Taking Our Own Medicine: Revising a Graduate Level Methods Course on Curriculum Change

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kraus, R.V., & Shapiro, L.J. (2018). Taking our own medicine: Revising a graduate level methods course on curriculum change. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(4). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/taking-our-own-medicine-revising-a-graduate-level-methods-course-on-curriculum-change/

by Rudolf V. Kraus, Rhode Island College; & Lesley J. Shapiro, Keene State College

Abstract

Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards presents challenges for practicing teachers. This article presents our reflection on creating and revising a class designed to teach inservice teachers about curriculum change and the Next Generation Science Standards. In its initial iteration, the course was designed to address the intellectual and practical aspects of this change in standards. Interaction with teachers, as well as gathered course reflections, indicated that addressing the process of curriculum change is both a practical task and an emotional one.

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 Museum of Natural History. (2018, May 11). Five tools and processes for translating the NGSS into instruction and classroom assessment. Retrieved from https://www.amnh.org/explore/curriculum-collections/five-tools-and-processes-for-ngss/

Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures: Removing procedures from chemistry labs creates opportunities for student inquiry. Science Teacher, 72(7), 54-58.

Bupp, N. (1996). The change curve. In High-Performance work organization (HPWO) partnership seminar. Placid Harbor: MD, 4-11

Bybee, R. W. (1995). Science curriculum reform in the United States. In R.W. Bybee & J.D. McInerney (Eds), Redesigning the science curriculum (pp. 12-20). Washington DC: National Academies Press.

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

Elrod, P. D., & Tippett, D. D. (2002). The “death valley” of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 273-291.

Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it?. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 269-284.

Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. The School Review, 79, 171-212.

Liu, Y., & Perrewe, P. L. (2005). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational change: A process model. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 263-280.

Mangin, M. (2016). Teacher leadership and high-stakes teacher evaluation: Complementary or conflicting approaches to improvement? Journal of School Leadership, 26, 938.

Moreno, N. P. (1999). K-12 science education reform–a primer for scientists. Bioscience, 49, 569.

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

Prophet, B., & Hodson, D. (1988). The science of common things: A case study in social control. History of Education, 17, 131-147.

Pruitt, S. L. (2015). The Next Generation Science Standards: Where are we now and what have we learned?. Science & Children, 52(9), 7-9.

Rutherford, F., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sotelo, B., & Livingood, R. A. (2015). A qualitative case study for technology acceptance using TAM and the Kübler-Ross models. International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, 6(4), 20-29.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria VA: ASCD.

Wren, K. (2014). Before the Common Core, there was science for all Americans the landmark AAAS book continues to influence education reform 25 years after it defined the concept of science literacy. Science, 345, 1012-1013.

Yager, R. (2000). The history and future of science education reform. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 74(1), 51.

Yager, R. E. (2015). Biology education in an era of acronyms. The American Biology Teacher, 77, 563-564

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

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Become a member or renew your membership

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Become a member or renew your membership

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

by Franklin S. Allaire, University of Houston-Downtown

Abstract

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

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

Become a member or renew your membership

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Promoting “Science for All” Through Teacher Candidate Collaboration and Community Engagement

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kahn, S., Hartman, S.L., Oswald, K., & Samblanet, M. (2018). Promoting “science for all” through teacher candidate collaboration and community engagement. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/promoting-science-for-all-through-teacher-candidate-collaboration-and-community-engagement/

by Sami Kahn, Ohio University; Sara L. Hartman, Ohio University; Karen Oswald, Ohio University; & Marek Samblanet, Ohio University

Abstract

The Next Generation Science Standards present a bold vision for meaningful, quality science experiences for all students. Yet students with disabilities continue to underperform on standardized assessments while persons with disabilities remain underrepresented in science fields. Paramount among the factors contributing to this disparity is that science teachers are underprepared to teach students with disabilities while special education teachers are similarly ill-prepared to teach science. This situation creates a pedagogical and moral dilemma of placing teachers in classrooms without ample preparation, thereby guaranteeing attitudinal and practical barriers. To address this challenge, the authors of this manuscript developed a novel project in which, through voluntary participation, members of Ohio University’s National Science Teachers Association student chapter co-planned and co-taught inclusive science lessons with members of the university’s Student Council for Exceptional Children at the Ohio Valley Museum of Discovery, a local hands-on discovery museum. This manuscript describes the motivation for, methods, and findings from the project, as well as recommendations for other programs wishing to implement a similar model.

Introduction

The Next Generation Science Standards present a bold vision for equitable and excellent science opportunities through a call for “All Standards, All Students” (Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] Lead States, 2013, Appendix D). Following in the footsteps of the earlier “Science for All” efforts, the NGSS articulate a range of supports for marginalized groups in science, including students with disabilities. For those of us who have worked on issues of science equity and accessibility throughout our careers, it seems implausible that profound educational disparities and attitudinal barriers persist in the 21st Century. Yet despite decades of work on inclusive science research and practice, persons with disabilities continue to be underrepresented in science careers while students with disabilities underperform on science assessments (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011; National Science Foundation [NSF], 2013). Paramount among the factors contributing to this disparity is that science teachers are underprepared to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms, while special education teachers are similarly ill-prepared to teach science ( Irving, Nti, & Johnson, 2007; Kahn & Lewis, 2014). An obvious solution is to have science and special educators co-teach in the classroom, yet research suggests that without preparation and experience in such models, teachers face tremendous obstacles including lack of co-planning time, challenges with establishing roles and responsibilities, and simply lack of familiarity with discipline-specific accommodations (Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009). This situation creates a pedagogical and, as we believe, a moral dilemma of placing teachers in classrooms without ample preparation, a set-up for attitudinal and practical barriers.

We were therefore interested in developing flexible opportunities for science teacher candidates to interact and co-teach with special education candidates in an effort to provide meaningful experiences for all of our students, contribute to the research base in inclusive science teacher education, and support our greater community. To that end, we developed an Inclusive Science Day during which members of our Ohio University National Science Teachers Association (OU-NSTA) student chapter co-planned and co-taught inclusive science lessons with student members of our Student Council for Exceptional Children (SCEC) at the Ohio Valley Museum of Discovery (OVMoD), a local hands-on discovery museum. In doing so, our candidates learned about inclusive science practices, experienced co-planning, budgeting, and delivering science activities for a diverse audience, gained appreciation for the benefits of informal science community partnerships, and learned about themselves as future teachers of all students. This manuscript describes the motivation for, methods, and findings from our project, as well as recommendations for other programs wishing to implement a similar model.

Theoretical and School Context

Teacher Preparation and Science for Students with Disabilities

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, later reauthorized as the IDEIA (2004), guarantees a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. For the more than 6 million students in American schools identified as having disabilities, this means that they are guaranteed opportunities for learning commensurate with their abilities across subjects, including science. While most science teachers at all levels will teach students with disabilities in their classrooms, most receive little formal education in inclusive science practices. In their nationwide survey of 1088 science teachers, Kahn and Lewis (2014) found that, while 99% of the participants had taught students with disabilities during their careers, nearly one-third had not received any training on the subject and of those who had “on the job training” was cited as the most prominent context for learning. Similarly, special education teachers receive little training in science education (Patton, Palloway, & Cronin, 1990), leaving them to frequently be marginalized in inclusive science settings, with science teachers taking the lead. It is perhaps, therefore, not surprising that students with disabilities underperform on standardized science assessments and are underrepresented in science fields. Without the benefit of teachers who have been adequately prepared to develop accessible lessons using inclusive pedagogical approaches, students with disabilities will continue to be underserved in the sciences.

Although science and special education are often characterized as representing different philosophical stances (McGinnis & Kahn, 2014), contemporary frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2015) can mediate these differences by capitalizing on the abilities and acknowledging the challenges of all students, thereby creating a cohesive approach to ensuring access for the greatest number of learners. We hypothesized that allowing candidates to co-plan and co-teach UDL activities would provide them with the unique opportunity to discover each other’s strengths, assess their own weaknesses, and become exposed to different perspectives. As in most teacher education programs, however, these opportunities were scant for our candidates due to the structural requirements of their different programs of study and teaching placements. It seemed that a less formal opportunity was needed to explore possible benefits and challenges of collaborative inclusive programming. We decided to turn to the OVMoD for assistance.

Informal Science Learning

Informal science learning spaces, such as museums, zoos, aquaria, botanical gardens, provide unique opportunities for contextualized science learning for their visitors (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009). By providing materials and exhibits that are not otherwise readily accessible, allowing for open, unstructured discovery, and welcoming learners of all ages and backgrounds, these spaces offer incomparable resources to their surrounding communities (Fenichel & Schweingruber, 2010). Informal science learning spaces also provide powerful contexts for learning, not only for visitors but also for teacher candidates (Duran, Ballone-Duran, Haney, & Beltyukova, 2009). By providing candidates with teaching opportunities in such spaces, candidates learn to “think on their feet” as they are met by learners about whom they have no prior information, and must therefore anticipate challenges and respond quickly. They are also exposed to visitors representing a variety of ages, backgrounds, and abilities, thus necessitating a true “science for all” attitude and approach (McGinnis, Hestness, Riedinger, Katz, Marbach-Ad, & Dai A., 2012). Finally, bringing teacher candidates to informal science learning spaces allows them to learn about and serve their community, and of course, allows the community to become better acquainted with the programs and services available through the university, thereby promoting symbiotic learning opportunities (Bevan et al., 2010).

Our Programs

The Patton College of Education at Ohio University serves approximately 1600 undergraduate and 900 graduate students and uses a clinical model for teacher preparation, thus ensuring extensive in-school opportunities for students beginning in their sophomore year and benefitting from close relationships with partner schools (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). Within our Department of Teacher Education, undergraduate and masters students can select from a wide swath of science teaching majors leading to certification in middle and secondary science areas. In addition, we have a thriving early childhood program that includes courses in both preschool and elementary science methods. Likewise, our nationally-recognized special education program leads to multiple graduate and undergraduate licensures. Undergraduate licensures include programming for intervention specialists seeking degrees to work with students with mild-to-moderate or moderate-to-intensive educational needs.

