Teaching science as a language: A “content‐first” approach to science teaching

Our research project was guided by the assumption that students who learn to understand phenomena in everyday terms prior to being taught scientific language will develop improved understanding of new concepts. We used web‐based software to teach students using a “content‐first” approach that allowed students to transition from everyday understanding of phenomena to the use of scientific language. This study involved 49 minority students who were randomly assigned into two groups for analysis: a treatment group (taught with everyday language prior to using scientific language) and a control group (taught with scientific language). Using a pre–post‐test control group design, we assessed students' conceptual and linguistic understanding of photosynthesis. The results of this study indicated that students taught with the “content‐first” approach developed significantly improved understanding when compared to students taught in traditional ways. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 529–553, 2008     

“Neuromyths”: A Critical Consideration

The term “neuromyth” is becoming part of discourse in the field of mind, brain, and education. In this article, I review some problematic aspects of the practice, critique specific examples, and propose an alternative way of communicating with the public about findings in psychology and neuroscience.     

Progressive drawing: A novel “lid–opener” and “monotony–breaker”

An innovative strategy called “progressive drawing” was used at the beginning (lid‐opener) and later (monotony‐breaker) during gross anatomy lectures. Diagrams were drawn on the classroom blackboard with anatomic structures added one by one. Students identified and labeled the diagrams and predicted the next structures to be drawn. Students felt that the strategy helped to activate prior knowledge, created interest in the current lecture, and made lecture sessions more interactive. The strategy has appeal for visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic learners. Anat Sci Educ, 2010. © 2010 American Association of Anatomists.     

The “pinpointing effect” vs. the “diffusion effect” of peer influence

Classroom teachers are learning to employ the peer group to “shape up” dissidents. However, singling out a child may produce undesirable side effects such as emotional behavior, resentment, etc. Can the same result be obtained by rewarding the class for ignoring the target behavior of everyone in the room? Twelve subjects were selected from six middle school classes, two from each class. Each entire class was rewarded for increased ignoring of the target behavior (whispering): in the three P (pinpointed) classes, for ignoring the whispering of Designated (target) subjects; in the three D (diffusion) classes, for ignoring whispering by all class members. The results indicate that a peer group can decrease reinforcement of a disruptive behavior and thereby decelerate it in a singled-out child (Pinpointing Effect) or a behavior emitted by any child in class (Diffusion Effect) with equal effectiveness. However, patterns in the data suggest that peers ignored P-Designated subjects most, D subjects next most, and P-Undesignated subjects the least and that this pattern of ignoring was mirrored in the pattern of deceleration of the target behaviors in the three groups. These patterns suggest that the Pinpointing Effect may be stronger than the Diffusion Effect, but further study is needed.