The Framework for Analyzing Video in Science Teacher Education and Examples of its Broad Applicability

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Arias, A., Criswell, B., Ellis, J.A., Escalada, L., Forsythe, M., Johnson, H., Mahar, D., Palmeri, A., Parker, M., & Riccio, J. (2020). The framework for analyzing video in science teacher education and examples of its broad applicability. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/the-framework-for-analyzing-video-in-science-teacher-education-and-examples-of-its-broad-applicability/

by Anna Arias, Kennesaw State University; Brett Criswell, West Chester University; Josh A. Ellis, Florida International University; Lawrence Escalada, University of Northern Iowa; Michelle Forsythe, Texas State University; Heather Johnson, Vanderbilt University; Donna Mahar, SUNY Empire State College; Amy Palmeri, Vanderbilt University; Margaret Parker, Illinois State University; & Jessica Riccio, Columbia University

Abstract

There appears to be consensus that the use of video in science teacher education can support the pedagogical development of science teacher candidates. However, in a comprehensive review, Gaudin and Chaliès (2015) identified critical questions about video use that remain unanswered and need to be explored through research in teacher education. A critical question they ask is, “How can teaching teachers to identify and interpret relevant classroom events on video clips improve their capacity to perform the same activities in the classroom?” (p. 57). This paper shares the efforts of a collaborative of science teacher educators from nine teacher preparation programs working to answer this question. In particular, we provide an overview of a theoretically-constructed video analysis framework and demonstrate how that framework has guided the design of pedagogical tools and video-based learning experiences both within and across a variety of contexts. These contexts include both undergraduate and graduate science teacher preparation programs, as well as elementary and secondary science methods and content courses. Readers will be provided a window into the planning and enactment of video analyses in these different contexts, as well as insights from the assessment and research efforts that are exploring the impact of the integration of video analysis in each context.

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. & Cennamo, K.S. (2003). Videocases in elementary science teacher preparation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Using Video in Teacher Preparation (pp. 103-130). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153-166.

Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93.

Barth-Cohen, L. A., Little, A. J., & Abrahamson, D. (2018). Building reflective practices in a pre-service math and science teacher education course that focuses on qualitative video analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29, 83-101.

Benedict-Chambers, A. (2016). Using tools to promote novice teacher noticing of science teaching practices in post-rehearsal discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 28-44.

Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13.

Calandra, B., Brantley-Dias, L., Lee, J. K., & Fox, D. L. (2009). Using video editing to cultivate novice teachers’ practice. Journal of research on technology in education, 42(1), 73-94.

Chan, P.Y.K. & Harris, R.C. (2005). Video ethnography and teachers’ cognitive activities. In J. Brophy & S. Pinnegar (Eds.), Learning from research on teaching: Perspective, methodology and representation. Advances in research on teaching, volume 11 (pp. 337-375). Amsterdam: Elsevier JA1.

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

Gaudin, C., & Chaliès, S. (2015). Video viewing in teacher education and professional development: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 16, 41-67.

Gelfuso, A. (2016). A framework for facilitating video-mediated reflection: Supporting preservice teachers as they create ‘warranted assertabilities’ about literacy teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 68-79.

Gibson, S. A., & Ross, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional noticing. Theory Into Practice, 55, 180-188.

Hawkins, S., & Park Rogers, M. (2016). Tools for reflection: Video-based reflection within a preservice community of practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 415-437.

Hundley, M., Palmeri, A., Hostetler, A., Johnson, H., Dunleavy, T.K., & Self, E.A. (2018). Developmental trajectories, disciplinary practices, and sites of practice in novice teacher learning: A thing to be learned. In D. Polly, M. Putman, T.M. Petty, & A.J. Good (Eds.), Innovative Practices in Teacher Preparation and Graduate-Level Teacher Education Programs. (pp. 153-180). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202.

Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.

Kang, H., & van Es, E. A. (2018). Articulating design principles for productive use of video in preservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, 0022487118778549.

Kearney, M., Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Aubusson, P. (2015). Students’ use of digital video in contemporary science teacher education. In G. Hoban, W. Nielson & A. Shephard (Eds.), Student-generated digital media in science education: Learning, explaining and communicating content, (pp. 136-148).

Knight, S.L., Lloyd, G.M., Arbaugh, F., Gamson, D., McDonald, S., Nolan Jr., J., Whitney, A.E. (2015). Reconceptualizing teacher quality to inform preservice and inservice professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 105-108.

Luft, J. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newly qualified science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching44, 532-537.

Luft, J.A., Roehrig, G.H., & Patterson, N.C. (2003). Contrasting landscape: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77-97.

Luft, J.A., & Hewson, P.W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development programs in science. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 889- 909). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin, S. N., & Siry, C. (2012). Using video in science teacher education: An analysis of the utilization of video-based media by teacher educators and researchers. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin, C.J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 417-433). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2013). edTPA Field Test: Summary Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/news-area/announcements/edtpa-summary-report-is-now-available.html

Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728-739.

van Es, E. A., Tunney, J., Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 340-356.

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interaction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education10, 571-596.

A District-University Partnership to Support Teacher Development

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Wade-Jaimes, K., Counsell, S., Caldwell, L., & Askew, R. (2020). A district-university partnership to support teacher development. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/a-district-university-partnership-to-support-teacher-development/

by Katherine Wade-Jaimes, University of Memphis; Shelly Counsell, University of Memphis; Logan Caldwell, University of Memphis; & Rachel Askew, Vanderbilt University

Abstract

With the shifts in science teaching and learning suggested by the Framework for K-12 Science Education, in-service science teachers are being asked to re-envision their classroom practices, often with little support. This paper describes a unique partnership between a school district and a university College of Education, This partnership began as an effort to support in-service science teachers of all levels in the adoption of new science standards and shifts towards 3-dimensional science teaching. Through this partnership, we have implemented regular "Share-A-Thons," or professional development workshops for in-service science teachers. We present here the Share-A-Thons as a model for science teacher professional development as a partnership between schools, teachers, and university faculty. We discuss the logistics of running the Share-A-Thons, including challenges and next steps, provide teacher feedback, and include suggestions for implementation.

