods. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/piloting-an-adaptive-learning-platform-with-elementary-middle-science-methods/

by Matthew E. Vick, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Abstract

Adaptive learning allows students to learn in customized, non-linear pathways. Students demonstrate prior knowledge and thus focus their learning on challenging content. They are continually assessed with low stakes questions allowing for identification of content mastery levels. A science methods course for preservice teachers piloted the use of adaptive learning. Design and implementation are described. Instructors need to realistically consider the time required to redesign a course in an adaptive learning system and to develop varied and numerous assessment questions. Overall, students had positive feelings toward the use of adaptive learning. Their mastery levels were not as high as anticipated by the instructor. The student outcomes on their summative assessment did not show high levels of transfer of the key content.

Keywords: Adaptive Learning, Science Methods, Pedagogy, Course Design

Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.

Become a member or renew your membership

References

Anderson, P. (n.d.).  Bozeman Science. Retrieved from http://www.bozemanscience.com/next-generation-science-standards/

Bybee, R. (2002). Learning science and the science of learning.  Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Chen, B, Bastedo, K., Kirkley, D., Stull, C., & Tojo, J. (2017, August). Designing personalized adaptive learning courses at the University of Central Florida.  Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/8/designing-personalized-adaptive-learning-courses-at-the-university-of-central-florida

Dziuban, C. Howlin, C., Johnson, C., & Moskal, P. (2017, December, 18). An adaptive learning partnership.  EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/12/an-adaptive-learning-partnership

Dziuban, C.D., Moskal, P.D., Cassisi, J., & Fawcett, A.  (2016, September). Adaptive learning in psychology: Wayfinding in the digital age. Online Learning, 3, 74-96.

Dziuban, C.D., Moskla, P.D., & Hartman, J. (2016, September 30). Adapting to learn, learning to adapt.  Research bulletin. Louisville, CO: ECAR.

Educause Learning Initiative (ELI). (2017, January). 7 Things You Should Know About Adaptive Learning. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/1/7-things-you-should-know-about-adaptive-learning

Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The Science Teacher 70(6), 39-72.

Feldman, M. (2013, December 17). What faculty should know about adaptive learning. e-Literate blog. Retrieved from https://mfeldstein.com/faculty-know-adaptive-learning/

Haysom, J., & Bowen, M. (2010). Predict, observe, explain: Activities enhancing scientific understanding. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Howlin, C., & Lunch, D. (2014). A framework for the delivery of personalized adaptive content.  In 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL): 1-5. Retreieved from http://realizeitlearning.com/papers/FrameworkPersonalizedAdaptiveContent.pdf

Konicek-Moran, R., & Keeley, P. (2015). Teaching for conceptual understanding in science.  Arlington, VA:  NSTA Press.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ogle, D.M. 1986.  K-W-L:  A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Richhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: how to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sloan, A. & Anderson, L. (2018, June 18). Adaptive learning unplugged: Why instructors matter more than ever. EDUCASE Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/6/adaptive-learning-unplugged-why-instructors-matter-more-than-ever

Wiggins, G. P.,  & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA:  ASCD.

 

Science Units of Study with a Language Lens: Preparing Teachers for Diverse Classrooms

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Heineke, A.J., & McTighe, J. (2019). Science units of study with a language lens: Preparing teachers for diverse classrooms. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/science-units-of-study-with-a-language-lens-preparing-teachers-for-diverse-classrooms/

by Amy J. Heineke, Loyola University Chicago; & Jay McTighe, McTighe & Associates Consulting

Abstract

Recent educational policy reforms have reinvigorated the conversation regarding the role of language in the science classroom. In schools, the Next Generation Science Standards have prompted pedagogical shifts yielding language-rich science and engineering practices. At universities, newly required performance-based assessments have led teacher educators to consider the role of academic language in subject-specific teaching and learning. Simultaneous to these policy changes, the population has continued to diversify, with schools welcoming students who speak hundreds of different languages and language varieties at home, despite English continuing as the primary medium of instruction in science classrooms. Responding to these policy and demographic shifts, we have designed an innovation to prepare teachers and teacher candidates to design instruction that promotes students’ disciplinary language development during rigorous and meaningful science instruction. We add a language lens to the widely used Understanding by Design® framework, emphasizing inclusion and integration with what teachers already do to design science curriculum and instruction, rather than an add-on initiative that silos language development apart from content learning. This language lens merges the principles of culturally and linguistically responsive practice with the three stages of backward instructional design to support educators in designing effective and engaging science instruction that promotes language development and is accessible to the growing number of students from linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Introduction

