week+5b+discussion

calendar

=week introduction=
 * The connection linking each of this week’s three articles is the **development and role of conceptions**, including those of both the student and teacher, in understanding science knowledge and process. This is a fitting topic considering last week’s discussions based around **misconceptions** and how we can begin to address them.

The Bishop & Anderson research looked at the **effectiveness of the conceptual change model when teaching evolution**. We were first introduced to "conceptual change" in Roth’s Week 4 article. The Metz research examined how children **develop scientific explanations**. Her study provided a “window on the architecture of their [students’] developing causal knowledge.” The Taylor & Dana research revisited the **importance of inquiry and NOS in the science classroom**. They argued that if this is indeed a goal, then preservice teachers should "engage in original scientific research, as well as participate in peer review and critique.”

Upon reading the Bishop and Anderson article, this week's discussion, and relating to previous conversations about Roth, I feel I have made my own connection with conceptual change. I am a First Nation person who has been exposed to issues of race, diversity, and stereotypes. Though most of my exposure has been voluntary, the bond of being different has furthered my exposure. Over the years it has been my job to interact with others about bridging differences, enjoying a discussion of conflict as well as resolution. As with racial and cultural differences, a preconceived notion has the ability to inhibit new learning, especially if the new learning conflicts with what we believe we already know.
 * my comment (done with the incorrect realization the biil's introduction**

Bishop and Anderson attempted in the mid-eighties to improve on the educational delivery of evolution by natural selection only to conclude "for most students, [convictions about the truthfulness about evolution] seemed based more on social, religious, or metaphysical commitments than on the analysis of scientific evidence." This conclusion somewhat conflicts with what was stated in the abstract, "[b]elief in the truthfulness of evolutionary theory was...unrelated to pretest or post test performance." Bishop and Anderson further conclude the answer lies in the belief which many hold is based on the "simplicity and logic of the naive ideas." The preconceived notions students may accumulate will come from their exposure prior to walking into the classroom. And here we come back to scientific evidence. Bishop and Anderson, within their own research, addressed their own evidence on conception of their students by focusing on measurement reliability and the validity of their results. The evidence from their research allowed for the generation of a pre- and post-test which measures conceptions of evolution with consistency.

The Mertz article "examine[d] the balance of incremental change versus fundamental change." (Metz p.185) As with the Keselman article, causality in one dimension, building up to multi-causality appears on the surface to be incremental. "Frequent engagement in inquiry activities is..likely to encourage positive intellectual values." (Keselman p917) On the other hand, fundamental change can also have its effects. "For other children, the violation of connectedness scaffolds a robust new way of conceptualizing causality." (Metz p.192) For myself, thoughts to incorporate into observing students are three phases of development "(a) function of the object as an explanation, (b) connections as explanation, and (c) mechanistic explanation." (Metz p.786)

For the Taylor and Dana article, it wasn't the importance of inquiry and NOS in the science classroom, but the teacher's conceptions of evidence. "For the purposes of this study, a description of the participants' conceptions of scientific evidence was built based on their thinking while designing experiments and critically evaluating the experimental designs and scientific evidences of others." As with what I took in from the Bishop and Anderson article, more emphasis in the classroom needs to be on the evidence.

From the few science courses I've taught, it would be the evidence which students found the most boring. Though I placed a lot on record keeping I realize now I need to focus on the actual record keeping. Results that are not desired should be just as desired.

|| No reflection this week. There is a lot to discuss and the week is a little shorter due to the holiday. I will keep discussion open through Saturday evening although, should anyone need it.

 =Michele's first thread:= If scientific literacy is a major goal of science education, how prepared/qualified are our teachers to effectively teach it? Taylor and Dana imply that requiring science educators to take several content-related courses may not have the desired affect in reforming science education. Their suggestion is to look at what is being taught within these courses. What suggestions would you offer for designing content-related courses? What does the Abd-El-Khalick research tell us?

**Michele's comment** Taylor and Dana contend that science educators need to have “rich and flexible subject matter knowledge.” Educators need the same deep conceptual understanding that they want their students to acquire. One suggestion posed by Taylor and Dana is to offer a course that allows pre-teachers the chance to conduct their own investigations. The data gathered would be used as a springboard for discussion, peer review, evidence-based arguments, etc. This allows them to work out any issues with science content as well as issues with the evidence. I would agree with this idea. I participated in a program several years ago at Purdue University. The program was called Envision and focused on inquiry and environmental education. We conducted several investigations during the four-week period. Our role was that of a student. We gathered data and evidence, conducted research, consulted with each other, presented our findings and critiqued each other’s work. Because of this course and the manner in which it was taught, I had a much better understanding of how to use evidence in the classroom.  The Abd-El-Khalick article offers several reasons why teachers struggled with the idea of teaching NOS in the classroom. One suggestion is that pre-teachers might do a better job of incorporating NOS in the classroom if they are given the chance to develop an understanding before they have to learn how to teach them.