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

Counsell, S. (2011). GRADES K-6-Becoming Science” Experi-mentors”-Tenets of quality professional development and how they can reinvent early science learning experiences. Science and Children49(2), 52.

Ingersoll, R. E. (2004). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Form and Substance in Mathematics and Science Professional Development. NISE brief3(2), n2.

Luft, J. A., & Hewson, P. W. (2014). Research on teacher professional development programs in science. Handbook of research on science education2, 889-909.

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

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

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

Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of educational research81, 376-407.

Palmer, D. (2004). Situational interest and the attitudes towards science of primary teacher education students. International Journal of Science Education26, 895-908.

Shapiro, B., & Last, S. (2002). Starting points for transformation resources to craft a philosophy to guide professional development in elementary science. Professional development of science teachers: Local insights with lessons for the global community, 1-20.

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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching37, 963-980.

Tennessee State Board of Education. (n.d.). Science. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/sbe/committees-and-initiatives/standards-review/science.html

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of Professional Knowledge: An Examination of Research on Contemporary Professlonal Development. Review of research in education24(1), 173-209

 

Collaborating with Virtual Visiting Scientists to Address Students’ Perceptions of Scientists and their Work

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Grossman, B.T., & Farland-Smith, D. (2020). Collaborating with virtual visiting scientists to address students’ perceptions of scientists and their work. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/collaborating-with-virtual-visiting-scientists-to-address-students-perceptions-of-scientists-and-their-work/

by Brandon T. Grossman, University of Colorado Boulder; & Donna Farland-Smith, Ohio State University

Abstract

The idea that middle school students hold stereotypic representations or impressions of scientists is not new to the field of science education (Barman, 1997; Finson, 2002; Fort & Varney, 1989; Steinke et al., 2007). These representations may match the way scientists are often portrayed in the media in terms of their race (i.e., white), gender (i.e., male), the way they dress (i.e., lab coat, glasses, wild hair), their demeanor (i.e., nerdy, eccentric, anti-social), and where they work (i.e., in a laboratory by themselves). Bringing scientists into classrooms to collaborate with students and teachers has been shown to positively influence students’ perceptions of scientists and their work (Bodzin & Gerhinger, 2001; Flick, 1990). However, the planning and collaboration involved in this in-person work can be challenging, complex, and time consuming for both teachers and visiting scientists. Advances in classroom technologies have opened up new opportunities for disrupting problematic representations and supporting students in developing more expansive perceptions of science and scientists. This paper explores the collaboration between a middle school science teacher, five visiting scientists, and a science teacher educator around the development and implementation of a week long virtual visiting scientist program for middle school students. The impact the program had on the teacher’s ongoing practice and on students’ self-reported perceptions of science and scientists is also examined.

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

Angell, C., Henriksen, E., Isnes, K., & Isnes, A. (2003). Why learn physics? Others can take care of that! Physics in Norwegian Education: Content-perceptions-choices. Science Education Perspectives, Research & Development Oslo: Akademisk, 165-198.

Barman, C. (1997). Students’ views of scientists and science: Results from a national study. Science and Children, 35(1), 18-23.

Bodzin, A. & Gehringer, M. (2001). Breaking science stereotypes: Can meeting actual scientists change students’ perceptions of scientists? Science & Children, 38, 24-27.

Erb, T. O. (1981). Attitudes of early adolescents toward science, women in science, and science careers. Middle School Research Selected Studies, 6, 108-118.

Farland‐Smith, D. (2009). Exploring middle school girls’ science identities: Examining attitudes and perceptions of scientists when working “side‐by‐side” with scientists. School Science and Mathematics109, 415-427.

Finson, K.D. (2002). A multicultural comparison of draw-a-scientist test drawings of eighth graders. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference of the Association of Educators of Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.

Flick, L. (1990). Scientist in Residence program: Improving children’s images of science and scientists. School Science Mathematics, 90, 205-214.

Fort, D.C. & Varney, H.L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, mostly benevolent. Science & Children, 26 (8), 8-13.

Gettys, L. D., & Cann, A. (1981). Children’s perceptions of occupational sex stereotypes. Sex Roles, 7, 301-308.

Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 196, 1-18.

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs on the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 669-685.

Steinke, J., Lapinski, M.K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S.H., & Kuchibhotla, S. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35-64.

 

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 ‘Making’ to Elementary and Secondary Preservice Science Teachers Across Two University Settings

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Rodriguez, S. R., Fletcher, S. S., & Harron, J. R. (2019). Introducing ‘making’ to elementary and secondary preservice science teachers across two university settings. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/introducing-making-to-elementary-and-secondary-preservice-science-teachers-across-two-university-settings/

by Shelly R. Rodriguez, The University of Texas, Austin; Steven S. Fletcher, St. Edwards University; & Jason R. Harron, The University of Texas, Austin

Abstract

‘Making’ describes a process of iterative fabrication that draws on a DIY mindset, is collaborative, and allows for student expression through the creation of meaningful products. While making and its associated practices have made their way into many K-12 settings, teacher preparation programs are still working to integrate making and maker activities into their courses. This paper describes an end-of-semester maker project designed to introduce preservice science teachers to making as an educational movement. The project was implemented in two different higher education contexts, a public university secondary STEM introduction to teaching course and a private university elementary science methods course. The purpose of this article is to share this work by articulating the fundamental elements of the project, describing how it was enacted in each of the two settings, reviewing insights gained, and discussing possibilities for future iterations. The project’s instructional strategies, materials, and insights will be useful for those interested in bringing making into science teacher preparation.