As vigorous and comprehensive as our programs are, teacher candidates from science education and special education interact infrequently during school hours due to their divergent course and placement requirements. Fortunately, our college supports (both philosophically and financially) our professional organization student chapters which afford opportunities for flexible collaboration. Our Ohio University National Science Teachers Association (OU-NSTA) student chapter welcomes all students with an interest in science teaching and learning. This chapter experienced a renaissance recently with regular meetings, numerous fundraising activities, learning opportunities including attendance at a regional NSTA conference, and a concerted commitment to service learning in our community. This chapter currently has approximately 25 members representing both undergraduate and graduate programs, although most are undergraduate secondary (middle and high school) science education majors. Our Student Council for Exceptional Children (SCEC) boasts a large, consistent membership of approximately 35 to 40 teacher candidates who meet regularly, assist with functions held by the local developmental disabilities programs, and provide fundraising support for members of the community with disabilities as well as schools in need of resources for serving students with disabilities. This organization enjoys the leadership of a long-term and beloved advisor who has developed the group through many years of mentoring and modeling. In addition to our college of education, our university’s center for community engagement provides small grants for service learning projects. We were fortunate to receive funding for our Inclusive Science Day project to cover the cost of training materials used with our teacher candidates, consumables for science activities, and refreshments. In addition, this grant provided funds for two of our students to attend a regional NSTA conference early in the year at which they interviewed various leaders in the science education community as well as publishers and science education suppliers about their inclusive science materials. This experience was eye-opening for our students, who presented their findings at subsequent group meetings, as it set the stage for our Inclusive Science Day planning.

The Intervention: Inclusive Science Day

In order to determine the potential for an Inclusive Science Day at an informal learning space, the OU-NSTA advisor raised the idea with a colleague from the College of Education, who is also on the board of the OVMoD to discuss possibilities. The colleague indicated that the museum had made concerted efforts to reach out to visitors with all abilities through use of universally-designed displays and a “sensory-friendly” day; she was completely open to the idea of having teacher candidates plan and teach at the museum but would need to discuss the idea with the museum’s executive director and other board members.  The OU-NSTA advisor then met with the SCEC advisor, who was equally enthusiastic about the prospect of collaboration. Both the OU-NSTA and SCEC advisors then presented the idea to their respective executive board members who were highly receptive. Concurrently, the OU-NSTA advisor participated in an 8-week course on service learning offered by the university’s center for community engagement in order to better understand the dynamics of collaborative endeavors with community entities and to consider in depth both the potential learning opportunities for the teacher candidates and the service opportunities for the museum. While it might have been possible for this project to come to fruition without that training, the advisor felt that it undoubtedly prepared her for the potential benefits and challenges. Once all parties embraced Inclusive Science Day, the two advisors began to plan the training and research.

Planning and Orientation

One of the most daunting tasks was simply identifying a day/time that students could meet for an orientation and training. As this was a voluntary endeavor, we knew that we would need to ensure that our meetings were highly efficient, focused, and would inspire our teacher candidates to collaborate on their own time to ensure availability and convenience. Once we had an announced orientation time, the two advisors met to plan the training. We determined that the 2 1/2-hour evening training would include the following agenda:

  • Welcome, Refreshments, and Survey Invitation
  • Why Inclusive Science Day? and “Can You Name This Scientist?”
  • Collaborative Hands-on Simulation Activity (“Helicopters”) and Debriefing UDL
  • Lesson Planning and Budgeting Activities
  • Next Steps!

As we had decided to conduct research on teacher candidates’ experiences and attitudes regarding inclusive science practice, we applied for and received IRB approval for a pre and post survey that was distributed anonymously online at the orientation (pre) and after the Inclusive Science Day (post). Students were recruited for the Inclusive Science Day and associated research via e-invitations sent to organization membership lists in advance of the orientation. Because of our desire to avoid exerting pressure on students to participate in either the research or project, we did not require students to RSVP. We were very pleased to see that 18 students attended the training (ten special education and eight science education, including one elementary science methods student). When the students arrived at the orientation, they created nametags, had the opportunity to complete the survey online, and enjoyed pizza. We then distributed students among five tables so that at least one special education candidate was at each table. After introductions, we engaged in a brief brainstorming challenge to identify why inclusive science education might be important.  Candidates actively identified reasons including:

“There aren’t enough scientists with disabilities in the field.”

“Science is part of every child’s life and body.”

“You can teach science through different in different ways (e.g., visual, tactile, kinesthetic, etc…).”

“Knowing about science is important for everyone!”

“We need to know how to teach all students.”

We added three others to the list that students did not mention:

  • Science benefits from having all students contribute to its advancement.
  • There is a moral imperative for all students to have the opportunity to experience science.
  • Science is beautiful!

We then engaged in a “Can You Name This Scientist?” game in which candidates viewed pictures of famous scientists with disabilities and were asked to identify them.  Scientists included Alexander Graham Bell (Dyslexia), Thomas Edison (Hearing Impairment and Dyslexia), Temple Grandin (Autism), Geerat Vermeij (Visual Impairment), Jack Horner (Dyslexia), and Stephen Hawking (Motor Neuron Disease), among others. Most of our candidates were unaware that such accomplished scientists also had disabilities and that their disabilities, in some cases, may have enhanced the scientists’ interests and abilities in their fields. For example, Geerat Vermeij, a world-renowned paleobiologist attributes his nuanced abilities in identifying mollusks to his ability to feel and attend to distinctions in shells that sighted scientists might overlook (Vermeij, 1997). We were excited to see our students’ interests so piqued after this activity.

We then introduced the Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014) framework, which allows teachers to develop lessons that meet the needs of the most number of learners thereby reducing the need for specific disability accommodations. The three principles of UDL are: 1) Multiple Means of Engagement (How students access the lesson or materials); 2) Multiple Means of Representation (How teachers present the material to the students); and 3) Multiple Means of Action and Expression (How students interact with the materials and show what they know). To help teacher candidates to better understand the potential barriers that students with disabilities might have in science class, we co-led a science activity in which students followed written directions for making and testing paper helicopters while assigning students equipment that helped them to simulate various disabilities. For example, some students received handouts that had scrambled letters to simulate Dyslexia, while others wore glasses that limited their vision. In addition, some students wore earplugs to simulate hearing impairments while others listened to conversations on headphones to simulate psychiatric disorders. Finally, some students had tape placed around adjacent fingers to simulate fine motor impairments, while others utilized crutches or wheel chairs. Students progressed through this activity for several minutes and then discussed their challenges as a class. We chose the helicopter activity because it required reading, cutting with scissors, throwing and observing the helicopters, and retrieving them; thus, this activity required a variety of intellectual and physical skills. We found that our students were quite impacted by this activity, as many indicated that they had never really thought about the perspective of students with these disabilities. In particular, the student who utilized a wheelchair said that she had never realized how much space was needed to accommodate the wheelchair easily during an active investigation. This led the group to discuss the need for us to set up our tables at the museum with sufficient space for all visitors to comfortably traverse the museum. Of course, we were careful to remind students that this type of simulation cannot accurately represent the true nature and complexity of anyone’s experiences, and that people with disabilities, like all individuals, develop adaptations for addressing challenges. However, this brief experience prompted our students to think about how they could redesign the lesson to ensure that as many students as possible could access it without specific accommodations.

We then informed the groups that they were each to develop plans for two activities that would be presented at the Inclusive Science Day. Based on discussions with museum administrators, we decided that having several “make and take” activities was desirable, in part because it allowed the learning to continue at home, but also because our university is in a very rural, high poverty region thus making these types of materials a particularly welcome benefit for many families (United States Census Bureau, 2014). Together, we reviewed the lesson plan document which was less formal than our typical lesson plan document (due to the informal nature of the museum activity stations format) but nevertheless, had specific learning outcomes, considerations for diversity (including gender, socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, and ability), and a budget (See Figure 1 for a Sample Lesson; a blank lesson plan template is available for download at the end of this article in supplemental materials). We then informed teams that, thanks to the grant we had received, they had $50 to spend on their two lessons and that they should anticipate approximately 50 visitors to their tables (based on prior museum visitation counts). Teacher candidates then used their laptops and various resource books we provided to identify activities and develop materials lists with prices. We decided the easiest way to ensure that all materials would be received in time, and to avoid dealing with reimbursements and other financial complexities was to have students submit their final budget sheets to us during the week following the orientation. We would then order all the materials using one account and notify students once the materials were received. Students were responsible for bringing in “freebie” materials such as newspaper, aluminum cans, matches, etc. Once materials were received, student groups came to the central storage room at their convenience to check and prepare their materials in ample time for the program. We also encouraged students to create table signs for display at the Inclusive Science Day. They did this on their own time as well. Some of the activities that students developed were:

  • Fingerprint Detectives
  • Creating a Galaxy in a Jar
  • Chemical Reactions in a Pan (using baking soda and vinegar mixed with food coloring)
  • Exploring Static Electricity with Balloons
  • Egg Drop
  • Making and Testing Kazoos
  • Blobs in a Bottle (with vegetable oil and Alka-Seltzer tablets)
  • Inflate a Balloon Using Chemistry
Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge). Sample lesson plan for “Inflate a Balloon Using Chemistry.”

In addition to identifying activities that engaged different senses, our students thought about how to meet a variety of learners’ needs. For example, magnifiers and large ink stamp pads would be available at the fingerprint station for all students, while the “Blobs in a Bottle” activity station had alternative “jelly balls” that could be felt by visitors who couldn’t see the vegetable oil “blobs.” The kazoo station, which used toilet paper tubes, waxed paper, and rubber bands, allowed visitors who could not hear to feel the movement of the waxed paper when the kazoos were played. The station also had adaptive scissors and pre-cut waxed paper for visitors needing fine motor skill support. The UDL considerations and accommodations provided for each activity are contained in Table 1 below.

