Theory to Process to Practice: A Collaborative, Reflective, Practical Strategy Supporting Inservice Teacher Growth

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inouye, M., & Houseal, A. (2019). Theory to process to practice: A collaborative, reflective, practical strategy supporting inservice teacher growth. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/theory-to-process-to-practice-a-collaborative-reflective-practical-strategy-supporting-inservice-teacher-growth/

by Martha Inouye, University of Wyoming; & Ana Houseal, University of Wyoming

Abstract

To successfully implement the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), more than 3.4 million in-service educators in the United States will have to understand the instructional shifts needed to adopt these new standards. Here, based on our recent experiences with teachers, we introduce a professional learning (PL) strategy that employs collaborative video analysis to help teachers adjust their instruction to promote the vision and learning objectives of the Standards. Building on effective professional development characteristics, we created and piloted it with teachers who were working on making student thinking visible. In our setting, it has been effective in providing relevant, sustainable changes to in-service teachers' classroom instruction.

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

Appleby, J. (1998). Becoming critical friends: Reflections of an NSRF coach. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University

Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Banilower, E. R., Smith, S. P., 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.

Beaudoin, C., Johnston, P., Jones, L., & Waggett, R. (2013). University support of secondary stem teachers through professional development. Education, 133, 330-339.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

Bybee, R (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal for Science Teacher Education, 25, 211-221.

Cormas, P. C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2011). The effective research-based characteristics of professional development of the national science foundation’s GK-12 program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 255-272.

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 381–391.

Hestness, E., McDonald, R. C., Breslyn, W., McGinnis, J. R., & Mouza, C. (2014). Science teacher professional development in climate change education informed by the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Geoscience Education62, 319-329.

Houseal, A. K., Abd El Khalick, F., & Destefano, L. (2014). Impact of a Student-Teacher-Scientist Partnership on students’ and teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 51, 84-115.

Keeley, Page. (2008). Science formative assessment: 75 practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Krajcik, J. (2015). Three-dimensional instruction: Using a new type of teaching in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 83(8), 50–52.

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

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, R. G., Curwen, M. S., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2014). Cultivating primary students’ scientific thinking through sustained teacher professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 317-326.

Nagle, B. (2013). Preparing high school students for the interdisciplinary nature of modern biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education12, 144-147.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Science Teachers Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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

NRC. (2015). Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18802/guide-to-implementing-the-next-generation-science-standards

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

Reiser, B.J. (2013). What Professional Development Strategies Are Needed for Successful Implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Paper written for the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment, September 24-25, Educational Testing Service, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser.pdf.

Roth, K., Garnier, H., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117-148.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.

Project Zero. (2016). Visible Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/research/Vislhink.htm

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., and Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

 

An Integrated Project-Based Methods Course: Access Points and Challenges for Preservice Science and Mathematics Teachers

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Rhodes, S., & Kier, M.W. (2018). An integrated project-based methods course: Access points and challenges for preservice science and mathematics teachers. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/an-integrated-project-based-methods-course-access-points-and-challenges-for-preservice-science-and-mathematics-teachers/

by Sam Rhodes, William and Mary; & Meredith W. Kier, William and Mary

Abstract

Two instructors in a secondary preservice teacher preparation program address the need to better prepare future teachers for the increasing role project-based learning has taken on in K-12 education. We describe an integrated instructional planning course where a mathematics educator and a science educator collaborated to teach preservice teachers how to design integrated project-based lessons. We found that the preservice teachers valued the integrated approach but had difficulty translating their learning to practice in traditional, clinical-based field placements. We report on recommendations for future course iterations.

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

Allen, J. M., & Wright, S. E. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher education practicum. Teachers and Teaching, 20, 136-151.

Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59 (6), 25-27.

Barab, S. A. (1999). “Ecologizing” instruction through integrated units. Middle School Journal, 31(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.1999.11494605

Baran, M. & Maskan, A. (2010). The effect of project-based learning on pre-service physics teachers electrostatic achievements. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 243–257.

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39 – 43.

Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 15–24.

Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The berlin-white integrated science and mathematics model. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 2–4.

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

Boaler, J. (2001). Mathematical modelling and new theories of learning. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 20(3), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/20.3.121

Boaler, J. (2002a). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 239-258.

Boaler, J. (2002b). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Studies in mathematical thinking and learning. New York, NY: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. San Francisco, VA: Jossey-Bass.

Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of railside school. Teachers College Record, 110, 608–645.

Boss, S. (2011). How to get projects off to a good start. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/summer-pd-starting-projects-suzie-boss

Braden, S. S. (2012). Differences in perceptions of learning and academic achievement of students and teachers in project-based learning and balanced mathematics classrooms. Tennessee State University.

Buck Institute for Education. (2018a). 6-12 collaboration rubric (non-CCSS). Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/object/document/6_12_collaboration_rubric_non_ccss

Buck Institute for Education. (2018b). Project design: Overview and student learning guide. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/object/document/project_design_overview_and_student_learning_guide

Buck Institute for Education. (2018c). Project design rubric. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/object/document/project_design_rubric

Buck Institute for Education. (2018d). What is project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/about/what_pbl

Buck Institute for Education. (2018e). Rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/objects/cat/rubrics

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Caprano, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Helfeldt, J. (2010). Do differing types of field experiences make a difference in teacher candidates’ perceived level of competence?. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 131-154.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (4th ed.). Washington D.C.: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Education (Vol. 50). New York, NY: Free Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (1), 41 – 61.

Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting Science and Mathematics Instruction: Pedagogical Context Knowledge for Teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x

Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 1089 – 1113.

Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2017). Visible learning for mathematics: What works best to optimize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hough, D. L., & St. Clair, B. (1995). The Effects of Integrated Curricula on Young Adolescent Problem-Solving. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848959.1995.11670058

Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 320–327.

Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science & Mathematics, 103, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18231.x

Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In the cambridge handbook of learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.

McDonald, J., & Czerniak, C. (1994). Developing interdisciplinary units: Strategies and examples. School Science & Mathematics, 94, 5–10.

McGehee, J. J. (2001). Developing interdisciplinary units: a strategy based on problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb17972.x

Merlo, S. (2011). An exploration of project-based learning activities versus traditional teaching methods in a high school mathematics setting. Kean University.

Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

NCTM. (2014). Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA: NCTM.

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

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Thomas, J. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved November 26,
2015, from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf

Virginia Department of Education. (2009). Mathematics standards of learning for Virginia public schools. Richmond, VA.

Virginia Department of Education. (2016). Mathematics standards of learning for Virginia public schools. Richmond, VA.

Virginia Department of Education. (2017). Profile of a graduate. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/graduation/profile-grad/

Yancy, Y. G. (2012). The effects of project-based learning activities on intrinsic motivation and skill acquisition of rural middle school math students. Union University.

Yasar, O., Maliekal, J., Little, L., & Veronesi, P. (2014). An interdisciplinary approach to professional development for math, science, and technology teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33, 349-374.

Wilhelm, J., Sherrod, S., & Walters, K. (2008). Project-Based Learning Environments: Challenging Preservice Teachers to Act in the Moment. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 220 – 233.

Zeichner, K., & Bier, M. (2015). Opportunities and pitfalls in the turn toward clinical experience in US teacher education. In E. R. Hollins (Ed.), Rethinking clinical experiences in preservice teacher education: Meeting new challenges for accountability (pp. 20 – 46). New York: Routledge.

Rigorous Investigations of Relevant Issues: A Professional Development Program for Supporting Teacher Design of Socio-Scientific Issue Units

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Peel, A., Sadler, T.D., Friedrichsen, P., Kinslow, A., Foulk, J. (2018). Rigorous investigations of relevant issues: A professional development program for supporting teacher design of socio-scientific issue units. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/rigorous-investigations-of-relevant-issues-a-professional-development-program-for-supporting-teacher-design-of-socio-scientific-issue-units/

by Amanda Peel, University of Missouri; Troy D. Sadler, University of Missouri; Patricia Friedrichsen, University of Missouri; Andrew Kinslow, University of Missouri; & Jaimie Foulk, University of Missouri

Abstract

Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are complex problems with unclear solutions that have ties to science concepts and societal ideas. These complexities make SSI ideal contexts for meaningful science teaching and learning. Although the student benefits of SSI in the classroom have been established, there is a literature gap pertaining to teacher preparation and support for SSI teaching and learning, and the design of SSI units. In order for successful and meaningful SSI incorporation in science classrooms, teachers need professional development (PD) experiences that scaffold their understanding of the complexities associated with SSI teaching and learning. As such, our team designed and implemented a PD program with explicit examples and design tools to support teachers as they engaged in learning about SSI teaching and learning. Additionally, our PD program supported teachers as they designed their own SSI units for classroom implementation. We describe our PD process for supporting in-service secondary biology, chemistry, and environmental science teachers as they learned about SSI instruction and co-designed their SSI units.

Before our work with this group of teachers began, our research team designed and implemented SSI units, and these results informed development of the SSI-TL framework. The SSI-TL framework has been helpful as we continue to design and structure new SSI units, so we made it a central aspect of the PD to guide what SSI teaching should entail. This framework and other tools were used to support teachers as they designed their own SSI units. The PD was successful in that all groups designed SSI units, and many were able to implement in their classes. The teachers indicated the PD was effective from their perspective and they learned about issues and practices. Specific feedback around scaffolding tools we provided indicated the tools helped teachers navigate the design process.

Introduction

Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are complex problems with unclear solutions that have ties to science concepts and societal ideas (Sadler 2004). These complexities make SSI ideal contexts for meaningful science teaching and learning. The benefits of SSI instruction have been widely documented in science education literature and include gains in the understanding of science content (Klosterman and Sadler, 2010), scientific argumentation (Dawson and Venville, 2008; 2010), and epistemological beliefs about science (Eastwood, Sadler, Zeidler, Lewis, Amiri & Applebaum, 2012). Although the student benefits of SSI in the classroom have been established, there is a literature gap pertaining to teacher preparation and support for SSI teaching and learning, and the design of SSI units.

A few studies have characterized some challenges associated with SSI teaching in classroom contexts. When teachers included SSI in their classrooms, they used SSI as a way to get students interested in and motivated to learn a science topic, but they tended not to include ethical concerns or biases about the issue or the science, resulting in a lack of awareness of the interdependence between society and science (Ekborg, Ottander, Silfver, and Simon, 2012). Teachers also struggled to incorporate evidence and critical evaluation of evidence through media literacy and skepticism in their teaching about SSI and informed decision-making (Levinson, 2006). Even after a targeted intervention focusing on the social, moral, and ethical dimensions of issues, teachers struggled with effectively incorporating these dimensions in their classrooms (Gray and Bryce, 2006).

In order for successful and meaningful SSI incorporation in science classrooms, teachers need professional development (PD) experiences that scaffold their understanding of the complexities associated with SSI teaching and learning (Zeidler, 2014). Additionally, teachers need explicit examples of SSI teaching and learning to support their adoption of instructional techniques for incorporating new ideas in science classrooms, such as media literacy, informed decision-making, and highlighting social connections to an issue (Klosterman, Sadler, & Brown, 2012). As such, our team designed and implemented a PD program with explicit examples and design tools centered around our SSI Teaching and Learning framework. To support teacher learning about SSI teaching and learning, we engaged teachers in 1) SSI unit examples and experiences as learners; 2) explicit discussion and unpacking of the approach; and 3) designing in teams with active support from the research team. Our PD program supported teachers as they designed their own SSI units for classroom implementation with various tools developed by our team, including the SSI-TL framework, a framework enactment guide, the planning heuristic, an issue selection guide, and unit and lesson design templates. We describe our PD process for supporting in-service secondary biology, chemistry, and environmental science teachers as they learned about SSI instruction and co-designed their SSI units.

