Field experiences provide an important opportunity for preservice teachers to observe and practice science instruction. Too often, insufficient time is allotted for elementary science instruction in the formal classroom. This paper outlines the opportunities and lessons learned from an after school field experience where preservice elementary teachers worked in two-person teams with a classroom mentor teacher at local elementary schools and community centers to deliver two science lessons per week during an elementary science methods course. Multiple evidences of success are presented at the student and also at the preservice teacher levels. And finally, the important lessons learned include the characteristics of the after-school site, the “instructional” setting, the availability and storage of materials, the co-teacher preservice teams, and the presence and training of the mentor teacher.
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.
Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 493-535). Oxford UK: Taylor & Francis.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bhattacharyya, S., Volk, T., & Lumpe, A. (2009). The influence of an extensive inquiry-based field experience on pre-service elementary student teachers’ science teaching beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 199-218.
Borko , H. & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In Berliner, D.C. & Calfee, R.C. (eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Calabrese Barton, A. (2000). Crafting multicultural science education with preservice teachers through service learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 797–820.
Cartwright, T. (2012). Science talk: Preservice teachers facilitating science learning in diverse afterschool environments. School Science and Mathematics, 112(6), 384 – 391.
Cartwright, T., Smith, S. & Hallar, B. (2014). Confronting barriers to teaching elementary science: Afterschool science teaching experiences for preservice teachers. Teacher Education & Practice, 27 (2-3), 464-487.
Chiapetta, E., & Adams, A. (2000, April). Towards a conception of teaching science and inquiry— The place of content and process. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Cone, N. (2012). The effects of community-based service learning on preservice teachers’ beliefs about the characteristics of effective science teachers of diverse students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 889-907.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developmenting a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duschl, R. A., Schweinggruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Harlen, W. & Holroyd, C. (1999). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education,19(1), 93-105.
Keeley, P. (2008). Science Formative Assessment: 75 Practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy, and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 755–777.
Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). “Draw an Engineer Test (DAE): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering.” Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Session 2530.
Koch, J. (2012). Science stories: Science methods for elementary and middle school teachers. (4 ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Le Fevre, D. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of teachers’ perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56-64.
Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91, 822–839.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content for science teaching. In Gess-Newsome. J. & Lederman, N. (eds.) Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. London: Kluwer Academic.
Mason, C.L., Kahle, J.B., & Gardner, A.L., (1991). “Draw-A-Scientist Test: Future Implications.” School Science and Mathematics, 91(5), 193-198.
Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B.A., & Meyer, K.M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 517–538.
Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E.H. (Eds.) (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington DC: American Association for Advancement of Science.
NRC. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Riedinger, K., Marbach-Ad, G., McGinnis, J. R., & Hestness, E. (2011). Transforming elementary science teacher education by bridging formal and informal science education in an innovative science methods course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 51–64.
Teitel, L. (with Abdal-Haqq, I.). (2000). Assessing the impacts of professional development schools. New York: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Wallace, C.S. & Brooks, L. (2015). Learning to teach elementary science in an experiential, informal context: Culture, learning, and identity. Science Education, 99(1), 174-198.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.