Reflection in Action: Environmental Education Professional Development with Two Cohorts

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Madden, L., Ammentorp, L., Heddy, E., Stanton, N., & McCotter, S. (2021). Reflection in action: Environmental education professional development with two cohorts. Innovations in Science Teacher Education. Retrieved from

by Lauren Madden, The College of New Jersey; Louise Ammentorp, The College of New Jersey; Eileen Heddy, The College of New Jersey; Nicole Stanton, The College of New Jersey; & Suzanne McCotter, The College of New Jersey


This article shares lessons learned from a 2-year environmental education professional development initiative with two cohorts. Each cohort consisted of school-based teams of elementary teachers. The professional development included a series of five workshops aimed at integrating environmental education across the curriculum, and each teacher team developed and implemented a school-based project to put these ideas into practice. The project team modified their approach between Cohorts 1 and 2 based on strengths and shortcomings of the first experience. Key takeaways to inform future professional development efforts include ensuring the timeframe of the project allows teachers to build momentum in their work, recruiting teams of teachers with diverse classroom experiences, and including presenters who can offer tangible and actionable ideas to use in the classroom.

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


Álvarez-García, O., Sureda-Negre, J., & Comas-Forgas, R. (2015). Environmental education in pre-service teacher training: A literature review of existing evidence. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(1), 72–85.

Ashmann, S., & Franzen, R. L. (2017). In what ways are teacher candidates being prepared to teach about the environment? A case study from Wisconsin. Environmental Education Research, 23(3), 299–323.

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(3), 375–395.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q.(2010). Organizing schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Crim, C., Moseley, C., & Desjean-Perrotta, B. (2017). Strategies toward the inclusion of environmental education in educator preparation programs: Results from a national survey. School Science & Mathematics, 117(3–4), 104–114.

Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147–158.

Desjean-Perrotta, B., Moseley, C., & Cantu, L. E. (2008). Preservice teacher’s perceptions of the environment: Does ethnicity or dominant residential experience matter? The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(2), 21–31.

Dyment, J. E., Davis, J. M., Nailon, D., Emery, S., Getenet, S., McCrea, N., & Hill, A. (2014). The impact of professional development on early childhood educators’ confidence, understanding and knowledge of education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 20(5), 660–679.

European Commission. (2014, June). The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013: Main findings from the survey and implications for education and training policies in Europe.

Holdsworth, S., Wyborn, C., Bekessy, S., & Thomas, I. (2008). Professional development for education for sustainability: How advanced are Australian universities? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(2), 131–146.

Johnson, S. M. (2015). Will VAMs reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? Educational Researcher, 44(2), 117–126.

Moseley, C., Desjean-Perrota, B., & Crim, C. (2010). Exploring preservice teachers’ mental models of the environment. In A. M. Bodzin, B. S. Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 209–223). Springer.

Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346.

Powers, A. (2004). Teacher preparation for environmental education: Faculty perspectives on the infusion of environmental education into preservice methods courses. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 3–11.

Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015) Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514.

Schliefer, D., Rinehart, C., & Yanisch, T. (2017) Teacher collaboration in perspective: A guide to research. Spencer Foundation and Public Agenda.

Yavetz, B., Goldman, D., & Pe’er, S. (2014). How do preservice teachers perceive ‘environment’ and its relevance to their area of teaching? Environmental Education Research, 20(3), 354–371.

Preservice Elementary Teachers Using Graphing as a Tool for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing Science

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Gould, D.L., Robles, R., & Rillero, P. (2021). Preservice elementary teachers using graphing as a tool for learning, teaching, and assessing science. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1). Retrieved from

by Deena L. Gould, University of New Mexico; Rolando Robles, Arizona State University; & Peter Rillero, Arizona State University


Graphing is an important tool for seeing patterns, analyzing data, and building models of scientific phenomena. Teachers of elementary school children use graphs to display data but rarely as tools for analyzing or making sense of data (Coleman, McTigue, & Smolkin, 2011). We provide a set of lessons that guide preservice elementary school teachers to analyze their conceptions about graphing and use graphing to (a) see patterns in data, (b) discuss and analyze data, (c) model scientific phenomena, and (d) teach and assess inquiry-based science. Examples are adduced for how we guided and supported preservice elementary teachers in their conceptual understanding and deeper use of graphing.


