Search

Big ideas in science education are meant to be interpretive frameworks that empower student learning. Unfortunately, outside of the broad conception of scientific evaluation, there are few theoretical explanations of how this might happen. Therefore, we contribute one such explanation, an instructional concept called integrative analysis wherein students use a big idea to interconnect isolated scenarios and enrich their meanings. We illustrate the characteristics and value of integrative analysis within an empirical study of student learning in 9th-grade biology. The study focused on using energy transfer as a big idea for teaching cellular respiration. Fifty-nine students were randomly assigned to one of two instructional conditions. In the "analysis" condition, students processed a set of three manipulatives representing cellular respiration molecules; then, they abstracted the deep energy transfer structure of these manipulatives as a big idea. In the "recognition" condition, students processed the same molecule-manipulatives, but without energy interpretations. Instead, they constructed additional manipulatives using novel materials. Then, students in both conditions received an identical lesson where they used their knowledge of the manipulatives to learn about one cellular respiration process, glycolysis. Specifically, students processed a sequence of three texts describing glycolysis, annotating the texts with either their deep energy transfer structure (analysis condition) or their contextualized knowledge of the manipulatives (recognition condition). A posttest showed that in the analysis condition, this process was significantly integrative as evidenced by analysis students' advantage over recognition students in connecting glycolysis to novel phenomena and generating causal explanations about glycolysis.

We present an example of a novel, model-based approach to instruction in which learners constructed a representation of a specific phenomenon, evaluated their representation, and then revised it, via an abstraction process, to construct a model. The example took place in high school in the context of solution chemistry. The aim of the instruction was to support students in developing a generalized model for a homogenous mixture where the ratio of the solute and solvent remains the same throughout the solution. Students also developed a general model of the effect of pressure and temperature on solubility. Pre- and posttests were administered to provide evidence of student learning because of the experience.

An important research objective in modelling instruction is defining what students should learn about the model-referent relationship, as when unguided, they tend to errantly think of models as literal interpretations of their referents. Restating this problem we say students should learn about structure-preserving transformations between models and referents; including: what gets transformed, how it is transformed, and directions of information flow in transformation. To define what students should learn of this triumvirate, we introduce two explanatory statements: models are abstractions and models have transferability. We then investigated how readily students could learn about abstraction and transferability, and how this learning related to literal interpretation, by comparing pre- and posttest scores of modelling knowledge for students (n = 175) who participated in a modelling activity that provided experiences with abstraction and transferability. A control group (n=49) took identical tests but received no relevant instruction. Results showed that modelling students: (1) improved their capability to generate abstract models; (2) gained in their understanding that models represented their referents under transformation; and (3) consequently, did not think of models as literal interpretations. Lack of gains in the control ruled out a testing effect. We concluded that knowledge of structure-preserving transformations is a viable and valuable object of instruction.

Although multiple studies of misconceptions in Earth science have been completed using samples of North American and European students and teachers, little research has been conducted on alternative Earth science conceptions in developing countries. The current study was conducted in 5th- and 6th-grade classrooms in eastern Honduras, Central America. The goal of the study was to gather data documenting Honduran students' conceptions of the Earth's interior. This qualitative study used participant-generated drawings and interviews to access students' conceptions of the Earth's interior. Results suggest that Honduran students, ages 9-14 y, express varying levels of understanding regarding this science concept. Many exhibit alternative conceptions, including nonconcentric layers in the Earth; the presence of physical objects, such as houses, inside the Earth; and the existence of mythical creatures within the Earth. This study provides data relevant to geoscience education in Honduras, has implications for geoscience education in tectonically active regions where Earth science is not a major part of the curriculum, and offers suggestions for teaching abstract Earth science concepts to concrete learners. The study also provides information for educators that teach students who are recent immigrants from Honduras and for those who teach students of limited language and/or reading proficiency.