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
UDL Considerations and Accommodations for Accessibility on Inclusive Science Day

The Day of the Event

The Inclusive Science Day was announced by the museum on social media, through our local schools, and through the local newspaper. The museum generously waived their admission fee for the day in order to encourage attendance as well. On the day of the program, students were asked to arrive two hours in advance to set up their stations. We provided lunch to ensure that we had time to speak to the group about the importance of the work they were about to do, and to allow the museum staff to convey any final instructions to the students. When the doors were opened, we were thrilled to see large numbers of families entering the museum space. Over the two hours that our program ran, the museum estimated that we had over 150 visitors, approximately three times their expected attendance. The attendance was so good that some of our student groups needed to send “runners” out to purchase additional materials; our “Galaxy in a Jar” group even began using recycled bottles from our lunch to meet the demands at their table.  Safety was a consideration at all times. Goggles were made available at all tables with splash potential, and safety scissors were used at stations with cutting requirements. In addition, our students (and we) wore our clubs’ T-shirts so that visitors could easily identify instructors. Each activity table had at least one science education and one special education candidate co-teaching. We supervised the students by assisting in crowd control, helping to ensure that visitors could easily navigate through the rather limited museum space, obtaining written permissions for photos from parents/caregivers, and responding to candidate questions. Some photos from the day are shown in Figures 2-4.

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge). “Blobs in a Bottle” activity demonstrating density and polarity of water and oil. Tactile “jelly balls” and magnifiers were available for visitors with visual impairments.

Figure 3 (Click on image to enlarge). “Chemical Reactions in a Pan” activity using baking soda, vinegar, and food coloring. Varied sizes of pipettes and pans were available to address diversity in visitors’ fine motor skills.

Figure 4 (Click on image to enlarge). “Exploring Sound with Kazoos” activity. Visitors were encouraged to use their senses of vision, touch, and hearing to test the instruments.

Research Findings/Project Evaluation

Overall, our teacher candidates found this project to be highly meaningful and helpful for their professional learning. Perhaps one of the most important themes that emerged from our evaluative research was that science and special education candidates welcomed the opportunity to collaborate as none of them had reported having opportunities to do so in the past. Some of the student post-activity responses included the following:

“[Inclusive Science Day] allowed me to gain more experience and to really learn what it is like to teach students who have disabilities. I also was able to see how students with different disabilities reacted to the same activity. I found that those students who had a disability found a different way to cope with their disability than we had thought they would.”

“I saw how different general education and special education teacher think. There were many differences to our approaches to creating the lesson.”

“I really liked that I was able to consult with the special education teachers if I was unsure of how to help a student with disabilities.”

“I had a great time sharing my content knowledge of science with those whose specialty is special education. Conversely, I had a great time learning from experts in special education and I really enjoyed seeing them be so in their comfort zone when we did have kids with exceptionalities. I envy their comfort levels and it makes me want to reach that level of comfort.”

“We were well prepared for any differentiation that would have needed to be done. And we all learned from each other.”

“I feel this was an awesome experience. The people I worked with really added something to our experiments that I otherwise may not have thought about.”

Challenges cited by our students included feeling a bit overwhelmed by the number of visitors at each station, not having knowledge about the visitors’ backgrounds in advance, and difficulties in maintaining visitors’ focus on the science content. We found one student’s reflection to be quite sophisticated in its recognition of the need for more training on inclusive science:

“I still feel that I would like more professional development when it comes to leading science activities for students with disabilities. I had an experience with a wonderful young man and I felt very challenged because I don’t feel comfortable enough to gauge what I should be allowing him to do on his own and at the same time I didn’t want to hinder him from reaching his full potential. So, I feel like further professional development in that area is needed for me.”

Qualitative  analysis of candidate pre and post responses resulted in themes that included: 1) candidates’ assessment of collaboration as a powerful professional development opportunity; 2) identification of different perspectives between science and special education candidates; 3) a common desire to do good work by making accessible for all students; 4) recognition of informal learning spaces as viable teaching venues; and; 4) a strong need for more training and opportunities to teach science to students with disabilities. Our findings support earlier research suggesting that teacher candidates are inclined toward inclusive practices (McGinnis, 2003) and that opportunities for collaboration with special education candidates enhance their comfort level in co-planning and co-teaching (Moorehead & Grillo, 2013). Our teacher candidates’ expressions of the depth of impact this professional development experience had on them makes sense when considered in light of Kahn and Lewis’ (2014) study which suggested that teachers’ experience with any students with disabilities increased their feelings of preparedness toward working with all students with disabilities. In addition, our findings reinforce studies suggesting that informal learning spaces can provide unique and flexible learning opportunities for teacher candidates, particularly in that they provided multiple opportunities to teach the same lesson repeatedly, thus allowing for reflection and revision (Jung & Tonso, 2006). Perhaps most importantly, this study underscores the desire for and efficacy of increased training and experience in implementing inclusive science practices during teachers’ pre-service educations.

Future Plans and Conclusion

Based on the feedback from the teacher candidates and the museum, we are planning to make Inclusive Science Day an annual event. However, we are considering several changes for future projects including:

  • Multiple training evenings for teacher candidates
  • Pre-registration for Inclusive Science Day so that we can anticipate attendance size and specific needs of visitors
  • Creating a “Quiet Zone” area at the museum for visitors who would benefit from a less bustling environment
  • Identifying additional sources of funding for consumable materials
  • Greater outreach to our early childhood teacher candidates to encourage participation

As students with disabilities are increasingly included in science classrooms, it is incumbent of teacher education programs to ensure that their science teacher candidates acquire the tools and the dispositions for teaching all learners. While more formal approaches, such as dual licensure programs and co-teaching internship placements are on the horizon for many programs, teacher education programs should not overlook the power of extracurricular events, informal learning spaces, and student organizations to provide important professional development opportunities for teacher candidates, pilots for new program development, and occasions to both serve and learn from the community.

 

Supplemental Files

Lesson-Plan-Template.docx

References

Bell, P., Lewenstein, B. V., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Bevan, B., Dillon, J., Hein, G.E., Macdonald, M., Michalchik, V., Miller, D., & Yoon, S. (2010). Making science matter: Collaborations between informal science education organizations and schools. Washington, DC: Center for the Advancement of Informal School Science Education (CAISE). Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/MakingScienceMatter.pdf

Duran, E., Ballone-Duran, L., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2009). The impact of a professional development program integrating informal science education on early childhood teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 53-70. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ867290.pdf

Fenichel, M. & Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12614

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Irving, M., Nti, M., & Johnson, W. (2007). Meeting the needs of the special learner in science. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 109–118. ISSN-0827-3383

Jung, M. L., & Tonso, K. L. (2006). Elementary preservice teachers learning to teach science in science museums and nature centers: A novel program’s impact on science knowledge, science pedagogy, and confidence teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education 18 (1), 15–31. ISSN:1090-185X

Kahn, S., & Lewis, A. R. (2014). Survey on teaching Science to K-12 students with disabilities: Teacher preparedness and attitudes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 885-910. DOI 10.1007/s10972-014-9406-z

McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive verses exclusive settings: Preparing teachers to teach students with mental disabilities in science. In D. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 196–215). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McGinnis J.R., Hestness E., Riedinger K., Katz P., Marbach-Ad G., Dai A. (2012) Informal science education in formal science teacher preparation. In: Fraser B., Tobin K., McRobbie C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_72

McGinnis, J. R., & Kahn, S. (2014). Special needs and talents in science learning. In N.G. Lederman & S.K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. II), (pp. 223-245). New York, NY: Routledge.

Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Publications.

Moin, L.J., Magiera, K. & Zigmond, N. (2009). Instructional activities and group work in the U.S. inclusive co-taught high school science class. International Journal of Science and Math Education, 7, 677-697. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9133-z

Moorehead, T., & Grillo, K. (2013). Celebrating the reality of inclusive STEM education: Co-teaching in science and mathematics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 50-57. ISSN: ISSN-0040-0599

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Science 2009 (NCES 2011-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512807.pdf

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF13-304. Arlington, VA. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/women/

Patton, J., Polloway, E., & Cronin, M. (1990). A survey of special education teachers relative to science for the handicapped. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Unpublished manuscript.

United States Census Bureau. (2014). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/athenscountyohio,US/PST045217

Vermeij, G. (1997). Privileged hands: A Scientific Life. W.H. Freeman & Co. New York: NY.

An Innovative Integrated STEM Program for PreK-6 Teachers

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Lottero-Perdue, P.S., Haines, S., Bamberger, H., & Miranda, R.J. (2018). An innovative integrated STEM program for preK-6 teachers. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(2). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/an-innovative-integrated-stem-program-for-prek-6-teachers/

by Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Towson University; Sarah Haines, Towson University; Honi J. Bamberger, Towson University; & Rommel J. Miranda, Towson University

Abstract

In this article, we describe an innovative, 6-course, 18-credit post-baccalaureate certificate (PBC) program for pre-kindergarten through grade six teachers (PreK-6) in Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (iSTEM) Instructional Leadership. Here, the acronym, “iSTEM,” refers to education that not only addresses each of the S, T, E and M subjects, but also emphasizes the connections among them. We collaboratively contributed to the development of the program, and teach courses within it. The program graduated its pilot cohort of teachers in 2015, is running its second cohort, and is recruiting for a third. The article summarizes the program’s origins and integration approach and key aspects of program design. Those key aspects include: make-up of the program team; a deliberate course sequence; decrease in structure (and increase in more open-ended, student-centered learning approaches) over time in the program; and movement in the program from growth as an iSTEM teacher towards growth as iSTEM teacher leader. Each of the courses is described in greater detail, followed by a discussion of program assessment and evaluation. The article concludes with our reflections about the program’s challenges and successes thus far.

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

Berkowitz, A., Ford, M., & Brewer, C. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.). Environmental education and advocacy (pp. 227-266). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Blake, R., Frederick, J.A., Haines, S.A., & Colby Lee, S. (2010). Inside-Out: Teaching environmental science inside and outside the elementary/middle school classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press.

Buck Institute for Education (BIE). (2011). PBL in the Elementary Grades: Step-by-Step Guidance, Tools & Tips for Standards-focused K-5 Projects. Project Based Learning Toolkit Series. Novato, CA: BIE.

Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.

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

Cunningham, C. M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2014). Designing engineering experiences to engage all students. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel & M.E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices, (pp. 117-142). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Dufour, R. (2004, May). What is a “Professional Learning Community?” Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

EiE. (2011). Thinking inside the box: Designing plant packages. Boston, MA: National Center for Technological Literacy.

Erdogan, M. (2009). Fifth grade students’ environmental literacy and the factors affecting students’ environmentally responsible behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N. (Eds.) (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Science and Technology Library Series. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Haines, S.A. (2006). Outdoor classrooms: Planning makes perfect. Science and Children, 43(8), 44-48.