In science classrooms spanning urban, suburban, and rural regions, students enter with ever diversifying cultural and linguistic backgrounds (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2010). In the context of the United States, 20% of students speak a language other than English at home, with half of these students considered English learners (ELs) due to still-developing English proficiency as measured by standardized tests of listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Linquanti & Cook, 2013; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2015). Despite the benefits of linguistic diversity in schools, these demographic shifts provide unique challenges for science teachers, who typically mediate students’ scientific learning, understanding, and achievement using the English language (Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). To ensure that students have equitable access to science content, teachers must consider and account for language in their daily classroom instruction (Heineke & McTighe, 2018).

Concurrent to the diversification of schools, science education as a field has embraced a vision of students learning and doing science through language-rich scientific and engineering practices, as evidenced by the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC], 2013) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Indeed, the shift to the NGSS has resulted in instructional foci on science and engineering practices that simultaneously involve both scientific sense-making and language use (e.g., asking questions, constructing explanations, communicating information; Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2010). The resulting practice-oriented classroom thus serves as a rich language-learning and science-learning setting where science teachers are not perceived as language teachers but rather “supporters of the language learning that occurs in a content-rich and discourse-rich classroom environment” (Quinn et al., 2010, p. 1). Since the shift to the NGSS, scholars have indicated that explicit emphasis on language development is indicative of high-quality science instruction that effectively supports all students’ learning, including ELs (e.g., Lee, Llosa, Jiang, Haas, O’Connor, & Van Boonem, 2016; Maerten, Rivera, Ahn, Lanier, Diaz, & Lee, 2016; Zwiep & Straits, 2013). But achieving this practice requires concomitant teacher education that prepares science teachers to integrate language in instructional design and implementation (e.g., Stoddart, Solís, Tolbert, & Bravo, 2010; Tolbert, Stoddart, Lyon, & Solís, 2014).

Seeking to respond to the diversifying student population and changing educational policy context of teaching content and language in disciplinary classrooms, we have added a language lens to Understanding by Design® framework that already supports the design of effective instruction in thousands of schools across the country and world. Understanding by Design (UbD) prompts educators to design rigorous and authentic instruction that deepens students’ learning and understanding by beginning with the end in mind (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Curriculum designers progress through stages of instructional design – defining learning goals in Stage 1, designing assessments in Stage 2, and planning instruction in Stage 3 – as a means to promote meaningful learning that transfers to contexts beyond the classroom. In this article, we introduce the UbD framework with a language lens in the context of science teacher education. We (a) sketch the components of UbD with a language lens, (b) detail the integration of this approach to prepare teachers, (c) introduce the learning and application of two science teachers, and (d) share recommendations for implementation in science teacher education.

Backward Design for Learning and Language Development

UbD with a language lens uses the existing design framework, but adds a language lens using principles of culturally and linguistically responsive practice to prioritize diverse students while planning instruction that mediates the disciplinary learning and language development of all students (Heineke & McTighe, 2018). In this way, we begin with students, embracing and responding to their unique backgrounds, abilities, strengths, and needs. Grounded in culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010) and linguistically responsive teaching (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-González, 2008), the pre-planning component centers on getting to know learners to prompt dynamic instructional design that taps into students’ background knowledge and experiences, including language backgrounds and proficiencies. Reflecting the foundational basis of responsive and rigorous science instruction, practitioners need to recognize the diversity of students, including students’ language backgrounds, cultural background knowledge, and previous science learning and experiences. In this way, pre-planning involves amassing and analyzing data on students, including formal data (e.g., cumulative files, standardized test scores) and anecdotal data (e.g., observations, conversations).

Following pre-planning, Stage 1 begins with the end in mind by prompting educators to identify the desired results of the unit, including goals for transfer, meaning, and acquisition. Based on established goals (i.e., NGSS), transfer goals prompt students to transfer and use scientific learning beyond focal units of study, meaning goals involve students grappling with essential questions to build deep understandings about scientific concepts, principles, and processes, and acquisition goals focus on related knowledge and skills, which serve as building blocks to achieve larger transfer and meaning goals.

