Introducing Preservice Science Teachers to Computer Science Concepts and Instruction Using Pseudocode

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Brauer, K., Kruse, J., & Lauer, D. (2020). Introducing preservice science teachers to computer science concepts and instruction using pseudocode. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/introducing-preservice-science-teachers-to-computer-science-concepts-and-instruction-using-pseudocode/

by Kayla Brauer, Drake University; Jerrid Kruse, Drake University; & David Lauer, Drake University

Abstract

Preservice science teachers are often asked to teach STEM content. While coding is one of the more popular aspects of the technology portion of STEM, many preservice science teachers are not prepared to authentically engage students in this content due to their lack of experience with coding. In an effort to remedy this situation, this article outlines an activity we developed to introduce preservice science teachers to computer science concepts such as pseudocode, looping, algorithms, conditional statements, problem decomposition, and debugging. The activity and discussion also support preservice teachers in developing pedagogical acumen for engaging K-12 students with computer science concepts. Examples of preservice science teachers’ work illustrate their engagement and struggles with the ideas and anecdotes provide insight into how the preservice science teachers practiced teaching computer science concepts with 6th grade science students. Explicit connections to the Next Generation Science Standards are made to illustrate how computer science lessons within a STEM course might be used to meet Engineering, Technology, and Application of Science standards within 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

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Project 2061, Science for all Americans.

Ballen, S. (2007, December 26). Whac-a-mole [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-jaOfIHGko

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Canada: British Columbia.

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 61.

Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., & Yiu, C. (2017). A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3, 154-171.

Kruse, J., Edgerly, H., Easter, J., & Wilcox, J. (2017). Myths about the nature of technology and engineering. The Science Teacher84(5), 39.

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

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

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism: Ablex publishing corporation.

Roggio, B. (2014, Dec 27). Pseudocode examples. Retrieved from https://www.unf.edu/~broggio/cop2221/2221pseu.htm

Rubinstein, A., & Chor, B. (2014). Computational thinking in life science education. PLoS computational biology, 10(11), e1003897.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60, 565-568.

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.

 

Partnering for Engineering Teacher Education

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Smetana, L.K., Nelson, C., Whitehouse, P., & Koin, K. (2019). Partnering for engineering teacher education. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(2).     Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/partnering-for-engineering-teacher-education/

by Lara K. Smetana, Loyola University Chicago; Cynthia Nelson, Loyola University Chicago; Patricia Whitehouse, William C. Goudy Technology Academy; & Kim Koin, Chicago Children's Museum

Abstract

The aim of this article is to describe a specific approach to preparing elementary teacher candidates to teach engineering through a field-based undergraduate course that incorporates various engineering experiences. First, candidates visit a children’s museum to engage in engineering challenges and reflect on their experiences as learners as well as teachers. The majority of course sessions occur on-site in a neighborhood elementary school with a dedicated engineering lab space and teacher, where candidates help facilitate small group work to develop their own understandings about engineering and instructional practices specific to science and engineering. Candidates also have the option to attend the elementary school’s Family STEM Night which serves as another example of how informal engineering experiences can complement formal school-day experiences as well as how teachers and schools work with families to support children’s learning. Overall, candidates have shown increased confidence in engineering education as demonstrated by quantitative data collected through a survey instrument measuring teacher beliefs regarding teaching engineering self-efficacy. The survey data was complemented by qualitative data collected through candidates’ written reflections and interviews. This approach to introducing elementary teacher candidates to engineering highlights the value of a) capitalizing on partnerships, b) immersing candidates as learners in various educational settings with expert educators, c) providing opportunities to observe, enact, and analyze the enactment of high-leverage instructional practices, and d) incorporating opportunities for independent and collaborative reflection.

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

Birmingham, D., Smetana, L.K., & Coleman, E.R. (2017). “From the beginning, I felt empowered”: Incorporating an ecological approach to learning in elementary science teacher education. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9664-9

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99, 98-120.

Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of pre service teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 177-192.

deFigueiredo, A. D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of engineering. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1314224

Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, R. A. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press

Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding ‘‘Core practices’’ and ‘‘practice-based’’ teacher education learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 357–368

Goldman S. & Zielezinski M.B. (2016) Teaching with design thinking: Developing new vision and approaches to twenty-first century learning. In A.L. & M.J. (Eds) Connecting science and engineering education practices in meaningful ways. Switzerland: Springer.

Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 2055-2100.

Jones, M. G. & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067-1104). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 226-243.

Lottero-Perdue, Pamela (2017). Engineering design into science classrooms. In Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point (pp.207-268). New York: Routledge.

Michaels, S., & O’Conner, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.

Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1-13.

Engineering is Elementary [EiE]. (2011). Engineering is elementary curriculum units. Retrieved from https://www.eie.org/eie-curriculum

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. 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. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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

Osisioma, I. & Moscovici, H. (2008). Profiling the beliefs of the forgotten teachers: An analysis of intern teachers’ frameworks for urban science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 285–311.

Rosebery, A. & Ballenger, C. (2008). Creating a foundation through student conversation. In A. Rosebery and B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners, pp. 1-12. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Slivovsky, K., Koin, K., & Bortoli, N. (2017). Tinkering lab overview. Lecture. Chicago, IL.

Smetana, L.K., Birmingham, D., Rouleau, H., Carlson, J., & Phillips, S. (2017). Cultural institutions as partners in initial elementary science teacher preparation. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/cultural-institutions-as-partners-in-initial-elementary-science-teacher-preparation/

Smetana, L.K., Chadde, J., Goldfiend, W., & Nelson, C. (2012). Family style engineering. Science & Children, 50(4), 67-71.

Smetana, L.K. & Nelson, C. (2018). Exploring elementary teacher candidates’ understandings and self-efficacy around engineering education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Yoon, S.Y., Evans, M.G. & Strobel, J. (2014). Validation of the teaching engineering self-efficacy scale for K-12 teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Engineering Education, 103, 463-485.

Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 376-382

A Blended Professional Development Model for Teachers to Learn, Implement, and Reflect on NGSS Practices

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Dare, E.A., Ellis, J.A., & Tyrrell, J.L. (2018). A blended professional development model for teachers to learn, implement, and reflect on NGSS practices. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/a-blended-professional-development-model-for-teachers-to-learn-implement-and-reflect-on-ngss-practices/

by Emily A. Dare, Michigan Technological University; Joshua A. Ellis, Michigan Technological University; & Jennie L. Tyrrell, Michigan Technological University

Abstract

In this paper we describe a professional development project with secondary physics and physical science teachers. This professional development supported fifteen teachers in learning the newly adopted Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) through integrating physical science content with engineering and engineering practices. Our professional development utilized best practices in both face-to-face and virtual meetings to engage teachers in learning, implementing, and reflecting on their practice through discussion, video sharing, and micro-teaching. This paper provides details of our approach, along with insights from the teacher participants. We also suggest improvements for future practice in professional development experiences similar to this one. This article may be of use to anyone in NGSS or NGSS-like states working with either pre- or in-service science teachers.

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

Angle, J. (2011). Drivers, start your glue guns: Using model stock cars to explore motion and force concepts. Science Scope, 35(4), 45–51.

Banilower E. R., Heck D. J., & Weiss I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 375–395.

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.

Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 369–387.

Cantrell & Hughes. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy implementation: An exploration of the effects of extended professional development with coaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 95-127.

Capps D. K., Crawford B.A., & Constas M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 291–318.

Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education. (2017). Emerging design principles for online and blended teacher professional development in K-12 STEM education. Waltham, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved from http://cadrek12.org/resources/emerging-design-principles-online-and-blended-teacher-professional-development-k-12-stem.

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.

Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W.S. (2014) Teaching Engineering Practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 197-210.

Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Driven by beliefs: Understanding challenges physical science teachers face when integrating engineering and physics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(2), 47-61.

Dare, E. A., Rafferty, D., Scheidel, E., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). Flood rescue: A gender-inclusive integrated STEM curricular unit. K-12 STEM Education, 3, 193-203.

Darling-Hammond. L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 235-240.