Instructional Leader STEM (Grades PreK-6), COMAR 13A.12.02.29. (2015). http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/13a.12.02.29

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kamkwamba, W. & Mealer, B. (2016). The boy who harnessed the wind (Young Readers Edition). New York, NY: Puffin Books.

Kitagawa, L. (2016, January). Made for the shade: A creative task engages kindergarteners in building protective structures for UV-sensitive lizards. Science and Children, 53(5), 34-40.

Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for Professional Learning.  Oxford, OH:  Author.

Lester, H. & Munsinger, L. (ill.) (2008). Tacky the penguin. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Lottero-Perdue, P.S. (2017). Engineering design into science classrooms. In Settlage, J., Southerland, S., Smetana, L., & Lottero-Perdue, P.S. Teaching Science to Every Child: Using Culture as a Starting Point. (Third Edition). (pp. 207-266). New York, NY: Routledge.

Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming Professional Development into Student Results. Alexandria, VA:  ASCD.

Schulman, I. S. (1987). Learning to teach. American Association of Higher Education, 40, 1-5.

Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). (2012). Maryland STEM Standards of Practice. Retrieved October 12, 2017 from: http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/instruction/academies/MarylandStateSTEMStandardsofPractice.pdf

MSDE. (2007). Maryland State Technology Literacy Standards for Students. Retrieved October 12, 2017 from: http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/instruction/curriculum/technology_literacy/vsc_technology_literacy_standards.pdf

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12635.

NAE and NRC. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18612.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013, February). Focus Issue: Mathematics Teaching in a STEM Context, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6).

National Governors Association Center (NGAC) for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

Park, L.S. (2010). A Long Walk to Water. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Reimers, J.E., Farmer, C.L., and Klein-Gardner, S.G. (2015). An introduction to the standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), Article 5, pp. 40-60.

Rothstein, D. & Santana, L. (2011). Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask their Own Questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vasquez, JA., Sneider, C. & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

The Watercourse/Project WET International Foundation and the Council for Environmental Education. (1995).  Project WET: Water Education for Teachers, Curriculum and Activity Guide. Bozeman, MT.: The Watercourse/Project WET International Foundation and the Council for Environmental Education.

 

Supporting Preservice Teachers’ Use of Modeling: Building a Water Purifier

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Kim, Y. & Oliver, S.J. (2018). Supporting preservice teachers’ use of modeling: Building a water purifier. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/supporting-preservice-teachers-use-of-modeling-building-a-water-purifier/

by Young Ae Kim, University of Georgia; & J. Steve Oliver, University of Georgia

Abstract

Research has shown the value of modeling as an instructional practice. As such, instruction that includes modeling can be an authentic and effective means to illustrate scientific and engineering practices as well as a motivating force in science learning. Preservice science teachers need to learn how to incorporate modeling strategies in lessons on specific scientific topics to implement modeling practice effectively. In this article, we share an activity designed to model how the effectiveness and efficiency of a water purifier is impacted by creating a primary purification medium using different grain sizes and different amounts of activated charcoal. We seek for the preservice science teachers to learn how modeling is a process that requires revision in response to evidence. The water purifier activities in this paper were adapted for use in a secondary science teacher preparation program during the fall semesters of 2015 and 2016 as a means to introduce an effective modeling activity that is in the spirit of NGSS. These activities also support preservice teachers’ development of teacher knowledge relative to ‘model-based inquiry’ as well as teaching systems thinking. In addition, preservice science teachers learn how to think of modeling as an assessment tool through which they might gauge students’ understanding. Modeling may be used as a form of authentic assessment where student accomplishment is measured while in the act of constructing a model, revising a model or any of the other modeling related processes.

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

Crawford, B., & Cullin, M. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1379–1401.

Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and Modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130.

Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated Modeling in Science Education. Science & Education. 16(7), 653-697.

Justi, R. & Gilbert, J. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education. 24(4). 369–387.

Kenyon, L., Davis, E., & Hug, B. (2011). Design Approaches to Support Preservice Teachers in Scientific Modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 1-21.

Krajcik, J., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging Students in Scientific Practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Understanding A Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Scope, 35(7), 6-10.

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lemley, A., Wagenet, L., & Kneen, B. (1995). Activated Carbon Treatment of Drinking Water. In Water Treatment Notes Cornell Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from http://waterquality.cce.cornell.edu/publications/CCEWQ-03-ActivatedCarbonWtrTrt.pdf

Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., Post, T., (2000) Principles for Developing Thought-Revealing Activities for Students and Teachers. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh (Eds.), Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. (pp. 591-646). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Namdar, B. & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling-Oriented Assessment in K-12 Science Education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions, International Journal of Science Education. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185

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

National Research Council (1996). The National Science Education Standards. 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 conceptual framework for the New K-12 science education standards. Committee on a conceptual framework for New K-12 science Ed. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M. W., Driel, J. H., & Pilot, A. (2009). Students’ Involvement in Authentic Modelling Practices as Contexts in Chemistry Education. Research in Science Education, 39(5), 681–700. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9099-4

Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363–393. doi:10.1002/tea.21005

Russell, T. & Martin, A. K. (2014). Learning to Teach Science. In Lederman, N. G. & Abell, S. K. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume 2. New York and London: Routledge.

Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Ache´r, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.

Shen, J. (2006). Teaching strategies and conceptual change in a professional development program for science teachers of K-8 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington University, St. Louis.

Shen, J., & Confrey, J. (2007). From conceptual change to transformative modeling: A case study of an elementary teacher in learning astronomy. Science Education. 91(6), 948–966. doi:10.1002/sce.20224

Van Driel, JH. & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education. 24(12). 1255-1272.

Windschitl, M. & Thompson, J. (2006) Transcending simple forms of school science investigations: Can preservice instruction foster teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835.

Designing and using multimedia modules for teacher educators: Supporting teacher learning of scientific argumentation

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Marco-Bujosa, L., Gonzalez-Howard, M., McNeill, K., & Loper, S. (2017). Designing and using multimedia modules for teacher educators: Supporting teacher learning of scientific argumentation. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(4).   Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/designing-and-using-multimedia-modules-for-teacher-educators-supporting-teacher-learning-of-scientific-argumentation/

by Lisa Marco-Bujosa, Boston College; Maria Gonzalez-Howard, University of Texas, Austin; Katherine McNeill, Boston College; & Suzanna Loper, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California-Berkeley

Abstract

In this article, we describe the design and use of multimedia modules to support teacher learning of the practice of scientific argumentation. We developed four multimedia modules, available online for use in professional development or preservice classes, incorporating research-based features designed to support teacher learning of argumentation. Specifically, the features underlying the design of the modules include: (1) providing images of practice, (2) problematizing instruction, (3) offering the student perspective, and 4) encouraging teacher reflection. Each module supports teacher educators in engaging teachers in learning about argumentation through activities utilizing these features. We describe the rationale for designing multimedia teacher learning modules that incorporate these features. We also describe how these features are incorporated into learning activities by focusing on one session from one module. We then illustrate the utility of these modules by providing one example of how these resources can assist teacher educators to support particular district goals around argumentation by adapting and modifying the modules. This article features the ways these online modules are an innovative support for teacher learning, by providing multimedia resources and the opportunity for increased user flexibility. Finally, we discuss some preliminary findings around teachers’ use of the features in these learning modules.

Introduction

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) represent a new vision for science teaching and learning, requiring teachers to blend disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts (Pruitt, 2014). The focus of the NGSS is on providing students with more authentic experiences in science, with an emphasis on students using their understanding of disciplinary core ideas to make sense of the natural world (Schwarz, Passmore, & Reiser, 2017). This represents a departure from traditional science instruction that focuses more on memorizing science knowledge and less on students engaging in science as a practice (Ford, 2015). However, the NGSS provide little guidance for teachers with respect to what these science practices should look like in science classrooms, or how teachers can design lessons to include them (Windschitl, Schwarz, & Passmore, 2014). Consequently, it can be difficult for teachers to incorporate science practices into their instruction.

In our work, we focus on one particular science practice, argumentation. A key aspect of argumentation is to promote student understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge and the culture of science (NRC, 2012), or science as knowledge and practice (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004). We conceptualize scientific argumentation as consisting of both a structural and dialogic component (McNeill, González-Howard, Katsh-Singer, & Loper, 2016). The structure of an argument consists of a claim about the natural world that is supported by both evidence and scientific reasoning (McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006). The dialogic component of argumentation emphasizes science as a social process in which students construct arguments through interactions with their classmates (Berland & Reiser, 2011). Although we describe structure and dialogic interactions as two different components of argumentation, they are often intertwined in classroom instruction. For instance, a student might critique the source of evidence a peer is using during a small group discussion.

Research has shown that scientific argumentation is difficult to implement in classrooms, particularly the dialogic component, which differs greatly from traditional, teacher directed, science instruction (Berland & Reiser, 2011). Studies around this science practice have shown that teachers’ argumentation instruction is influenced by their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and beliefs. PCK refers to professional knowledge specific to teaching and learning about a particular science concept (Shulman, 1986). Recent studies have highlighted the importance of PCK for the science practices, such as argumentation (e.g., McNeill, et al., 2016). Teacher beliefs about argumentation, and the value of argumentation, can also influence how teachers incorporate this practice into their instruction (Sampson & Blanchard, 2012).

In our previous work (McNeill, et al., 2016), we explored teachers’ beliefs around argumentation in three areas related to their classroom instruction: 1) students’ backgrounds, 2) learning goals and 3) self-efficacy. In terms of students’ backgrounds, some teachers believe argumentation is too hard for some students (Sampson & Blanchard, 2012) or that argumentation may create confusion and lead to student misconceptions about science concepts (Osborne et al., 2004). Research also indicates that teacher beliefs about student ability to engage in argumentation vary based upon factors such as the socioeconomic status of their students (Katsh-Singer, McNeill, & Loper, 2016). In addition, teachers’ understandings of argumentation, and their beliefs about how knowledge is created and used in the classroom, can influence the ways teachers plan for and teach argumentation activities in the classroom (McNeill, et al., 2016; Marco-Bujosa, McNeill, González-Howard, & Loper, 2017). These learning goals play an important role in teachers’ approach to argumentation instruction. For example, in a study of the impact of teachers’ beliefs on instruction of scientific argumentation, Zohar (2008) found teachers who believed that the goal of science instruction was to provide content knowledge only rarely engage students in activities requiring critical thinking, an essential aspect of scientific argumentation. Finally, teacher beliefs about themselves have been shown to influence their instruction (Bryan, 2012). For example, in prior work we found that teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach argumentation can influence their instruction (McNeill, et al., 2016). These kinds of beliefs may cause teachers to undermine the goals of argumentation by placing an instructional priority on transmitting knowledge.

