See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266453623
Supporting Teachers in Complex Situations: Learning to Teach Evolution, Nature of Science, and Scientific In....
Article · January 2010
CITATION READS 1 93
5 authors, including:
Barbara Crawford Daniel Capps The University of Georgia (Tbilisi) University of Georgia
52 PUBLICATIONS 2,512 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 261 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Robert M. Ross Paleontological Research Institution
64 PUBLICATIONS 265 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
geological time education View project
citizen science View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Barbara Crawford on 25 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Supporting Teachers in Complex Situations: Learning to Teach Evolution, Nature of Science, and Scientific Inquiry
Barbara A. Crawford, Daniel Capps, Xenia Meyer, Maya Patel Department of Education Cornell University Robert M. Ross, The Paleontological Research Institution Ithaca, New York
Corresponding author: [email protected] Final paper can be downloaded at www.fossilfinders.org
Abstract This paper describes the nature and influence of the first year of an innovative professional development project that engaged upper elementary and middle level science teachers in an authentic setting that crossed informal and formal boundaries. We view learning as situated and value the importance of authentic activities in classrooms. The main purpose of the project is to help teachers facilitate instruction for 5th through 9th grade children in complex situations that involve learning about evolutionary concepts, nature of science (NOS) and inquiry. We hypothesized that an integrated instructional approach will enhance teacher and student understandings and will increase children’s interest in science, including those in underrepresented groups. The multi-year project is based on rationale for designing science instruction and materials for children from diverse backgrounds. The approach makes use of an authentic investigation of fossils to explore foundational concepts of evolution and investigate biological responses to change in past environments.
A paper presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting – Denver, Colorado Theme: Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World April 30 – May 4, 2010
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 733233. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The National Science Foundation.
Children love fossils. The first author remembers back to when she was a young girl, and her grandpa took her to the Museum of Natural History at a nearby university. Like many children, she was fascinated with rocks containing the imprints and fossilized remains of animals and plants millions of years old. In this case she became intrigued with fossils because of her experiences in an informal learning setting. On her own, she read books about ages past and imagined and tried to understand what kinds of things might have lived thousands and millions of years ago. When she was in the fourth grade her teacher encouraged the students to bring in tiny dinosaur models, and the children lined them up on the front of their school desks, while they carried out their seatwork. Unfortunately, no other classroom teacher furthered her interest or learning in this area. Although formal grade school classes talk about the popular topic of dinosaurs, students and teachers rarely get the chance to work directly with fossils and engage in thinking about how scientists use evidence to develop explanations about the past. Collecting, observing, and analyzing fossils is an authentic part of the science of paleontology and geosciences. It is this idea of authenticity that is at the center of this project. Associated with the idea of authenticity is the notion of learning in both formal and informal settings. This paper connects with the theme of the 2010 AERA conference: Opportunities to learn within and across both formal and informal settings occur in the complex ecologies of peoples’ lives, not isolated in a single setting such as a school or family. These complex ecologies include people’s participation within and across multiple settings. The first author’s primary research focuses on how to change the way we teach science in formal classrooms, from that of using primarily traditional, didactic, fact- based science instruction to inquiry-based, student-centered instruction, situated in authentic scientific questions. In this paper we describe our efforts to design a complex learning experience for teachers and students centered on nature of science (NOS), authentic science inquiry practices, and evolutionary concepts. Our findings focus on science teacher learning in a professional development setting. Fossil Finders is a multi year National Science Foundation project centered on 1) developing a model for science teacher professional development; and 2) designing innovative materials to support children’s learning about evolutionary concepts, NOS, and scientific inquiry (SI). The project aims to support all children learning science, in particular those children from diverse backgrounds and English language learners, specifically at the upper elementary and middle level. We will describe the rationale for the project, and how we endeavored to integrate teacher professional development and the design of inquiry-based materials. We will address the idea of complex learning ecologies, and how we shaped our PD model by striving to develop a community of learners fostering teachers’ and children’s understandings of what science is and what science is not. This paper is primarily focused on our findings on science teacher learning in a professional development setting, and how we developed opportunity for teachers to grapple with complex content and pedagogy.