PD Audience & Goals

To ensure effective teacher participation in the PD program, we identified and invited 30 science teachers from diverse geographic locations throughout the state who met the following criteria:

  1. Currently teaching secondary biology, chemistry, or environmental science.
  2. Receptive to learning about socio-scientific issue instruction and curriculum design.
  3. Commitment to teacher learning and professional growth.

Eighteen teachers accepted our invitation to participate in the workshop. Participant teaching experience ranged from 1 to 32 years. Seven (39%) were early-career teachers with 1-5 years teaching experience. Five (28%) mid-career participants had taught for 6-10 years. The remaining six (33%) participants were veteran teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience. Over half of the participants (55%) taught at schools within urban clusters as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, with populations of 2,500-50,000 people. Just over one fourth (28%) of participants taught in urbanized schools within cities of 50,000 or more people, and 17% of the teachers worked in rural districts.

Socio-scientific Issue Teaching and Learning Framework

Our research group has developed a framework for SSI teaching and learning (SSI-TL) for the purpose of designing SSI based science units (Figure 1). An overarching goal of SSI-TL is to provide students with a context for developing scientific literacy through engaging in informed and productive negotiation of complex societal and scientific issues. The SSI-TL framework is composed of three sections, the first of which is Encounter the Focal Issue. In this section, students encounter the SSI and make connections to the science ideas and societal concerns. In the second section of the model, where a majority of classroom activities take place, students Develop science ideas and practices and engage in socio-scientific reasoning (SSR; Sadler, Barabe, & Scott, 2007; Romine, Sadler, & Kinslow, 2017) in the context of the SSI. Learning activities in this section focus on science content embedded within opportunities to engage in science and engineering practices. In terms of focal practices, our group emphasizes modeling, argumentation, and computational thinking because of the potential for these practices to promote sense-making. To facilitate socio-scientific reasoning, we emphasize opportunities for learners to consider the issue from multiple stakeholder perspectives and to consider consequences of potential decisions and actions from a range of vantage points (e.g., economic, political, ethical, etc.). The last section of the SSI-TL framework calls for student Synthesis of ideas and practices and reasoning about the SSI through engaging in a culminating activity.

Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge). Socio-scientific issue teaching and learning (SSI-TL) framework.

The SSI-TL framework aligns with various essential learning outcomes, which include awareness and understanding of the focal issue, understanding of science ideas, competencies for science and engineering practices, and competencies for socio-scientific reasoning. As teachers utilize this model, they may choose to focus on various discretionary learning outcomes, such as competencies in media literacy, understanding of epistemology of science, competencies for engineering design, and interest in science and careers in STEM. We leveraged this SSI-TL framework during a series of PD sessions to support teachers as they designed SSI units for their classrooms.

The PD Process

An initial meeting of the teachers and our research group took place in December, 2015. At this brief meeting, the participating teachers and the research group members introduced themselves and discuss their interests and experiences regarding SSI teaching. We provided a brief overview of the PD program and our expectations for the participating teachers. The teachers were also given a brief overview of SSI teaching and learning to introduce them to examples of issues they would be choosing in their design teams.

A second full group meeting took place over two days in March, and a third meeting occurred over three days in June. These in-person meetings were used to engage teachers in SSI teaching and learning and to provide structured planning and design time with the help of the PD team. Initially, teachers were grouped by content and assigned a mentor from our research group to aid in SSI learning and the design process. Teachers then chose design partners from their content groups and worked in groups of two to three to design SSI units for their classrooms during and in between the formally organized meetings. To maintain communication between meetings, we used an online community to share content readings and exchange ideas. Teachers read two articles and responded to prompts by commenting on each post (Figure 2; Presley, Sickel, Muslu, Merle-Johnson, Witzig, Izci, and Sadler, 2013; Duncan, and Cavera, 2015). More reading resources can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/going-further/related-reading.

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge). Reading response prompts.

Experiencing SSI & Examples

To familiarize teachers with SSI learning, we engaged them as learners in a portion of a fully developed SSI unit. The unit explored the issue of the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria with a focus on natural selection as science content and the practice of scientific modeling. The unit was developed for high school biology classes and had been implemented in several classrooms (Friedrichsen, Sadler, Graham & Brown, 2016). The learning experience was led by one of our teacher partners who had used the unit prior to the workshop. She introduced the issue as she did in class by having participants watch a selection from a video about a young girl who contracts methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). After being introduced to the issue, teachers engaged in a jigsaw activity in which each group was given a different source with information about MRSA to begin the discussion of credibility of different sources and the ways in which scientific information is used by different stakeholders interested in an issue. The groups read over their source and presented to the whole group. Sources included blog posts, a USA Today article, and Centers for Disease Control fact sheets. This activity was followed with a discussion of the different sources and their varying levels of credibility. After these learning activities, the teachers were given an overview of the full unit and shown student work samples, including student models of antibiotic resistance and natural selection, and synthesis projects which called for students to develop and advocate for a policy recommendation to stem the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The full antibiotic resistance SSI unit (Superbugs) can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules/Superbugs/intro.

During the June meeting, teachers were provided with an overview of an SSI unit related to water quality that had been developed and implemented in a high school environmental science class. This unit focused on a local water resource issue with conceptual links to ecological interactions, nutrient cycling, and water systems. The scientific practices emphasized in the unit were modeling and argumentation. One of our team members who was the lead designer and teacher implementer of this unit led a presentation of an overview and key aspects of the unit. The full water quality unit (the Karst Connection) can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules/The%20Karst%20Connection/intro.