Teachers need support to develop their PCK and beliefs about argumentation. To do so, teachers need to see the practices in action, and understand how they are different from traditional approaches to science instruction (Hanuscin, Arnone, & Bautista, 2016; Osborne, 2014). The challenge for teacher educators is that most science teachers, or prospective science teachers, received little support to develop knowledge of the science practices in their science education experiences or teacher preparation programs (Osborne, 2014). Consequently, teachers may be unfamiliar with the science practices, both as a science learner and as a teacher, and will need support to incorporate the practices into their science teaching. Additionally, research has shown that considering how teachers learn is important in supporting teachers to teach science practices (Allen & Penuel, 2015; Hanuscin, Arnone & Bautista, 2016) and argumentation in particular (Marco-Bujosa, et al., 2017). Thus, teacher learning experiences about the science practices, such as argumentation, may need to shift to better support teacher learning. This has implications for curriculum, learning structures, and strategies used in teacher preparation and professional development (Bybee, 2014; Hanuscin et al., 2016).

We developed multimedia modules about scientific argumentation to change teacher beliefs about argumentation in three ways that have been shown to support teacher instruction of this practice: beliefs about student abilities to engage in this scientific practice; beliefs about the importance of teaching argumentation (learning goals); and beliefs about their ability to teach argumentation (self-efficacy). In this paper, we focus on the features of the multimedia modules, which are designed to help teacher educators support teacher learning of scientific argumentation. In particular, these online modules were developed to incorporate the lessons emerging from research on supporting teachers to learn about the science practices. Specifically, four features provided the backbone of our module design approach: (1) providing images of practice, (2) problematizing instruction, (3) offering the student perspective, and 4) encouraging teacher reflection. These features are based upon research and best practices (e.g., van den Berg, Wallace & Pedretti, 2008; Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt, 2011), as well as our personal experience working with teachers and teacher educators around argumentation. Additionally, creating these modules in an online platform offered an innovative means by which to support teacher learning through the use of multimedia supports. Furthermore, the online platform permits flexible use by teacher educators, specifically allowing for customization and adaptation to their needs, as well as the needs of the schools and teachers they serve. In the next section, we describe the context of our work – a research and development project around the practice of scientific argumentation – that provided the impetus for the development of these modules.

Context of our Work

​We developed the teacher learning modules as a part of The Argumentation Toolkit, (http://www.argumentationtoolkit.org/), an online collection of resources designed to help teachers understand and teach scientific argumentation, which we will refer to as “the toolkit” for the remainder of the article. The toolkit was developed as part of a research and development project to support middle school teachers in integrating argumentation into their science instruction. This project is a collaboration between the Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California, Berkeley and Boston College.

In order to effectively teach argumentation, teachers need an understanding of this science practice and of instructional strategies to engage and support students. Thus, we developed the toolkit to support both teacher understanding of argumentation and to provide teachers with classroom strategies. The toolkit was developed around four elements of scientific argumentation that are particularly challenging for teachers and students. Two of these elements relate to the structural component of argumentation – 1) evidence, and 2) reasoning – while two correspond to the dialogic aspects of this science practice – 3) student interaction, and 4) competing claims (Figure 1).

Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge). Argumentation elements.

In our work developing resources for teachers, we found that teacher educators also require resources and support to facilitate their professional development efforts around argumentation. We approached this need through the development of multimedia modules for scientific argumentation, which were added to the toolkit website to provide support for teacher educators using the toolkit resources. The following sections describe our design approach, specifically illustrating the utility of particular features in a multimedia format that guided our development of the modules. Additionally, we provide an illustration of the first author’s use of these multimedia learning modules during professional development for science teachers. This example is intended to highlight how the flexibility of these modules allows teacher educators to modify and adapt them to their own setting.

Module Design

We developed four multimedia teacher learning modules around scientific argumentation. The four modules consist of an introductory module, which introduces teachers to argumentation using the four common student challenges previously described, and three advanced modules, which provide teachers with additional depth and practice related to teaching argumentation. More information about these modules is provided in Table 1, and on the toolkit website under the “Teacher Learning” tab (http://www.argumentationtoolkit.org/teacher-learning.html). Each module consists of four sessions, which can be presented all at once in a 3 hour long session, or as individual, 45 minute sessions. Modules provide teachers with the opportunity to engage in a variety of argumentation activities, review student artifacts and student talk (e.g., writing and video), and design or revise their own argumentation lessons. Additional information about the design and organization of the modules is provided below in the section of this article entitled, “Using the Module.”

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
Description of Teacher Learning Modules

Each module, and its corresponding sessions, was designed to incorporate four features intended to support teacher learning of the science practices: (1) providing images of practice, (2) problematizing instruction, (3) offering the student perspective, and 4) encouraging teacher reflection. Table 2 provides a summary and a description of how each feature is incorporated in the modules.

Table 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
Module Design Features to Support Teacher Learning

We next describe and illustrate each of these design features using examples from one session, the fourth session from the Introductory Module on Scientific Argumentation, entitled, “How do we support students in interacting with peers during argumentation?” (The agenda for this session is provided in the Appendix, and can also be accessed on the toolkit website.) This session was designed to help teachers develop an understanding of argumentation as a social process in which students question and critique claims using evidence and reasoning.

Design Features to Support Teacher Learning

Providing images of practice

To incorporate the first feature, providing images of practice, the modules make rich images of classroom enactment of science argumentation available to teachers. Images of practice serve as useful instructional models for teachers in preservice classes and professional development, particularly for those who are unfamiliar with the practice and lack context for how argumentation activities may differ from traditional science instruction (Reiser, 2013). In our learning modules, these images are incorporated through videos of teachers and students engaging in argumentation activities.

As compared to text-based supports, these videos provide teachers with real world examples of argumentation in science classrooms. The videos feature footage of real classrooms with teachers enacting a curriculum on argumentation with their students. The teachers in the videos were using a curriculum with a strong focus on scientific argumentation. This context was used with the hope that it would provide strong examples of what argumentation may look like in a classroom. Each video was created with a particular goal for teacher learning. For instance, while some videos provide an overview of the elements that are particularly challenging for teachers and their students, other videos highlight classroom activities and strategies to support engagement in argumentation. For each video, specific clips were selected to illustrate the particular goals of the video. Further, the videos are edited and have voice overs to emphasize particular goals, and teachers reflect on challenges and successes of implementing these activities in their classroom.

The fourth session begins with an activity “Video & Discussion.” This video supports the dialogic elements of argumentation, and is specifically focused on encouraging student interaction (Figure 2). The videos support teacher learning by providing an overview of the practice, a rationale for supporting student interaction in the science class, and footage of students in actual science classes critiquing each other’s ideas across different types of argumentation activities (e.g., pair feedback on written arguments). These videos also provide a vehicle for helping teachers see the interconnectedness of argument structure and dialogic interactions. For example, in this video, students draw upon evidence to convince their peers.

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge). Image of practice and problematizing instruction.

Problematizing instruction

The second feature, problematizing instruction, helps teachers recognize how their current instruction may be different from instruction authentically incorporating the science practices, such as argumentation (Osborne, 2014). As mentioned earlier, our four modules were explicitly designed to address four elements of argumentation that research has found to be particularly challenging for teachers and students (evidence, reasoning, student interactions, and competing claims) (McNeill et al., 2016). Across the four modules, each session title is a key question of practice related to an argumentation challenge, which serves as a guiding question for session activities. The question both identifies the argumentation focus for the session, and also encourages teachers to make connections between this science practice and their current instruction. For example, the fourth session in the Introductory Module is entitled, “How do we support students in interacting with peers during argumentation?” This question focuses on the challenge of student interactions, and all activities are around helping teachers provide support for student interactions in their science class.

Moreover, discussions following different activities in this session prompt teachers to consider challenges their students face. For example, in a discussion following the first activity, “Video & Discussion: Encouraging Student Interactions,” participants are asked: “What are the benefits to having students interact with peers during argumentation tasks?” Questions like these encourage teachers to consider the ways in which incorporating argumentation into their instruction supports student learning (Figure 2).

Offering the student perspective

Teachers are given the opportunity to engage in numerous argumentation activities during sessions from the student perspective. Research has shown it is important for teachers to develop knowledge of how students learn (Lee & Luft, 2008; Park & Oliver, 2008). One way to support teacher understanding of how students learn about argumentation is to have them engage in argumentation activities as a learner themselves. This feature addresses the lack of familiarity and experience many teachers have with argumentation, and allows them to understand the challenges students may encounter. For example, session four in the Introductory Module introduces teachers to the experience of student interactions by having teachers work in groups to collaboratively analyze data from three different studies related to a claim about metabolism (Figure 3). Teachers are encouraged to interact around evidence by asking each other questions, building off of one another’s ideas, critiquing each other’s claims, and persuading one another—all key dialogic aspects of argumentation. Following the activity, teachers are prompted to reflect on their experience of having engaged in this argumentation task as a student (“What did you talk about when you engaged in this task? How did interacting with others influence the argument you developed?”). Afterwards, they shift back to a teacher perspective to discuss instruction, particularly the supports they anticipate their students may need to productively interact with their peers in this argumentation activity (“What types of supports do you think your students might need to engage in this element of argumentation?”).

Figure 3 (Click on image to enlarge). Student perspective.

Encouraging teacher reflection 

The fourth feature we incorporated into the modules is encouraging teacher reflection. Research has shown that professional development supporting teachers’ PCK should provide teachers with opportunities to both enact instructional strategies and opportunities to reflect on those enactments, both individually and as a group (Van Driel & Barry, 2012). Thus, in each session, multiple opportunities for discussion among teachers are provided. Questions prompt teachers to reflect on their own instruction after different activities, such as after viewing a video or engaging in an argumentation task. In the example discussed earlier, numerous opportunities are provided for teachers to engage in sustained reflection on how to support student interactions in their science classroom. For instance, all sessions include an optional extension, which can be used to encourage teachers to further reflect on their argumentation instruction. Session four in the Introductory Module begins with a debriefing of an argumentation task teachers were asked to try with their students following session three. Teachers are encouraged to reflect on a lesson they developed addressing reasoning with their peers, specifically discussing what went well and what was challenging, as well as sharing student writing (Figure 4).

