Relationships among informal learning environments,teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability

Informal learning experiences have risen to the forefront of science education as being beneficial to students' learning. However, it is not clear in what ways such experiences may be beneficial to students; nor how informal learning experiences may interface with classroom science instruction. This study aims to acquire a better understanding of these issues by investigating one aspect of science learning, scientific reasoning ability, with respect to the students' informal learning experiences and classroom science instruction. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to investigate possible differences in students' scientific reasoning abilities relative to their informal learning environments (impoverished, enriched), classroom teaching experiences (non-inquiry, inquiry) and the interaction of these variables. The results of two-way ANOVAs indicated that informal learning environments and classroom science teaching procedures showed significant main effects on students' scientific reasoning abilities. Students with enriched informal learning environments had significantly higher scientific reasoning abilities compared to those with impoverished informal learning environments. Likewise, students in inquirybased science classrooms showed higher scientific reasoning abilities compared to those in non-inquiry science classrooms. There were no significant interaction effects. These results indicate the need for increased emphases on both informal learning opportunities and inquiry-based instruction in science.     

Evaluating students' science notebooks as an assessment tool

The idea of using science notebooks as a classroom assessment tool is not new. There is general agreement that science notebooks allow teachers to assess students' conceptual and procedural understanding and to provide the feedback students need for improving their performance. In this study we examined the use of science notebooks as an unobtrusive assessment tool that can also be used by individuals outside the classroom (for example, school district personnel), and as a means for obtaining information about students' learning and their opportunities to learn. More specifically, in this study students' science notebooks were used as a source of data about the (a) implementation of a curriculum's intended activities, (b) students' performance, and (c) quality of teachers' feedback. Our results indicated that: (1) Students' science notebooks can be reliably scored. Unit implementation, student performance, and teacher feedback scores were highly consistent across raters and units. (2) High and positive correlations with other performance assessment scores indicated that the student performance score can be considered as an achievement indicator. And (3) low performance scores across the two units revealed that students' communication skills and understanding were far away from the maximum score and did not improve over the course of instruction during the school year. This result may be due, in part, to the fact that no teacher feedback was found in any of the students' notebooks across the six classrooms studied. This may reflect some characteristics of the teachers' assessment practices that may require further professional development.     

Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students' scientific explanations and student learning

In this study, we analyzed the quality of students' written scientific explanations found in notebooks and explored the link between the quality of the explanations and students' learning. We propose an approach to systematically analyzing and scoring the quality of students' explanations based on three components: claim, evidence to support it, and a reasoning that justifies the link between the claim and the evidence. We collected students' science notebooks from eight science inquiry‐based middle‐school classrooms in five states. All classrooms implemented the same scientific‐inquiry based curriculum. The study focuses on one of the implemented investigations and the students' explanations that resulted from it. Nine students' notebooks were selected within each classroom. Therefore, a total of 72 students' notebooks were analyzed and scored using the proposed approach. Quality of students' explanations was linked with students' performance in different types of assessments administered as the end‐of‐unit test: multiple‐choice test, predict‐observe‐explain, performance assessment, and a short open‐ended question. Results indicated that: (a) Students' written explanations can be reliably scored with the proposed approach. (b) Constructing explanations were not widely implemented in the classrooms studied despite its significance in the context of inquiry‐based science instruction. (c) Overall, a low percentage of students (18%) provided explanations with the three expected components. The majority of the sample (40%) provided only claims without any supporting data or reasoning. And (d) the magnitude of the correlations between students' quality of explanations and their performance, were all positive but varied in magnitude according to the type of assessment. We concluded that engaging students in the construction of high quality explanations may be related to higher levels of student performance. The opportunities to construct explanations in science‐inquiry based classrooms, however, seem to be limited. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 583–608, 2010     

Exploring science teaching in interaction at the instructional core

Recent instructional reforms in science education aim to change the way students engage in learning in the discipline, as they describe that students are to engage with disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and the practices of science to make sense of phenomena (NRC, 2012). For such sensemaking to become a reality, there is a need to understand the ways in which students' thinking can be maintained throughout the trajectory of science lessons. Past research in this area tends to foreground either the curriculum or teachers' practices. We propose a more comprehensive view of science instruction, one that requires attention to teachers' practice, the instructional task, and students' engagement. In this study, by examining the implementation of the same lesson across three different classrooms, our analysis of classroom videos and artifacts of students' work revealed how the interaction of teachers' practices, students' intellectual engagement, and a cognitively demanding task together support rigorous instruction. Our analyses shed light on their interaction that shapes opportunities for students' thinking and sensemaking throughout the trajectory of a science lesson. The findings provide implications for ways to promote rigorous opportunities for students' learning in science classrooms.     

Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms

This investigation examined 10th‐grade biology students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses, and explored certain attitudinal perceptions of students that may be related to such decisions. The student science perceptions were focused on student and classroom attitudes in the context of differing learning cycle classrooms (high paradigmatic/high inquiry, and low paradigmatic/low inquiry). The study also examined possible differences in enrollment decisions/intentions and attitudinal perceptions among males and females in these course contexts. The specific purposes were to: (a) explore possible differences in students' decisions, and in male and female students' decisions to enroll in elective science courses in high versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms; (b) describe patterns and examine possible differences in male and female students' attitudinal perceptions of science in the two course contexts; (c) investigate possible differences in students' science perceptions according to their decisions to enroll in elective science courses, participation in high versus low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms, and the interaction between these two variables; and (d) examine students' explanations of their decisions to enroll or not enroll in elective science courses. Questionnaire and observation data were collected from 119 students in the classrooms of six learning cycle biology teachers. Results indicated that in classrooms where teachers most closely adhered to the ideal learning cycle, students had more positive attitudes than those in classrooms where teachers deviated from the ideal model. Significantly more females in high paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms planned to continue taking science course work compared with females in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms. Male students in low paradigmatic learning cycle classrooms had more negative perceptions of science compared with males in high paradigmatic classrooms, and in some cases, with all female students. It appears that using the model as it was originally designed may lead to more positive attitudes and persistence in science among students. Implications include the need for science educators to help teachers gain more thorough understanding of the learning cycle and its theoretical underpinnings so they may better implement this procedure in classroom teaching. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 1029–1062, 2001     

Teachers' learning to facilitate high‐level student thinking: Impact of a video‐based professional development

Attaining the vision for science teaching and learning emphasized in the Framework for K‐12 Science Education and the next generation science standards (NGSS) will require major shifts in teaching practices in many science classrooms. As NGSS‐inspired cognitively demanding tasks begin to appear in more and more science classrooms, facilitating students' engagement in high‐level thinking as they work on these tasks will become an increasingly important instructional challenge to address. This study reports findings from a video‐based professional development effort (i.e., professional development [PD] that use video‐clips of instruction as the main artifact of practice to support teacher learning) to support teachers' learning to select cognitively demanding tasks and to support students' learning during the enactment of these tasks in ways that are aligned with the NGSS vision. Particularly, we focused on the NGSS's charge to get students to make sense of and deeply think about scientific ideas as students try to explain phenomena. Analyses of teachers' pre‐ and post‐PD instruction indicate that PD‐participants began to adopt instructional practices associated with facilitating these kinds of student thinking in their own classrooms. The study has implications for the design of video‐based professional development for science teachers who are learning to facilitate the NGSS vision in science classrooms.     

Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms

Science education research, reform documents and standards include scientific argumentation as a key learning goal for students. The role of the teacher is essential for implementing argumentation in part because their beliefs about argumentation can impact whether and how this science practice is integrated into their classroom. In this study, we surveyed 42 middle school science teachers and conducted follow-up interviews with 25 to investigate the factors that teachers believe impact their argumentation instruction. Teachers responded that their own learning goals had the greatest impact on their argumentation instruction while influences related to context, policy and assessment had the least impact. The minor influence of policy and assessment was in part because teachers saw a lack of alignment between these areas and the goals of argumentation. In addition, although teachers indicated that argumentation was an important learning goal, regardless of students' backgrounds and abilities, the teachers discussed argumentation in different ways. Consequently, it may be more important to help teachers understand what counts as argumentation, rather than provide a rationale for including argumentation in instruction. Finally, the act of trying out argumentation in their own classrooms, supported through resources such as curriculum, can increase teachers' confidence in teaching argumentation.     

Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice

Current research indicates that student engagement in scientific argumentation can foster a better understanding of the concepts and the processes of science. Yet opportunities for students to participate in authentic argumentation inside the science classroom are rare. There also is little known about science teachers' understandings of argumentation, their ability to participate in this complex practice, or their views about using argumentation as part of the teaching and learning of science. In this study, the researchers used a cognitive appraisal interview to examine how 30 secondary science teachers evaluate alternative explanations, generate an argument to support a specific explanation, and investigate their views about engaging students in argumentation. The analysis of the teachers' comments and actions during the interview indicates that these teachers relied primarily on their prior content knowledge to evaluate the validity of an explanation rather than using available data. Although some of the teachers included data and reasoning in their arguments, most of the teachers crafted an argument that simply expanded on a chosen explanation but provided no real support for it. The teachers also mentioned multiple barriers to the integration of argumentation into the teaching and learning of science, primarily related to their perceptions of students' ability levels, even though all of these teachers viewed argumentation as a way to help students understand science. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1122–1148, 2012     

How some college students represent their understandings of the nature of scientific theories

This study explores college students' representations about the nature of theories during their enrollment in a large astronomy course with instruction designed to address a number of nature of science issues. We focus our investigation on how nine students represent their understanding of theory, how they distinguish between scientific theories and non‐scientific theories, and how they reason about specific theories. Students' notions of theory were classified under four main categories: (1) hypothesis, (2) idea with evidence, (3) explanation, and (4) explanation based on evidence. Students' condition for deciding whether a given idea is a scientific theory or not were classified under six criteria: content domain, convention, evidence, mathematical content, methodology, and tentativeness. Students expressed slight levels of variation between their reasoning about scientific theories in general and specific theories they learned in the course. Despite increased sophistication in some students' representations, this study affirms the complex dimensions involved in teaching and assessing student understanding about theories. The implications of this study underscore the need to explicitly address the nature of proof in science and issues of tentativeness and certainty students associate with scientific theories, and provide students with more opportunities to utilize the language of science.     

Elementary students' views of explanation,argumentation, and evidence,and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year

Science includes more than just concepts and facts, but also encompasses scientific ways of thinking and reasoning. Students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence the knowledge they bring to the classroom, which impacts their degree of comfort with scientific practices. Consequently, the goal of this study was to investigate 5th grade students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence across three contexts—what scientists do, what happens in science classrooms, and what happens in everyday life. The study also focused on how students' abilities to engage in one practice, argumentation, changed over the school year. Multiple data sources were analyzed: pre‐ and post‐student interviews, videotapes of classroom instruction, and student writing. The results from the beginning of the school year suggest that students' views of explanation, argument, and evidence, varied across the three contexts with students most likely to respond “I don't know” when talking about their science classroom. Students had resources to draw from both in their everyday knowledge and knowledge of scientists, but were unclear how to use those resources in their science classroom. Students' understandings of explanation, argument, and evidence for scientists and for science class changed over the course of the school year, while their everyday meanings remained more constant. This suggests that instruction can support students in developing stronger understanding of these scientific practices, while still maintaining distinct understandings for their everyday lives. Finally, the students wrote stronger scientific arguments by the end of the school year in terms of the structure of an argument, though the accuracy, appropriateness, and sufficiency of the arguments varied depending on the specific learning or assessment task. This indicates that elementary students are able to write scientific arguments, yet they need support to apply this practice to new and more complex contexts and content areas. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 793–823, 2011     

Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science

Contextualizing science instruction involves utilizing students' prior knowledge and everyday experiences as a catalyst for understanding challenging science concepts. This study of two middle school science classrooms examined how students utilized the contextualizing aspects of project‐based instruction and its relationship to their science learning. Observations of focus students' participation during instruction were described in terms of a contextualizing score for their use of the project features to support their learning. Pre/posttests were administered and students' final artifacts were collected and evaluated. The results of these assessments were compared with students' contextualizing scores, demonstrating a strong positive correlation between them. These findings provide evidence to support claims of contextualizing instruction as a means to facilitate student learning, and point toward future consideration of this instructional method in broader research studies and the design of science learning environments. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 79–100, 2008     