Including SSI in science classrooms can be challenging because science teachers are often unfamiliar with or uncomfortable addressing the social connections to the issue. To help scaffold this addition to science curricula, we engaged the teachers as learners in an activity highlighting social and historical trends from an SSI unit related to nutrition and taxation of unhealthful foods (a so called “fat tax”). In this activity, groups of teachers were assigned different historical events that had to do with nutrition and nutrition guidelines. Each group investigated their event and wrote the key ideas on a sheet of paper. These papers were placed along a timeline at the front of the room (Figure 3). Each group shared out to the full group about their event, and as each group presented, they drew connections between historical events and nutrition guidelines of the time. For example, one event was a butter shortage, which resulted in the nutrition guidelines urging people to exclude butter from their diet. This activity allowed teachers to see and experience an example of making social connections to an issue while exploring how the social and science concepts impacted each other over time. The full description of this learning exercise can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules/Fat%20Tax/intro.

Figure 3 (Click on image to enlarge). Nutrition timeline activity.

Unpacking the SSI Approach

After experiencing SSI as learners in our March meetings, we introduced the teachers to the SSI-TL framework (Figure 1) with emphasis on the three main dimensions of the framework: Encounter the focal issue; Develop ideas, practices, and reasoning; and Synthesize. Using the antibiotic resistance unit as an example prior to introducing the framework allowed us to make connections between the framework and what they experienced as learners. Along with the framework, we introduced a framework enactment table, which depicts student and teacher roles and learning outcomes associated with each dimension of the framework. The enactment table allowed teachers to develop a more in-depth understanding of what each section of the framework entails. The framework enactment table can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/content/RI%C2%B2-Framework-Enactment.

Focus on NGSS Practices. At the time of the PD program, our state had recently adopted new science standards that are closely aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Like NGSS, the new state standards prioritize 3-dimentional (3D) science learning, which calls for integration of disciplinary core ideas (DCI), crosscutting concepts (CCC), and science and engineering practices. Due to the interwoven nature of the two, our team has chosen to combine CCCs and DCIs into a single construct of “science ideas”, as seen in the SSI-TL framework (Figure 1). There are eight science and engineering practices outlined in the NGSS, but our team has chosen to focus on a subset of practices: modeling, argumentation, and computational thinking. We chose these practices because they are high leverage practices, meaning that in order to engage in these practices at a deep level, the other practices, such as asking questions or constructing explanations, are being leveraged as well. For example, we posit that in order to create a detailed model, students engage in constructing explanations and analyzing and interpreting data. Our SSI-TL framework calls for 3D learning by engaging students in science ideas and high leverage science practices in the context of an SSI.

Because 3D science learning and practices were new to all of the teachers in the PD, our team offered breakout sessions focusing on a specific scientific practice: modeling, argumentation, or computational thinking. Teachers chose which of the three sessions to attend based on their interests and the practices they planned to feature in their own units. In each session, teachers were engaged in the practice as learners, and then were shown examples of student work pertaining to each practice. Examples were from prior unit implementations and depicted 3D learning through the incorporation of the science practice with science ideas. For example, in the computational thinking session, teachers were shown student generated algorithms of the process of translation, which incorporated computational thinking with the science ideas of protein synthesis. These practice-specific sessions allowed teachers to get an in-depth look at modeling, argumentation, and computational thinking in order to support the incorporation of high leverage practices into their SSI units.

Socio-scientific Reasoning & Culminating Activity. Socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) is a theoretical construct consisting of four competencies that are central to SSI negotiation and decision-making:

  1. Recognizing the inherent complexity of SSI.
  2. Examining issues from multiple perspectives.
  3. Appreciating that SSI are subject to ongoing inquiry.
  4. Exhibiting skepticism when presented potentially biased information (Sadler, Barab, and Scott, 2007).

SSR competencies are key to the SSI teaching and learning approach; therefore, we highlighted them in a demonstration and discussion during the PD. Teachers were introduced to the four SSR competencies, and they explored examples of activities designed to strengthen student SSR competencies. For example, engaging students in a jigsaw activity where they explore an issue from the perspectives of different stakeholders encourages students to engage in SSR because they deal with the complexity of the issue, bring up questions that remain unanswered, analyze information with skepticism about biases, and recognize the limitations of science pertaining to the issue. This session supported teachers in their understanding of SSR and provided them with multiple examples of how this construct can be used in the classroom within SSI contexts.

The culminating activity called for as a part of the Synthesis section of the SSI-TL framework was challenging for the teachers to conceptualize after the first PD session. To support teachers in their understanding of the culminating activity, we presented sample activities and student work from the units we previously developed and implemented. The goal of the culminating activity is to give students a final task where they can synthesize and reason through their ideas about the science behind the issue, the social connections to the issue, and the science practices employed in the unit. This session presented teachers with specific examples and ideas for culminating activities to be used in their SSI units. Teachers engaged in a jigsaw activity and each group examined a different culminating activity example and shared out to the whole group. Teachers discussed how they could alter activities for their classrooms and their units to support the inclusion of culminating projects in their SSI units. An example culminating activity can be accessed in “Lesson 6” at http://ri2.missouri.edu/ri2modules/The%20Vanishing%20Prairie/sequences.

In order to further support teachers as they designed their SSI units, we held a panel discussion where various members of our team (SSI unit designers and implementers) shared information about their units and experiences. In particular, panelists discussed the issue they chose and why they chose it, the science practices featured, and their culminating activities. After each panelist shared, the teachers asked questions about the units and experiences; they were particularly interested in hearing more details about ways in which SSR was incorporated in the units and the culminating activities. They also posed several questions about assessment generally and the scoring/grading of culminating activities more specifically. To further address these questions, we provided the teachers with samples of student work and a rubric that was used in one of our implementations for assessing the culminating activity. Through the various sessions and panel discussions, teachers were supported in their understanding of the overall SSI teaching and learning approach.