Figure 4 (Click on image to enlarge). Teacher reflection from extension discussion.

Teachers also engage in a reflective discussion following “Activity: Analyzing data with peers.” Specifically, they are prompted to consider, “What type of supports do you think your students might need to engage in this element of argumentation?” Additionally, in a culminating activity for the module, “Discussion: Connections between argumentation elements,” teachers make connections across all four argumentation elements introduced in the session, and consider the strengths of science instruction incorporating these elements, as well as any challenges students may encounter. Such a discussion is meant to support teachers in considering the needs of their students in planning for instruction.

As these examples from just one session illustrate, the four design features underlying this module (providing images of practice, problematizing instruction, encouraging teacher reflection, and offering the student perspective) are synergistic, working together to support teachers in developing their understanding of argumentation and how to incorporate it into their instruction. In particular, the videos (which offer teachers an image of practice) provide the teacher educator with a natural vehicle to facilitate teachers’ ability to engage in two other features, problematizing their instruction and reflecting on their practice. Moreover, although each session focuses on one particular challenge identified in the question framing the session (evidence, reasoning, student interaction, or competing claims), the other challenges are interwoven across different session activities. For example, the focal session described above addressed the challenge of supporting student interactions, but activities also incorporated the structural elements of argumentation, notably student use of evidence and reasoning.

Using the Module

Our experience leading professional development and working with other teacher educators guided our approach to the development of these modules. Though the modules were developed as self-contained units, the fact that these modules are provided online enable these resources to be flexibly used and easily customized.

The first author used the modules to prepare a professional development (PD) session about scientific argumentation for a school district. The district requested a PD session specifically focused on the structural elements of argumentation (i.e., how a claim is supported by evidence and reasoning). The district had a particular goal to better support student writing of science arguments, and requested a focus on reasoning, which they found had been an area of challenge for both teachers and students. Furthermore, because this PD request was designed to support a new district initiative that encompassed a goal for vertical alignment, the audience included teachers of science from grades 4-12 (most of whom were new to argumentation). As such, the goal of the PD was to introduce teachers to argumentation, and to begin the process of modifying instruction to incorporate more opportunities for authentic student argumentation.

Because no individual module aligned with the district’s request and goal of focusing solely on the structural components of argumentation (evidence and reasoning), I identified sessions across the four learning modules that provided a variety of activity types for teachers to learn about evidence and reasoning and consider implications for their instruction. (See the Teacher Learning tab on the toolkit website for more information: http://www.argumentationtoolkit.org/teacher-learning.html). Specifically, I used the first session and the third session from the Introductory Module (What is the role of evidence in a scientific argument? and What is the role of reasoning in a scientific argument?) to introduce teachers to evidence and reasoning. Then, to support teachers in identifying opportunities in their current curriculum and instruction to support student argumentation, I drew upon sessions from different advanced modules, specifically session 3 from the Advanced Module on Evidence and Reasoning (How can you support student use of reasoning in a scientific argument?) and session 1 from the Advanced Module, Designing Rich Argumentation Tasks (How can you design rich argumentation tasks to encourage student use of evidence and reasoning?). Even though the selected sessions and activities were designed to support teacher learning about argument structure, the videos included in these sessions also provided footage of students engaged in argumentation activities. Videos encouraged teachers to problematize their instruction and reflect on their practice to incorporate the dialogic components of argumentation, notably student interaction. For example, the video in the session introducing reasoning not only provides examples of classroom activities that can support student use of reasoning, such as group work, but also provides teachers with footage of students using reasoning in real classrooms engaged in argumentation activities. The discussion questions following this video (“How do the activities featured in the video encourage students to use reasoning?” and “What challenges do your students encounter using reasoning?”) encourage teachers to reflect on this practice and the implications for their own instruction.

As illustrated in this anecdote showing how the modules can be used, the online platform makes them flexible and easily modified to serve different purposes and audiences. For example, the modules are flexible with respect to time, since each module can be delivered as one 3 hour session, or four separate 45 minute sessions, depending upon the timing and format of the PD session. If presented as four separate sessions, optional “extension” activities are included to provide connections across session topics. Furthermore, though designed for a middle school audience, the sessions can be utilized with teachers across grades K-12, and even with a preservice audience. This flexibility is facilitated with references and supports around science content to enable teachers to engage in the argumentation activities regardless of their content knowledge.

Additionally, the modules can be used in any desired combination or order. They were designed to be presented as stand-alone learning experiences, or as a series, with an introductory module and several options for more advanced practice on argumentation. Or, as illustrated by the previous example, teacher educators can organize the learning experience based upon the needs and interests of their audience. Each session is cross referenced by the argumentation element (evidence, reasoning, student interactions, and competing claims) and by the argumentation activity focused on in the session (Figure 5) to facilitate teacher educators in customizing the learning experience.

Figure 5 (Click on image to enlarge). Argumentation element and activity.

Finally, each session can be viewed in one of two ways to allow teacher educators easy access to resources for planning and presenting. Specifically, each session can be displayed on the website as either 1) a scrollable lesson plan, which provides an outline of all activities, with links to session resources, or 2) as a slideshow, which includes any videos at the bottom of the page. Both views offer the same learning experiences to teachers. Additionally, an agenda is provided for each module, which includes tips for facilitators, and time estimates. This document can be edited, allowing facilitators to customize the lesson plan for their session.

Evidence of Success: Teacher Beliefs and Understanding of Argumentation

There is evidence that the types of supports included in our learning modules are desired by teachers and teacher educators who are interested in incorporating the scientific practice of argumentation into classroom teaching. This demand is evident in the number of hits the modules have received. Specifically, since we posted the first module in June 2016, we have had 10,508 unique page views for the teacher learning modules in just over six months (as of January 2017). The last module was posted in late December 2016.

Although we have not yet collected data from teachers who participated in PD using these modules, we can report data about changes in teacher beliefs about argumentation from a pilot of resources for teachers provided in the toolkit, including the videos featured in the teacher learning modules. We explored teacher beliefs about scientific argumentation through a survey consisting of 22 items measuring three aspects of teacher beliefs (self-efficacy, learning goals, and beliefs about student background and ability) after using a web-based teacher’s guide that included videos and other supports. Sample items and consistency ratings for these three scales are reported in Table 3.

Table 3 (Click on image to enlarge)

Teachers’ Beliefs About Scientific Argumentation

Overall, we found significant increases in teachers’ self-efficacy, their learning goals for their students, and beliefs related to student background and ability as a result of learning about argumentation using these supports (Table 4).

Table 4 (Click on image to enlarge)

Changes in Teachers’ Beliefs About Scientific Argumentation

Interviews with teachers about how they used these videos in preparing for instruction offered insights into how teachers interact with these features, resulting in instructional changes. In interviews following their instruction of a focus lesson on argumentation, teachers were asked to comment on how they used the resources to prepare their argumentation instruction. Several teachers commented on the benefits of the videos in helping them develop their own understanding of argumentation and of what it looks like in the classroom. One teacher described how the videos were helpful in providing a clear explanation of the structure of a scientific argument.

[I] watched the video… just to go over what a claim is, because I think I’ve had different definitions of it over, you know, different iterations, the definition over the past three years and these definitions seem very tight, and there’s not a lot of wiggle room with what it means, so that was my biggest concern, is talking about the evidence and talking about the process of making an argument.  

Another teacher found the videos to be particularly helpful in supporting her understanding of what argumentation looks like in a science classroom, and instructional strategies that can facilitate student engagement in the dialogic components of this science practice.

So I did watch the video, and it was more specific in terms of language than the previous ones I had looked at had been, so I did take the time to watch it a second time and freeze the screen and write down some of the questions because it was new language to me, and I just wanted to integrate it more and to, so that I would be able to reinforce it as I was talking to individuals. 

As such, the videos that we included in our teacher learning modules have shown promise in supporting changes in teachers’ beliefs about argumentation, as well as shifts in their instruction around this science practice. This suggests that the modules themselves may have promise to support changes in teachers’ beliefs.

Conclusion and Implications

Our work contributes to bridging the gap between teacher education and the classroom, specifically in helping teachers incorporate the science practice of argumentation into their science classes. Our modules provide teacher educators with a tool to better support teacher learning around argumentation in their professional development efforts. Specifically, in this paper we described the research-based features we incorporated in our design of the modules, and offered contextualized examples of what each of these features look like. Research on argumentation, and personal communication from teacher educators, reveal there is a need for these types of resources. Our teacher learning modules, freely available online, are both flexible and easy to access and use with a variety of teacher audiences, easily modified for particular instructional goals related to argumentation, and engage teachers in meaningful, reflective activities to support their understanding of argumentation.

 

Supplemental Files

Appendix.docx

References

References
Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 136-149.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191 – 216.

Bryan, L. A. (2012). Research on science teacher beliefs. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol.1, pp. 477-495). Dordrecht: Springer.

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

Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99, 1041-1048.

Hanuscin, Arnone, & Bautista (2016). Bridging the ‘Next Generation Gap’ – Teacher Educators Enacting the NGSS. Innovations in Science Education, 1(1).

Katsh‐Singer, R., McNeill, K. L., & Loper, S. (2016). Scientific argumentation for all? Comparing teacher beliefs about argumentation in high, mid, and low socioeconomic status schools. Science Education, 100, 410-436.

Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 428-441.

Lee, E., & Luft, J. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1343 – 1363.

Marco‐Bujosa, L. M., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform‐oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 141–168.

McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R. & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 261-290.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153–191.

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

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994 – 1020.

Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177-196.

Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261 – 284.

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

Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122-1148.

Schwarz, C. V., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (2017). Moving beyond “knowing about” science to making sense of the world. In. C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (3-21). Arlington,

VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

van den Berg, E., Wallace, J., & Pedretti, E. (2008). Multimedia cases, teacher education and teacher learning. In Voogt, J. & Knezek, G. (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 475-487). New York, NY: Springer.

Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26 – 28.

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

Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M.A., Koehler, M.J., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 454-262.

Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.