Keywords: constructionism; making; preservice; project-based; science education

Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been a surge of interest in how the field of education can benefit from the tools, processes, and practices of making (e.g., Clapp, Ross, Ryan, & Tishman, 2016; Fields, Kafai, Nakajima, Goode, & Margolis, 2018; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Stager & Martinez, 2013). Drawing from a “do it yourself” (DIY) mindset, classroom-based making can be defined as an iterative process of fabrication that allows students to express themselves through the creation of personally meaningful products that are publicly shared (Rodriguez, Harron, & DeGraff, 2018). Like traditional science and engineering practices, making involves the building of models, theories, and systems (NSTA, 2013). However, in contrast to these practices, making explicitly emphasizes the development of personal agency and student empowerment through creative, hands-on learning experiences that are both exciting and motivating (Clapp et al., 2016; Maker Education Initiative, n.d.). A shift towards maker-centered learning provides an opportunity to rethink how we prepare science educators with the aim of bringing more student-driven and personally meaningful experiences to their instructional practice.

Comparable to project-based learning (PBL) and other inquiry-based teaching practices, classroom making involves learning by doing. Maker-centered learning shares many elements found in High Quality Project Based Learning (HQPBL, 2018) which suggests that projects should include intellectual challenge and accomplishment, authenticity, collaboration, project management, the creation of a public product, and reflection. These elements overlap significantly with features of classroom-based making (Rodriguez, Harron, Fletcher, & Spock, 2018). However, maker-centered learning draws specifically on the theoretical underpinnings of constructionism (Papert, 1991), where learners gain knowledge as they actively design and build tangible digital or physical objects. Furthermore, maker-centered learning places emphasis on the originality and personal meaning of creations, the productive use of tools and materials in fabrication, the process of iterative design, and the development of a maker mindset that is growth-oriented and failure positive (Martin, 2015). Thus, in maker-centered learning, the skills of construction and design are acquired alongside the content.

There are several examples of the tools and materials associated with making being used as a way to help students explore the natural world (Bevan, 2017; Peppler, Halverson, & Kafai, 2016). For example, the use of copper tape, LEDs, and coin cell batteries have provided an avenue for science teachers to introduce circuits through the creation of interactive pop-up books and user-friendly paper circuit templates (Qi & Buechley, 2010, 2014). Sewable circuits, which use conductive thread, have been shown to improve student interest in science (Tofel-Grehl et al., 2017) and can be used in conjunction with embedded electronics, such as the Arduino-based Lilypad, to introduce computer science through the creation of e-textiles (Fields et al., 2018). However, not all making is digital. Making also includes traditional work such as welding, sewing, wood working, and other techniques that exist outside of the computational world.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has acknowledged the potential of making to foster innovation, increase student retention, and broaden participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (National Science Foundation, 2017). However, more must be done to prepare future science educators to implement these practices in their classrooms. A national survey found that only half of undergraduate teacher preparation programs in the United States provided an opportunity to learn about maker-education and the associated technologies, and that only 17% had a makerspace available to their preservice teachers (Cohen, 2017). As such, many future educators are not exposed to formal training or professional development related to making. Since science teachers often uptake and implement the inquiry-based practices with which they have personal experience (Windschitl, 2003), a lack of exposure to maker-centered pedagogies may leave future educators unaware of the potential benefits of these innovations for their students.

This paper describes an end-of-semester project designed to introduce students to making as an educational movement. The project was implemented in two different settings. One was an introductory course offered as part of a secondary STEM teacher preparation program at a large public research university. The other was a science methods course designed for preservice elementary teachers offered at a private university. The purpose of this article is to share our work by articulating the fundamental elements of the project, describing the project as enacted in these two settings, reviewing insights gained, and discussing possibilities for future iterations.

The Maker Project

The maker project described in this paper was introduced four years ago in a secondary STEM teacher preparation course for a number of reasons. The first was to expose novice teachers to the practice of using open-ended projects with high levels of personal agency to uncover student ideas. The second was to spark creativity in the preservice teachers and engage them in the act of authentic problem solving. The final reason was to provide an opportunity for preservice teachers to interact with up-to-date educational tools that they may encounter in schools. Two years later, an elementary science methods course housed in a private university adopted this activity for similar reasons, with the additional hope of increasing preservice teacher self-efficacy around science content and tool use – a noted deficiency in the literature (Menon & Sadler, 2016; Rice & Roychoudhury, 2003; Yoon, et al., 2006).

The following section outlines strategies used to implement the project in the two different science teacher preparation settings. The fundamental elements of the project in both settings include: a) an introduction to making; b) a station activity to expose students to new technologies and materials; c) an open-ended construction task; d) extended out of class time to create a personally meaningful artifact; e) the public presentation of work to classmates, instructors, and guests; and f) reflections for the classroom. Table 1 provides description of each setting and an overview of how the project features were enacted.

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
Project Features in Each Context

Context Specific Implementation

Implementation in an introductory secondary STEM teacher preparation course

The introductory secondary STEM teacher preparation course is a 90-minute, one credit hour class in a large R1 university in central Texas. It meets once a week with approximately 25 students in each of five sections. The class is considered a recruitment course and is designed to give STEM majors the chance to try out teaching. In this class, students observe and teach a series of STEM lessons in local elementary schools. Those choosing to continue with the program will go on to teach in middle and high school settings and ultimately earn their teaching certification in a secondary STEM field. In the Fall of 2018, 53% of the students in the course were female and 47% male. 64% were underclassmen, 36% were either juniors, seniors, or post baccalaureate students, and 59% had either applied for or were receiving financial aid. 46% were science majors, 16% were math majors, 11% were computer science and engineering majors, 4% were degree holders, and the remaining students were assigned to other majors or undecided.

In class. The maker project in this course began with a project introduction day occurring approximately three weeks from the end of the semester. To start, students were introduced to the concept of making through a video created by Make: magazine and presented with a prompt, “What is making?”, to think about as they watch the video (Maker Media, 2016). The video describes making as a DIY human endeavor that involves creating things that tell a personal story. After the video screening, students engaged in a Think-Pair-Share activity where they discussed the initial prompt in small groups and shared ideas in a whole class discussion, often describing making as personal, innovative, open-ended, and challenging (See Figure 1).

Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge). Student ideas about making.

