week+3b+discussion

calendar

=week introduction= Finally we have three research articles. Two of them, one done with pre-service teachers (Abd-El-Khaleck) and the other middle school students (Keselman), provide additional empirical evidence on the issue of inquiry implementation in the schools. Think about this: Are the results of these studies consistent with the advocacy and research from last week? And, why is NOS suddenly an issue, isn't inquiry enough?

Journal Articles
 * Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G. (1998). **The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education**, 82(4), 417-736.
 * [|wk 3 - Khalick.pdf]
 * The teaching of NOS to pre-service teachers and the implications of their time in the classroom.
 * Keselman, A. (2003). **Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality**. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898-921.
 * [|wk 3 - Keselman.pdf]
 * Metacognitive understandings
 * Volkmann, M., Abell, S. (2003). **Rethinking laboratories: Tools for converting cookbook labs into inquiry**. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 38-41.
 * [|wk 3 - Volkman_Abell.pdf]
 * how to convert cookbook labs into inquiry
 * Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D. (2002). **Science education reform: The impact of teacher enhancement and curriculum implementation on student performance 1995-2001**. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
 * [|wk 3 - Lawrenz_Huffman_sm.pdf]
 * examples around the country

my proposed questions In reference to ABD-EL-KHALICK, ET AL. article, the researchers went to great lengths to teach teachers how to integrate the NOS explicitly into curriculum. The results demonstrated that the new teachers were unable to integrate NOS, even if this was their intentions, speculating their students will get the NOS implicitly. Constraints were "participants viewed NOS as less significant than other outcomes, such as student needs and attitudes, and science content and processes. They were preoccupied with classroom management and routine chores. They expressed discomfort with their own understandings of the NOS. Finally, they noted constraints specific to student teaching, especially the restraints placed upon them by their cooperating teachers and the lack of time to plan instruction." As these constraints continue through a teacher's career, in what ways can teacher education improve in order to improve the way science inquiry is taught in schools?

In the article, Supporting Inquiry Learning by Promoting Normative Understanding of Multivariable Causality, Keselman integrates knowledge from psychological research on scientific thinking. "Findings from research on scientific thinking suggests that adolescents and even lay adults frequently experience difficulties in all stages of the scientific discovery process." From this she proposes two techniques that have roots in cognitive psychological theories from early childhood development. Instructional scaffolding and metalevel cognitive techniques which have been recommended for early language literacy. Though there are many research articles demonstrating, here are two articles from my summer reading course scaffolding resource: [] Metalevel congnitive resources: [] Given the research on teaching language literacy, psychology, neuroscience, etc., we as science educators have many other resources to amend to our bibliographies. In what other ways can we learn from other disciplines in order to address our own questions of learning and teaching science inquiry?

Changing a system from within can be a daunting task. And though the Scope, Sequence and Coordination's (SS&C) "curriculum design contrasts with typical U.S. 'layer cake' curriculum," (p 2) the study by Lawrenz and Huffman attempts to use SS&C curriculum to analyze Science Education Reform. Though their results didn't represent consistent success in student achievement, they do provide insight into how future reform measures should be implemented, including that teachers need to be invested into the reform by understanding it and taking ownership, the need for support, the value of student feedback, etc. As we discussed before the difficulty to replicate successful education reform efforts, how do we, as individual teachers, create change when there is so much offered in how to change?

Bill's 2 cents

 Published research papers can be quite boring and many times difficult to interpret. Don't feel that you have to read the whole report or understand everything with perfect clarity.

Here is how I would read the Abd-El-Khalick, et al. paper. a) start with the abstract (not always clear or straight forward, but a reasonable introduction to the research)

b) next read the Intro/literature review. This sets the stage and provides the context. Why is this research being done? Why this audience, etc.

c) when I get to the Methods section I start to thread lightly. I read just enough to determine who was involved and get a rough idea on how the research was carried out. In Abd-El-Khalick I would read the "Participants", the "Context", and then skim through the Procedures section.

d) I will then skip the data analysis and results unless there is a later compelling reason to return to them (there usually isn't).

d) Then I read the Conclusion and Implications sections to get a feel for what the authors felt they determined and why that might be important. If there is something here that is important (because I want to use it later) or that I really don't understand (but I need to because I want to use the results), then I might return to the previously skipped sections and read it detail.

e) Finally, I look quickly through the references section to see if there is something interesting or potentially useful that might be worth chasing down.