The Problem One of the main problems in teaching about evolution is that many teachers who enter the field of science teaching may feel uncomfortable or ill prepared to teach evolutionary theory (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Moore & Kraemer, 2005). The challenge of teaching about the theory of evolution by natural selection may stem from a teacher’s own alternative ideas about the nature of science (NOS), including the role of scientific theories and the mistaken notion that theories eventually change into laws (Duschl, 1990; McComas, 2002). To address the fact that many teachers are not adequately prepared to teach about evolution, professional development can help teachers develop more robust understandings of subject matter and pedagogy. However, the current state of teacher professional development is not equal to the challenge of fostering knowledge of difficult and complex science content and reformed ways to teach science to all students. As stated by Borko (2004, p 3), “Despite recognition of its importance, the professional development currently available to teachers is woefully inadequate”. Education researchers acknowledge that not only do students, but teachers themselves need support in learning about the fundamental science concepts related to evolutionary theory. Related to reform-based pedagogy, most teachers do not routinely use inquiry-based instruction in their classrooms due to a number of issues (Deboer, 2004; Krajcik, Mamlok, Hug, & 2000), or they simply do not understand what inquiry is (Anderson, 2002). This study tackles the challenge of how to support teachers in engaging students in learning about NOS, inquiry, and evolutionary concepts. Evolutionary topics are either culturally controversial and/or difficult to understand (Brumby, 1984). Without adequate support, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to successfully broach these topics with their students. Besides the complexity of the subject matter of evolution, inquiry-based teaching is a highly sophisticated way to orchestrate a classroom (Crawford, 2007). As declared by Windshitl (2003) preservice teachers rarely have authentic science research experiences in teacher education programs. We extend this to the need for practicing teachers to have experiences with authentic science research. Research on teacher professional development acknowledges that teachers themselves need support in learning about the fundamental science concepts and instructional strategies they will be expected to use in their classrooms (Garet et al., 2001). Thus, effective science professional development should support teachers in learning about content knowledge, as well as scientific inquiry and use of inquiry-based approaches and considering how to improve their practice (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003).
Theoretical Framework Many elementary and middle level children, as well as teachers, lack a basic understanding of inquiry, the NOS, and concepts of evolution (i.e. Crawford, Zembal-Saul, Munford, & Friedrichsen, 2005; Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Jensen, & Finley, 1996). The main theoretical constructs underlying the design of the teacher professional development reported in this paper, as well as the educational research design, include those of situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989); constructivist learning perspectives (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994); and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Other constructs important to the project include NOS and scientific inquiry and authenticity.
The Situated Nature of Learning We designed our professional development program based on a view that learning is situated, and that experiences provide the context for learning new things. Similar to the view that students’ learning resides in meaningful contexts and that learning is social as well as an individual endeavor, we believe that creating context is important for teachers’ learning. We build on the views of Putnam and Borko (2000, p 13) who stated, “…the situative perspective can provide important conceptual tools for exploring these complex relationships, and for taking them into consideration as we design, enact, and study programs to facilitate teacher learning.” A Community of Practice In envisioning the professional development we hoped to develop a community of practice among all participants. A community of practice is a way of thinking about how people learn in complex ecologies through their interactions with various people, professionally. The term community of practice (CoP) put forth by Lave and Wenger (1991) is the notion that individuals develop understanding of ideas and practices in learning communities, in which the practice is legitimized. In this community there is movement of participants towards the core of the community of practice. Tightly connected with the idea of a CoP is the situated nature of learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Science learning can occur naturally in various places, not only in formal school classrooms, but in many settings of one’s daily life. Science learning happens in many kinds of informal settings--in museums, after school clubs, on a walk, at home--and through collaboration with others. According to Wenger (1998), learning is a social process, and people engage in the active process of learning and they take on identities connected with these communities. Other scholars articulate sociocultural perspectives of learning, and theorize about how people learn both individually and through enculturation into practices (Cobb, 1994; Driver et al., 1994). These sociocultural theories of learning connect with the idea of how teachers and students may learn what science is and what science is not.
