http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/06/new_twitter_research_men_follo.html
2008
Jessica Gross: Embracing the Twitter Classroom
Stuff for Starving Students
Pecha Kucha – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Where Do You Learn?”: Tweeting to Inform Learning Space Development (EDUCAUSE Quarterly) | EDUCAUSE
Test Entry for Tech Cafe
Here’s the link to my current blog called The Notetaker…http://www.personal.psu.edu/rsw136/blogs/the_note_taker/
Constructed Meaning | Cole Camplese: Learning and Innovation
Elementary Science Teaching
Elementary Science Teaching by Ken Appleton (Chpt 18) Research
on teaching science in the elementary school is an emerging field with
many open avenues to pursue, especially in the early elementary grades
(K-3) these include: the roll and efficacy of science specialists in
the elementary school; the influence, potential and cost effectiveness
of kit based curriculum materials; the arbitration of text book choice;
the reverberations and teacher response to reform movements;
reform-integrated curricula that enhances science learning as well as
learning in other subjects; the connection between emotion and
cognition in affective learning; the nature and effectiveness of
scaffolds for student learning and lesson integration; the role of
metacognition in students’ conceptual development; age appropriate
& pedagogically sound curriculum design, learning goals and
scaffolds; authentic assessment, pertinent parent-teacher
communication to enhance student learning; the validity and
appropriateness of large-scale testing and possible alternatives;
useful, valid and cost-effective ways of introducing large-scale change
in elementary science teaching and elementary science teacher education.There
has been a shift in epistemological beliefs held by elementary science
education researchers, over the past few decades, from positivism to
constructivism, and within constructivism, from cognitive to social
constructivism. Yet a similar change in elementary science teachers
has not been seen. Elementary science teacher practice tends toward
strategies which are effective at maintaining control of the classroom,
both conceptually and physically, but which are often ineffective at
engaging students in science and do not represent current understanding
of the NOS.While it is recognized that elementary science
teachers’ competence is correlated to discursive competence in the
subject-matter; content knowledge alone is not sufficient to engender
effective teaching. Science specific PCK must be included in the
development of pre-service elementary teachers while also being a
central part of in-service professional development.
Perspectives on Science Learning: Charles W. Anderson
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
Nature of Science
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?