Next, the criteria for the final maker project was provided. The specific prompt for this project asked students to reflect on their teaching experience and to make an artifact that illustrated the story of their growth over the semester. Students were shown examples of what others had created in previous semesters. Some past projects featured traditional construction and craft materials such as woodworking and papier-mâché while others included digital tools such as 3D printing, block-based coding, and Arduinos. Students were also shown examples of maker projects as enacted in STEM classrooms such as activities that have K-12 pupils creating museum exhibits to learn about properties of water, using paper circuits to create illuminated food webs, and creating interactive cell models using a Makey Makey.

After reviewing project examples, time was spent introducing the class to several digital technologies through a stations activity. Though digital technologies were not given preference for the project, this activity was an opportunity to have students explore some of the digital tools that encourage invention in the classroom. The class was broken into groups and each group was given ten minutes to explore various digital tools and resources including Scratch, Instructables, Makey Makey, and Circuit Playground (See Appendix A). Preservice teachers farther along in the teacher preparation program facilitated the stations and helped current students explore the new technologies. A handout of useful websites and a place to make notes at each station was also provided (See Appendix B). Students rotated stations such that by the end of the activity they had briefly explored each of the technologies. The final part of the project introduction day was a reflective table talk that occurred after the station activity. At this time, students talked with their classmates and discussed ideas for their final maker project. They were encouraged to connect their project to something they cared about or a specific interest.

Out of class. Students were given two weeks to independently complete their maker projects. Students were free to incorporate traditional skills such as crafts, sewing, knitting, wood working, or metal working in their creation. They were also free to use the digital tools explored in class, or to combine digital and traditional tools to make something new. There was no additional class time provided however, the instructor and TA were available to help students outside of class. Students were encouraged to upcycle, or creatively reuse materials they already had, in creating their projects. Additionally, students were provided with a list of campus locations where they had free access to fabrication tools such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and sewing machines. The students had access to a workroom with traditional school supplies and a suite of recycled materials. Students could also check out digital tools from the program inventory. All of these items were available to them at no cost.

Presentation and reflection. On the last day of class, students presented their creations via a gallery walk format with half of the class presenting at one time and the other half circulating and serving as the audience. Students in the course produced a wide array of personally significant artifacts each of which told a story about their specific experience. Other preservice teachers, staff, and instructors from the program were invited to the presentations giving each student the opportunity to exhibit their work to a large audience. At the end of the presentation session, students completed a short reflection on making, classroom applications, and the project experience. Complete instructional materials for this maker project can be found at https://tinyurl.com/maker-final-project.

Implementation in an elementary science methods course

Elementary Science Methods (ESM) is a required course for all students seeking EC-6 teacher certification at a private liberal arts institution in central Texas. ESM is a 75-minute class that meets twice each week on the university campus in a general science lab. It is offered in the fall semester only and typically enrolls 24 students.  Students are predominantly in their final year of the preparation program before student teaching and ESM is one of two science classes required for their graduation from the institution. In the Fall of 2018, there were 23 total students in the ESM course. Twenty-two (96%) of the students in the course were female and one (4%) was male. Two (8%) of the students were sophomores and twenty-one (92%) were either juniors or seniors. Fourteen students (61%) were elementary teaching majors, eight (35%) were special education teacher majors, and the remaining student (4%) was preparing to become a bilingual elementary teacher.

Inspired by the project described above, the ESM maker final project was added to the syllabus three years ago to address specific issues observed from previous semesters of work with elementary science teachers in this context. First, many of the students in prior iterations of ESM had low self-efficacy about their ability to learn and teach science. Thus, one goal for implementing a maker project was to boost student confidence by engaging in a creative activity with a concrete product related to a science concept. Two additional goals relate to the original project from the secondary program: To introduce students to current knowledge around emerging trends in technology and science and to stimulate discussion around the value and challenges of authentic inquiry as a means for student learning and engagement. Since the act of making requires a personal commitment to the production of a product, the instructor hoped that this activity would enliven student curiosity and demonstrate the value of open-ended projects for their own elementary classrooms.

In class. As with the secondary STEM maker project, this project was framed as a culminating experience introduced near the end of the semester. Similarly, the first day of the lesson began with a video introduction to making. The lesson also included a rotating station activity with a supporting handout. Due to resource availability and focus on elementary school outcomes, the instructor modified the content of the stations. For this iteration, a paper circuits station and a bristlebot station were substituted for the Circuit Playground and Scratch stations. Emphasis was placed on exploration and play at each station and developing a sense of wonder around the materials or ideas. At the end of the class, groups shared what they noticed about the various activities in small groups and the instructor introduced the project options to the class. Students were given a choice to either: a) create a product that documented learning to use a tool or product that would demonstrate its possible usefulness in elementary science, or b) investigate an aspect of making, write a summary of the research, and create a visual product highlighting what they learned.

The second day of the lesson began with a recap of the project criteria. The criteria for this project, while open-ended to allow for authentic, personally meaningful work, included specific elements that related to state standards for elementary science, attention to safety, a projected calendar and a pre-assessment of how project goals and outcomes related to available tools, equipment, and resources to complete the work (see Appendix C). Students were given time to consider potential project options and discuss their ideas with their peers and instructor.

Out of class. Students were provided three weeks to complete the project before the culminating presentation. This timeframe included the Thanksgiving holiday and many students worked on their product at home.  During the last week of classes, the students were given an additional class day to share their projects in an unfinished state for feedback, to revise and refine their ideas, and to borrow tools from the supply cabinet for completion.

Presentation and reflection. During the final exam period, student products were set up and shared with peers and instructor in a maker exhibition. As in the secondary setting, the project presentations took place science fair style with half of the students presenting and half serving as the audience at any one time. Students also completed a written reflection discussing challenges, reiterating connections to science standards, and reflecting on lessons learned from the experience.

Insights from Project Implementation

While there was no formal data collection included as part of this project, student products and reflections from each setting provide initial insights. Figure 2 provides an overview of general insights as well as those specific to each context.

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge). An overview of maker project insights.