Traditional school science instruction has been largely unsuccessful in reaching diverse student groups and students from, in particular, underrepresented backgrounds. This paper presents a case study of an urban, dual-language middle school classroom in which the teacher used an alternative instructional approach, involving her students in an authentic geological investigation with fossils. In this instructional setting, the teacher successfully engaged her English-language learning students from Latino backgrounds in science learning through inquiry, instructionally congruent science teaching strategies, and explicit instruction in nature of science. Students participating in the geological investigation interacted with practicing scientists. This instructional approach modeled the activities of science and better connected diverse students to the scientific community of practice. The practices used in this classroom provide a compelling example of how science instruction can be carried out in a way that makes science accessible despite linguistic differences and engages students in the activities of science, who otherwise might not be.

The literature on scientific modelling practices in science education has provided a fruitful discussion on how learners tend to view models vs. how and what they should think about them. One approach is to teach students that models are abstractions so that they do not view them as a copy of phenomena they represent. Although teaching students that models are abstractions is a successful strategy in modelling instruction, we still do not know how students engage in and work towards the process of abstraction while they develop a model to understand scientific ideas. This qualitative study examines how a group of undergraduate and graduate students in an upper-level ecosystem ecology course at a research university in the southeastern part of the United States engage in a task that requires constructing an abstract representation of how biogeochemical cycles work by using a specific approach to modelling, namely synthesis modelling. Data corpus entailed paired interviews with ten students and their artefacts. The findings centred upon four episodes regarding how students engage in abstraction through a synthesis approach to modelling as they make sense of the system of biogeochemical cycles: working with surface similarities, abstracting ideas, abstracting structures, and checking on model-source fit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing interest in using classroom response systems or clickers in science classrooms at both the university and K-12 levels. Typically, when instructors use this technology, students are asked to answer and discuss clicker questions with their peers. The existing literature on using clickers at the K-12 level has largely focused on the efficacy of clicker implementation, with few studies investigating collaboration and discourse among students. To expand on this work, we investigated the question: Does clicker use promote productive peer discussion among middle school science students? Specifically, we collected data from middle school students in a physical science course. Students were asked to answer a clicker question individually, discuss the question with their peers, answer the same question again, and then subsequently answer a new matched-pair question individually. We audio recorded the peer conversations to characterize the nature of the student discourse. To analyze these conversations, we used a grounded analysis approach and drew on literature about collaborative knowledge co-construction. The analysis of the conversations revealed that middle school students talked about science content and collaboratively discussed ideas. Furthermore, the majority of conversations, both ones that positively and negatively impacted student performance, contained evidence of collaborative knowledge co-construction.

Science education reforms worldwide call on teachers to engage students in investigative approaches to instruction, like inquiry. Studies of teacher self-reported enactment indicate that inquiry is used frequently in the classroom, suggesting a high level of proficiency with inquiry that would be amenable to inquiry reform. However, it is unclear whether the high frequency of self-report is based on sound knowledge inquiry. In the absence of sound knowledge, high rates of self-reported enactment would be suspect. We conducted a study to measure teachers' knowledge of inquiry as it related to the known, high frequency of reported enactment. We developed a multidimensional survey instrument using US reform documents and administered it to 149 K-12 teachers at a national science teachers' conference. The majority of the teachers surveyed did not report inquiry enactment based on well-structured knowledge of inquiry. Interviews with participants showed how teachers could readily map non-inquiry activities onto inquiry statements taken directly from reform documents. From these results we argue that teachers often believed they were enacting inquiry, when likely they were not. We further reason that teachers may struggle to interpret and enact inquiry-related requirements of science education reform and will need support distinguishing inquiry from non-inquiry practices.