Teacher Work & Tools

As the teacher design teams worked through the PD program, the goal for each team was to develop a complete SSI unit ready for implementation in their classrooms. By the end of the June PD session, the expectation was for teams to have completed a unit outline and two lesson plans. The full units were due by the end of the summer. Teachers were responsible for choosing an issue, science ideas, and science practices for their units. In order to support teachers as they designed their unit overviews and lesson plans, we scaffolded their design process with various group techniques and planning tools as described in the following sections.

Group Work & Processes. Initially, teachers worked individually to brainstorm ideas for their units, including possible issues, science ideas, and relevant science practices. Teachers then presented their ideas within their content groups (i.e, biology, chemistry, and environmental science) in order to find shared interests. Based on these discussions, teachers formed design teams, which consisted of two or three teachers who worked together on the design of a unit for the upcoming school year. The composition of design teams ranged from groups with teachers from the same building to groups made up of teachers from different parts of the state.

Planning Heuristic. To scaffold the design process, our team introduced a Planning Heuristic: a table outlining a simplified process for beginning the design of an SSI unit. It describes design steps, products associated with each step, and examples of products from one of the units our team designed. For example, the first step of the heuristic is: explore possible issues, big ideas in science, and target practice(s). The products from this step are a large-scale issue, science themes and focal practices. Examples of these from one of our sample units are climate change as the issue, ecology as the science theme, and modeling as the focal practice. Teachers were encouraged to use the planning heuristic to aid them in their design process. The full Planning Heuristic can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/planning-heuristic.

Issue Selection Guide. Choosing an issue to center a unit around can be a daunting task. To support teachers in their issue selection, our team designed an Issue Selection Guide. Each design team worked through the guide resulting in narrowing their ideas about possible issues, and ultimately deciding on an issue. The guide poses several reflective questions about the issue to help teachers decide on the appropriateness of that issue. Prompting questions fall under three main questions: 1) Is the issue an SSI? 2) Is the issue a productive SSI for the intended audience? and 3) What instructional moves should be considered in presenting the issue? The Issue Selection Guide can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/issue-selection-guide.

Design Templates. To align teacher units with our example units for ease of planning and designing their units, we provided teachers with unit design templates. We provided teachers with a Unit Plan Template, which was used to outline the unit and the key ideas within the unit, such as science ideas, science practices, and the issue. We provided teachers with a Lesson Plan Template that presented a basic structure for each lesson, including time the lesson will take, goals for the lesson, lesson assessments, resources needed for the lesson, and an instructional sequence. These templates can be accessed at http://ri2.missouri.edu/templates.

Teacher Reactions & Feedback

The goal of producing SSI units was met because every design team was able to select an issue and complete design of a unit. Table 1 depicts the teams, the issue they selected, whether or not they completed their unit, and whether or not they implemented their unit in their classrooms the following year. Although implementing their units was not a requirement of the PD program, 12 out of 18 teachers implemented the units they designed in their respective classrooms. Six teachers did not implement their units for various reasons. The food additives, made of up a first and second year teacher, did not feel that their unit was far enough along in its development so they decided to wait until the following year to try it. A few of the other teachers experienced changes in their teaching assignments, which made implementation of their units difficult.

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)

Design Team Products and Unit Details

Issue Selection Challenges

Interviews were conducted with all of the teachers after the final PD session in June. During these interviews, teachers were asked a series of questions about what they learned and the extent to which the developed tools helped them. Teachers identified the Issue Selection Guide as one of the most useful tools because it helped them narrow down their ideas about issues and allowed them to determine if it was appropriate for their unit. Multiple teachers said that selecting an issue was the most challenging aspect of designing their units:

“[We] had a real issue finding an issue, and [it] was difficult… I had a lot of ideas” (T2, June Interview).

“I had no idea what could be a social and science issue… I used the topic selection paper, that chart thing that you guys made to help work up to picking an issue after – I had a whole bunch of ideas storming around, and it helped me narrow it down and select one that would work for this unit.” (T3, June Interview).

The Issue Selection Guide was useful to the teachers who were struggling with selecting an issue because it helped them narrow their issue ideas and choose an issue that would fit the instructional needs of their classes.

The Value of Examples

When asked what the most valuable part of the PD was, teachers identified the SSI unit examples and experiences as the most helpful:

“Seeing the variety of lesson topics and ideas, working through some of the lessons.”

“The sample SSI units were very helpful in seeing [SSI] in action.”

“The parts of model lessons where we participated in the student portion of the lesson” (Teacher Responses, Anonymous Post Survey, June 2016).

Teachers found the explicit examples of SSI-TL implementation to be the most helpful when learning about SSI and designing their units, indicating that the PD design supported teacher engagement in SSI teaching and learning.

Lesson Planning Challenges

In addition to selecting an issue, teachers identified writing lesson plans as a challenge in their design process:

“I never actually had to sit down, and write a lesson plan before… so going through and planning something start to finish, is not something that I have had to do… that was a challenge for me” (T1, June Interview).

“[The] process of putting it [unit plan] together is a challenge. Because most of the time I just sort of do it internally, I don’t really write it down” (T4, June Interview).

Most of the teachers were experienced teachers, so they didn’t need to write out every lesson because they felt comfortable with what they were teaching and how they were going to teach it. Because the SSI teaching and learning approach was new to the teachers, we were explicit in the structure of these units. The provided unit plan and lesson templates helped the teachers work through a planning and documentation process that was more formal than most of the participants were used to, and it resulted in materials that could be shared with other teachers.