General Insights

The two contexts for maker project implementation differed significantly. However, insights emerged that were common to both settings. First, in both contexts, the preservice teachers developed a wide range of products including both high- and low-tech creations (see Appendix D). Figure 3 shows: a) a DIY water filtration system; b) an interactive neuron model; c) a series of origami swans; d) soldered paper circuit holiday cards e); a fluidized air bed; and f) an interactive model of a new “teacher” with makey makey fruit controls and related story.

Figure 3 (Click on image to enlarge). A range of student-generated maker projects.

The work produced for this project was personally connected to the interests and motivations of the makers and rooted in the students’ own lives. Second, reflections from preservice teachers in both courses indicate that, through this project, many students experienced the importance of persistence and adaptability when encountering challenges. The open-ended nature of the project turned out to be one of its most important elements as it challenged students develop an original idea and then persist and adapt to bring their idea to life. Third, in both contexts, many preservice teachers described a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment stemming from the creation and presentation of their work. Finally, students in both courses made connections between their maker experience and the process of teaching and learning. Table 2 shows comments from student reflections related to these themes.

Table 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
Student Comments From Both Maker Project Settings

Additionally, in both settings, the project encouraged some students to take making further. In the secondary setting, multiple students went on to join the maker micro-credentialing program offered by the teacher preparation program. In the elementary setting, several students completed independent projects in the area of making. For example, two students collected data, worked with university faculty and teachers at local makerspaces, and presented their findings on supporting special needs students in making at a local maker education conference.

Insights from an Introductory Secondary STEM Teacher Preparation Course

Written reflections indicate that many members of the secondary STEM teacher preparation course developed a deeper understanding of the nature of making. As an example, one student wrote that “I thought that making was all about electronics and coding but there is so much more…it generates your own creativity and interests.” Another student wrote, “Making is about putting one’s experiences and passions into a project. Making adds a sense of ownership and differentiation.” This was a first exposure to making for most students and their reflections indicate that the project helped them develop a personal conception of what it means to make.

Second, this project helped model the creation of a safe space for exploration and failure for these students. The class mantra during this project was “You can’t get it wrong” and student reflections illustrated their connection with this part of a maker mindset. For example, one student commented, “Making is about growing as an explorer. Making is not being afraid to fail! At the beginning I thought making was trivial but I now see the importance of hands on learning as a chance to really fail.”  Another student said, “During creating, I asked myself ‘Am I doing it right?’ ‘Is this fine?’ and when I was presenting I realized ‘this is totally fine, there is no right or wrong’.” This positive message about failure is not one that STEM undergraduates at large public universities often hear. Thus, for this group, the project provided an essential model for rewarding effort over the commonly prioritized final product.

Insights from an Elementary Science Methods Course

The elementary preservice teachers in the three-hour course showed increased confidence with a wide array of maker tools and equipment such as soldering irons, electronics, and woodworking equipment. The open-ended nature of the assignment allowed students in this course to make a range of high-level products, from a 2D model of a neural cell that used different colored LED’s to show how a neural impulse moves, to holiday cards, to a fluidized airbed. Reflections indicate that many students felt increased confidence with equipment related to their projects. One student commented, “I never thought I’d be able to solder, but after connecting the LED’s to the paper circuit holiday cards, I can do it!  Thanks for giving me the chance to learn this. I want to try making jewelry next.”

The students in the ESM course also made specific connections to teaching science in the elementary context. Student reflections show that they honed in on ideas of agency and engagement as central features of making that would motivate them to do projects of this kind with their future pupils. For example, one student said, “I am totally going to use making in my science classroom because it makes students take responsibility for their own learning and gives them ownership of their work.” Another student wrote, through making “you can make science fun and creative for students allowing them to take control of creating whatever they can dream of.” These reflections illustrate the potential of this project to influence the classroom instruction of these future teachers.

Finally, one unique outcome was that many members of the elementary group experienced making as an opportunity to create with friends and family. The project implementation in this setting coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday, giving many students the opportunity to work with parents or friends. For example, one student shared the specifics of her maker journey with permission.  When the project was introduced, she considered making something for her father as a holiday gift. She initially wanted to learn how to create fly-fishing flies based on her father’s love of fishing. However, the costs of buying materials were prohibitive. A chance visit to a website that showed a video demonstrating the non-Newtonian nature of a fluidized airbed then excited her to consider making her own model to demonstrate this fascinating phenomenon.  After checking that the proper equipment to make a small model was available in her family garage, she traveled home for Thanksgiving with initial instructions.  She worked with her father over the break to bring her creation to life. Like many maker projects, the initial results required refinement. Challenges included compressor issues as well as using the wrong substrate for the bed material. However, she persisted and was able to present her model at the maker exhibition with pride. The student’s build is documented in this video. It highlights her energy and enthusiasm for the work. She recently shared with Steve that she will be refining her initial attempt again, having secured a bigger compressor and better substrate.

While making is a journey that differs for each maker, many of the students in the ESM class included a significant other in their building process. This was an unexpected outcome and may have led to more collaborative and ambitious creations. This insight highlights the potential of making as a community-building endeavor.

Project Management

It should be noted that some students were challenged by the technical details and time required to produce a working product so it is important to provide extended time and to include out of class support. This might include additional office hours and partnering with more advanced students to provide technical support. Consider working with campus engineering, art, or instructional technology departments to find others willing to help with advice on construction and tool use. In addition, instructors should consult with appropriate university departments concerning risk management strategies to ensure student safety. Requiring students who plan to use equipment with potential risk in their projects (woodworking or metalworking equipment for example) to complete safety training is highly recommended. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration provides guidelines for safe hand and power tool use (OSHA, 2002).

Regular check-ins with students are also useful. Instructors implementing this type of activity might encourage students to complete weekly reflections and upload photos to document the evolution of their process. Including documentation practices of this kind models the use of electronic platforms, such as Blackboard or Canvas, now common in many school districts, as portfolio systems that can be used to capture and share the ongoing work of their K-12 pupils.