The shift in science education toward deeper, more integrated learning of domain content and scientific practices requires that teachers steer clear of strategies that promote the steady accumulation of more superficial knowledge and capabilities. Instead, teachers must invest in a continuous and gradual process of long-term growth in students' capacity to think and act scientifically. Scholars call this investment taking a developmental approach to learning. It stands to reason that developmental approaches would involve teachers in different ways of thinking about instruction compared to short-term, accumulation approaches. Yet, little is understood about these potentially new ways of thinking (for us, "views"). Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study to describe and illustrate ways in which teachers' views of instruction can be developmental. The study was based on interviews with 12 teachers about their experiences of using a curriculum that was developmentally oriented in that it prioritized gradual deepening of intellectual capacity. Selecting three teachers whose views of teaching and learning offered maximum contrast in their degree of developmental orientation, we analyzed their interview transcripts to reveal essential characteristics of a developmental view of instruction in our context. When taking a developmental view, teachers (i) saw students as learning to be scientists; (ii) prioritized big ideas; (iii) saw learning as immersion; and (iv) expected gradual improvement. We combined these elements to propose a general model for a developmental view of teaching and learning: believing in transformative outcomes and investing in the process of gradual change. We argue that these findings provide useful and informative ideas for understanding ways in which teachers can effectively approach instruction in the current era of reform.

In scientific arguments, claims must have meaning that extends beyond the immediate circumstances of an investigation. That is, claims must be generalised in some way. Therefore, teachers facilitating classroom argumentation must be prepared to support students' efforts to construct or criticise generalised claims. However, widely used argumentation support tools, for instance, the claim-evidence-reasoning (CER) framework, tend not to address generalisation. Accordingly, teachers using these kinds of tools may not be prepared to help their students negotiate issues of generalisation in arguments. We investigated this possibility in a study of professional development activities of 18 middle school teachers using CER. We compared the teachers' approach to generalisation when using a published version of CER to their approach when using an alternate form of CER that increased support for generalisation. In several different sessions, the teachers: (1) responded to survey questions when using CER, (2) critiqued student arguments, (3) used both CER and alternate CER to construct arguments, and (4) discussed the experience of using CER and alternate CER. When using the standard CER, the teachers did not explicitly attend to generalisation in student arguments or in their own arguments. With alternate CER, the teachers generalised their own arguments, and they acknowledged the need for generalisation in student arguments. We concluded that teachers using frameworks for supporting scientific argumentation could benefit from more explicit support for generalisation than CER provides. More broadly, we concluded that generalisation deserves increased attention as a pedagogical challenge within classroom scientific argumentation.

Anecdotal accounts from science educators suggest that few teachers are teaching science as inquiry. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim. This study aimed to provide evidence-based documentation of the state-of-use of inquiry-based instruction and explicit instruction about nature of science (NOS). We examined the teaching practice and views of inquiry and NOS of 26, well-qualified and highly motivated 5th-9th-grade teachers from across the country in order to establish the extent to which their views and practice aligned with ideas in reform-based documents. We used a mixed-methods approach analyzing lesson descriptions, classroom observations, videotape data, questionnaires, and interviews to assess teaching practice and views of inquiry and NOS of these teachers. We also determined the relationships between teachers' views and their teaching practice. Findings indicated the majority of these teachers held limited views of inquiry-based instruction and NOS. In general, these views were reflected in their teaching practice. Elements of inquiry including abilities, understandings, and essential features were observed or described in less than half the classrooms. Most commonly, teachers focused on basic abilities to do inquiry instead of the essential features or important understandings about inquiry. When aspects of inquiry were present, they were generally teacher-initiated. There was also little evidence of aspects of NOS in teachers' instruction. This study provides empirical evidence for the claim that even some of the best teachers currently struggle to enact reformed-based teaching. Further, it highlights the critical need for an agreement upon definition of inquiry-based instruction and the need to develop appropriate and feasible assessments that specifically target inquiry to track changes in teachers' views and practice. Important implications include the heightened need for rigorous and continuous professional development to support teachers in learning about inquiry and NOS and how to enact reform-based instruction in classrooms.