When adding the language lens to Stage 1, we maintain the rigor of scientific learning goals, which promotes the high expectations for all students at the heart of this approach. But science prompts complex and nuanced uses of language, including discipline-specific words, phrases, sentence structures, and text features (see Table 1). In this way, while upholding the high expectations for all students’ disciplinary learning, we want to explicitly target the development of pertinent scientific language, which fosters students’ academic language development and ensures equitable access to content. To accomplish this in instructional design, we (a) analyze the complex and demanding language that students need to achieve the unit’s transfer and meaning goals and (b) target the development of that language by writing objectives focused on language functions (e.g., analyze, critique) and language features (e.g., vocabulary, sentence structures, text features), as well as involving multiple language domains (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, writing; see Heineke & McTighe, 2018 for more information).

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
Examples of Language Designs in Science

Stage 2 of UbD centers on designing assessments for students to demonstrate progress toward the unit goals defined in Stage 1. The focal point of unit assessments, performance tasks prompt students to engage in authentic situations that require transfer of scientific learning to real-world problems and practices. As a part of these experiences, students take on particular roles (e.g., scientist, meteorologist, engineer) and use understandings of scientific concepts and processes in simulated situations aligned to the unit’s learning goals. In addition to performance tasks, supplementary evidence involves students demonstrating learning across units via various measures (e.g., tests, quizzes, academic prompts; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

When adding the language lens on Stage 2, the goal is to design and integrate assessments that (a) capture data on both scientific learning and language development, and (b) provide equitable access for all students to demonstrate understanding (Heineke & McTighe, 2018). In this way, units should include performance tasks that are language-rich, culturally responsive, and linguistically accessible. When designed for authenticity, scientific performance tasks are naturally language-rich, as students interact with peers to discuss and solve problems (i.e., listening, speaking), as well as research and share findings via presentations, proposals, dioramas, or other products (i.e., reading, writing). To ensure all students can actively participate, tasks should (b) be culturally relevant to engage learners and not require prerequisite background knowledge, and (b) have linguistic scaffolds to ensure all students can contribute and demonstrate progress regardless of language background or proficiency. In addition to performance tasks, supplementary assessments are integrated to holistically capture students’ abilities, strengths, and needs in both science and language learning.

Table 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
GRASPS Task Framework with Language Lens

In Stage 3 of UbD, teachers design learning plans that authentically facilitate student learning and understanding as aligned to Stage 1 goals and Stage 2 assessments. This includes the learning plan, which involves hands-on experiences with real-world application and differentiation based on students’ backgrounds, abilities, and needs, as well as formative assessment embedded in instruction to glean students’ learning across the unit of study. When adding the language lens to Stage 3, we strategically plan instruction to achieve unit goals, including those for disciplinary language development, while responding to the unique and diverse needs of students (Heineke & McTighe, 2018). When planning the learning trajectory of science units, the language lens prompts consideration and purposeful integration of (a) students’ cultural and linguistic background knowledge, (b) collaborative, cognitively demanding tasks that involve listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English and students’ home languages, (c) complex texts that are culturally relevant and linguistically accessible, and (d) differentiated scaffolds and supports based on students’ language backgrounds, proficiency levels, and learning preferences (Herrera, 2016; Walqui & vanLier, 2010).

Preparing Teachers for Backward Design with a Language Lens

In addition to serving as a template to design instruction for K-12 students, UbD with a language lens provides teacher educators with an approach to prepare teachers to support diverse students’ language development in science instruction. In this section, we share ways to tackle this work with teachers in training, including in-class activities and resources for building the language lens on instructional design (for more detailed information, see Heineke, Papola-Ellis, Davin, & Cohen, 2018a).

Introducing science teachers to UbD with a language lens begins with buy-in. Science teachers are typically prepared as content experts with the pedagogical content knowledge to mediate students’ scientific learning (Shulman, 1986). Because of the very nature of schools, where English as a Second Language (ESL) and English Language Arts teachers maintain the primary responsibility for teaching language, science teachers might need convincing of their role in supporting students’ language development. We have found the most poignant way to achieve buy-in is having teachers begin by exploring data related to students’ linguistic diversity. When looking at formal data like home language surveys and English proficiency scores (e.g., ACCESS), teachers recognize students’ diverse backgrounds and proficiency levels. We then have them probe the multi-faceted nature of individual learners by collecting formal and anecdotal data on students’ background knowledge, cognitive strategies, language preferences, and scientific knowledge and self-efficacy (Collier & Thomas, 2007; Herrera, 2016). Our goal is for teachers to recognize diversity, paired with the need to maintain high expectations for all.