Discussion

The culminating maker project was an open-ended assignment where students were invited to: a) make an artifact related to STEM teaching; b) present their product publicly; c) reflect on their work; and d) consider classroom applications. In the process of creation and making, the students explored new digital, craft, and construction technologies and created a product of personal significance. Through making, students in the class experienced fundamental aspects of creativity, agency, persistence, and reflection.  These attributes are essential elements of 21st century learning and are traits that early-career K-12 science teachers are expected to model and train their own pupils to embody.  Furthermore, when students integrate scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts in the authentic products they create, then maker-centered instruction can facilitate NGSS three-dimensional learning principles in a personally meaningful way (National Research Council, n.d.).

This open-ended maker project is adaptable to varied contexts thus, the expertise and goals of the instructor or facilitator will likely shape the student experience. For example, in this project, students reflected on their growth as educators but with a different set of criteria in each setting. For the secondary students who were majoring in a STEM field, self-efficacy around science content was not an issue. Because the course was only one-credit hour, creativity and effort producing an open-ended product was emphasized. Additionally, the TA for this course was well-versed in maker-related electronics and provided extra support to students attempting novel projects with these tools. In the Elementary Science Methods course, the instructor focused on connections to science standards and building confidence in the use of basic tools, with which he had extensive experience. Thus, this project can be used to achieve a wide array of outcomes and instructors should be thoughtful about their project aims from the start, paying special attention to providing a wide range of practice, play, and examples from the maker world. Connecting to local makers, artisans, and craftsman can expand the project’s reach.

Furthermore, in both courses, equitable teaching and learning are addressed during other activities. However, because making is often situated in a privileged and gendered paradigm (Vossoughi, Hooper, & Escudé, 2016), future iterations of this activity could include an element that explicitly examines how students can negotiate the opportunities and challenges of the activity in diverse classroom settings. Explicit reflections on equity and readings on these issues as they relate to maker education would be productive additions for future iterations.

Conclusion

Tenacity in the face of adversity is a common trait among successful teachers who must evaluate and adapt their teaching to new situations on a daily basis, and who undoubtedly fail many times but use those failures to learn and grow. In the same way, this culminating maker project was scary, messy, exciting, and inspiring. While student projects rarely turned out as planned, student reflections suggest that the experience helped them to value and embrace this ill structured process. As future teachers, this maker experience may be critical in helping our newest practitioners envision a classroom space where students are personally connected to content, have ownership of their learning, are given the freedom to explore and create without fear, and are encouraged to persist in the face of challenges. In this way, including a project that addresses elements of making and fosters a maker mindset can be a valuable step toward preparing preservice teachers to bring innovative and inspirational practices to science education.

Acknowledgement

This article was developed in connection with the UTeach Maker program at The University of Texas at Austin. UTeach Maker is funded in part by a Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship grant from the National Science Foundation (1557155). Opinions expressed in this submission are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The National Science Foundation.

References

Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75-103. doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Cohen, J. (2017). Maker principles and technologies in teacher education: A national survey. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 25(1), 5-30. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172304

Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y., Nakajima, T., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2018). Putting making into high school computer science classrooms: Promoting equity in teaching and learning with electronic textiles in exploring computer science, Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 21-35. doi:10.1080/10665684.2018.1436998

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 495-504. doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063

High Quality Project Based Learning (HQPBL) (2018). A framework for high quality project based learning. Retrieved from https://hqpbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/FrameworkforHQPBL.pdf

Make. (March 30, 2016). What is a maker? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUoZwuSDikY

Maker Education Initiative (n.d.). Approach. Retrieved from http://makered.org/about-us/approach/

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30-39. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099

Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2016).  Preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy beliefs and science content knowledge.  Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 649-673.  doi:10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y

National Research Council (NRC). (n.d.). Three Dimensional Learning. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2017). The National Science Foundation and making. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=131770

National Science Teacher Association (NSTA). (2013). Science and engineering practices. Arlington, VA: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from http://static.nsta.org/ngss/MatrixOfScienceAndEngineeringPractices.pdf

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Chapter 1: Introduction to this volume. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rice, D. C., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice elementary science teachers: One elementary science methods teacher’s self-study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 97–126. doi:10.1023/A:1023658028085

Rodriguez, S., Harron, J., Fletcher, S., & Spock, H. (2018). Elements of making: A framework to support making in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 85(2), 24-30.

Rodriguez, S. R., Harron, J. R., & DeGraff, M. W. (2018). UTeach Maker: A micro-credentialing program for preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 6-17. doi:10.1080/21532974.2017.1387830

Qi, J., & Buechley, L. (2010, January). Electronic popables: Exploring paper-based computing through an interactive pop-up book. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (pp. 121-128). ACM.

Qi, J., & Buechley, L. (2014, April). Sketching in circuits: Designing and building electronics on paper. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1713-1722). ACM.

Stager, G., and Martinez, S. L. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Tofel-Grehl, C., Fields, D., Searle, K., Maahs-Fladung, C., Feldon, D., Gu, G., & Sun, C. (2017). Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology26, 406-417.

Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review86, 206-232. doi:10.17763/0017-8055.86.2.206

Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice?. Science education, 87(1), 112-143. doi:10.1002/sce.10044

Yoon, S., Pedretti, E., Pedretti, L., Hewitt, J., Perris, K., & Van Oostveen, R. (2006). Exploring the use of cases and case methods in influencing elementary preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 15–35. doi:10.1007/s10972-005-9005-0

 

Piloting an Adaptive Learning Platform with Elementary/Middle Science Methods

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

by Matthew E. Vick, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Abstract

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

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

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

Become a member or renew your membership

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Lessons Learned from Going Global: Infusing Classroom-based Global Collaboration (CBGC) into STEM Preservice Teacher Preparation

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

York, M. K., Hite, R., & Donaldson, K. (2019). Lessons learned from going global: Infusing classroom-based global collaboration (CBGC) into STEM preservice teacher preparation. Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/lessons-learned-from-going-global-infusing-classroom-based-global-collaboration-cbgc-into-stem-preservice-teacher-preparation/

by M. Kate York, The University of Texas at Dallas; Rebecca Hite, Texas Tech University; & Katie Donaldson, The University of Texas at Dallas