 

A Lesson to Unlock Preservice Science Teachers’ Expert Reading Strategies

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Mawyer, K.K.N. & Johnson, H. J. (2017). A lesson to unlock preservice science teachers’ expert reading strategies. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 2(3). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/a-lesson-to-unlock-preservice-science-teachers-expert-reading-strategies/

by Kirsten K.N. Mawyer, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa; & Heather J. Johnson, Vanderbilt University

Abstract

New standards for K-12 science education task science teacher educators with providing preservice teachers strong preparation that will help them to embrace their role as teachers of science literacy (National Research Council, 2012). Even though there is a growing trend for teacher preparation programs to offer literacy courses that focus on reading in the content areas, often they do not provide aspiring science teachers the science-specific tools needed to teach reading in secondary science contexts. This article addresses the question, “How can we, as science teacher educators, prepare our teacher candidates to teach reading in the context of science?” We designed an initial literacy lesson to help preservice teachers enrolled in two science methods courses to unpack their content knowledge about literacy in science. Our hope was that by unlocking their personal strategies they would be better positioned for engaging in conversations about literacy. We found that using this initial literacy lesson provided our preservice teachers with a solid foundation for engaging in conversations about how to scaffold student reading. This lesson also provided preservice teachers an opportunity to collaboratively develop a common beginner’s repertoire of reading strategies that we subsequently used as a building block for designing activities and lessons that engage middle and high school students in big science ideas and understanding real-world phenomena through reading a variety of kinds of science texts.

Introduction

According to literacy researchers, different disciplines demonstrate both social and cognitive practices that embody distinct ways group members use reading and writing within their discipline (Buehl, 2011; Goldman & Bisanz, 2002; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). The Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and Common Core State Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) all specify that literacy—the ability to read in the context of science—is an essential scientific practice. These recent national reform documents emphasize that by the time students graduate from high school they should be able to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information from scientific texts (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; NGSS Lead States, 2013; National Research Council, 2012). Thus, it comes as no surprise that science teachers must incorporate literacy into their curriculum and instruction. In the wake of these reforms, the expectation that students will have more opportunities to engage with scientific texts is now firmly in place. However, this vision of ‘literacy for all students’ (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010) can only be achieved to the extent secondary science teachers are able or inclined to meet this goal (Cohen & Ball, 1990).

In response to this call for literacy, experienced secondary science teachers we talked to expressed that they feel they “have a responsibility to work on literacy” but do not know how to go about teaching and incorporating reading in their instruction. Unfortunately, the majority of otherwise competent or even expert teachers do not have the knowledge or training to teach literacy skills required to engage students with science texts (Norris & Phillips, 2003; National Research Council, 2012). Secondary science teachers are largely unprepared because their teacher preparation programs included little or no coursework focused on literacy. Even though there is a growing trend for teacher preparation programs to offer literacy courses that focus on reading in the content areas, often they still do not provide aspiring science teachers the science-specific tools needed to teach reading in secondary science contexts. One inservice teacher we spoke with commented that while she had taken a literacy course in graduate school it “really didn’t help me at all because it was too general and disconnected from the kind of reading you have to do in science.” Her sense that strategies introduced in her graduate school preservice coursework were too generic is not surprising given that science texts require content specific approaches and an understanding about how to read and engage with various disciplinary-specific genres (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010; Lee & Spratley, 2010). This raises the question, “How can we, as science teacher educators, prepare our teacher candidates to teach reading in the context of science?”

Instead of depending on general content area courses designed for preservice teachers regardless of discipline or specialty, science teacher educators need to design lessons for secondary science methods courses that target how to teach reading as an integral and integrated component of 6th-12th grade science curricula. Fortunately, preservice science teachers are not walking into science methods classes as blank slates. They enter with extensive science content expertise and are generally proficient or advanced readers of scientific texts. The challenge for science teacher educators is that even though preservice secondary teachers know how to read and make meaning of texts within their discipline, it is difficult for individuals to leverage well-developed personal strategies for reading a variety of science texts in their planning and instruction to support struggling readers (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010; Norris & Phillips, 2003). If reading is to play a more prominent role in secondary science, preservice teachers need help in making tacit knowledge about how to read common genres of science texts, such as popular science texts, textbooks, and primary scientific literature, explicit so they can use this knowledge as a foundation for learning how to teach middle school and high school students to read and make sense of science texts.

Context & Framing

The context for this study was a one semester secondary science methods course we taught at our respective institutions to a mix of undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, and masters students. We co-designed and taught a sequence of seminar sessions on how to use literacy activities, specifically reading different genres of science texts, to meaningfully help students learn science. This paper describes the first session in the sequence. We framed the design of the lesson using Ball & Bass’s (2000) notion of decompression. This is the perspective that as individuals learn to teach they need to unpack, and make visible the connections between the integral whole of their content knowledge so that it is accessible to develop pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) In this particular case the knowledge and skills necessary to use literacy strategies to teach reading in the context of science (Figure 1). Why is unpacking preservice teachers content knowledge about science reading strategies important? Unless one’s content expertise is the study of reading, the act of reading can seem or intuitively be thought “a simple process” in which “text can seem transparent” (Norris & Phillips, 2003, p. 226). Helping preservice teachers identify their existing “expert” knowledge of how to read science texts—and preparing them to design lessons that productively incorporate literacy activities into their science instruction—is foundational for developing strategies to teach middle school and high school students how to read science texts.

Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge). As preservice secondary science teachers decompress their content knowledge about literacy and their personal reading strategies they develop PCK for teaching reading in science.

 

 

Lesson Design

In order to unpack preservice teachers’ genre specific strategies, we designed a structured introductory literacy activity that would:

● Help preservice teachers identify existing personal reading strategies for reading science texts
● Compare personal reading strategies with other preservice teachers
● Identify general and science genre specific reading strategies
● Engage preservice teachers in a dialogue about text features of different genres of science texts
● Brainstorm ideas about when and why teachers would want to use different genres of science texts in instruction
● Provide a foundation for designing lesson plans that include literacy activities that support ambitious science teaching practices—eliciting student ideas, supporting ongoing changes in student thinking, and pressing for evidence-based explanations (Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012).

Specifically, we asked our preservice teachers to read three common genres of science texts—a newspaper article (popular science text), a science textbook (science text for education), and a scientific journal article (primary scientific literature)—that a science teacher might have their students read in class (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002). Relatively short texts about the same content—global climate change—were purposefully selected. Each student was given a packet of the readings that they were welcome to write on. We instructed preservice teachers to read each article with the goal of making sense of the text. They were given 10 minutes to read each text. How they spent this time, including what order they read the different texts, was left up to them.

After reading all of the texts, we made the preservice teachers aware of our purpose. We did not seek to assess them on their understanding of the content within each text. Instead, we wanted to make visible the strategies they used to read each type of text. Before we debriefed as a group, we asked each preservice teacher to respond in writing to the following questions for each genre of text:

● What did you do as you read the text?
● How did you make sense of the text?
● How did you interact with the text?
● Why did you approach the text in this way?

Asking preservice teachers to notice strategies encouraged them to make visible the latent expert knowledge they use to analyze the texts (Sherin, Jacobs, & Philipp, 2011). After students individually responded to the prompts on how they read each of the three texts, we split them into small groups of 3-4 to identify and record the reading strategies used to make sense of each text type. This activity was followed by a whole class discussion about reading order, reading strategies, and patterns in reading approaches across the three genres of science text: a newspaper article, a science textbook, and a journal article. Our preservice teachers’ discussion and written reflections revealed that they did indeed have both general and subject specific approaches to reading different kinds of science texts.

Reading the Newspaper Article

Popular texts, such as newspapers, magazines, online sites, trade books, and longer nonfiction science texts, take complex scientific information and phenomena and simplify it for the public—generally for the purpose of raising awareness and increasing understanding of important issues that are relevant to and impact citizens’ everyday lives (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002). The newspaper article our preservice teachers read introduced international efforts to draft a world climate policy to limit global warming to 2oC by drastically cutting down on fossil fuel emissions to head off the negative impacts, such as rising sea-levels, of global warming (Gillis, 2014).

The discussion kicked off with one preservice teacher noting that the “writing was very straightforward” so it was not necessary to take notes as compared to engagement with the textbook or journal article. Another echoed this sentiment commenting that she read it like a story with a “main thread…which I grasped and everything else revolved around”. Several made remarks that were consistent with the objective of this text genre such as, “I wasn’t really ever exposed to the 2o C global climate change goals before so I felt I had to keep ready to gain more insight as to what it is and why it is important” and “science is controversial—one group may agree and another group may disagree”.

It was clear from the discussion that preservice teachers had a deep, established, and readily accessible understanding of the structure and purpose of a scientific newspaper article and that these pre-existing orientations to this genre shaped how they read the text (Figure 2). Strategies our preservice teachers used to read the newspaper article included:

● Using the title to identify who/what/when
● Using the first sentence to identify the tone
● Identifying the writer’s position and identifying bias
● Identifying stakeholders and different opinions with respect to the issue
● Evaluating the credibility of the source
● Identifying evidence, notably by locating quotations from scientists
● Skimming for the main idea and ignoring the “fluff”

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge). Preservice teachers’ strategies for reading newspaper articles.

Reading the Textbook

Science textbooks, the mainstay of secondary science, are expository which means they are written to inform, describe, explain or define patterns, and to help students construct meanings about science information (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002). Even though the objective of textbooks is to scaffold student learning, students often find them difficult reading because of content density, complex text structures, domain specific vocabulary, multimodal representations, lack of relevance to students’ lives and prior knowledge (Lee & Spratley, 2010). The textbook reading on global climate change detailed specific consequences of global warming including warmer temperatures, more severe weather events, melting ice and snow, rising sea levels, and human health (Edelson et al., 2005).

As preservice teachers reflected on and discussed how they read the science textbook we observed a high degree of commonality across the approaches utilized. Most notably, conversation centered on text features that organize information in the text. For example, one preservice teacher shared that he “figured that a textbook would give the big ideas in the title and probably within the first couple of lines of the section so this helped me to get to the point faster, it helped me understand with less reading”. Similarly another said “I first flipped through the text [and] read all of the headings and subheadings” upon which other students elaborated that “the headings and subheadings are great clues as to what the text is talking about” and that headings and subheadings helped to “identify the main idea of each section”.