In Stage 1, we center efforts on deconstructing teachers’ and candidates’ linguistic blind spots. Science teachers are experts within particular disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, or biology, and in the context of the United States, many are also native English speakers. Taken together, teachers may not recognize the demanding, discipline-specific language that students need to access and engage in learning and understanding. To develop teachers’ understandings through empathy, we begin by simulating what students might experience linguistically in the science classroom, asking teachers to read highly complex articles from peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data) and use them to engage in a particular task (e.g., making a scientific argument using text-based evidence). We then provide specific tools and examples of disciplinary language demands to help teachers uncover linguistic blind spots, such as WIDA’s framework (2012) for academic language at word, sentence, and discourse levels, WestEd’s detailed taxonomy of academic language functions (AACCW, 2010), and Understanding Language’s overview of NGSS language demands (Quinn et al., 2010). Finally, after building empathy and awareness for the language lens in science teaching and learning, we move into analyzing unit-specific language demands and selecting those that are important, aligned, prevalent, and versatile to scientific content to then draft language-focused objectives.

In Stage 2, we want to teachers to embrace the value of performance tasks in promoting and measuring learning, understanding, and language development (Heineke & McTighe, 2018; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This begins by getting teachers to critically evaluate the traditional testing tools that may dominate their current repertoires. We use actual assessments, such as a summative paper-and-pencil test for a unit provided in the science textbook, to analyze for cultural and linguistic biases based on pre-planning data. Once biases are determined, we discuss the need to assess students’ scientific knowledge and skills without requiring a set level of language proficiency or privileging any particular cultural background knowledge. This then springboards into the exploration of performance tasks as the preferred approach to unit assessment, specifically probing ideas within three language-rich categories (i.e., oral, written, displayed). We then use the GRASPS framework with a lens on language (Heineke & McTighe, 2018; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) for teachers to design performance tasks that align with students’ cultural background knowledge and scaffold access based on learners’ language proficiency (see Table 2). We use WIDA tools to determine developmentally appropriate language functions (i.e., Can-do descriptors; WIDA, 2016) and integrate authentic scaffolds (i.e., graphic, sensory, interactive; WIDA, 2007) to provide students’ equitable access to participate in the performance task.

For Stage 3, we want to build from what educators already know, such as inquiry-based science activities or EL-specific instructional strategies. In our experience working with teachers and candidates, this facet may be familiar based on previous coursework or professional preparation. The key is emphasizing not using a strategy for strategy’s sake, but selecting, organizing, and aligning instructional events and materials based on pre-planning data, Stage 1 goals, and Stage 2 assessments. Flexible based on the professional expertise and experience of the participants, adding a language lens to this stage centers on educators exploring the above facets (e.g., background knowledge, collaborative tasks, complex and relevant texts, differentiated supports) with the primary aim to build awareness of available approaches and resources that can enhance their current pedagogy and practice as science teachers (e.g., bilingual resources, amplification of complex texts). In addition to providing the space to explore high-quality, language-rich approaches and resources for various scientific disciplines, we model how to apply and integrate tools that align to the learning goals of instructional units of study.

The Language Lens in Action: A Closer Look at Two Science Teachers

Let’s exemplify this approach by looking at the instructional design work of two focal science teachers, who participated in a grant-funded professional development series on UbD with a language lens (see Heineke et al., 2018a, 2018b). Using the activities and resources detailed above, these teachers collaborated with colleagues across grades and disciplines to learn about UbD with a language lens and apply learning to their science classrooms.

Bridget, Elementary Science Teacher

Bridget was a sixth-grade science teacher at Wiley Elementary School, a K-6 elementary school with 1200 students in the urban Midwest. With the support of her assistant principal, she secured data to understand the culturally and linguistically diverse student population, including home language surveys and language proficiency tests (i.e., ACCESS). By exploring these data, Bridget learned that the majority of Wiley students spoke another language and approximately 45% of students were formally labeled as ELs. She was not surprised to see that Spanish was the majority language spoken by families, followed by Arabic, but learned about the rich array of linguistic diversity in the community with languages including French, Urdu, Tagalog, Bosnian, Hindi, Bengali, Farsi, Yoruba, Serbian, Romanian, Malay, Gujarati, Korean, Mongolian, and Burmese. Bridget also discerned that 50 of her 54 sixth graders used another language at home, including 10 labeled as ELs with 5 dual-labeled as having special needs.