Learning about Evolution, the NOS and Inquiry The theoretical basis for our curricular approach is based, in part, on recent conceptual papers on learning progressions of evolution and empirical studies of children’s understandings of NOS. Catley, Leher, and Reiser (2005) have identified core ideas that may be important to learning progressions of evolution, including the concepts of biological diversity, structure- function, ecology/interrelationships, variation, change, geologic processes, habits of mind, and forms of argument (model-based reasoning), foundational to learning about evolution. Current problems in learning evolutionary concepts at the 5th through-9th grade levels include: difficulty grasping small change over long periods of time and hesitancy or reluctance to accept scientific theory/thought due to religious beliefs (Jensen & Finley, 1996; Southerland, Abrams, Cummins, & Anselmo, 2001). It has been suggested that teachers help students gain clear insights into aspects of the nature of science to support understanding foundational concepts of evolutionary theory (Scharmann & Harris, 2006). Paleontologists recognize that the fossil record through geologic time is simply conceptually the most straightforward evidence for evolutionary change; other forms of evidence, such as anatomy and biography of modern organisms relies on inference of historical events that explain modern patterns, and genetic and developmental evidence relies on technical understandings that may not yet be in place. Basic ideas of evolution need to be learned by young students, so they can build on their understandings in later grade levels. However, everyday meanings and intuitive thinking often get in the way of children developing informed understandings of evolutionary concepts (both in early grades and later in life). Related to understanding NOS the common use of everyday language, such as “I have a theory” and the idea of individuals “adapting” to different conditions during a lifetime, can lead children to having alternative conceptions (Evans, 2001). NOS is defined as one way of knowing about the world and the system and values of beliefs within which scientific knowledge is constructed and validated (Abd-El- Khalick, Lederman, & Bell, 1998). We take the position of Lederman et al. (2002) in the description of a set of seven aspects of NOS based in historical, philosophical, and sociological studies, that are important and feasible to teach students. These aspects include the following: (a) scientific knowledge is tentative, (b) is partially subjective (i.e., theory laden), (c) relies on an empirical basis, (d) is creative, (e) is socially and culturally embedded, (f) is based upon observations and inferences, and (g) theories and laws are different forms of scientific knowledge. Our stance on teaching about inquiry in the science classroom draws from the essential features of inquiry in the National Science Education Standards (1996, 2000). Essential Features of Inquiry (NRC, 2000):
—Scientifically oriented questions; —Giving priority to evidence in responding to questions; —Formulating explanations from evidence; —Connecting explanations to scientific knowledge; —Communicating and justifying explanations.
Our view of teaching science as inquiry always involves the learner engaged in trying to find answers to questions by using scientific practices. The learner asks and answers scientifically-oriented questions about the natural world, gives priority to evidence in responding to questions, comes up with explanations using evidence, connects explanations to scientific knowledge, and communicates and justifies explanations. Similar to what a scientist does, the learner figures out something by herself, with the guidance of the teacher, by making sense of observations, the text in a book, or the data gathered during an investigation. At the heart of inquiry is the learner herself, grappling with data and making sense of some event or phenomenon. Inquiry-based teaching is a complex and sophisticated way of teaching that requires the teacher herself to have an in-depth understanding of inquiry and NOS. This complex kind of teaching requires significant professional development and support (Crawford, 2000, 2007). Related to inquiry is the idea of authenticity that connects with the time, place, and situation associated with the learning experience (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Chinn & Malholtra (2002) define authenticity as the practices aligned with those in which scientists engage, and they highlight the epistemological and reasoning aspects of scientific inquiry. Combining inquiry-based teaching that is situated in authentic science with explicit attention to NOS is the pedagogical approach emphasized in the Fossil Finders curricular materials, as well as the approach we modeled in our professional development.