Work in Mathematics Classes: The Context of Students' Thinking During Instruction

The research program described in this article has focused on the work students do in classrooms and how that work influences students' thinking about content. The research is based on the premise that the tasks teachers assign determines how students come to understand a curriculum domain. Tasks serve, in other words, as a context for students' thinking during and after instruction. The first section of this article contains an overview of the task model that guided research. The second section provides a summary of findings concerning the properties of students' work in classrooms, with special attention to work in mathematics classes. I conclude with a brief discussion of implications of this research for understanding classroom processes and their effects.     

The Relationship between Students' Connections to Out‐of‐School Experiences and Factors Associated with Science Learning

This study examined the relationship between students' out‐of‐school experiences and various factors associated with science learning. Participants were 1,014 students from two urban high schools (secondary schools). They completed a survey questionnaire and science assessment describing their science learning experiences across contexts and science understanding. Using multilevel statistical modelling, accounting for the multilevel structure of the data with students (Level 1) assigned to teachers (Level 2), the results indicated that controlling for student and classroom factors, students' ability to make connections between in‐school and out‐of‐school science experiences was associated with positive learning outcomes such as achievement, interest in science, careers in science, self‐efficacy, perseverance, and effort in learning science. Teacher practice connecting to students' out‐of‐school experiences was negatively associated with student achievement but has no association with other outcome measures. The mixed results found in this study alert us to issues and opportunities concerning the integration of students' out‐of‐school experiences to classroom instruction, and ultimately improving our understanding of science learning across contexts.     

Gender,text, and discussion: Examining intellectual safety in the science classroom

It is clear from the extant literature that gender inequities exist in a myriad of ways in science classrooms. Past research, however, has been conducted solely from researchers' observations and has neglected to investigate students' awareness of and reactions to their own experiences. Hence, this study focused on students' perceptions of gender differences in instructional activity and talk about that activity in physics and honors physics classes. Data analysis showed that although teachers may be unaware of gender inequities, students of both sexes are not unaware of such inequities. Females explained their fears of offering their opinions and participating in activities like labs and small-group or whole-class discussions. Differential language patterns were found for males and females, particularly when discussion was structured and rewarded for refutation. Explanations are offered for these disparities and suggestions are given for addressing gender bias in science classrooms. It has been well documented that science classrooms are not gender fair (Bazler & Simonis, 1991; Bianchini, 1993; Tobin, 1988). Teachers, texts, and the forms of instruction they perpetuate contribute to gender inequities in science instruction. For example, research tracing changes in science textbooks over time has shown that current texts have failed to eliminate barriers to women in science (Bianchini, 1993). Science textbooks are criticized for their unequal treatment of genders, with illustrations, photos, and texts of males far outnumbering those of females, despite the approximate 50/50 male/female ratio of our population (Bazler & Simonis, 1991). In addition to the proclivity of science textbooks to favor males, researchers speculate that the tendency for boys to achieve higher than girls in science may be a result of more opportunity to engage in academic tasks (Tobin & Garnett, 1987). Their behavior shows that teachers have differential expectations for students' responses in activities like teacher-led discussion. In teacher-led, whole-class discussion, boys are spoken to more frequently and are asked more higher-order questions (Becker, 1991; Hall & Sadler, 1982). Teachers in science classrooms elaborate more on males' responses than females' responses in large-group discussion of scientific concepts (Jones & Wheatley, 1990). © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Understanding science teaching effectiveness: examining how science-specific and generic instructional practices relate to student achievement in secondary science classrooms

ABSTRACT

In order to create conditions for students’ meaningful and rigorous intellectual engagement in science classrooms, it is critically important to help science teachers learn which strategies and approaches can be used best to develop students’ scientific literacy. Better understanding how science teachers’ instructional practices relate to student achievement can provide teachers with beneficial information about how to best engage their students in meaningful science learning. To address this need, this study examined the instructional practices that 99 secondary biology teachers used in their classrooms and employed regression to determine which instructional practices are predictive of students’ science achievement. Results revealed that the secondary science teachers who had well-managed classroom environments and who provided opportunities for their students to engage in student-directed investigation-related experiences were more likely to have increased student outcomes, as determined by teachers’ value-added measures. These findings suggest that attending to both generic and subject-specific aspects of science teachers’ instructional practice is important for understanding the underlying mechanisms that result in more effective science instruction in secondary classrooms. Implications about the use of these observational measures within teacher evaluation systems are discussed.     