Ellis, J., Dare, E., Voigt, M., & Roehrig, G. (2015). Rethinking the egg drop with NGSS science and engineering practices. Michigan Science Teachers Association Journal, 60(2), 61-66.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403-434.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C. , Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001).What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

Hirsch, L. S., Carpinelli, J. D., Kimmel, H., Rockland, R., & Bloom, J. (2007). The differential effects of pre-engineering curricula on middle school students’ attitudes to and knowledge of engineering careers. Published in the proceeding of 2007 Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Koszalka, T., Wu, Y., & Davidson, B. (2007). Instructional design issues in a cross-institutional collaboration within a distributed engineering educational environment. In, T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of Work Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1650–1657). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Kubitskey, B. (2006). Extended professional development for systemic reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practice, 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.

Ortmann, L. (2015). Disciplinary literacies in STEM integration: An interpretive study of discourses within classroom communities of practice (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (3727938)

Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, pp. 401–406.

Schnittka, C. G. (2009). Save the penguins STEM teaching kit: An introduction to thermodynamics and heat transfer. Auburn, AL: Auburn University.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books.

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, pp. 963–980.

York-Barr, J., Sommers, W.A., Ghere, G.S., & Montie, J.K. (2006). Reflective practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Cobern and Loving’s Card Exchange Revisited: Using Literacy Strategies to Support and Enhance Teacher Candidates’ Understanding of NOS

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Allaire, F.S. (2018). Cobern and Loving’s card exchange revisited: Using literacy strategies to support and enhance teacher candidates’ understanding of NOS. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/cobern-and-lovings-card-exchange-revisited-using-literacy-strategies-to-support-and-enhance-teacher-candidates-understanding-of-nos/

by Franklin S. Allaire, University of Houston-Downtown

Abstract

The nature of science (NOS) has long been an essential part of science methods courses for elementary and secondary teachers. Consensus has grown among science educators and organizations that developing teacher candidate’s NOS knowledge should be one of the main objectives of science teaching and learning. Cobern and Loving’s (1998) Card Exchange is a method of introducing science teacher candidates to the NOS. Both elementary and secondary teacher candidates have enjoyed the activity and found it useful in addressing NOS - a topic they tend to avoid. However, the word usage and dense phrasing of NOS statements were an issue that caused the Card Exchange to less effective than intended. This article describes the integration of constructivist cross-curricular literacy strategies in the form of a NOS statement review based on Cobern and Loving’s Card Exchange statements. The use of literacy strategies transforms the Card Exchange into a more genuine, meaningful, student-centered activity to stimulate NOS discussions with teacher candidates.

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

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ardasheva, Y., Norton-Meier, L., & Hand, B. (2015). Negotiation, embeddedness, and non-threatening learning environments as themes of science and language convergence for English language learners. Studies in Science Education, 51, 201-249.

Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. (2017). Developing science-specific, technical vocabulary of high school newcomer English learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 252-271.

Clough, M. (2011). Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56-60.

Cobern, W. W. (1991). Introducing Teachers to the Philosophy of Science: The Card Exchange. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 45-47.

Collier, S., Burston, B., & Rhodes, A. (2016). Teaching STEM as a second language: Utilizing SLA to develop equitable learning for all students. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10, 257-273.

Harmon, J., Hedrick, W., & Wood, K. (2005). Research on Vocabulary Instruction in the Content Areas: Implications for Struggling Readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 261-280.

Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ Nature of Science Implementation Practices 2–5 Years After Having Completed an Intensive Science Education Program. Science Education, 97, 271–309.

Jung, K., & Brown, J. (2016). Examining the Effectiveness of an Academic Language Planning Organizer as a Tool for Planning Science Academic Language Instruction and Supports. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 847-872.

Miller, D., Scott, C., & McTigue, E. (2016). Writing in the Secondary-Level Disciplines: a Systematic Review of Context, Cognition, and Content. Educational Psychology Review, 1-38.

Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96-107.

Nagy, W. (1988). Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting concepts, and Core Ideas. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:

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

National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

National Science Teacher’s Association. (2012). NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/preservice/

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

Reed, D. K., Petscher, Y., & Truckenmiller, A. J. (2016). The Contribution of General Reading Ability to Science Achievement. Reading Research Quarterly.

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

Taboada, A. (2012). Relationships of general vocabulary, science vocabulary, and student questioning with science comprehension in students with varying levels of English proficiency. Instructional Science, 40, 901-923.

Vacca, R., Vacca, J., & Mraz, M. (2016). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum: Pearson.

Van Laere, E., Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2014). The role of students’ home language in science achievement: A multilevel approach. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2772-2794.