SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

Sorry this is late. Migraines and looking at computer screens are not a good combination.

After reading the abstracts of all of the papers I selected Manz (2012), Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe (2012), and Wu & Krajcik (2006) because their topics seemed to align most closely with my interests—investigations carried out in an outdoor “wild backyard area” environment (Manz, 2012), instructional practices and tools for science teachers (Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012), and students’ inscription practices in science education (Wu & Krajcik, 2006).

The two science practices papers (Wu & Krajcik, 2006; Manz, 2012) were more similar than I had anticipated but it was interesting to see how the different studies were carried out and interpreted. The two veteran teachers incorporating inscription practices in their inquiry-based classrooms (Wu & Krajcik, 2006) had attended workshops on developing project-based approaches to teaching, had collaborated with each other to develop inquiry-based learning projects, had used learning tools to enhance their curriculum, and had worked extensively with university researchers prior to the current study. Similarly, the teacher in Manz’s (2012) study has several decades of teaching experience and had “participated in significant professional development” (p. 1076) to develop instruction around modeling activity and investigation. Both studies and the science units that were the foci of the studies were conducted over the course of a at least one school year—eight months (Wu & Krajcik, 2006); first year out of two (Manz, 2012) and classroom activities were iterative. Both classrooms took the mile deep-inch wide approach of science education where one large topic occupied the school year—water quality (Wu & Krajcik, 2006) and plant reproduction success (in the backyard ecosystem) (Manz, 2012). In both cases the topics were ones to which the students could make direct, personal connections. Scaffolding was a key element of the classrooms studied by Wu & Krajcik (2006), i.e., “the teachers provided substantial scaffolds to support the inquiry process” (p. 66). The authors define scaffold as “assistance that allowed students to accomplish tasks they could not do alone” (p.70) and stated scaffolding “faded out” (p.74) over the course of the project as students gained confidence, knowledge, and ability. The scaffolds had allowed the students’ levels of competence to increase over time. Although the term scaffolding was not used in Manz (2012), I felt there were indications that scaffolding was integral to the studied learning environment. The term support was frequently used when scaffolding seemed to be occurring, i.e., “instructional support” (p. 1076), working with the teacher to develop “supportive classroom discourse structures to support student agency” (p. 1081), teacher “supported students to make and considering claims” (p. 1091).

Wu & Krajcik’s paper on student inscriptions was a case study. The authors looked the development and use of inscriptions (graphs, data tables, maps, scales, models, etc.) by students in the guided inquiry environment the teachers had created. While the “social practical perspective” (p.64) taken by the authors is clearly a situative perspective, the authors do acknowledge that cognitive development may have played a part in the recorded progression of student inscription practices, as did the “multiple exposures to inscriptional activities” and the “teachers’ ongoing scaffolds” (p. 90). I thought it was particularly interesting that the authors stated they used a “naturalistic approach” (p 64) for their study. Can a naturalist approach be another way to say a realistic approach? Are they acknowledging that there may be several ways to interpret their study? I rather hope so. I really liked this paper and the learning environments that were being highlighted. The teachers seemed to be quite diligent in creating classrooms where students were able to progress, gain confidence, engage with each other and with the teachers, and learn and expand inscription skills that were immediately applicable to the year-long lesson. I would really like to know if there has been any follow up work with these students to see if the skills they gained during the water quality units were transferred to other classrooms and subjects.

Manz’s (2012) design study also took a situative perspective, acknowledged the importance of students’ prior knowledge, and looked at designing learning environments that could support the joint development of scientific knowledge and practices. While there were several activities in this study that I liked ( i.e, getting the kids outside, teaching them how to observe, using books as reference materials and learning tools, the multi-seasonal nature of the investigations) I was somewhat confused by the concept of a design study. How objective can a design study be? “Because this was a design study, the research team developed conjectures about learning before instruction began, then refined them iteratively in local cycles of planning, enacting lessons, making conjectures about student learning, and redesign” (p. 1076). “As this was a design study, the design itself necessarily unfolded in relation to students’ participation in instruction, our developing understanding of student thinking, and the teacher’s needs and capabilities” (p. 1078). Does a design study run the risk of changing to match the results?

The science teaching practice article by Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten & Stroupe (2012) fit well with the two science practice articles I read. Preparing education students to engage in ambitious teaching seems like it should be the rule rather than the exception for science education as well as other subject areas. There were several themes that seemed to run through the article—theory of action, theory of support, theory of mediation, theory of design and implementation, developmental progressions, performance progressions, tool sets for scaffolding students’ scientific discourse and activity, and scaffolding for different forms of reasoning in students. Windschitl et al’s discussion of the use of inscriptions and iteration seemed to fit well with the Wu & Krajcik (2006) article. While their recognition of the importance of prior knowledge—“teacher uses knowledge of students’ intellectual and experiential resources together with knowledge of the target science phenomenon to anticipate ways to respond to the thinking of others” (p. 888) had me making connections to Manz (2012). The most striking aspect of the article, to me, was the recognition of Windschitl et al’s assumption that they, the researchers, would create the resources which the novices would then implement in the classroom was incorrect. It was delightful to read their delight in recognizing the novice teachers acted as a community and used their insight to adapted, modified, and co-designed tools to support ambitious teaching. Perhaps this revelation was the impetus for recognizing the concept of empathy as integral to instruction? “The notion of caring about students as human beings was also infused into our work together—students are more than clients or objects of instruction. Indeed our work in classrooms has brought us to the realization that the most rigorous and equitable forms of instruction are unattainable if the teacher does not have a caring relationship with students” (Windschitl et al, 2012: 898).

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 17th, 2013 at 1:11 am and is filed under Weekly Posting. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.