Graphing has been used as a tool for analyzing and interpreting the world around us for at least eleven centuries (Friendly, 2007). Graphing can render abstract concepts, such as the relationship between variables, more visually apparent and hence more concrete. Graphing played key roles in revolutionary scientific discoveries (i.e. Newton’s laws, 1699; Boyle’s law, 1662) and everyday engineering and scientific discoveries, such as where best to position armor plating on aircrafts (Wainer, 1992) and the source of a cholera epidemic (Wainer, 1992). While the skills and practice of graphing were included in the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), they take a central role in the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2013). Graphing is an important tool in each of the following NGSS science and engineering practices: 2. Developing and using models; 4. Analyzing and interpreting data; 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking; 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering); 7. Engaging in argument from evidence; and 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.

When teachers have used graphs for instruction in elementary school, it has been mainly limited to observing graphical representations in books or interpreting basic graphical representations (Coleman, McTigue, & Smolkin, 2011). Teachers in elementary school have rarely incorporated graphing as a tool for visualizing, discussing, analyzing, or making sense of data or scientific phenomena (Coleman, et al., 2011). When students in elementary school have been asked to construct graphs, they rarely knew the reasons for doing so (Friel, Curcio, & Bright, 2001).

The reasons for the limited use of graphing in elementary school has not been well researched. However, Szjka, Mumba, and Wise (2011) reported that preservice elementary school teachers (PSTs) viewed graphing as more a function of mathematics than as an analytical tool useful for learning, teaching, or assessing inquiry-based science. There is potential for change, however. Roth, McGinn, and Bowen (1998) reported that PSTs who used graphing as a tool for understanding science activities in their preservice classes were later more likely to teach graphing as an analytical tool in their classrooms.

The Lessons

The set of experiences in this article was designed to help PSTs construct and use knowledge about graphing that could be applied in their teaching and assessment. In a 2017 study, teacher preparation courses that covered fewer topics with increased opportunity to unpack knowledge and apply that knowledge to teaching situations had a greater impact on the graduates’ later teaching practices than teacher preparation courses that covered many topics (Morris & Hiebert, 2017). Thus, in this set of experiences, we provided opportunity for PSTs to reflect on, and analyze, their conceptions about graphing in a form that allowed them to apply it to learning and teaching situations. This was an innovative approach for us. Our prior teaching had not assisted PSTs in transferring their use of graphing as an analytical tool into their own instruction.

Overall, the purpose of the set of experiences described in this article was to guide PSTs to experience, discuss, and use graphing as a tool for 1) seeing patterns in data, 2) discussing and analyzing data, 3) modeling scientific phenomena, and 4) teaching and assessing inquiry-based science. In these experiences, inquiry-based science was taken to mean using multiple modes of teaching to guide students to discover or construct understandings about science instead of having teachers directly convey the information about science (Keys & Bryan, 2001). In this set of experiences, we strived to support the PSTs in moving along a continuum of using and applying graphing as an analytical tool in the context of inquiry-based science as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
Overview of Lessons

The context for our lessons was a one-semester elementary science methods course. This course was taken in the last semester of undergraduate study prior to student teaching. As a requirement of the course, PSTs planned and taught at least one inquiry-based science lesson in an elementary school classroom. As part of the course, PSTs also planned and delivered an inquiry-based microteaching lesson and an integrated STEM microteaching lesson to peers. PSTs were required to integrate math in one or more of these lessons.

Prior to the graphing lessons, we administered the 26 item multiple-choice Test of Graphing Skills (McKenzie & Padilla, 1986). The majority of PSTs demonstrated basic graphing skills (mean percent = 76.3, SD = 14.4; n = 77). These basic skills included selecting an appropriately scaled set of axes, selecting a set of coordinates, identifying manipulated and responding variables, selecting the best fit line, selecting a graph that correctly displays data, selecting the corresponding value for Y or X, identifying trends, interpolating and extrapolating from trends, selecting an appropriate description of a relationship shown on a graph, and identifying a generalization that interrelates the results of two graphs.