Providing the Authentic Context The primary goal of the Fossil Finders project is to develop instructional materials that create an authentic context to enhance children’s understandings of NOS and scientific inquiry and evolutionary concepts, and to provide support for teachers in carrying out this kind of instruction. In the Fossil Finders project classrooms from two grade spans (5th/6th and 7th/9th) receive shipped samples of layers of shale from an Upstate New York outcrop. The centerpiece of the project includes a real, hands-on investigation of fossils collected by researchers. Children and teachers use an interactive website, where children access resources to help them identify the fossils they find, and add their own data to an emerging database. The Fossil Finders project combines the disciplines of paleontology, biology, and geology to develop inquiry-based materials that will help 5th-9th grade students to understand evolutionary theory and NOS. The project aims to provide an authentic context that is intrinsically engaging to students at the 5th- 9th-grade level. The project utilizes an innovative way to connect opportunities to examine real fossils with virtual experiences, focusing on relevant content in biological evolution, geology, inquiry, and nature of science. An important aspect of the project is feedback from scientists to each of the classrooms submitting data, and opportunity for students to understand how their data fits in with the bigger picture of the research.
Method Situating Teachers in the Professional Development Experience In our teacher Professional Development (PD) we employed an integrated approach, in that we situated teachers in both science and school issues. First, we immersed teachers in fieldwork- - authentic paleontological research with scientists--learning about geological time and diversity of organisms that lived in the past, in informal settings with museum educators. We also involved teachers on the school side of things, by working with curriculum developers and researchers in thinking about how to teach evolutionary concepts to their upper elementary and middle level students. Ten certified New York State teachers were selected to participate in the first year of the Fossil Finders program (see Table 1). As we were interested in tracking changes in practice resulting from the PD with respect to inquiry and nature of science, we selected teachers having a range of teaching qualities. Teachers were chosen from an applicant pool of over 30 fifth through ninth grade teachers based on many factors, including years of teaching, previous professional development experiences, number of underrepresented children in their classrooms, formal training in science, and demonstration of interest in the program. During the summer resident institute held in August 2008, we engaged these ten teachers in collecting, identifying and analyzing fossil samples, in partnership with scientists, and in thinking about using inquiry-based pedagogical approaches. The summer resident institute of five and a half days at Cornell University featured a packed agenda including four field trips to rock outcrops in Central New York; discussions in the Geology classrooms of how to find and measure fossils, how to teach about nature of science, and use of inquiry-based approaches; a tour of the Museum of the Earth, that was highlighted by a behind-the-scenes look at the work of paleontologists and the world class fossil collections of the Paleontological Research Institution; evening discussions of ELL strategies; and finally, a lively teacher and scientist discussion of how to deal with controversial issues of teaching about evolution. (See Appendix A for a schedule of the week’s sessions.) We also held sessions during which scientists shared something about the nature of their scientific research -- what they do and how they go about it from a scientific perspective. Sample lessons from the curricula include an investigation: Explain how often times rocks are in layers and paleontologists study these layers to learn about the past. Pose a question such as: Why might a paleontologist be interested in collecting rocks at many layers throughout a rock outcrop instead of just one layer? The field trips designed and lead by the scientists focused on learning geological principles and collecting and identifying fossils. Central New York has thick sequences of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks deposited in a shallow sea that covered the area in the Devonian Period (about 380 million years ago). Teachers helped collect research samples that they would use in the coming school year, to involve their students in data collection and analysis. The samples were taken from specific layers of a particular locality as part of the research being carried out with the partnering paleontologists. The scientific research is focused upon how marine organisms changed in response to environmental changes; for example, changes in sea level and associated changes in sediments, water energy, and available nutrients. In addition to situating teachers in the science, we engaged teachers in the pedagogy of inquiry and in tenets of NOS. The inquiry-based approach is based on constructivist learning perspectives and recent papers on learning progressions