Recently in 2008 Category
Here's the link to my current blog called The Notetaker...http://www.personal.psu.edu/rsw136/blogs/the_note_taker/
Lederman, Norman G. Nature of Science: Past, Present and Future Chapter 28The
Big Three of NOS: K-12 students and teachers do not typically have
an adequate understanding of NOS and it implications for instruction
and decision making. NOS is best learned
through explicit instruction and guided reflective instruction as
opposed to just "doing science". Just because
a teacher may possess an adequate conception of NOS does not mean that
will translate into their classroom practice just as students may
possess an adequate conception of NOS but that may not translate to
their lives outside of the science classroom.Delving Deeper into NOSNOS
is the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing or the
values & beliefs inherent in scientific knowledge = analogous to
scientific knowledge. NOS is NOT how science is carried out but rather
how one approaches thinking about science: ie science is creative,
subjective, social and tentative. Teaching this has been a goal of
science education since the central association of Science and
Mathematics teachers called for it in 1907. Since this time it was
hypothesized that teaching NOS would help students understand
technology, make informed decisions on socioscientific issues,
appreciate science as a apart of culture, and understand how science
impacts the moral commitments that are of general value to society.
But in 2003 it was found that without explicit focus on how science
relates societal issues NOS was not taken into consideration during
decision making. But in 1961 when the first paper and pencil
assessment of students NOS knowledge took place, showed that students'
understanding of NOS was incomplete, inadequate and lacking in
understanding of the rolls of models, creativity, theories in relation
to research, the difference between theories, laws and hypothesis, and
evidence vs. explanation. They held an empiricist/absolutist view of
science, believing that science was a string of facts to be memorized.
This and other similar instruments used at the time, "emphasized
quantitative approaches allowed for easily 'graded' quantified
measures of individuals' understandings (861)." Many such instruments
have questionable validly because they focus on areas beyond the scope
of NOS. Some instruments which seem to be valid include Coley and
Klopfer's Test on Understanding Science, Welch's Science Process
Inventory, Kimball's Nature of Science Scale and Rubba's Nature of
Scientific Knowledge Scale (these and other valid tests discussed on
pp. 863-867). Some common features are that they tend to be written,
use multiple choice or Likert type scales and some also include open
ended questions. It was assumed that teachers'
understanding of NOS would thus influence how students understood NOS.
It was fund that both in-service and pre-service teachers did not tend
to possess an adequate conception of NOS. In one study it was found
that 14% of 9th grade students and 47% of 11-12 grade students had a
more complete understanding of NOS than their teachers with 68% of
'high-achieving' 11-12 graders outscoring their teachers. A study of
preservice teachers at Stanford found that most pre-service elementary
teachers felt it was more important to learn the 'nuts and bolts' of
teaching such as lesson planning and assessment rather than NOS. It
was recommended that teacher ed programs include courses on the history
and philosophy of science. It was later found that this assumption was
too simplistic and that how teachers' view NOS does not necessarily
relate to how they teach for several reasons such as pressure to cover
content, classroom management and organization, concerns over student
abilities, institutional constraints, teaching experience, discomfort
with the subject matter, and lack of resources. In the late
1960's research began on how to best change students' and teachers'
views of NOS. These studies were always very structured and focused on
curriculum such as BSCS. Basically they were testing discovery
learning vs lecture, lab book science teaching using pre/post tests as
assessment instruments. Usually improvement in scores were reported
but they tended to change from abysmal to poor. Students' responses
were limited to the nature of the instrument or interview questions.