Time I usually spend on a research article= 15 minutes, unless there is something important that needs to be understood.


 * my question**

 The first discussion topic from Chris:

In reference to Abd-El-Khalick, et al. article, the researchers went to great lengths to teach teachers how to integrate the NOS explicitly into curriculum. The results demonstrated that the new teachers were unable to integrate NOS, even if this was their intentions, speculating their students will get the NOS implicitly. Constraints were "participants viewed NOS as less significant than other outcomes, such as student needs and attitudes, and science content and processes. They were preoccupied with classroom management and routine chores. They expressed discomfort with their own understandings of the NOS. Finally, they noted constraints specific to student teaching, especially the restraints placed upon them by their cooperating teachers and the lack of time to plan instruction."

As these constraints continue through a teacher's career, in what ways can teacher education improve in order to improve the way science inquiry is taught in schools?

The article provides several suggestions for improving teacher preparation. Teacher preparation programs need to help teachers understand not only the NOS, but the rationale behind it as well. Teachers should understand it well enough so that it becomes second nature. The NOS becomes the driving force behind what they are trying to teach. But, mentor teachers must be willing to allow preservice teachers to teach the NOS. Too often mentor teachers expect preservice teachers to follow the established curriculum and lesson plans. This does not give the preserivce teacher the opportunity to try out their own lessons.
 * michele's answer**

 Another way to improve teacher education is to make sure that preservice teachers have support while they are in the field. New teachers need guidance to help them answer questions, find resources, discuss different aspects of teaching.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">With asking this question, my thoughts focused on when I first became a teacher and the years that followed. Classroom management is one aspect of teaching that, if not understood, will inhibit any teacher from succeeding.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my answer **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> When asking about how teacher education can evolve, it seems that student teaching has the element of learning how to develop lesson plans, but learning how to manage a classroom will supersede. After reading Abd-El-Khalick, et al. Thoughts of spreading out teacher education over more time. Initially, logistics of being a teacher needs to be overcome. Discussions on how to integrate NOS or science inquiry would evolve next. The support would in turn extend.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> This was only an initial thought since I recall going into the classroom with so many theories. Once I got hit in the ass with my first m&m, all my theories went out the window and I was stuck with learning how to manage a classroom in a manner I have some type of respect that is conducive to trying the many ideas for approaching the curriculum.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">I think that survival is the key word here. New teachers will always go through a learning curve. I can recall that it took me about three years to figure out what I was doing with curriculum and classroom management. It just makes that support element all the more important.
 * michele's answer**


 * Bill**

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> Let's dig deeper. If there are so many other possible issues and ideas that have to be dealt with in the classroom, then why is NOS even in the mixture? Doesn't it just add a whole new layer of complexity?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Although I am late accepting the standards, there is a lot of support for inquiry in science education as well as teaching the nature of science. When any teaching position begins, textbooks are provided and any novice teacher will approach their new position with focus on that textbook. Only experience will encourage any teacher to branch away from textbooks, or reorganize the content to their preference.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my answer **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I don't discount all the theories I developed prior to walking into the classroom, they just took longer to develop as I learned how the ideas could be integrated. Most importantly, planting the seed to integrate the ideas was needed since after student teaching is complete, course work and certification is complete and immediate exposure to what could be has transpired. Unless a teacher seeks professional development towards the goal of NOS or inquiry, where will the exposure come from?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Planting the seed of NOS may take a while to develop, but striving for teaching science better is needed.