Using Dialogic Writing Assessment to Support the Development of Historical Literacy

Though discipline-specific approaches to literacy instruction can support adolescents' academic literacy and identity development, scant attention has been paid to ways of targeting such instruction to address individual student needs. Dialogic writing assessment is an approach to conducting writing conferences that foregrounds students' composing process so that teachers can assess and support that process with instructional feedback. Because such feedback is immediate, teachers can observe how students take it up. While dialogic assessment has shown promise as an approach to revealing and supporting students' writing processes in English Language Arts classrooms, it remains to be explored how this approach can support developing writers in other subject areas. This paper offers an analytic narrative account of how a high school social studies teacher used this method to support the writing process of one student, exploring what the method revealed about the challenges the student faced in writing about history, the gaps and misconceptions in their understanding of history and the intersection between the two. We discuss how certain ‘mediational moves’ the teacher employed enabled the student to compose collaboratively with the teacher, and in this collaborative composing, to capture ideas that she later used in her independent writing.     

Science Teachers' Elicitation Practices: Insights for Formative Assessment

In evaluating teachers' instructional decisions during instruction, it is clear that the nature of their elicitation is crucial for student learning. When instructional decisions are informed by information about students' conceptual understanding, significant learning is possible. This article examined the elicitation practices of two high school science teachers who indicated that they made instructional decisions based on the elicited evidence of students' knowledge but whose elicitation practices were characteristic of low-level elicitation. The teachers focused on students' responses that used canonical terms and expressed acceptable knowledge. The teachers demonstrated low-level responsiveness because they did not have full access to students' knowledge. The elicited evidence of students' knowledge that was used in making instructional decisions was not representative of students' conceptual understanding. There was, thus, a mismatch between the teachers' perspectives about their formative assessment practice and what is considered effective formative assessment.     

Barriers to teachers using digital texts in literacy classrooms

In many accounts of school literacy teaching and learning, there are claims that young people's familiarity with digital texts (ICTs) could provide teachers with opportunities to plan exciting and innovative activities. It would seem, however, that despite intensive research and exemplary practices over the last 20 years, the infiltration of ICTs into literacy classrooms is not widespread. This paper reports on one study where teachers discussed, argued and thought about their uses of digital texts in their classrooms. It provides some insight into the reasons why literacy teachers do not engage with digital texts as part of their everyday literacy activities. It also shows teachers using institutional and societal discourses about the value of students' home experiences to their schooling, the production of digital texts for presentation of print‐based work and the importance of technical knowledge about computers and new technologies, to describe and in part to overcome the barriers to using new technologies in their literacy classrooms.     

Mathematics and Science Learning Opportunities in Preschool Classrooms

Research Findings: The present study observed and coded instruction in 65 preschool classrooms to examine (a) overall amounts and (b) types of mathematics and science learning opportunities experienced by preschool children as well as (c) the extent to which these opportunities were associated with classroom and program characteristics. Results indicated that children were afforded an average of 24 and 26 min of mathematics and science learning opportunities, respectively, corresponding to spending approximately 25% of total instructional time in each domain. Considerable variability existed, however, in the amounts and types of mathematics and science opportunities provided to children in their classrooms; to some extent, this variability was associated with teachers' years of experience, teachers' levels of education, and the socioeconomic status of children served in the program. Practice or Policy: Although results suggest greater integration of mathematics and science in preschool classrooms than previously established, there was considerable diversity in the amounts and types of learning opportunities provided in the preschool classrooms. Affording mathematics and science experiences to all preschool children as outlined in professional and state standards may require additional professional development aimed at increasing preschool teachers' understanding and implementation of learning opportunities in these 2 domains in their classrooms.