of evolutionary concepts. The centerpiece of the approach makes use of fossils as scientific evidence and has a tight connection to aspects of NOS and connects with natural history museums and informal learning centers. The foundation for the pedagogical approach is the merging of research on how children learn about evolutionary concepts, NOS, and inquiry in an integrated curriculum. To this end, we used the “Proposing Explanations for Fossil Footprints” activity (National Academy of Sciences, 1998), which we refer to as “Tricky Tracks.” In this activity, teachers “uncovered” three segments of “tracks” left by two unknown organisms. Teachers used observations to make inferences about what may have occurred in the scenario across the three segments of tracks. This activity thereby facilitated distinguishing between observations and inferences, and also learning about the tentativeness and subjectivity in science, all aspects of NOS. In our PD setting teachers, educational researchers, and scientists, all communicated with each other, about how this activity could serve to enhance children’s knowledge of tenets of NOS and inquiry. We also created an interactive project website, in which the teachers and their students would submit and analyze the fossil data, and interpret the data to develop explanations about past environments (see www.fossilfinders.org). Figure 1 shows a screen shot of one of the website pages, where teachers can learn about the Fossil Finders project and tools for the investigation. Data analysis tools include pie charts to observe the relative abundance of major categories ("taxa") of fossils in a given sample, scatter plots of relative abundance of taxa through time, and histograms showing distribution of specimen size within a particular sample. The data can also be exported for further analysis. Figure 2 shows a screen shot of one of the displays of fossil data contributed by teachers and students. The screen shot shows the relative abundance of brachiopods across each horizon at the Pompey site in central New York.
Figure1. Screen shot of one of website pages where teachers can learn about the Fossil Finders project and tools for the investigation.
Figure 2. Screen shot of data display of classroom data showing relative abundance of brachiopods across each horizon at the Pompey site in central New York. This is actual student data that shows brachiopod abundance increasing throughout time until it drops off after horizon 3. Classroom teachers and their students can use this information, along with other data in the database to form hypotheses as to the trends they see in the data. Few of the ten teachers took advantage of all these tools the first school year, in part because the tools were in early development at the time of the first teacher summer institute. In sum, the nature of the PD involved situating teachers as learners, in collaboration with their fellow teachers, the paleontologists, and educational researchers. The teachers learned targeted science concepts and the nature of scientific inquiry. As they participated in field trips, they made scientific observations of the shale containing fossils, collected and analyzed the fossil samples, and were helped in interpreting the data. Further, they read and discussed reform documents in the context of thinking about their own school settings, and they worked towards adapting the designed inquiry-based lessons and reflecting on their experiences. The controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution created yet another layer on top of an already complex layer cake of challenges for teachers (using inquiry, teaching about nature of science, evolution, and engaging children from underrepresented populations.) The complexity involved creating an integrated learning environment for teachers learning about aspects of NOS that, for the most part, were new to them. Finally, we asked teachers to consider how to utilize a combination of inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural approaches. For multicultural approaches we provided a framework, but also asked teachers for their suggestions. One of the participant teachers later contributed ideas from her classroom during the second summer. Many of the multicultural approaches teachers suggested had to do with literacy and language learning. We discuss the challenges and effectiveness of using multicultural approaches in a separate paper, in which we present a case study of one teacher supporting her ELL students and those from underrepresented populations in learning about observations and inferences, use of imagination in science, and the importance of accurate data (see Meyer & Crawford, 2010).
Participants in the Education Research Study The participants in the education research study included all ten teachers who participated in the first year of the PD. We call this our first cohort or P-1 teachers (first year Pilot teachers). These ten P-1 teachers all teach in school classrooms in New York State. (See backgrounds in Table 1.) Each of the selected teachers was paid a stipend participating in the Fossil Finders project during the course of the year. Project teachers also received curriculum materials, the use of a laptop computer, and a digital camera. All participants signed human subject release forms.