And how teachers enacted the curriculum was generally ignored. The
most successful study of this sort was in 1996 when Shapiro looked at
210 pre-service elementary ed majors during their science methods
course. Students filled in a grid representing their understanding of
NOS. Groups were then asked to pose a simple problem, form research
questions around the problem, design a systematic approach to solving
the problem and implement their design. Students kept reflective
journals throughout class with explicit encouragement to reflect and
engage with their thinking. At the end of the class students filled in
a second grid and were then interviewed on how their thoughts changed
during the course of the class. The large problem that emerged
from this sort of research was that students' do not just pick-up on
NOS even through the best guided inquiry scenario. Students must be
explicitly focused on the aspects of their activities which make up NOS
as well as how their activities connect to the larger scientific
community. In the 1990's research on this sort of intervention showed
promising results. The main researcher named in the handbook was
Abd-El-Khalick. Science methods courses emphasizing an "explicit,
reflective instructional approach related to NOS. (856)" One
big critizisim of the instruments is that each one assumes its
definition of NOS is the correct one. And since there is a much
discussed "lack of consensus" on what exactly NOS is, the results from
using such instruments are hard, if not impossible, to compare. Even
so, these instruments usually result in categorizing students' and
teachers' understanding of NOS as "less than adequate. (867)" Another
criticism of paper and pencil instruments is that they rely on
interpretation by researchers which has been found to vary from student
intention when students were interviewed, post test, to assess the
validity of such instruments. Currently there are two camps of
NOS research, those who are trying to design a better, mass testing
instruments and those who are harkening back to behaviorism, ie:
observing classrooms and inferring intent. Lederman implys that
discourse analysis is a valid path to observational research,
"Observations of behavior can be valuable if the behavior is what a
student says specifically about NOS. (868)" rather than simply
inferring intent from behavior. At this point further research is still needed on: The key experiences and specific mechanisms which contribute to changing an individuals understanding of NOS. How one's worldview affects their understanding of NOS? How should NOS best be taught? Is teachers' PCK different for NOS than traditional science content? How does NOS translate into classroom practice? Is there a correlation between difficulty of subject matter and understanding of NOS? How does having an understanding of NOS contribute to learning science content? How does having an understanding of NOS influence decision making? Do the definition of NOS change between the various science disciplines? How can we/should we promote NOS as important and valid science content?
Reading Presentations: BrandonTeaching Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classrooms: Survey ResultsKatherine Norman, Dana Caseau, Greg StefanichScience Education 1998 82: 127-146Disabilities as a cultural issue in the public school science classroom:11% of sts have some sort of disabilityTeachers' self-responses32.6% of el ed teachers report being trained in mainstreaming students with physical disabilities4.7 % report being trained in inclusion methods for students with learning disabilities34.9 % (elem) adequately prepared to design, select and modify activities for students with disabilities33.3% severe disabilities should not be in classrooms with regular students54% disability categories are too often used as an excuse for failure32% too much $ spent on addressing needs of sts with disabilitiesRe-visioning
Cogenerative Dialogues as Feminist Pedagogy , Kathryn Scantlebury and
Sarah-Kate LaVan, Forum: Qualitative Research vol 7 no 2 art 41 march
2006co generative dialog , moderator and instruct sts down with
students and they talk about their feelings and how they are made to
feel in class, references activity theory and agency. Who has the
power in a classroom? When using co-generative dialog no voice has
supremacy. When everyone has a voice it has the potential to be
transformative and oart of feminist pedagogy conscience raising ,
participants educating each other. Each takes responsibility of making
everyone else aware of their own perspective and people need to agree
not to exploit the power relationship , can not reflect feminist
pedagogy if not transformative or if no change occurs. May be