We built on this foundational knowledge with three focused lessons that guided the PSTs to use graphing in actual practice as a tool for 1) seeing patterns in data, 2) discussing and analyzing data, and 3) modeling scientific phenomena. These three initial lessons employed inquiry-based group work, direct instruction, and guided discussion to support PSTs to unpack their thinking and content knowledge about graphing as an analytical tool to build scientific understandings. The initial focused lessons occurred over three class sessions of one hour each during the second and third week of the course. Throughout the rest of the semester, we guided PSTs to extend and apply the knowledge from these lessons in their microteaching and field-based teaching and assessment. In this article, we show how PSTs’ conceptions about graphing evolved to become more explicit so the conceptions could be used as tools for learning, teaching, and assessing science.

The sequence of three lessons began with a guided-inquiry experience that used graphing as a tool to make visible the relationship between the amount of space a volume of a solid occupies and the amount of space a volume of a liquid occupies (Author citation, 2014). The second lesson focused on using graphing as a tool to discuss and analyze data about the mathematical relationship between mass and volume of water and vegetable oil. The third lesson used graphing as a tool to model and compare the density of seven distinct homogeneous substances.

Lesson 1: Graphing as a Tool for Seeing Patterns

The first lesson guided PSTs to develop standard graphing conventions that enabled them to visualize the relationship between the volume of a solid and the volume of a liquid. In particular, PSTs used graphing as a tool to discover and see clearly the relationship between the volume of space occupied by a milliliter (mL) of liquid and the volume of space occupied by a cubic centimeter (cm3) of solid. Our experience with this group of preservice elementary teachers indicated that a significant majority did not recognize this relationship prior to the lesson.

For the lesson, each group of three or four participants was provided a 0.5L bottle of water, 10 plastic 1 cubic centimeter blocks, a 100 mL graduated cylinder, and a metric ruler. They were asked to collect data and make a graph to show the relationship between the volume of the plastic cubes (cubic centimeters) and the volume of the water (milliliters) those cubes displaced. We used the following questions to facilitate discussion and support the PSTs to collectively design the investigation:

What are the variables? What are their units of measurement?

What could you do with the cubes to compare their volume to the volume of the water they displace?

How will you organize your data as you collect it?

Where does the manipulated variable go on the two column T chart? Is it X or Y?

How will you design the investigation so you can measure the responding variable in step-by-step coordination with the manipulated variable?

The questions and discussion led PSTs to suggest that they could drop the cubic centimeters one-at-a time into the graduated cylinder partly filled with water, record the measurements after each cube is submerged, and plot the data on a graph. We used plastic lab equipment and tap water that posed no significant safety concerns.

As PSTs investigated the relationship between the volume of a mL and the volume of a cm3 using the method of water displacement, some of the PSTs initially confused the measurement of the amount of water in the graduated cylinder with the measurement of the total volume taken up in the cylinder which included both the water and the cubes. It was helpful to ask if the amount of water in the graduated cylinder had changed so participants could conceptualize the meaning of water displacement and develop the concept that volume represents the amount of space matter occupies.

As PSTs used graphing to display and see patterns in the data, it was important to bring attention to conventions in graphing that are commonly overlooked. These include the conventions of titling the scatter plot as Y vs. X, making a scale of equal increments on each axis, positioning the responding variable on the Y-axis and the manipulated variable on the X-axis, and drawing a best-fit line (McKenzie & Padilla, 1986). A graphic organizer with the mnemonic DRY MIX served as a teaching tool and a reminder for placing data on axes (Figure 2).

Figure 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
Teaching Mnemonic and a Student’s Graph of mL vs. cm3

The PSTs noticed and stated that graphing made the one-to-one positive relationship between the volume of a mL and the volume of a cm3 clearly visible. They recorded their perceptions in writing and participated in oral discussion. During the discussion, we prompted PSTs to discuss aspects of the graphs that supported their understanding. It was helpful when we guided attention to the variety of ways that PSTs visualized and described the relationship as represented in Table 1. A word wall (Figure 3) also served as a valuable resource.