Bridget chose to work on the first science unit of the school year on space systems, which merged science, engineering, and mathematics principles with the goal for sixth graders to use data and models to understand systems and relationships in the natural world. Per the suggestion of the instructor, she brought a previous unit draft to apply her evolving understandings of UbD with a language lens. Having already deconstructed her expert blind spot to flesh out the conceptual understandings pertinent to science standards and transfer goals, she considered her linguistic blind spot with the support of the instructor and other science educators. Bridget found having examples of science language demands (see Table 1) to be helpful in this process, using the categories and types of word-, sentence-, and discourse-level demands to analyze the disciplinary language her students needed to reach Stage 1 goals, including vocabulary (e.g., gravitational pull), nominalization (e.g., illuminate/illumination), idioms (e.g., everything under the sun), sentence structures (e.g., compare/contrast), and informational text features (e.g., diagrams). After pinpointing these knowledge indicators, she used data on her students’ language proficiency to draft skill indicators with attention to particular language functions (e.g., explain, compare) and domains (e.g., reading, writing).

After adding specific knowledge and skill indicators for language development in Stage 1, Bridget then shifted her attention to Stage 2 assessments. Following exploration of a multitude of language-rich performance task options, including those that prioritize oral, written, and displayed language (Heineke & McTighe, 2018), she decided to redesign her primary unit assessment using the GRASPS framework with a language lens (see Table 2). The resultant Mars Rover Team task (see supplemental unit) aimed to engage her sixth graders in authentic and collaborative practice with components strategically designed to promote disciplinary language use across domains (e.g., listening and speaking in teams, reading data tables, writing presentations) and scaffold for students’ language proficiency (e.g., drawings, technology, small groups). She planned to evaluate the resultant tasks for precise disciplinary language, including the vocabulary, nominalization, and other language features pinpointed in Stage 1 goals. In addition to the performance task, Bridget also added the collection of supplemental evidence to the unit of study, specifically aiming to collect and evaluate data on students’ scientific language development via journal prompts, personal glossaries, and resultant artifacts.

The final facet of the professional development focused on Stage 3, where Bridget revised the unit’s learning plan to target demanding disciplinary language, integrate students’ cultural backgrounds, and differentiate for multiple language proficiencies. Having embraced an inquiry-based approach to teaching science, she already had frequent opportunities for students to collaboratively engage in hands-on exploration and application of scientific concepts. By participating in language-focused professional development, she enriched students’ inquiry by adding opportunities for them to use their home languages as resources for learning, as well as tap into culturally specific background knowledge. For example, she modified her use of space mission notebooks to include personal glossaries for students to document pertinent scientific language, including translations into their home languages. Bridget also sought out and incorporated complex and culturally relevant texts, such as space-related myths, legends, and folktales from students’ countries of origin in Asia, Africa, and South America. Designed with her unique and diverse students in mind, the Stage 3 learning plan outlined her instructional trajectory for students to successfully achieve unit goals.

Jillian, Secondary Science Teacher

Jillian was a science teacher at Truman High School, a neighborhood public high school situated in a vibrantly diverse community in the urban Midwest. She began by exploring the rich diversity of her workplace, learning that 80% of the 1350 students use a language other than English home, representing 35 different languages. Spanish was the primary home language spoken, and 75% of the student body identified as Latina/o, but from countries spanning North, South, and Central America, as well as the Caribbean. Jillian also discovered that of that larger group of bilingual students, 25% are labeled as ELs, spanning a range of proficiency levels across language domains and including both newcomers to the United States and long-term ELs who had enrolled in neighborhood schools since the primary grades.