Increases in Comfort with SSI and Science Practices

Teachers also responded to a Likert scale survey before and after the PD with questions about their comfort in teaching SSI, designing SSI units, and utilizing science practices. Ten survey items yielded statistically significant increases from before the PD to after the PD (Table 2). The first two items deal with teachers’ abilities to teach SSI in the classrooms. After the PD more teachers agreed they knew enough about SSIs in their area to design instruction using them, indicating teachers felt more comfortable with SSI design after the PD. More teachers also agreed they were able to negotiate the use of SSIs in their classrooms when talking to community members and parents with concerns, indicating an increase in comfort level with using SSI in their classrooms. The remaining items related to the teachers’ comfort level with scientific practices. Teachers increased in their comfort with the scientific practices of modeling, explanations, argumentation, and evaluating information.

Table 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
Survey Items with Statistically Significant Increases from Pre to Post PD

Conclusion

Teachers are important agents of change, and, given proper supports, they can successfully facilitate SSI learning experiences for their students. Before our work with this group of teachers began, our research team designed and implemented SSI units, and these results informed development of the SSI-TL framework. The SSI-TL framework has been helpful as we continue to design and structure new SSI units, so we made it a central aspect of the PD to guide what SSI teaching should entail. This framework and other tools were used to support teachers as they designed their own SSI units.

The PD employed a blended model of face-to-face meetings and communications with an online networking tool. During the PD we alternated among three sets of activities to support teachers: 1) SSI unit examples and experiences as learners; 2) explicit discussion and unpacking of the approach; and 3) design teams working together with active support from the research team. Throughout the PD we provided design supports with various tools developed by our team, including the SSI-TL framework, the framework enactment guide, the planning heuristic, the issue selection guide, and unit and lesson design templates. The PD was successful in that all groups designed SSI units, and many were able to implement in their classes. The teachers indicated the PD was effective from their perspective and they learned about issues and practices. Specific feedback around scaffolding tools we provided indicated the tools helped teachers navigate the design process.

As we consider ways of advancing this work, we are interested in exploring ways to work with school-based teacher professional learning communities (PLCs). Bringing together teachers from across widely varying school contexts and facilitating their work together was a challenge. We think that supporting communities of teachers familiar with the same local affordances and constraints may be a more effective way to bring about more lasting incorporation of SSI teaching into science classrooms. We are also interested in extending our investigations to learn more about the ways in which teachers implement their units. In the current project, we were able to elucidate some of the challenges teachers faced in designing SSI units (like selecting issues) and presented tools to help teachers navigate these challenges (e.g., the issue selection guide). We think that it would be a productive step for the SSI-TL agenda to do this same kind of work (understanding challenges and designing tools to address them) for implementation.

References

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2008, April). Argumentation and conceptual understanding: Grade 10 students learning about genetics. A paper presented at the annual international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, 30th March–2nd April.

Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148.

Duncan, R. G., & Cavera, V. L. (2015). DCIs, SEPs, and CCs, Oh My!: Understanding the Three Dimensions of the NGSS. The Science Teacher, 82(7), 67.

Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.

Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2012). Teachers’ Experience of Working with Socio-scientific Issues: A Large Scale and in Depth Study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5

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), 1-18.

Gray, D. S., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socio‐scientific issues in science education: implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 171-192. doi:10.1080/03057640600718489

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(8), 1017-1043.

Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T.D, & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific issues and sustainability. Research in Science Education, 42, 51-74. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-011-9256

Levinson, R. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of the role of evidence in teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 247-262. doi:10.1080/09585170600909712

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

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.

Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the quantitative assessment of socio-scientific reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 274-295 DOI:10.1002/tea.21368

Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009

Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N.G. Lederman & S.K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 697-726.

 

 

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.

 

Personal Science Story Podcasts: Enhancing Literacy and Science Content

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Frisch, J.K. (2018). Personal science story podcasts: Enhancing literacy and science content. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/personal-science-story-podcasts-enhancing-literacy-and-science-content/

by Jennifer K. Frisch, University of Minnesota Duluth

Abstract

Podcasts (like “You are Not So Smart”, “99% Invisible”, or “Radiolab”) are becoming a popular way to communicate about science. Podcasts often use personal stories to connect with listeners and engage empathy, which can be a key ingredient in communicating about science effectively. Why not have your students create their own podcasts? Personal science stories can be useful to students as they try to connect abstract science concepts with real life. These kinds of stories can also help pre-service elementary or secondary teachers as they work towards understanding how to connect science concepts, real life, and literacy. Podcasts can be powerful in teaching academic language in science because through producing a podcast, the student must write, speak, and listen, and think about how science is communicated. This paper describes the personal science podcast assignment that I have been using in my methods courses, including the literature base supporting it and the steps I take to support my teacher candidates in developing, writing, and sharing their own science story podcasts.

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

Amicucci, A. N. (2014). How they really talk. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57, 483-491.

Anthony, L. (2014). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/

Borgia, L. (2009). Enhanced vocabulary podcasts implementation in fifth grade classrooms. Reading Improvement, 46, 263-272.

Burmark, L. (2004). Visual presentations that prompt, flash & transform. Media and Methods, 40(6), 4-5.

Challinor, J., Marín, V. I., & Tur, G. (2017). The development of the reflective practitioner through digital storytelling. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning9, 186-203.

Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media & Society, 10, 373-391.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238.

Delpit, L. (2005). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. 1995. New York: New Press.

Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1834 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20009-5786.

Dillingham, B. (2001). Visual portrait of a story: Teaching storytelling. Juneau, AK: School Handout.

Dip, J. M. R. B. P. (2014). Voices from the heart: the use of digital storytelling in education. Community Practitioner, 87(1), 28.

Dong, Y. (2002). Integrating language and content: how three biology teachers work with non-English speaking students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5, 40-57.

Frisch, J.K., Cone, N. & Callahan, B. (2017). Using Personal Science Story Podcasts to Reflect on Language and Connections to Science. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17, 205-228.