I agree wholeheartedly that pre-service teachers need to "experience" science.
 * my comment**

As with our previous discussion regarding the Abd-El-Khalick article, the focus on pre-service teachers needs to be on how to keep your head out of the water. As with many new moves, teachers are now assigned a mentor when first hired. This helps keep the head out of the water. Once a teacher has a chance to get their feet wet in the classroom, they should be heavily encouraged to seek professional development. Ultimately this should be supported and integrated into our school systems. Science is not stagnant, nor should those that are trying to share it.

Different than Khalick, the Taylor and Dana article didn't place the importance on inquiry and NOS in the science classroom. It is the teacher's conceptions of evidence that takes main stage. "For the purposes of this study, a description of the participants' conceptions of scientific evidence was built based on their thinking while designing experiments and critically evaluating the experimental designs and scientific evidences of others." As with what I took in from the Bishop and Anderson article, more emphasis in the classroom needs to be on the evidence.
 * my comment**

Content-related courses in university can focus more on content and not the science we discuss for k-12 education. Taylor and Dana note that "while contemplating the reliability and validity of hypothetical student-generated scientific evidence, the teachers frequently intertwined conceptions of evidence with subject matter concepts centrally relevant to the hypothetical investigation." When we are getting our degrees, it was not our evidence from experiments that got us the grade, it was the content. This leaves a dichotomy within the mind of the teacher.

From the few science courses I've taught, it would be the evidence which students found the most boring. Science classes are mostly less than an hour. Getting situated in the classroom leaves maybe 30 minutes of class time. Gather data for evidence can be a tedious and meticulous job, which it is supposed to be. And though I've placed a lot of importance on record keeping I realize now I need to focus on the actual record keeping. Results that are not desired should be just as desired.

As with all we hear about less content and more process, at the university level, it is knowledge of content that appears to prevail.

(sorry if my answer is a tad choppy. I first read the introduction to the week discussion this morning and have spent the last three hours addressing that and not this question. The above is a mix of both.)

"... at the university level, it is knowledge of content that appears to prevail."
 * bills comment**

And maybe that is the crux of the problem. Shouldn't anyone that takes 50 credits of chemistry (or math or earth science or...) end up with more than just content knowledge? Why should there be a special course or summer workshop? Shouldn't the chemistry department (math, earth science,...) be capable, within those 50 credits, of imparting the Nature of Science and the essence of Inquiry to everyone who receives that degree?

Absolutely, universities and colleges should be addressing these issues, as k-12 teachers are attempting to address this issue.
 * mycomment**

My experiences with labs would focus on cookbook format. The negative aspect of my experience was feeling left out of partners in lab. Limitations in facilities and time are the justification and the outcomes become questionable. As a lab student, I was more introverted and found myself barely keeping up with the one student who just wanted to get the lab over and get out. This added stress made labs extraordinarily unenjoyable.

The focus on evidence in experimentation means the focus of a lab should be on time in the lab not on just getting it over with. I feel this issue is key when addressing conceptions of science. Though not all students will become scientists, to know exactly how scientists derive their conclusions helps to understand science topics. As with evolution being based on evidence, students see evolution with other factors, and it doesn't help the society pressure and media misinformation. Teaching science is not isolated to our classrooms, so addressing science literacy becomes that much more complicated.

**michele's comment** Science education reform is not just for the lower levels. The colleges and universities need to step up to the plate and make changes as well. I think back to the science courses I took many years ago. Most were lecture, and the few labs we did were cookbook. Why can’t the courses be structured more like the summer workshop that I attended? Is it because we’re all under the same constraints no matter what level is being taught? We have only so much time to cover content, too many students in a classroom, lack of money and resources, etc. 

=This is Michele's second thread for this week: = This week’s focus is a continuation of the discussion on conceptual understanding. How effective can formal education be at dispelling pre-conceived notions? The Bishop & Anderson research had some troubling, albeit interesting, results about the effectiveness of prior classes. Do their research results seem valid? Metz states, “many educators stress the need to shift the curriculum’s focus from helping students understand explanations formulated by experts or textbook to finding ways to help students construct and revise their own explanations of physical phenomena.” Is this a reasonable expectation for science classrooms? 


 * mycomment** I answer yes, especially with focusing on evidence as a learning outcome.

Bishop and Anderson attempted in the mid-eighties to improve on the educational delivery of evolution by natural selection did conclude that "for most students, [convictions about the truthfulness about evolution] seemed based more on social, religious, or metaphysical commitments than on the analysis of scientific evidence." I did note this statement in the conclusion somewhat conflicts with what was stated in the abstract, that "[b]elief in the truthfulness of evolutionary theory was...unrelated to pretest or post test performance." Bishop and Anderson further concluded the answer lies in the belief which many hold is based on the "simplicity and logic of the naive ideas."

It then would become a focus on fundamental change as opposed to incremental change as discussed in the Metz article. Questioning our understandings and verifying them with evidence is what scientists do. In the classroom, this is attempted, yet, as I am at fault, results that are undesired need to become desired. "The idea of evolution [may have been] around long before Darwin," but it was Darwin's conclusions with evidence and record keeping that gives him the credibility. Though he may not have had all the answers at the time, it was his conclusions that drove science further. Darwinism is synonymous to natural selection for this reason. 