 * Michele's answer**

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> Project 2061 states that "the application of human intelligence to figuring out how the world works--should have a prominent place in any curriculum." The goal of teaching science is to produce scientifically literate citizens. We want our students to be able to pick up a newspaper and understand science events that happen during their lifetime. We want them to look at scientific claims and react to them thoughtfully rather than reject them. Yes, it does add a whole new layer of complexity. But our job is to unravel the complex.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">Volkmann and Abell make recommendations to science teachers for converting recipe labs into inquiry labs. How consistent are their recommendations with the research evidence (Schauble, et al.; Abd-el- Khalick, et al.; Kesselman) presented so far?
 * Bill's question**

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Michele's answer** Kesselman’s article seems pretty consistent with the recommendations from Volkmann and Abell. Kesselman states that scientific activity should involve inquiry, analysis and inference. All of these can be found in the adaptation principles. However, Kesselman also cautions the reader that students and even adults experience difficulties with the stages. Teachers need to guide their students and provide support as they use inquiry learning in the classroom.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">The Volkmann and Abell article presents a two-stage process for turning cookbook labs into inquiry labs. They propose an inquiry analysis tool which asks questions involving engaging learners, giving priority to evidence, formulate explanations, “compel learners to evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, “ and communicating and justifying their explanations. These questions directly relate to the second stage of adaption principles, emphasizing asking questions, providing evidence, explaining through the evidence engaging the students, and finally communicating their explanations in terms of evidence.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my answer **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> The two stage process presented by Volkmann and Abell does relate to the research within the Schaule, et al. article as well as the Keselman article. This relationship is not as evident and could be further correlated with the emphasis on cause and effect. The key theme I found within these two research articles is a young person’s inability to not dismiss evidence that does not match their predicted outcome. Schaule, et al. (1991) refers to two specific studies: Tshcirgi (1980), where subjects were asked “to choose the best experiments for identifying which recipe ingredients would result in a ‘great cake’ or a ‘terrible cake,’ but children predominately chose experiments that would result in good cakes,” and, (Schauble, 1990), “where subjects were asked to figure out which car design features affected the speed of cars, many children became preoccupied with constructing fast cars.” The Keselman article refers to this same article by Schaule, et al (1991), stating “In inquiry learning tasks, students with more advanced metacognitive skills see the discovery of causual links of a system as the goal of the activity, whereas students with less advanced metacognitive skills are likely to run experiments for the purpose of creating dramatic or interesting outcomes.”

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> The Volkmann and Abell article is short and sweet and has useful ideas for transforming a less inquisitive lab experiment into a more inquiry based experience. Though adding to the article would weight it down with extra verbiage, justifying how changing the lab would benefit students would clarify, scientifically, students getting more out of the lab. My personal experience with the word metacognition changed my life. Metalevel thinking takes our thoughts out of rote process and puts our thoughts at new intellectual level. Further clarification in the Volmann and Abell article regarding students working together would be to quote the Kesleman article that “metacognitive functioning…through social collaboration…performance of two students working as a pair was frequently superior…[to] working alone.” (Andersen, 1998) In terms of reflecting on what a student experiences affects on “metalevel investigative compentency” Kesleman refers to Lin & Lehman, 1999. Keselman also refers to scaffolding as a means for presenting material with the goal of assisting students through the multivariable causality, since the metalevel of thinking requires development.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> Volkman/Abell take a somewhat simplistic approach to inquiry that does illustrate the dramatic difference betwen recipe labs and inquiry, but does not account for the recommendations of the three research reports very well. The research says there may be some serious bumps on this simplistic road.
 * Bill's spin**

Abd-El-Khalick et al. - state that it is a common misconception that “NOS can be taught implicitly through student participation in science activities”. Whether or not the activities are recipe or inquiry is not necessarily a solution. More needs to be done to enable the student understanding of NOS/inquiry than just the activity.

Keselman - states that first of all, students may not be cognitively ready for inquiry, especially inquiry that involves multi-variable causality. This should be accounted for in the Volkman/Abell point #8 “Engage students in the analysis of data by looking for patterns, using evidence and logic to support explanations...” (p. 40) so that teachers be aware that the more complex the logic becomes, the less likely their students may be able to understand the experimentation being done. Keselman also recommends that inquiry occur often and throughout the curriculum (even across subject areas). In this respect, the recommendations of Volkman/Abell are consistent.