Frisch, J. K., Jackson, P. C., & Murray, M. C. Transforming undergraduate biology learning with inquiry-based instruction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9155-z

Hendry PM (2007) The future of narrative. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 487–498.

Huber, J., Caine, V., Huber, M., & Steeves, P. (2013). Narrative inquiry as pedagogy in education: The extraordinary potential of living, telling, retelling, and reliving stories of experience. Review of Research in Education, 37, 212-242.

Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A Project-based Digital Storytelling Approach for Improving Students’ Learning Motivation, Problem-Solving Competence and Learning Achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 368-379.

Lambert, J. (2002). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating communities. Berkeley, CA: Digital Diner.

Lambert, J. (2010). Digital Storytelling Cookbook. Berkley, CA: Digital Diner.

Ohler, J. B. (2013). Digital storytelling in the classroom: New media pathways to literacy, learning, and creativity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Pearson, P., Moje, E., and Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.

Pegrum, M., Bartle, E., and Longnecker, N. (2015). Can creative podcasting promote deep learning? The use of podcasting for learning content in an undergraduate science unit. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 142-152.

Putman, S. M., & Kingsley, T. (2009). The atoms family: Using podcasts to enhance the development of science vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 63, 100-108. Roadside Theater. (2016). Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life. Case Study: Story Circles as an Evaluation Tool. Retrieved from https://roadside.org/asset/case-study-story-circles-evaluation-tool

Robin, B.R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into practice, 47, 220-228.

Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450-452.

Silva, C., Weinburgh, M., and Smith, K.H. (2013). Not just good science teaching: Supporting academic language development. Voices from the middle, 20, 34- 42.

West, M., & West, M. P. (Eds.). (1953). A general service list of English words: with semantic frequencies and a supplementary word-list for the writing of popular science and technology. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Limited.

Willox, A. C., Harper, S. L., & Edge, V. L. (2012). Storytelling in a digital age: digital storytelling as an emerging narrative method for preserving and promoting indigenous oral wisdom. Qualitative Research, 13, 127-147

 

 

The Home Inquiry Project: Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Scientific Inquiry Journey

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kazempour, M. (2017). The home inquiry project: Elementary preservice teachers’ scientific inquiry journey. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/the-home-inquiry-project-elementary-preservice-teachers-scientific-inquiry-journey/

by Mahsa Kazempour, Penn State University (Berks Campus)

Abstract

This article discusses the Home Inquiry Project which is part of a science methods course for elementary preservice teachers. The aim of the Home Inquiry Project is to enhance elementary preservice teachers’ understanding of the scientific inquiry process and increase their confidence and motivation in incorporating scientific inquiry into learning experiences they plan for their future students. The project immerses preservice teachers in the process of scientific inquiry and provides them with an opportunity to learn about and utilize scientific practices such as making observations, asking questions, predicting, communicating evidence, and so forth. Preservice teachers completing this project perceive their experiences favorably, recognize the importance of understanding the process of science, and reflect on the application of this experience to their future classroom science instruction. This project has immense implications for the preparation of a scientifically literate and motivated teacher population who will be responsible for cultivating a scientifically literate student population with a positive attitude and confidence in science.

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

Adams, A., Miller, B., Saul, M., Pegg, J. (2014). Supporting elementary preservice teachers to teach STEM through place-based teaching and learning experiences. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(5). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/issue/view/1119

Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Association for Science Teachers and Laurence Erlbaum.

Avery, L., & Meyer, D. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 395–409.

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

Barman, C. (1997). Students’ views of scientists and science. Science & Children, 35(1), 18-23

Chichekian, T., Shore, B., & Yates, G. (2016). Preservice and practicing teachers’ self-efficacy for inquiry-based instruction. Cogent Education, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1236872?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Fulp, S. L. (2002). The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Hechter, R. P. (2011). Changes in pre-service elementary teachers’ personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancies: The influence of context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 187–202.

Kazempour, M. (2013). The interrelationship of science experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy: A case study of a pre-service teacher with positive science attitude and high science teaching self-efficacy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 106-124.

Kazempour, M. (2014). I can’t teach science! A case study of an elementary pre-service teacher’s intersection of science experiences, beliefs, attitude, and self-efficacy.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(1), p.77-96.

Kazempour, M., Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ science beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy: A multi-case study.” Teaching Education, 26, 247-271.

Keys, P. & Watters, J. J. (2006). Transforming pre-service teacher knowledge in science education through multimedia and ICT. Proceedings annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francicso, CA.

King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89–110.

Lewis, E., Dema, O., & Harshbarger, D. (2014). Preparation for practice: elementary preservice teachers learning and using scientific classroom discourse community instructional strategies. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 154-165.

Morrell, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elementary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 246–251.

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2000). Beginning elementary science teaching: Entryways to different worlds. Research in Science Education, 30, 151– 171.

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

National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

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

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2002. NSTA position statement: Elementary school science. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2002. NSTA position statement: Early childhood school science. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/earlychildhood.aspx

Plevyak, L. (2007). What do preservice teachers learn in an inquiry-based science methods course? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(1). doi:10.1007/BF03173650

Quita, I. (2003, Fall). What is a scientist? Perspectives of teachers of color. Multicultural Education, 11, 29–31.

Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of pre-service elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 374–379.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Caught in the cycle of reproducing folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers continue the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method.    Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.