As with the newspaper article, the discussion of the textbook reading revealed that our preservice teachers have well developed strategies for reading science textbooks. Their strategies included:

● Reading the title to identify the focus of the entire reading
● Reading headings and subheadings to determine the main idea of each section
● Asking how the section relates to the title
● Asking how each section is connected to the sections before and after
● Reading for the main idea
● Reading first/last sentences of each paragraph
● Making a distinction between main idea(s) and evidence
● Skimming for unfamiliar science words, bolded vocabulary and associated definitions

Reading the Journal Article

Goldman and Bisanz (2002) point to the research report, such as a journal article, as the primary text genre used by scientists. Research reports are of particular interest because they are vehicles through which scientists present a scientific argument for consumption, evaluation, and response by their peers. Publication, circulation, evaluation, and response serves as a mechanism for providing information about research, making claims, and generating new scientific knowledge. According to Phillips & Norris (2009) journal articles present arguments about the need for conducting research, enduring or emerging methodology, analysis and provisions against alternative explanations—all in the service of supporting interpretation of authors’ findings. Generally, these types of texts are infrequently used in the science classroom. The journal article we asked our preservice teachers to read presented an index for when temperature will increase beyond historic levels yielding worldwide shifts in climate (Mora et al., 2013).

Preservice teachers agreed that of the three texts the journal article was hands down the most difficult to read and understand. Even though they struggled with this article they had no trouble articulating how they read this text. As with the other two text types, preservice teachers used specific text features of journal articles to scaffold their reading. One shared that she “usually start[s] with the abstract of a journal article because it tends to give some sort of summary of the whole article.” Another built on this by saying that the “abstract is a good summary of key points.” In addition to the abstract, preservice teachers focused on reading the “intro and conclusion because they highlight scientist’s argument and claims,” as well as on “tables and figures because they provide evidence visually.” There was also widespread agreement with one preservice teacher that if the goal is to understand the article, it was fine to “skim the methods [because]…taking the time to read the methods portion would not provide me with the important information to understand the context.”

The discussion of the journal article reading uncovered that our preservice teachers have well developed strategies for reading scientific texts. Their strategies included:

● Reading abstract, introduction and conclusion for summary of argument and primary findings
● Reading discussion for explanation of findings
● Looking at graphs, tables and figures for evidence supporting claim
● Skipping or skimming methods
● Asking do I understand what this article is about
● Reflecting on whether I can tell someone what this article is about

Reading Across the Science Texts

We noticed that in addition to the genre specific strategies outlined above, preservice teachers talked about how—as they read with the goal of making sense of the texts—almost all indicated that they annotated the text in some fashion. When we collected and analyzed preservice teachers’ annotated texts, we observed that they had underlined, highlighted, and jotted down questions or comments directly on the text. When they reflected on their textual reading practices, they indicated that they marked-up the text because they planned to re-read the texts and that annotating and highlighting specific features (headings, main ideas, or writing questions), would facilitate their future re-skimming of the texts and allow them to focus on only re-reading the most relevant sections or re-engaging with the most salient information in the article (Mawyer & Johnson, 2017). It seems that preservice teachers engaged in a meta-dialogue with the text that would allow for the most effective and efficient interaction with the text to maximize understanding.

Preservice Teachers’ Ideas for Scaffolding Literacy

After students discussed the various texts and worked together to identify patterns and commonalities in how they read the three texts, we asked them to talk about implications of their personal strategies for reading different types of science texts for their own teaching. One of the preservice teachers commented that going into the activity she did not really think that she had any specific strategies for reading science texts and “felt uncomfortable and overwhelmed about the prospect of teaching literacy” and that the activity helped her to see that she “had more experience with literacy” than she originally thought. We noticed that in both of our classes the literacy activity our preservice secondary teachers engaged in and their subsequent small group discussions allowed them to think deeply about how to concretely support literacy. They were able to work together to develop ideas about how they could build on the reading strategies they identified in our class to design their own lessons and curriculum in order to integrate literacy activities into their teaching practice. Specifically we observed students leveraging their personal strategies into supports that could be helpful to students before, during, and after they directly interact with the text (Table 1).

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
Preservice Teachers’ Ideas for Scaffolding Literacy for Different Types of Science Texts

Formal lesson plans and classroom observations revealed that after this literacy lesson our preservice teachers began incorporating these three genres of science texts into their science instruction and put the strategies and supports they identified into practice. For example, one student adapted a journal article to make it easier for her students to read. She structured reading by giving her students the following instructions:

“You will mark the text, highlight words you do not know or feel that are important, write in the side columns thoughts/responses/ideas, and form a thesis summary. To form a thesis means to make a conclusive statement (claim) on what you read. You will support this claim by providing 3-5 key details.”

The observation that our preservice teachers started using science texts after this literacy session, suggested they had more confidence in engaging their own students with literacy activities in the science classroom.

Implications for Science Teacher Educators

The Framework specifies that preservice science teacher education needs to be aligned with the scientific practices. Furthermore, it tasks science teacher educators with providing preservice teachers strong preparation that will help them to embrace their role as teachers of science literacy (National Research Council, 2012). In response to this call we designed this initial literacy lesson to help preservice teachers enrolled in our science methods courses to unpack their content knowledge about literacy in science with the hope that by unlocking their personal strategies they would be better positioned for engaging in conversations about literacy. In the words of one preservice teacher this activity helped him realize that his reading strategies were “so intuitive that they were tacit” and that previously he never “consciously thought about the text and how I approach reading”.

Challenges in implementation

As noted earlier one challenge that arose during this lesson was that our preservice teachers struggled with reading the journal article. Often journal articles are quite lengthy so we purposefully selected the shortest article we could find about global climate change in the hope that they would be able to read it in its entirety in the allotted 10 minutes. As the lesson unfolded we realized that this particular article was exceptionally dense conceptually and included a large number of visual representations.

Suggestions for future implementation

As we tweak this lesson for future use we plan to select another article that is more typical of scientific journal articles. That said, the very rich conversation that we had around the difficulties surrounding reading this particular article led to productive lines of inquiry in subsequent literacy sessions. In particular, we used it as a jumping off point for talking about adapting primary literature (Philips & Norris, 2009) to make scientific journal articles accessible to middle and high school students. We also realized that we needed to include explicit instruction around scaffolding reading visual representations such as tables, graphs, and diagrams. Another modification that we are considering is assigning the three readings and written responses to the four prompts as homework. This would allow preservice teachers to read each text at their own pace and take away the artificial constraint of a time limit.

Conclusion

This lesson highlights that preservice teachers’ actual familiarity with reading strategies and content specific literacy expertise is different from their initial self-perception that they know very little about literacy. The combination of genre specific and general reading strategies our preservice teachers used demonstrated that they use visual and symbolic cues in the text in combination with prior knowledge to construct new meaning from the text by utilizing comprehension strategies as they read. The fact that preservice teachers have these highly developed metacognitive strategies to pinpoint important ideas, make inferences, ask questions, utilize text structure, and monitor comprehension while reading highlights a high level expertise (Gomez & Gomez, 2006; Pearson, Roehler, Dole & Duffy, 1992; Yore, 1991, 2004; Yore & Shymansky, 1991).

We found that using this initial literacy lesson provided our preservice teachers with a solid foundation for engaging in conversations about how to scaffold student reading. This lesson provided preservice teachers an opportunity to collaboratively develop a common beginner’s repertoire of reading strategies that we subsequently used as a building block for designing activities and lessons that engage middle and high school students in big science ideas and understanding real-world phenomena through reading a variety of kinds of science texts. Also, compared to previous years, we noticed that how these preservice teachers were able to design and scaffold reading with their students was objectively more sophisticated and would allow students to engage with the science in more meaningful ways.

References

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics, 83-104.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (5), 389-407.

Buehl, D. (2011). Developing readers in the academic disciplines. International Reading Assoc..

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success.

Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 249–256.

Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). The Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science and Technical subjects

Edelson, D. C. (Ed.). (2005). Predicted Effects. Investigations in environmental science: A case-based approach to the study of environmental systems. (pp. 440-443).

Gillis, J. (2014). 3.6 Degrees of Uncertainty. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/1zXo0Gd

Goldman, S.R. & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In (Eds.) Jose Otero, Jose Leon, and Arthur Graesser The Psychology of science text comprehension. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. pp.19-50.

Gomez, L., & Gomez, K. (2006). Reading for learning: Literacy supports for 21st century work. Phi Delta Kappan.

Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Lee, C & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy.

Mawyer, K. K. N. & Johnson, H. J. (2017, May 1). Decompressing Preservice Science Teachers’ Reading Strategies. Paper presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from the AERA Online Paper Repository.

Mora, C., Frazier, A. G., Longman, R. J., Dacks, R. S., Walton, M. M., Tong, E. J., & Giambelluca, T. W. (2013). The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Nature, 502(7470), 183-187.

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

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.

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

Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003) How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education. 87:224-240.

Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction. Developing expertise in reading comprehension, 154-169

Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313-319.

Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. Routledge: New York, NY.

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

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science education, 96(5), 878-903.

Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72.

Yore, L. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts. Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice, 71-94.

Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing an operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 29-36.

 

Why is the Good Stuff at the Bottom of the Cooler? An Inquiry about Inquiry for Preservice Secondary Science Teachers

Citation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Burgin, S.R. (2017). Why is the good stuff at the bottom of the cooler? An inquiry about inquiry for preservice secondary science teachers. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, (2)3. Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/why-is-the-good-stuff-at-the-bottom-of-the-cooler-an-inquiry-about-inquiry-for-preservice-secondary-science-teachers/

by Stephen R. Burgin, University of Arkansas

Abstract

The following article describes a lesson that was originally implemented in a high school chemistry classroom for the purpose of teaching students about density and was subsequently revised in order to teach preservice science teachers about inquiry and the practices of science. Lesson plans turned in after the experience revealed that preservice teachers demonstrated an understanding of the importance of allowing students to engage in the practices of science in order to construct their own meanings of natural phenomenon prior to being provided with an expected result. Practical examples of how science investigations can be modified for the purposes of science teacher preparation are included.

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

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.

Herrick, R. S., Nestor, L. P., & Benedetto, D. A. (1999). Using data pooling to measure the density of sodas: An introductory discovery experiment. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 1411.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

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