Figure 3 (Click on image to enlarge)
Word Wall That Added Oral and Written Explanations

Table 1 (Click on image to enlarge)
Representative Student Responses During Lesson 1

After the end of lesson 1, we prompted the PSTs to describe the role that graphing played in their exploration and understanding. One PST stated, “Graphing paints a picture. You can see things and use graphing to justify explanations.” Another stated, “Graphs are visuals. They show how things look and how things work by making a picture of the data.” One declared, “I liked that we got to see the concepts that we knew!” Another summarized the use of graphing as a tool, “Graphs communicate visually.”                                              

Lesson 2: Graphing as a Tool for Discussing and Analyzing Data

              During the second lesson, PSTs used graphing as a tool to analyze data and discuss the relationship between mass and volume of two liquids: vegetable oil and water. Half of the PSTs in each class explored the relationship between the mass and volume of water. Half of the PSTs in each class explored the relationship between the mass and volume of oil. Prior to beginning the hands-on investigation, we demonstrated the procedure for using the electronic scales, discussed reading the liquid meniscus in the graduated cylinder, and reviewed standard graphing practices covered in the previous session. To challenge PSTs to properly scale a graph with equal increments, we directed students to collect data for 10 mL, 15 mL, 25 mL, 40 mL, and 50 mL of their liquid. To help PSTs with their discussions and analyses, we prompted them to calculate the slope of the line and discuss what the slope of the line represented (Figure 4).

Figure 4 (Click on image to enlarge)
PST’s Graph of Mass Vs. Volume

For the final activity of lesson 2, students who explored and graphed the relationship between mass and volume of water partnered with students who explored and graphed the relationship between mass and volume of oil. We directed them to analyze data together by comparing graphs, describing relationships, and discussing possible reasons for the similarities and differences they observed. In other words, they were prompted to use the ratio of the relationship between mass and volume as depicted by the scatter graphs to discuss and explain similarities and differences between oil and water. The visual representation on the graph displayed the proportional relationship between the two quantities and helped lead the PSTs to attend to both quantities simultaneously.

As PSTs discussed the data and the relationships among the data, they were able to describe the meaning of the slope of the best-fit-line without using the word “density,” which helped them unpack their thinking and develop multiple ways to discuss, represent, and explain this concept. During the discussion, we modeled the use of a word wall as a resource in their discussions. After the students conducted the investigation, they noted that a word wall could serve as a tool to help their students bridge from everyday language to scientific language during discussions and data analyses. To help students unpack their conceptions about graphing, we brought attention to the diversity of ways that students analyzed and described the data (Table 2).

Table 2 (Click on image to enlarge)
Representative Student Responses During Lesson 2

After the end of lesson 2, we asked the PSTs to describe the role that graphing played in their data analyses and discussions. PSTs elaborated about the value of using graphing to visualize data. One stated, “Graphing makes it easier to see and read the data.” Another stated, “Graphing helps stimulate ideas and words. It helps you come up with ideas and explanations. It shows patterns so you can see and talk about them.” Another stated, “Graphing can help students explain when they don’t know because graphing can help you see and explain relationships.” Another PST stated, “Graphs can help you make a claim and justify the claim with evidence and reasoning that everyone can see.”

Lesson 3: Graphing as a Tool for Modeling Scientific Phenomena

            Graphing is also a valuable tool in modeling approaches to science instruction as analyses and discussions of data are central to the approach (Jackson, Duckerick, & Hestenes, 2008; Lehrer & Schauble, 2004; NRC, 2012). This third lesson was similar to the second lesson, however, each group of PSTs selected different substances to explore. Sets of one-cubic centimeter cubes of wood, aluminum, copper iron, brass, lead, zinc, and plastic were available. PSTs were directed to use graphing as a tool to model the mathematical relationship between the mass and volume of the selected substances. The previous two lessons provided experience for participants to be able to design this investigation in small groups with little instructor guidance. We prompted PSTs to calculate the slope of the line, discuss what the slope of the line represented, and use this information in their models (Table 3).