particularly useful in science because males are inherently privileged
over females in science class (I wonder about this statement and
question it's validity). Expanding our Understanding of Urban
Science Education by Expanding the Roles of students as Researchers ,
Rowhea Elmesky, Kenneth Tobin, JRST vol 42 no 7 pp. 807-828Ken
Tobin hired student to research and interview peers on how science
teachers can be a good science teacher for urban students listen to
kids make sense of their world and bring the education to them as well
as find out what is important to them what is important to them is not
always what we as educators value or think they would value. Giving a voice to urban students roles of students as researchersHandbookGender Issues and Science Education: Emily Was
the deficit model of female science education - Girls lacked cognitive
ability and personal traits to lead to achievement in science rather
than questioning the system. The research was questioning the girls
not the teaching , girls = stupid, guys = smart" ½ of the worlds
workers are in sextyped occupations" what counts as a gender
stereotyped occupation? Women encouraged to enroll in humanities, men
encouraged in math and science. Girls perspectives in science ,
teachers can create an environment where girls have permission to
explore scientifically or to simply be observers/notetakers. Gender
roles are not explicit in teacher education programs the classroom but
they can profoundly affect students in your classes none the less. Special needs and talents in science (McGinnis & Stefanich, 2007): DonnaEvery
learner is unique. If learner exceeds typical performances of peer
group they are called "special talents" if learner shows deficit in
typical performance they are labeled "special needs" Guide for policy
makers and teachers rather than teacher-educators. Theoretical
Perspectives: Behavioral (observable behavior), Developmental (changes
in development over time, children think differently than adults),
Cognitive (mental functioning, need for multi disciplinary approach
special talents and need students , reach both ends of the spectrum),
Social context (students participate more in science when it is taught
using a socially oriented program) Many of the tools used for
gender inclusion would also work for special need and talent students.
"Disruptive brain function" may lead to underachievement in science.
What do they mean by disruptive brain functions? Typical testing
identifies what students do wrong but not what they can do right. Get
to know students! Using a deficit model. Legislation , Americans with
Disabilities Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Science teachers tend to be weary to use some science equipment with
disabled students. Structuring science labs for physical
accommodations. Call for science teacher involvement in assessment of
special needs students. How have teachers who are accommodating well
doing it? Special talents , focus on female learner and talented kids
wit different cultural backgrounds, need for longitudinal research in
this area. Tension between scied researchers and sped researchers. Class talkCaucasian women overwhelmingly make up the teaching profession Do
we want to invite library people or others working on research
innovation via technology to come into class and share with us what
they are working on? Think about framing recommendations in
your own research around policy and practices in research. What would
you say to policy makers to influence policy? While also thinking
about how your argument will be viewed/simplified by readers. How
would you frame your recommendations so they would not/could not
set-off an unwanted chain of action in the field. Ex. NCLBWhat can we do as teacher educators to counter the problem of gender stereotypes in the classroom? - be aware of who you are calling on in class and analyze your own practice via video (StudioCode coding your own practice) -
make explicit your decision making as a teacher to your pre-service
sts. Especially around gender, disabilities and other "underserved"
groups (ESL learners)- specific issues for inclusion in science classroom vs other formats- classroom culture in science A
lot of disagreement over what needs to be done for students with
special needs science classes. Resistance to change. Lack of
responsiveness to the problem. What is it about teachers who
are doing well that helped them to get their? How do they do it? We
know goes wrong, now let's find out what goes right. Talk your citations! Who are "they"? Stop skipping the parenthesis. Network with salient authors at conferences. Next TimeWhen
you do your reading think about what the take home message is?