Research Design, Data Sources and Analyses We used a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 1998) and collected multiple forms of data. Data included: 1) Teacher pre-post tests of science content, views of inquiry and of NOS, as well as teachers’ perceptions of their own learning; 2) interviews of teachers following the summer resident institute to elaborate on their written responses; 3) videotapes of all PD work sessions and fieldwork; 4) a Likert-type teacher evaluation questionnaire following the summer institute. We quantitatively scored the pre-post tests and the evaluation questionnaire, and we transcribed and systematically interpreted post-institute interviews and created data displays to track changes (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
To measure changes in teachers’ views and knowledge we developed a two-part instrument that we administered before and after the summer institute. Part one of the instrument, the Views Survey, consisted of 11 open-response items aimed at understanding teachers’ views of inquiry and NOS (See Appendix B). We developed the Views Survey based on the features of inquiry, as defined in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000) and items from a validated published instrument on aspects of NOS reported to be accessible in K-12 classrooms (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). We developed our initial scoring rubric based on Lederman et al. (2002), but modified the original scoring guide to a 4-point scale (0-3, 1-uninformed/naïve, 2-emerging, 3- more informed, 4-robust understanding) instead of a three- point scale (see Appendix C). In this way, we adapted the original Lederman et al. scale to be finer-grained, in order to detect changes in our sample of teachers. We recognized that most of our P-1 teachers initially held naïve views of NOS and had limited science background. Initially, two researchers scored each item independently using this four-point rubric (0-3). They used transcriptions of the post-summer institute interview and focus group interviews to triangulate teachers’ views. These additional data sources helped to better clarify teacher responses and, in some cases, the scorers changed their initial ratings. Next, researchers analyzed each teacher’s responses vertically, across all 11 questions to help place difficult responses into context. Finally, a horizontal analysis was conducted for each question across our participants, to ensure consistency. The second part of the instrument, the Knowledge Survey, was a earth science and evolution-related subject matter assessment consisting of 11 items (10 open-response items and one multiple-choice item). Using a similar technique as for the Views Survey, two researchers scored each item independently using a four-point rubric (0-3). When the initial scores were not in agreement the researchers re-read the item together, discussed their reasoning until reaching consensus. For the post summer institute interview we used a semi-structured interview protocol. Sample questions from the interview include: 1) What are three key concepts/ideas you learned during the Fossil Finders Professional Development Week? 2) Is this your first professional development experience? What was your most recent experience? 3) How do you think this experience differed from your previous professional development experiences? 4) What, in your opinion, is science? What did you learn about science during the Professional Development Week? 5) How does a paleontologist DO science? Did you learn anything new about research in paleontology during the Fossil Finders week? Did this experience change the way you think about scientific research? 6) After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g., atomic theory, evolution theory), does the theory ever change? Defend your answer with examples? 7) Did you change your ideas about scientific theory during the Fossil Finders week? If so, in what ways?
Findings Evidence of Science Teacher Learning Analyses of the Views and Knowledge Pre-Post Tests and interview data revealed that during the course of the PD our teacher participants deepened their subject matter knowledge, views of NOS and of scientific inquiry. Further, teachers appeared to gain confidence in teaching science. Participants demonstrated their willingness and ability to use the designated instructional materials in their classrooms; and there was evidence of professional networking opportunities that were established and supported by the project. The ten teachers’ pre and post scores of the Views Survey are displayed in Figure 3. These findings reflect a range of levels of understanding, pre and post, related to NOS and inquiry- based teaching (IBT). Our most experienced teacher (CT) with more than 30 years of teaching experience, coursework in earth science and substantial PD, initially demonstrated robust views. This experienced teacher showed no change pre to post, as expected, because of the ceiling effect. For the other nine teachers, most (8/9) held initial naïve or emerging views of nearly all of the aspects we examined in this study. For these nine teachers, each demonstrated some change, pre to post. Nearly all teachers achieved at least a level of “emerging” for most NOS aspects addressed in this study. Further, most teachers (7/9) at least doubled, or nearly doubled, their summed scores in the post- assessment. Two teachers who began with nearly the same scores on the Views Test, ended with fairly different scores (DJ and RT). Of these two teachers DJ greatly enhanced his views in comparison to TU. We can only suggest possible reasons for this difference in growth, based on observed behaviors during the summer institute and sustained level of proclaimed interest in the program. As shown above there was evidence that the nine teachers having initial naïve or emerging understandings enhanced their views of nature of science and of inquiry-based teaching, to varied extents. This finding is positive, but not unexpected, as one would hope and expect teachers to learn. An increase in knowledge and views would be expected for the elementary teachers, who mostly began with limited knowledge of NOS, but were given opportunity to grapple with the tenets of NOS. The fact there was growth is encouraging, given the relatively short duration of the summer PD (one week). Sample responses to the Pre and Post Views Test are displayed in Tables 2 and 3 below.