To help PSTs synthesize a mathematical model of density, we prompted them to rotate around the room, share data with classmates, and add lines representing several different substances from the data they gathered from classmates (Figure 5). They compared graphs, compared relationships, and discussed reasons for the similarities and differences they observed. As they shared data, they were able to develop a model that represented the relationship between mass and volume that was valid across a variety of substances.

Figure 5 (Click on image to enlarge)
PST’s Graph of Mass Vs. Volume

In the final activity of lesson 3, we presented each group with a mystery substance (a 2 x .5 inch cylinder of brass, aluminum, or steel) and asked them to use their model to make and justify a claim about the identity of the mystery substance. In small groups, PSTs generated strategies about how to compare the mystery substance with the known substances. They measured and calculated the densities of the mystery substances and compared them to the densities of the known substances (Table 3).

Table 3 (Click on image to enlarge)
Representative PST Responses During Lesson 3

After the end of lesson 3, we asked the PSTs to describe the role graphing and modeling played in their learning. One PST stated, “The graphic model helped us describe the abstract idea of density. It helped us use math to answer a question and it showed us how to use data and to represent data. It allowed us to work interdependently.” Another described the experience, “The graphs helped us talk about the strategies we came up with for the mystery substance. I found a lot of new ideas that way.” Another PST stated, “We were able to use data to make a model and to construct a reasonable explanation with the model. Graphing can communicate information. It (graphing) has many different purposes.” Another stated, “This shows that students can use math skills in reading, analyzing, and creating data and graphs for models. Modeling is useful to science because it helps make real world connections to actual events. It is important to make models for abstract concepts to demonstrate how the world works. I think that sharing was beneficial because it provides enough data to show a true trend.” One PST summarized the experience, “This graphing and modeling connects math and science to the real world and real problem solving rather than just question answering.”

Pedagogical Applications: Graphing as a Tool for Teaching and Assessing Inquiry-Based Science

Over the course of the three scaffolded lessons, PSTs took on more responsibility for planning the investigation, collecting the data, and using graphing as a tool for 1) seeing patterns in data, 2) discussing and analyzing data, and 3) modeling scientific phenomena. We helped facilitate this transition by prompting PSTs to do more, analyze their conceptions, and share their perspectives with each other. By gradually assuming greater ownership of the investigations, PSTs developed foundational knowledge, confidence, and initiative to use graphing as a tool for their own teaching over the rest of the semester.

Over the course of the semester, the PSTs analyzed, discussed, refined, and developed their use of graphing as a tool for learning, teaching, and assessing. Initially, some PSTs struggled to transfer their graphing knowledge and skills into actual practice, especially in ill-defined situations with unclear data. For example, a group of PSTs defaulted to using the collected data points instead of a scale of equal units when planning a lesson to guide elementary school students to graph and analyze the changes in stages of life cycle (larva, pupa, adult) of a population of mealworm beetles over time. In this example, the PSTs chose time as the variable for the X-axis. However, they initially used only the dates of data collection for values on the X-axis. The intervals between these values did not represent equal intervals of time. When the PSTs were prompted to identify the number of days between each value on the X-axis, they realized that some of the intervals represented 7 days while other intervals represented 10 days. They articulated that they had not used equal intervals. They also articulated that they could teach their students to create a scale of equal intervals by prompting the students to “skip counting” instead of just recording the dates of date collection. Therefore, it was important for the course instructors to continue to monitor and guide the PSTs as they applied their graphing skills in the development of lesson plans. Over time, the PSTs lesson plans began to show that they used graphing as a tool to engage their own students in seeing patterns, analyzing and discussing data, and modeling scientific phenomena (Table 4).