Teaching Outside the Box: A Collaborative Field Experience of Formal and Nonformal Educators

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Gross, L.A., & James, J.J. (2017). Teaching outside the box: A collaborative field experience of formal and nonformal educators. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/teaching-outside-the-box-a-collaborative-field-experience-of-formal-and-nonformal-educators/

by Lisa A. Gross, Appalachian State University; & J. Joy James, Appalachian State University

Abstract

This  paper describes a collaborative project in which elementary education (ELED) majors partnered with recreation majors (RM) to develop and implement science lessons in the outdoors. ELED and RM students both need experiential learning to accomplish respective skill sets in multiple settings. The purpose of this project was to provide both undergraduate groups with “real-life” experiences related to their respective fields and in doing so, to promote science learning in natural spaces.  ELED and RM students co-constructed inquiry-based lessons and related recreational activities for implementation with 5th grade students.  The researchers provide an overview of the project and describe the actions, benefits and outcomes of this university partnership.

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, D., Lawson, B., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Investigating the impact of a practicum experience in an aquarium on preservice teachers. Teaching Education, 17, 341-353.

Bainer, D., Cantrell, D. and Barron, P. (2000). Professional development of nonformal environmental educators through school-based partnerships. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 36-46.

Barcelona, R. J., Hurd, A. R., & Bridgeman, J. A. (2011). A competency-based approach to preparing staff as recreation and youth development leaders. New Directions for Youth Development, 130, 121-139.

Bennett, K. & Heafner, T. (2004). Having a field day with environmental education. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 3, 89-100.

Bingaman, D. & Bradley-Eitel, K. (2010). Boulder creek study. Science and Children, 47(6), 52-56.

Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M., & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34, 795-818.

Bleicher, R. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring self-efficacy in preservice teacher education. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 383-391.

Brown, S. (2009). Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the

Soul. New York: Penguin Publishing.

Burdette, H. L. & Whitaker, R. C. (2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation and affect. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 46-50.

Bybee, R. (2015). The BSCS 5E instructional model: creating teachable moments. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Carrier, S. J. (2009). Environmental education in the schoolyard: learning styles and gender. Journal of Environmental Education. 21(2) 35-48.

Carrier-Martin, S. (2003). The influence of outdoor schoolyard experiences on students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and comfort levels. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 12(2), 51-63.

Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on the sources of environmental sensitivity. Environmental Education Research, 4, 369-382.

Cronin-Jones, L. L., (2000). The effectiveness of schoolyards as sites for elementary science instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 203­211.

Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., & Sunyer, J. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 112: 7937-7942

Duerden, M. D. & Witt, P. A., (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30, 379­392.

Ewert, A., Place, G. & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27, 225-239.

Gray, P. (2011). The Decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3, 443-463.

Gunning, A. & Mensah, F. (2010). Preservice elementary teachers’ development of self-efficacy and confidence to teach science: a case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 171-185.

Hofferth, S. (2009). Media use vs. work and play in middle childhood. Social Indicators Research, 90, 127-129.

James, J. J., Bixler, R. & Vadala, C. (2010). From play in nature, to recreation then vocation: A developmental model for natural history-oriented environmental professionals.

Jarrett, O. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11, 49-59.

Kahn P.H., & Kellert, S.R. (2002) Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA

Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 755-777.

Kisiel, J. (2010). Exploring a school-aquarium collaboration: An intersection of communities of practice. Science Education, 94, 95–121.

Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing future teachers to science beyond the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 24, 67-91.

Knotts, G., Henderson, L., Davidson, R.A. & Swain, J.D. (2009). The search for authentic practice across the disciplinary divide. College Teaching, 57, 188-196.

Lederman, N. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice. Factors that facilitate or impeded the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.

Letterman, M. & Dugan, K. (2004). Team teaching a cross-disciplinary honors course: preparation and development. College Teaching, 55, 76-79.

Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

McLaughlin, D. (2015). Investigating preservice teachers’ self-efficacy through Saturday science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(1), 77-83.

Maheady, L., Magiera, K. and Simmons, R. (2016). Building and sustaining school’ university partnerships in rural settings: One approach for improving special education service delivery. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(2), 33-40.

McClanahan, L. and Buly, M.R. (2009). Purposeful partnerships: Linking preservice teachers with diverse K-12 students, Multicultural Education, 16(3), 55-59.

Miller, James R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, 430-434.

Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookout, V. (2002). The effect of teaching outdoor environmental education on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 9-15.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practice (2016). Common core state standards. National Governors Association for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, D.C.

Proshansky, H. & Fabian, A. (1987). The development of place identity in the child. In Weinstein, C.S. & David, C. (Eds.) Spaces for children. NY: Plenum Press, 21­39.

Pyle, R. M. (2002). Eden in a vacant lot: special places, species and kids in community of life. In Kahn P.H., & Kellert, S.R. (Eds.) Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA

Pyle, R. M. (1993). The Thunder tree: lessons from an urban wildland. New York: Lyons Press.

Rios, J. & Brewer, J. (2014). Outdoor education and science achievement. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13, 234-240.

Shin, M., Lee, H. and McKenna, J.W. (2016). Special education and general education preservice teachers’ co-teaching experiences: a comparative synthesis of qualitative research. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 21-107.

Smith, M.H. & Trexler, C.J. (2006). A University-school partnership model: Providing stakeholders with benefits to enhance science literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 23-34.

Smith, B. L., & McCann, J. (Eds.). (2001). Re-Inventing ourselves: Interdisciplinary education, collaborative learning and experimentation in higher education. Bolton, Mass.: Anker Press.

Tal, T. & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: school visits to the educational center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 25-46.

Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: a new research area in environmental education, Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20-24.

Tilgner, E. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421-431.

Udo, M., Ramsey, G. & Mallow, J. (2004). Science anxiety and gender in students taking general education science courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 435-446.

VanSickle, J. and Schaumleffel, N. (2016). Developing recreation, leisure, and sport professional competencies through practitioner/academic service engagement partnerships. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 31(2), 37-56.

Wilson, S., Shulman, L. & Richert, A. (1987). 150 Different ways of knowing; representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teachers’ Thinking. London: Cassess, 104-124.