Schauble et al. - have research findings consistent with Keselman. “Experimentation is complex precisely because it requires one to integrate both souces of information into a consistent causal interpretation without unduly distorting either.” (p. 876) They recommend “formulating a coherent and stable model of the goal of experimentation” (p. 876) and this is not really adressed by Volkman/Abell. They also recommend that students be introduced to new and different forms of thinking (i.e., inquiry processes) and this is consist with the Volkman/Abell assertion that more inquiry needs to be done in the science classroom.

Net result: There is nothing wrong with what Volkman/Abell are suggesting. In fact, it does provide concrete examples of what inquiry is, and is not, in the context of the typical science lab. But it would be of great assistance to the teacher reading the article if a few cautions about possible learning issues (and maybe one or two references) were included.


 * my last question**

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> The third discussion topic from Chris:

Changing a system from within can be a daunting task. And though the Scope, Sequence and Coordination's (SS&C) "curriculum design contrasts with typical U.S. 'layer cake' curriculum," (p 2) the study by Lawrenz and Huffman attempts to use SS&C curriculum to analyze Science Education Reform. Though their results didn't represent consistent success in student achievement, they do provide insight into how future reform measures should be implemented, including that teachers need to be invested into the reform by understanding it and taking ownership, the need for support, the value of student feedback, etc.

As we discussed before the difficulty to replicate successful education reform efforts, how do we, as individual teachers, create change in our larger district when there is so much offered in how to change?

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;">**Michele's answer** Good question. It is one that does not have an easy answer. Change is a very hard thing for many teachers to accept. If you mention change to the teachers in my district, they roll their eyes and say, "Here we go again." There is so much research available that it is difficult to decide what to believe. If I were going to try to make change in my district, I would use an article like the one written by Volkmann and Abell. It may not be perfect, but to me it makes a lot of sense. As Chris stated, "the article is short and sweet and has useful ideas for transforming a less inquisitive lab experiment into a more inquiry based experince."

It should also be noted, however, that change will happen IF you have teachers who want to change. Lawrenz and Huffman realized in their study that you cannot force change on teachers. I've worked with good people who are very set in their ways. They would not listen no matter how much research you put in front of them.

From the Lawrenz and Huffman article, it was interesting their analysis, though lacking in detail, from each state's implementation. As with implementing anything nationwide reform will have its difficulties, as we mentioned with other reforms. It's their insights that give clues for how any reform effort can be improved if implemented into diverse situations. Lawrenz and Huffman note the regional body has attitudes from individual teachers, the community, the school, parents, and from students to address, and they all need to buy into the idea as if it is their own. "The structure of change within schools was a critical factor in the study's success or failure." (p14) I did find humor in their recommendation for longevity of at least 3 years, "effective change takes time." Overall, the recommendations provided on page 19, could be applied to any school reform, as long as the focus is on adaptation of the reform, providing support, and involving people in the process.
 * my answer**

<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: 6px;">The idea of inquiry in the classroom continued this week with two additional research reports. These reports once again gave indications that teaching/learning with inquiry is not a simple idea. The issues (NOS, multi-variable causality) introduced just added to the challenge of achieving the inquiry goal.
 * Bill's summary**

The empirical research was contrasted with the straightforward article in The Science Teacher that provided a “recipe” to achieve the inquiry goal. “The Volkmann and Abell article is short and sweet and has useful ideas for transforming a less inquisitive lab experiment into a more inquiry based experience” (Anderson, 11/11/10). But, are these ideas consistent with the research? Maybe; especially if the teachers are aware of the research and “...guide their students and provide support as they use inquiry learning in the classroom (Svoboda, 11/10/10).

The final issue of “change” is addressed in the research reported by Lawrenz and Huffman. Even though research on issues concerning using inquiry in the classroom is progressing and reports to teachers based on that research are (hopefully) increasing, there is still a lot of resistance to change. “Change is a very hard thing for many teachers to accept” (Svoboda, 11/12/10). That is the core of the ongoing debate on inquiry. Even a well financed and apparently well supported program to implement change on a national scope, resulted in inconsistent, if not disappointing results. Will the inquiry goal ever be achieved?