Table 4 (Click on image to enlarge)
Representative Excerpt From PST’s Lesson Plan

Over the course of the semester, we asked PSTs to share their experiences and their perspectives about teaching science in elementary school. Unsolicited, the PSTs described graphing as a tool for both teaching and assessing:

“For my evaluation I had the students pool their collected data and create a graph that explained what they had just completed with the number of coils and the strength of the magnet. I just love the fact that the students were the star scientists in this type of modeling.”

“In my class, we graph data and see how to apply math in our daily lives. Numbers are just numbers until we give them meaning. Graphing can give meaning to measurements and how it interacts with another variable such as time. I did a lesson about speed and time. I had the students make sense with real world applications and graphing. The students explored meanings rather than just taking science at face value. I think the making sense gives students a reason to want to learn more.”

“For assessment, a lot of that is done in their notebooks, I check for specific processes on certain days (charts, data, graphs, etc.) or I check for answers to certain questions. I can see what they know and answer any questions that students have. I comment on their thoughts and scientific knowledge that is brought out in the notebook. Using the notebooks and seeing the charts, data, and graphs really helps me gauge what concepts the students are grasping and which ones they are struggling with.”


Children in elementary school need access to analytical tools, such as graphing, that help them make sense of the world around them (NRC, 2012). In this article, we provide science teacher educators with a set of lessons to prepare preservice elementary teachers to use and teach graphing as a tool to (a) see patterns in data, (b) discuss and analyze data, (c) model scientific phenomena, and (d) teach and assess inquiry-based science.

We built this set of activities on the belief that PSTs need a strong knowledge foundation about the use of graphing as a tool to be able to apply it to their teaching and assessing (Bowen & Roth, 2005; Morris & Hiebert, 2017; Roth et. al, 1998). Therefore, we provided PSTs opportunities to analyze their conceptions about graphing and to also discuss, refine, and improve their use of graphing in different contexts.  To document progress and provide feedback, we reviewed PSTs’ written work samples and oral responses across the three lessons and across the field experiences and microteaching. We documented individual progress and provided feedback about the use of graphing to (a) see patterns in data, (b) discuss and analyze data, (c) model scientific phenomena, and (d) teach and assess inquiry-based science. Criteria for achieving these outcomes were incorporated into our course rubrics. Over time, we noticed that PSTs conceptions about graphing that were initially based on partial understandings, evolved and became more explicit. Compared to previous years, the use of graphing enabled these PSTs to be more descriptive, more precise, and more analytical when they made scientific observations, engaged in discussions, and problem solved.

While developing graphing abilities was a goal of the set of experiences, equally important was fostering the development of preservice teachers in viewing graphing, and its associated mathematical reasoning, as a tool for scientific inquiry rather than solely as something done in math. Compared to previous years, we noticed that these PSTs were more explicit in their lesson plans about how they used graphing as a tool to engage and assess student reasoning and scientific sense-making. The majority of PSTs showed in at least one of their three lesson plans that they were able to use graphing to support elementary school students in scientific sense-making and discovering or constructing understandings about science. These results are reflective of the novel and innovative approach we outlined in this article that guided PSTs to reflect and analyze their conceptions about graphing in a form that enabled them to apply those conceptions to new learning and teaching situations.

Finally, it is important to note that a limitation of this set of lessons is that each of the relationships that PSTs graphed represented a positive linear correlation. In future implementations, we think it is important to provide opportunities for PSTs to work with data that represent other types of relationships such as nonlinear, curved, exponential, etc. PSTs also need opportunities to work with, and explore, data for which no fully determined mathematical relationships emerge (this opportunity is available in Meyer, 2016). However, this set of lessons provided a starting point; linear relationships are a good place to start considering that linear relationships form the basis of many relationships in science.


Bowen, G.M., & Roth, W.M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1063-1088.

Coleman, J.M., McTigue, E.M., & Smolkin, L.B. (2011). Elementary teachers’ use of graphical representations in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 613-643.

Friel, S.N., Curcio, F.R., & Bright, G.W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research In Mathematics Education, 32, 124-158.