Jillian decided to focus on a weather and climate unit previously drafted for her earth and space science class. Working with other secondary teachers and using graphic organizers of academic language functions (AACCW, 2010) and features (WIDA, 2012), Jillian analyzed the unit’s transfer and meaning goals for language demands. She noted that her students would need to (a) interpret scientific evidence requiring diverse text features like maps, graphs, and charts, (b) describe weather using words that may be familiar from other contexts (e.g., humidity, temperature), (c) compare climates between local and global settings using distinct measurement systems (i.e., Fahrenheit, Celsius). From that analysis, she pinpointed the linguistic knowledge that her students would need to develop to access the larger learning goals, including weather-based text features and vocabulary terms and comparative sentence structures. She then refined skill indicators to target her students’ language development simultaneous to content, including analyzing weather-related data, interpreting weather patterns, and comparing climates. In this way, Jillian maintained the rigor of scientific learning while adding a lens on disciplinary language development to the Stage 1 goals.

Jillian wanted to design a performance task aligned to unit goals. After analyzing the paper-and-pencil test used by the previous earth science teacher, she realized the need to design an authentic, language-rich task that actively engaged her students in listening, speaking, reading, and writing focused on the disciplinary topics of weather and climate. Reflecting the instructor’s consistent messaging regarding responsive practice, she aimed to tap into her students’ rich sources of background knowledge, including their various global experiences and multilingual backgrounds. Using the GRASPS framework, she drafted a performance task where learners take on roles as potential weather reporters who use multiple sources of evidence to describe how weather affects human life around the globe. Students needed to use disciplinary language (in English and home languages) to compare and contrast how weather and climate influenced one facet of human life in various contexts. To ensure she had data to measure progress toward all Stage 1 goals, Jillian integrated opportunities to collect supplementary evidence throughout the unit.

After refining her goals and assessments with a language lens, Jillian wanted a learning plan that was rigorous, engaging, and interesting for her diverse students. Based on pre-planning data, she wove in students’ cultural and linguistic background knowledge. She began with a context-specific hook, prompting students to compare their city with other locations they had lived or traveled, and continued this strand by using global inquiry teams to analyze weather by continent and expert groups based on learners’ various countries of origin. Jillian then used approaches and resources explored during workshops to attend to disciplinary language, including consistent teacher modeling and student application with strategic scaffolds, such as sentence frames and graphic organizers. Having used the UbD template throughout the process of learning and applying the language lens, she completed a unit with a consistent and deliberate lens on scientific language. In this way, Jillian strategically designed experiences to support learners in reaching unit goals for learning and language development.

Conclusions & Recommendations

UbD with a language lens aims to provide all students with equitable access to rigorous learning and language development (Heineke & McTighe, 2018). By adding a language lens to the widely used UbD framework, educators learn to maintain the rigor of science teaching and learning while attending to disciplinary language demands (Heineke & McTighe, 2018; Lee et al., 2013). This timely innovation in science teacher education corresponds with current policy initiatives in K-12 schools and universities, including the NGSS that emphasize language-rich scientific and engineering practices (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) that prioritizes academic language embedded in content instruction (SCALE, 2018). In line with these broad policy shifts that bolster the role of language in science teaching and learning, this framework can be used with K-12 in-service and pre-service teachers, whether approached through professional development or university coursework.

Application in Practice

We originally designed and implemented this approach through a grant-funded, professional development project with in-service teachers working in 32 public schools in the urban Midwest, which included Bridget, Jillian, and other teachers spanning elementary, middle, and high schools in culturally and linguistically diverse communities (see Heineke et al., 2018a for more details on the project). Findings indicated that teachers, as well as participating school and district leaders, developed awareness and knowledge of discipline-specific language development, pedagogical skills to effectively integrate language in content instruction, and leadership abilities to shape implementation in their unique educational settings (Heineke et al., 2018b). By integrating the language lens into the existing UbD template, of which they were already familiar and comfortable in using, teachers embraced language development as a part of their regular teaching repertoires, rather than an add-on initiative.

We are currently integrating this approach into a university pre-service teacher education program, and our preliminary work indicates close alignment between the edTPA and UbD with a language lens. Of the many rubrics that are used to assess teacher candidates on the edTPA, over half directly relate to the components of the approach shared above, including planning for content understandings, knowledge of students, supporting academic language development, planning assessment, analyzing student learning, analyzing students’ academic language understanding and use, and use of assessment to inform instruction (SCALE, 2018). In addition to our previous research with in-service teachers, we plan to collect data on the implementation of UbD with a language lens with pre-service teachers, investigating how the approach and related professional learning experiences facilitate understandings, knowledge, skills, and dispositions for supporting language development in the science classroom.