Teachers' summed scores for understanding aspects of NOS and IBT 24
16 pre post 8 change
0 ct dj dm wp od wk wa vm rt al
Figure 3. Comparison of teachers’ pre and post scores of views of NOS and inquiry-based teaching
Table 2. Sample Responses from Pre-Post Teacher Views and Knowledge Tests for one 5th grade teacher, WA.
th # Question Pre-test Response (August 10 , Post-test Response (August 2008) 15th, 2008) 1 What, in your opinion, is science? What makes science (or a scientific [Science is the study of something [Science is a way to find discipline such as physics, biology, living or once living where as the answers to questions with etc.) different from other disciplines of inquiry (e.g., religion, philosophy)? other disciplines are theory based pure evidence-data. Religions (VNOS-C only.] and philosophy is a belief. ] 6 Scientists perform experiments/investigations when [I believe scientist use creativity to [Scientists use imagination trying to find answers to the questions come up with their hypotheses and and creativity through all of they put forth. Do scientists use their design. After creating the design, I these processes. It is creativity and imagination during their think it is important to stay true to important to collect pure data, investigations? If no, explain why not. If yes, then at which stages of the the initial set up to have a solid but while doing such their investigations do you believe that experiment.] mind is always asking scientists use their imagination and questions about what is creativity: planning and design; data found/evident. Example: collection; after data collection? surveying the area you are Please explain why scientists use about to take a sample for. imagination and creativity. Provide One might think about prior examples if appropriate. knowledge of the topic and make inferences about possibilities.] 23 Brachiopods, a type of organism that [People taking them and material [Change in the environment was once abundant are now quite decomposing.] and not having the capabilities rare. What could be a reason for the to evolve with that.] decline in number of this organism?
As shown in Table 2, WA, an experienced urban teacher, demonstrated an enhanced understanding of the use of evidence by scientists by the end of the PD summer institute. The use of evidence to develop explanations is a critical element in understanding NOS and inquiry, particularly connected to how paleontologists develop explanations of past environments. WA demonstrated growth in understanding other aspects of NOS, including that scientists use creativity in all aspects of their work. Further, WA drew on experiences gained in the field during the Fossil Finders PD week. In question #23, WA mentions the changing environment contributing to changes in populations of organisms in the past, a big idea addressed during the week. This is particularly encouraging as this idea relates to learning progressions of evolution, leading to understanding biological evolution. In summary, teachers demonstrated a range of views, pre and post, and there seemed to be no discernable threshold for change. Of the nine teachers initially demonstrating less than robust views, all teachers enhanced their views, especially DJ, DM, and WP. With the exception of CT, most of the teachers entered the Fossil Finders program with fairly limited views of inquiry. None of the other teachers scored above the emerging level on any item on the Views Pre-Test related to inquiry. Generally, teachers stated that there was a rigid scientific method followed by scientists in all field, and they viewed inquiry as “hands-on teaching” that was question driven. We detected gains in each of the teachers’ views after participating in the summer institute. Most of the gains were fairly modest; that is teachers moved from uniformed to the emerging categories, by recognizing that there were multiple scientific methods. Several teachers (DJ, DM, WP, and RT), however, began to see the importance of using data in their classrooms. To better understand changes in views of NOS and inquiry we present findings for one representative teacher. WK teaches 5th grade (ages 9-10) in an inner city school in of New York State. Her classroom includes a high percentage of students from underrepresented populations. Many of WK’s students are on free-or reduced lunch plans, indicating a low socio-economic level. WK an elementary teacher began the PD with naïve understandings, with an initial score of 4/24. At the end of the PD week, she doubled her score in the posttest. See Table 3 for her written pre-posttest responses and evidence of growth in Views of NOS and Inquiry and of Knowledge of science concepts. During the PD, WK developed more informed understandings of NOS and inquiry, in addition to targeted science concepts. There is evidence that at the beginning of the PD, WK held the uninformed understanding that there is a single scientific method -- that scientists always follow one particular set of steps (a misconception depicted in many science textbooks). Through her experiences in the PD, WK developed a more informed understanding, that scientists use multiple methods and they select a particular research method, depending on the research question investigated.