Friendly, M. A. (2007). A brief history of data visualization. In C. Chen, W., & Hardl, A. Unwin (Eds.). Handbook of Computational Statistics: Data Visualization (pp. 15-56). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Gould, D., & Mitts, L. (2014). Eureka! Causal thinking about matter and molecules. Science Scope, 37(11), 47 – 56.

Jackson, J., Dukerich, L., & Hestenes, D. (2008). Modeling instruction: An effective model for science education. Science Educator, 17(1), 10-17.

Keys, C. & Bryan, L. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.

Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. ? American Educational Research Journal. 41, 635-679.

McKenzie, D.L. & Padilla, M.J. (1986). The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 571-579.

Meyer, D.Z. (2016). Comparing classroom inquiry and sociological account of science as a means of explicit-reflective learning of NOS/SI. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 1(2). Retrieved from

Morris, A.K., & Hiebert, J. (2017). Effects of teacher preparation courses: Do graduates use what they learned to plan mathematics lessons? American Educational Research Journal. 54, 524-567.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC.

National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices crosscutting concepts and core idea. Committee on conceptual framework for new K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

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

Roth, W.M., McGinn, M.K., & Bowen, G.M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25-48.

Szjka, S., Mumba, F., & Wise, K.C. (2011). Cognitive and attitudinal predictors related to line graphing achievement among elementary pre-service teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 563-578.

Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21, 14-23.


Supporting Schoolyard Pedagogy in Elementary Methods Courses

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Feille, K. & Hathcock, S. (2021). Supporting schoolyard pedagogy in elementary methods courses. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 6(1). Retrieved from

by Kelly Feille, University of Oklahoma; & Stephanie Hathcock, Oklahoma State University


Schoolyard pedagogy illustrates the theories, methods, and practices of teaching that extend beyond the four walls of a classroom and capitalize on the teaching tools available in the surrounding schoolyard. In this article, we describe the schoolyard pedagogy framework, which includes intense pedagogical experiences, opportunities and frequent access, and continuous support. We then provide an overview of how we are intentionally working toward developing schoolyard pedagogy in elementary preservice teachers at two universities. This includes providing collaborative experiences in the university schoolyard and nearby schools, individual experiences in nature, opportunities to see the possibilities in local schoolyards, and lesson planning that utilizes the schoolyard. We also discuss potential barriers and catalysts for schoolyard pedagogy during the induction years, future needs, and potential for continuous support.

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


Bricker, P. Faetz, M., Tracy, K. N., & Luke, N. (2015). Poetry rocks. Science and Children, 53(3), 38-45.

Carrier, S. J. (2009). The Effects of Outdoor Science Lessons with Elementary School Students on Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 35-48. doi:10.1007/BF03173683

Feille, K. (2019). A Framework for the Development of Schoolyard Pedagogy. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-019-9860-x

Gilbert, A., & Byers, C.C. (2017). Wonder as a tool to engage preservice elementary teachers in science learning and teaching. Science Education, 101, 907-928.

Graham, H., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2005). California teachers perceive school gardens as an effective nutritional tool to promote healthful eating habits. Journal of the American Diabetic Association, 105, 1797-1800. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.034

Gross, L., McGee, J., James, J., & Hodge, C. (2019). From play to pedagogy: Formative childhood experiences and development of preservice elementary science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30, 856-871. doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2019.1616516.

Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (2002). The ecological world of children. In P. H. Kahn & S.Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 29-62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klemmer, C. D., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing Minds: The Effect of a School Gardening Program on the Science Achievement of Elementary Students. Horticulture Technology, 15, 448-452.

Laws, J. M., Breunig, E., Lygren, E., & Lopez, C. (2012). Opening the world through nature journaling: Integrating art, science, and language arts (2nd Ed.). California Native Plant Society.

Leslie, C. W., & Roth, C. E. (2003). Keeping a nature journal: Discovering a whole new way of seeing the world around you. North Adams: Storey Publishing.

Lewis, E., Mansfield, C., & Baudains, C. (2008). Getting Down and Dirty: Values in Education for Sustainability. Issues in Educational Research, 18, 138-155.

Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (2005). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. State Education and Roundtable, General Education.