Suggestions for Implementation

Based on our experiences in designing and implementing this approach, we have suggestions for science teacher educators who endeavor to prepare teachers and candidates for instructional design with a language lens. First, use the UbD template as a common tool to mediate both learning and application, adding the language lens to what educators already know and understand as sound instructional design (see Heineke & McTighe, 2018 as a potential resource to mediate teachers’ learning). Next, utilize the expertise of the educators themselves and build capacity more broadly across schools and programs, prompt collaborative learning and application in science-specific groups of teachers and candidates, as well as more diverse conglomerations of educators to promote co-planning and co-teaching with ESL, special education, or STEM teachers (see Heineke et al., 2018a). Finally, to avoid the conceptualization of language as an add-on initiative, integrate the language lens into science methods coursework and professional development for teacher candidates and teachers, respectively.

When approaching this professional learning in either coursework or professional development, we recommend expending ample efforts to initially build the needed buy-in that science teachers indeed play a role in supporting students’ language development. Since the educational institution has long maintained silos that separate language and content, those need to be broken down for educators to embrace learning and application to practice. Awareness of the role of the language in scientific learning can support these efforts, which can be effectively developed via simulations that build educators’ empathy for students’ interaction with discipline-specific language. When teachers are put in the position of students, such as needing to maneuver complex journal articles, they begin to recognize the need to attend to language in science teaching. Finally, emphasize the importance of students’ assets and teachers’ high expectations. The purpose of the language lens is not to reduce rigor in the science classroom, but rather to enhance instruction and provide equitable access for all learners.

References

Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center at WestEd (AACCW). (2010). Language for achievement: A framework for academic English language [Handout]. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2007). Predicting second language academic success in English using the prism model. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, Part 1 (pp. 333–348). New York: Springer.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Heineke, A., & McTighe, J. (2018). Using Understanding by Design in the culturally and linguistically diverse classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Heineke, A. J., Papola-Ellis, A., Cohen, S., & Davin, K. (2018a). Linguistically responsive professional development: An apprenticeship model. Improving Schools, 21, 32-47.

Heineke, A. J., Papola-Ellis, A., Davin, K. J., Cohen, S., Roudebush, A., Wright-Costello, B., & Fendt. C. (2018b). Language matters: Developing educators’ expertise for English learners in linguistically diverse communities. Language, Culture, and Curriculum. DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2018.1493493

Herrera, S. G. (2016). Biography-driven culturally responsive teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 0013189X13480524.

Lee, O., Llosa, L., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O’Connor, C., & Van Booven, C. D. (2016), Elementary teachers’ science knowledge and instructional practices: Impact of an intervention focused on English language learners. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 53, 579–597.

Linquanti, R., & Cook, H. G. (2013). Toward a “common definition of English learner”: Guidance for states and state assessment consortia in defining and addressing policy and technical issues and options. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-González, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361-373.

Maerten-Rivera, J., Ahn, S., Lanier, K., Diaz, J., & Lee, O. (2016). Effect of a multiyear intervention on science achievement of all students including English language learners. Elementary School Journal, 116, 600–624.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678; Common Core of Data, “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education.” Table 204.27.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2010). The growing number of English learner students 1998/99 – 2008/09. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Quinn, H., Lee, Okhee, & Valdés, G. (2010). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE). (2018). edTPA: Making good choices. Retrieved from https://www.edtpa.com/Content/Docs/edTPAMGC.pdf

Stoddart, T., Solís, J. L., Tolbert, S., & Bravo, M. (2010). A framework for the effective science teaching of English language learners in elementary schools. In D. Sunal, C. Sunal, & E. Wright (Eds.), Teaching Science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 Classrooms. Albany, NY: Information Age Publishing.

Tolbert, S., Stoddart, T., Lyon, E. G., & Solís, J. (2014). The Next Generation Science Standards, Common Core State Standards, and English Learners: Using the SSTELLA framework to prepare secondary science teachers. Issues in Teacher Education, 23, 65-89.

Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco: WestEd.

WIDA. (2007). English language proficiency standards and resource guide. Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=4

WIDA. (2012). Amplification of the English language development standards: Kindergarten–grade 12. Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=540

WIDA. (2016). Can-do descriptors: Key uses edition, grades K–12. Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=2043

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Zwiep, S. G., & Straits, W. J. (2013). Inquiry science: The gateway to English language proficiency. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1315-1331.