Abstract

There are many affordances of integrating classroom-based global collaboration (CBGC) experiences into the K-12 STEM classroom, yet few opportunities for STEM preservice teachers (PST) to participate in these strategies during their teacher preparation program (TPP). We describe the experiences of 12 STEM PSTs enrolled in a CBGC-enhanced course in a TPP. PSTs participated in one limited communication CBGC (using mathematics content to make origami for a global audience), two sustained engaged CBGCs (with STEM PSTs and in-service graduate students at universities in Belarus and South Korea), and an individual capstone CBGC-infused project-based learning (PBL) project. Participating STEM PSTs reported positive outcomes for themselves as teachers in their 21st century skills development and increased pedagogical content knowledge. Participants also discussed potential benefits for their students in cultural understanding and open-mindedness. Implementation of each of these CBGCs in the STEM PST course, as well as STEM PST instructors’ reactions and thoughts, are discussed.

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

ACER Research Conference, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003

Aydarova, E., & Marquardt, S. K. (2016). The global imperative for teacher education: Opportunities for comparative and international education. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 3(1), 23-40.

Boss, S. (2016, November 8). How are you helping your students become global citizens [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/how-are-you-helping-your-students-become-global-citizens-suzie-boss

Brown, G. S. (2014, March 21). “It’s a Small World:” 9 little-known facts. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/disneys-small-world-facts/story?id=22990670

Clement, M. C., & Outlaw, M. E. (2002). Student teaching abroad: Learning about teaching, culture, and self. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38, 180-183.

Cogan, J. J., & Grossman, D. L. (2010). Characteristics of globally minded teachers: A twenty-first century view. In T. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education: The globalization of curriculum and pedagogy in teacher education and schools (pp. 240-255). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Collins, M. (2015, May). The pros and cons of globalization. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#230354a5ccce      

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1997). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Dede, C. (2009). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. Retrieved from http://sttechnology.pbworks.com/

Derman-Sparks, L. (1995). How well are we nurturing racial and ethnic diversity. In Levine, R. Lowe, B. Peterson, & R. Tenorio (Eds.), Rethinking schools: An agenda for change (pp. 17-22). New York, NY: The New Press.

Fang, Y., & Gopinathan, S. (2009). Teachers and teaching in Eastern and Western schools: A critical review of cross-cultural comparative studies. In L. J. Saha & G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 557–572). New York, NY: Springer.

Geer, R. (2000). Drivers for successful student learning through collaborative interactivity in internet-based courses. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, CA.

Gibson, K. L., Rimmington, G. M., & Landwehr-Brown, M. (2008). Developing global awareness and responsible world citizenship with global learning. Roeper Review, 30(1), 11-23.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence. Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What Does the Research Tell Us

Higley, M. (2013). Benefits of synchronous and asynchronous e-Learning. E-learning Industry, 23, 42.

Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. Rivier Academic Journal, 7(2), 1-13.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

iEARN. (n.d.a).  Origami Project.  Retrieved from https://iearn.org/cc/space-2/group-129

iEARN. (n.d.b).  Project for Future Teachers – Knowing Our Students; Knowing Ourselves. Retrieved from https://iearn.org/cc/space-10/group-77

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/standards-for-teachers

Kambutu, J., & Nganga, L. W. (2008). In these uncertain times: Educators build cultural awareness through planned international experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 939-951.

Kerlin, S. C. (2009). Global learning communities: Science classrooms without walls (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3380932)

Klein, J. D. (2017). The global education guidebook: Humanizing K-12 classrooms worldwide through equitable partnerships. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2014). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A project-based approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Langer, E. (2012, March 7). Disney composer penned “It’s a Small World.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/disney-composer-penned-its-a-small-world/2012/03/06/gIQAik3txR_story.html?utm_term=.cf6c574f0d5f

Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010). Seven essentials for project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 34-37.

Lindsay, J., & Davis, V. (2013). Flattening classrooms, engaging minds: Move to global collaboration one step at a time. New York, NY: Pearson.

Lyon, G. E. (1999). Where I’m from: Where poems come from. Spring, TX: Absey & Company.

Markham, T. (2011). Project-based learning: A bridge just far enough. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38-42.

Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. A. (2011). Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: Merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 525-547.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2016). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2009). International science education andthe National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/international.aspx

Nugent, J., Smith, W., Cook, L., & Bell, M. (2015). 21st century citizen science: From global awareness to global contribution. The Science Teacher, 82(8), 34-38.

Partnership for 21st  Century Learning – A Network of Battelle for Kids (P21). (2019). Retrieved from http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources

PBLWorks. (2012). What should global PBL look like?  Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/blog/what_should_global_pbl_look_likePence, H. M., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 14-25.

Reimers, F. M. (2009). Leading for global competency. Educational Leadership, 67(1). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/Leading-for-Global-Competency.aspx

Richards, J. (2012, March 13). It’s an annoying song (after all). The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/03/its-an-annoying-song-after-all/254429/

Riel, M. (1994). Cross-classroom collaboration in global Learning Circles. The Sociological Review, 42, 219–242.

Sherman, R. B., & Sherman, R. M. (1963). It’s a small world (Theme from the Disneyland and Walt Disney World attraction, “It’s a small world”). Wonderland Music Co., Inc.

Soland, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2013). Measuring 21st century competencies: Guidance for educators. Retrieved from Asia Society website: https://asiasociety.org/files/gcen-measuring21cskills.pdf

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

United States Census Bureau. (2016). School enrollment in the United States: 2015. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/school-enrollment/2017-cps.html

Uro, G., & Barrio, A. (2013). English language learners in America’s great city schools: Demographics, achievement, and staffing. Retrieved from   http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543305.pdf

Walters, L. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into pre-service teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(sup1), S151-S158.