Martin, S. C. (2003). The influence of outdoor schoolyard experiences on students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and comfort levels. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15, 51-63.

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

Ozer, E. J. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 846-863. doi:10.1177/1090198106289002

Passy, R. (2012). School gardens: teaching and learning outside the front door. Education 3-13, 42(1), 23-38. doi:10.1080/03004279.2011.636371

Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. Harper: New York, NY.

Skamp, K., & Bergmann, I. (2001). Facilitating Learnscape Development, Maintenance and Use: Teachers’ Perceptions and Self-Reported Practices. Environmental Education Research, 7, 333-358.

Skelly, S. M., & Bradley, J. C. (2007). The growing phenomenon of school gardens: Measuring their variation and their affect on students’ sense of responsibility and attitudes toward science and the environment. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 6, 97-104.

Sobel, D. (2002). Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.

Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2009). Reflective practice as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 245-262. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9131-1

Thomas, J. A., Pedersen, J. E., & Finson, K. D. (2001). Validation of the draw-a-science-teacher-ckecklist (DASTT-C): Exploring mental models and teacher beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 295-310. doi:10.1023%2FA%3A1014216328867

Wells, N. M., Myers, B. M., & Henderson, C. R. (2014). School gardens & physical activity: A randomized controlled trial of low income elementary schools. Preventative Medicine, 69, 527-533.

Wolf, Allan. (2003). Step outside. What do you see? In S. Vardell & J. Wong (Eds.), The poetry friday anthology for science (p. 13). Princeton, NJ: Pomelo.

The Great Ice Investigation: Preparing Pre-Service Elementary Teachers for a Sensemaking Approach of Science Instruction

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

McFadden, J.R. (2019). The great ice investigation: Preparing preservice elementary teachers for a sensemaking approach of science instruction. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(3). Retrieved from

by Justin R. McFadden, University of Louisville


The current article describes a sequence of lessons, readings, and resources aimed to prepare elementary preservice teachers for science instruction wherein student sensemaking, rather than vocabulary memorization, is prioritized. Within the article, I describe how the prompts, questions, and logistics of the The Great Ice Investigation drive my students’ in-class and out-of-class learning to start out every science methods course I teach. The readings and resources detailed that compliment the Great Ice Investigation should benefit both preservice as well as in-service elementary teachers just beginning to align their instruction with the Next Generation Science Standards. The lessons, readings, and resources described should be of value to science teacher educators looking to modify and improve how they prepare their students for next generation science instruction.

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

Become a member or renew your membership


Tretter, T. & McFadden, J. (2018). Modeling structure and properties of matter: People as particles. Science and Children, 56(4), 67-73.Tretter, T. & McFadden, J. (2018). Modeling Structure and Properties of Matter: People as Particles. Science and Children, 56(4), 67-73.

Bybee, R. W. (2013). Using the 5E Model to Implement the NGSS: Translating the NGSS for classroom instruction. NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association.

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

Duncan R., Krajcik, J., & Rivet, A. (2016). Disciplinary Core Ideas: Reshaping Teaching and Learning. NTSA Press, National Science Teachers Association. ISBN: 978-1-938946-41-7.

Duncan, R. G., & Cavera, V. L. (2015). DCIs, SEPs, and CCs, oh my!: Understanding the three dimensions of the NGSS. The Science Teacher, 82(7), 67.

Harlen, W. (2015). Teaching Science for Understanding in Elementary and Middle Schools. Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH. ISBN: 978-0-325-06159-7.

Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161.

Moscovici, H., & Nelson, T. H. (1998). Shifting from activitymania to inquiry. Science and Children, 35(4), 14.

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

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. next-generation-science-standards.

Penuel, W., Van Horne, K. & Bell, P. (2016). Steps to designing a three-dimensional assessment. Downloaded from:

Reiser, B., Brody, L., Novak, M., Tipton, K., Adams, L. (2017).  Asking questions. In Schwarz, C. V., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B. J. (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. (p. 87-108). NSTA Press.

Van Zee, E. H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach: Prospective teachers’ reflections upon positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85(6), 733-757.