**my comment** I'd like to reword "fundamental change as opposed to incremental change" to "fundamental change being as important to note as much incremental change" 

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">**michele's comment** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">Yes, by using evidence in the classroom, teachers can help students revise their ideas. But, I don’t believe it is an easy task. Educators need to know what misconceptions their students have. The results of the Bishop & Anderson study show that even though the concepts of evolution were more difficult for students to grasp, conceptions could be changed. But, they went on to state that even making revisions to the curriculum didn’t help all students. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">**bills comemnt** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">" But, I don’t believe it is an easy task."

This is exactly the point Metz is trying to make. There are no easy fixes.

The Bishop and Anderson research represents just one of a whole series of research reports, across all disciplines and age levels, that students do not learn to the extent we sometimes believe they have learned (i.e., test results) and even tailoring the instruction to improve the learning has not been especially effective.

The solution? Put the onus of the learning on the students' shoulders. Have them uncover the evidence (learn how to learn, inquire, problem solve, ...) on their own so that they can build their own explanations; thus truly learning the content. Metz: hold on, there are problems with that simplistic approach. Students do not always build the best explanations on their own. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

=<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">This is Michele's final thread for discussion: = <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">In what ways do the participants the Taylor and Dana study model the phases of learning in Metz study? Metz suggests that theories have to come in small steps. In science, we sometimes expect students to get the whole picture all at once (or over a time period of just a week or two). Do you ever feel it is acceptable to have students take a small step in your class, even if they have not yet achieved the desired knowledge level? <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;"> <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">**micheles comment** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">The Metz article shows the progression of thinking from the simple (phase I) to the more complex (phase III). It seems that the participants in the Taylor and Dana study are at various stages of conception of scientific evidence. I do feel that it is acceptable for some students to take small steps in my class. Each student who walks through my door is a unique individual, and each will learn at his/her own pace. Some students will get a concept right away. Other students will take more time. From my own experience, I know that I don’t always reach the optimal learning level the first time. However, each time I take a course related to a certain topic, I build on the original knowledge and my understanding grows. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">**bills comment** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">Ok, let's expand this a little bit. Take something that bridges the curriculum of all classes, like inquiry.

Has there ever been a conversation at your school, or district, with respect to small steps and inquiry. Rather than each teacher, and each class, having the full burden of teaching inquiry, inquiry is broken into smaller steps so that teachers and classes build upon each preceding step with the ultimate goal of an inquiry-capable student at graduation? Would this even be reasonable? <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">**my comment** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">There is only one school I have worked where there was ever a bridge in curriculum. After reading about the multitude of outcomes, I realize we could have done more to incorporate small steps into inquiry.

Of all the other schools I have worked, each teacher is more or less on their own. Collaboration would ignite integrated interdisciplinary inquiry, but time would be the largest excuse. Collaboration also takes a lot of work and the reality of people getting along.

I think I may be conceptualizing small steps in differing contexts, giving me varying definitions. On one extreme it makes me think of spoon feeding concepts. On the other hand, it is experimental design that causes students, when explaining causality, to be forced to re-explain giving new parameters. Problem 3 in the Metz article is my focus because it caused students to re-evaluate their first explanation. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;"> <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">**my comment** <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">In what ways do the participants the Taylor and Dana study model the phases of learning in Metz study?

This is a great question because it made me really read into the Taylor and Dana article. The Metz article's "sequence of explanation types at points of fundamental change...[are]...(a) function of the object as explanation, (b) connections as explanation, and (c) 3. mechanistic explanation." The teachers in the Taylor and Dana article modeled these "phases" in that the phases described their conceptions of experiment design, in particular variance, measurement, reliability, and validity. And though Taylor and Dana concluded "well-developed concepts of electrical resistance were not critical," they used the lack of these concepts to point out "only one participant identified even 3 or 4 variables (i.e. resistivity, length, cross-sectional area, temperature) that are influential to a wire's resistance." This would be a lack of connections as explanation. In context, students designed an experiment which would test the relationship between length of a wire and its resistance. The problem would be students altering the type of wire. The other topic of Taylor and Dana, the block on an incline, seemed to relate better to the teachers as they all displayed conceptions at all three phases.

Do you ever feel it is acceptable to have students take a small step in your class, even if they have not yet achieved the desired knowledge level?

I feel it is more than acceptable for students to take small steps, even desireable. On the other hand, with the variance in learning styles and the amount of students in class, the question for me is will I be able to address all the small steps necessary.

In terms of small steps, Metz's experimental design was intentional in participants having to question their own explanations. The development of theories evolved from one explanation to where another was needed to explain the next scenerio. Problem 3 in her experiment caused students to move from the shape of the object to the connectedness of all the gears. The disconnected gear needed to be explained in the context of the others. This approach to teaching is possible, but for each scientific theory, very thoughtful experimental design is required. The thought of the amount of consideration for each science theory to be structured in a small step developmental process is intense. <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px;">

b