Identify 3 bullets (big ideas) in each piece. Post Big 3 in blog. Post
Research Interest Statement for review with mark-ups. Bring paper
copies of research interest to class blog. Refer to tagging guidelines
from Carla. Curriculum and assessment in science , focusing on assessment Asli , discussion guide, id 2-3 empirical studies to augment discussionChpt 27 - Inquiry as an organizing theme in science (Emily)Chpt 28 - Nature of Science (Lis) Chpt 30 , Systemic reform (Brandon)Chpt 31 , Review of Scied Program evaluations (Donna) Chpt 33 - Large Scale Assessments (Asli)
Big Three:
1) There are three main research traditions in science education:
conceptual change, sociocultural, and
critical. It is important to situate yourself within one of these
traditions. 2) There are two core questions research on science learning should address: Why don't students learn what science teachers are trying to teach them? Why does the achievement gap persist? 3) There are five "Commonplaces" addressed by all three traditions: Intellectual History Ideas on NOS Ideas on Learners and Learning Research Goals and Methods Ideas for improving science learning Conceptual Change (CC)Intellectual History: Links Piaget's methods w/ ideas about the historical development of scientific knowledge. Notable authors: Kuhn, Toulmin, Posner, Strike, HewsonNOS:
Gives primacy to agency in the material world. Characterize science as
an ongoing theoretical discussion w/ nature. Scientific Knowledge is
grounded in model-based reasoning and the task of scied is to give
students access to the power of scientific ideas.Learners and Learning: Students learn by integrating (accommodating) scientific ideas into their current knowledge schema.Research Goals & Methods: Document
students' current conceptions and their responses to science
instruction using written tests, clinical interviews, protocols on
problem solvingImproving Science Learning: Expose students
to "conceptual conflict" contrasting current conceptions with the
"superior power and precision" of scientific conceptions. Answers to core questions:1)
Students fail to learn science because they come to school w/
alternative conceptual frameworks (misconceptions)
that shape how the view and accommodate scientific concepts.2) CC
research has been performed in many countries and though cc teaching
methods have been shown to improve the learning
of many students it shows little evidence of reducing the achievement
gap.Sociocultural (SC)Intellectual History: Stems from Vygotsky and investigates how children learn through interactions w/ others. Notable Authors: Kelly, Carlsen, Lave, Wenger, Krajcik & BlumenfeldNOS: Science
as a multiple discourses (ways of knowing, doing, talking, reading, and
writing) community, giving primacy to how scientists communicate w/
people and participate in communities of practice. Learners and Learning:
Students learn science when they are able to adopt scientific language,
values and social norms for the purpose of participating in scientific
practices such as inquiry and the application of scientific concepts. Research Goals & Methods:
Ethnographic data collection and analysis techniques focusing on
methods that help learners master language and culturally embedded
practices of science especially how teachers and students communicate
on and around natural phenomena.Improving Science Learning: Discourses
and knowledge can be negotiated and merged to create new
understandings. Many SC researchers focus on apprenticeship as a
metaphor for learning. Answers to core questions:1) Students must deal with hidden cultural and conceptual conflicts which inhibit science learning.2)
The achievement gap persists because scientific discourse communities
are built around language, values, and social norms of their (mostly
Caucasian, middle-class) members. Thus, Caucasian, middle-class
students enter schools with significant advantages over those students
of different backgrounds. CriticalIntellectual History: Scholars
who sought to show how dominant classes manipulated "truth" to their
advantage such as Foucualt. Notable authors: Angela Barton &
Kimberly YangNOS: Science is ideological and institutional,
scientific truth is culturally situated and not absolute, scientists
are inevitably limited by their perspectives and resourcesLearners and Learning: Students
are participants in power relationships and institutions with some
gaining access to scientific knowledge while others are excluded.
Critical researchers see science education as a form of indoctrination
and advocate for science learning as the development of critical
literacy (the ability to see and criticize how power works to privilege
the few at the expense of many).Research Goals & Methods: Inform
readers about background and interests of researchers so readers can
decide how to interpret their work and determine "validity" for
themselves. Improving Science Learning: Successful
learning involves changes in the organization and ideology of schooling
including changes in powerful adults as well as powerless students. Answers to core questions:
Critical researchers would challenge the implicit premises of the core
questions, asking, "Is it not possible that science education is doing
quite well what it was designed to do , to restrict access to the true
power of scientific reasoning to a small elite?" They also feel that
the achievement gap is not an accident and that it persists because it
serves the interests of those who benefit from restricted access to
scientific knowledge. Moving Forward: Research
in science education has done an excellent job determining what doesn't
work and why it doesn't work but it has been much less successful at
translating noted deficiencies into practical results. Scied
researchers need to a) move beyond proof of concepts studies and find
better ways for doing work in actual science classrooms and b) use
research to develop compelling arguments that influence policies and
resources for science education
Recent Comments