World Savvy. (2018). What is Global Competence?  Retrieved from http://www.worldsavvy.org/global-competence/

York, M. K. (2017). Going global: Exploring the behavioral intent of STEM pre-service teachers in a global collaboration focused teacher preparation course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/73486

Zong, G. (2009). Global perspectives in teacher education research and practice. In T. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.), Visions in global education: The globalization of curriculum and pedagogy in teacher education and schools (pp. 71-89). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

 

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

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

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

Abstract

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Backward Design for Learning and Language Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparing Teachers for Backward Design with a Language Lens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridget, Elementary Science Teacher

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

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

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

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

Jillian, Secondary Science Teacher

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

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

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

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

Conclusions & Recommendations

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

Application in Practice

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

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

Suggestions for Implementation

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scaffolding Preservice Science Teacher Learning of Effective English Learner Instruction: A Principle-Based Lesson Cycle

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Roberts, S.A., & Bianchini, J.A. (2019). Scaffolding preservice science teacher learning of effective english learner instruction: A principle-based lesson cycle. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/scaffolding-preservice-science-teacher-learning-of-effective-english-learner-instruction-a-principle-based-lesson-cycle/

by Sarah A. Roberts, University of California, Santa Barbara; & Julie A. Bianchini, University of California, Santa Barbara

Abstract

This paper examines a lesson development, implementation, revision, and reflection cycle used to support preservice secondary science teachers in learning to teach English learners (ELs) effectively. We begin with a discussion of our framework for teaching reform-based science to ELs – four principles of effective EL instruction and three levels of language – that shaped both our science methods course, more generally, and the lesson cycle, in particular. We then present a model lesson implemented in the methods course that highlighted these principles and levels for our preservice teachers. Next, we describe how preservice teachers used their participation in and analysis of this model lesson as a starting point to develop their own lessons, engaging in a process of development, implementation, revision, and reflection around our EL principles and language levels. We close with a description of our course innovation, viewed through the lens of the preservice teachers. We attempt to provide practical insight into how other science teacher educators can better support their preservice teachers in effectively teaching ELs.

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

Aguirre, J. M. & Bunch, G. C. (2012). What’s language got to do with it?: Identifying language demands in mathematics instruction for English language learners. In S. Celedón-Pattichis & N. Ramirez (Eds.), Beyond good teaching: Advancing mathematics education for ELLs. (pp. 183-194). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Bleicher, R. E., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 33, 319-339. doi:10.1023/A:1025480311414

Bravo, M. A., Mosqueda, E., Solís, J. L., & Stoddart, T. (2014). Possibilities and limits of integrating science and diversity education in preservice elementary teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 601-619. doi:10.1007/s10972-013-9374-8

Buck, G., Mast, C., Ehlers, N., & Franklin, E. (2005). Preparing teachers to create a mainstream science classroom conducive to the needs of English-language learners: A feminist action research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1013–1031. doi:10.1002/tea.20085

Bunch, G. C. (2014). The language of ideas and the language of display: Reconceptualizing academic language in linguistically diverse classrooms. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(1), 70-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2014.852431

Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2018). Teacher learning and practices toward equitably consequential science education. In H. Kang (Chair), Pre-service science teacher education symposium: Re-framing problems of practice in preparing new science teachers for equity in the NGSS era. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College.

Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural approach. In G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 227-258). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335–347. doi:10.1002/sce.20050

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does – and does not – say. American Educator, 32, 8-23, 42-44.

Iddings, A. C. D. (2005). Linguistic access and participation: English language learners in an English-dominant community of practice. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 165-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2005.10162829

Johnson, C. C., Bolshakova, V. L. J., & Waldron, T. (2016). When good intentions and reality meet: Large-scale reform of science teaching in urban schools with predominantly Latino ELL students. Urban Education, 51, 476-513. doi:10.1177/0042085914543114

Khisty, L. L., & Chval, K. B. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14, 154-168. doi:10.1007/BF03217360

Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52, 110-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770328

Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a multiyear professional development intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching45, 726-747. doi:10.1002/tea.20231

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42, 223-233. doi:10.3102/0013189X13480524

Lyon, E. G., Tolbert, S., Stoddart, P., Solis, J., & Bunch, G. C. (2016). Secondary science teaching for English learners: Developing supportive and responsive learning contexts for sense-making and language development. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and schools. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 189-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_5

Moschkovich, J. (2007). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 121-144. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9005-1

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2009). How has the limited English proficient student population changed in recent years? Washington, DC: NCELA. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/rcd/BE021773/How_Has_The_Limited_English.pdf

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National School Reform Faculty. (2014). ATLAS: Learning from student work. Retrieved from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/system/files/protocols/atlas_lfsw_0.pdf

Planas, N., & Gorgorió, N. (2004). Are different students expected to learn norms differently in the mathematics classroom? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16, 19-40. doi:10.1007/BF03217389

Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to next generation science standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/language-demands-and-opportunities-relation-next-generation-science-standards-ells

Richardson Bruna, K., Vann, R., & Escudero, M. P. (2007). What’s language got to do with it?: A case study of academic language instruction in a high school “English learner science” class. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 36-54.

Roberts, S. A., Bianchini, J. A., Lee, J. S., Hough, S., & Carpenter, S. (2017). Developing an adaptive disposition for supporting English language learners in science: A capstone science methods course. In A. Oliveira & M. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science Teacher Preparation in Content-Based Second Language Acquisition (pp. 79-96). Columbus, OH: Association of Science Teacher Educators.

Rosebery, A. S., & Warren, B. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tekkumru‐Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content‐practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching52, 659-685. doi:10.1002/tea.21208

Tobin, K. G., & Kahle, J. B. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Understanding Language. (2013). Six key principles for ELL instruction. Retrieved from Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Understanding Language website http://ell.stanford.edu/content/six-key-principles-ell-instruction

Warnock, A., Berkowitz, A., Blank, B., Cano, A., Caplan, B., Covitt, B., . . . Whitmer, A. (2012). School water pathways. Retrieved from http://www.pathwaysproject.kbs.msu.edu/?page_id=49

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Zwiers, J., O’Hara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2014). Essential practices for developing academic language and disciplinary literacy. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.