Table 3. WK’s (5th grade teacher) Pre-Post Views of Inquiry and NOS and Knowledge of Science
Question Pre-test Response (August 10th, 2008) Post-test Response (August 15th, 2008)
1. What, in your opinion, is science? [Science is the study or interaction of people [Science is an interaction with natural world, What makes science (or a with nature and life.] having a question, investigating it, collecting scientific discipline such as information, data and constructing a possible physics, biology, etc.) different answer. I think the difference lies in that the fact from other disciplines of inquiry that science can be investigated and there is (e.g., religion, philosophy)? evidence to be found.]
6. Scientists perform experiments/investigations when [Yes, creativity and imagination are a big [They use their creativity and imagination during trying to find answers to the piece of the investigation during planning all phases of an experiment. I think allows them questions they put forth. Do and designing and data collection. I think to be able to access a more varied sample and to scientists use their creativity and they have to use all their senses to discover get to stuff not thought possible before because imagination during their new ways to answer new and old questions.] of lack of creativity. investigations? I think creativity and imagination push science forward always asking why and why not.]
9.The “scientific method” is Yes [No, often described as involving the [I think it does need to follow these steps to I think good science can look sloppy and chaotic. steps of making a hypothesis, ensure an accurate result and to keep The important piece is to ask question, identifying variables (dependent organized.] investigate, collect, investigate, conclude and it and independent), designing an does not have to be in that order.] experiment, collecting data, and reporting results. Does good science need to follow the scientific method? Explain your answer. 10.What is inquiry-based science [It is where students are given a task, [It is allowing students to take control, when teaching? question or self-directed question and try to ready, of their learning through hands on minds answer it through experiments and/or on experiences. It is student driven with teacher research.] guidance.]
11.What are some important [I think the most difficult part is “good [Hands-on experiences, self –motivation, driven features of inquiry to teach questions.” An experiment without a good to answer their questions, statements, willingness students? question leaves a “so what”. Students need to of teacher to let go of the control element in know how to be self-disciplined, manage teaching] their time, be organized, and stay on task with their question.] 16.Explain what the word [Never saw this word. Guessing it might [It means that the past mimics the present or the uniformatarianism means? have something to do with using one source present mimics the past. We can look back in of information.] history of an organism to see the past and continuances of that species.
17.Explain what is meant by the [I don’t know.] [It is the fact that the bottom layer is the oldest law or principle of superposition. layer, unless some major external force has changed that.]
In the post interview excerpt below, this 5th grade teacher developed an understanding that science is subjective, a human endeavor, and different scientists can interpret the same data differently. More importantly, she connected this new view with the authentic context of the project.
Researcher: …what other concepts, maybe, or ideas that you learned about that you hadn’t considered before.
WK: One that I really, really like, maybe this is number one… when we were at the Earth Museum. I guess I never really thought about it. When we were taking the tour through it, and I think it was maybe R-- who brought it up. We were walking through and there were three different models of the same dinosaur. So the question was, why do you think each of them, all three of them looked different. So I just assumed that they had found a more recent fossil or a better fossil, just so they could construct the model better, but they said, no they were all constructed from the same model and it was different artists interpretations and just different connections that they had made, either that it was another animal’s (?) so that’s why it was constructed a little different, so that just really, like aha…okay . So it doesn’t have to be a new find, so they can go back and see what they have and revisit what they have and make new connections, so that was like a real eye opener for me.
From this conversation, it is apparent that WK gained a new understanding through the context of the PD, that science is subjective and tentative, and that scientists reconstruct events in the past by using creativity. This is an important big idea associated with appreciating the scientific evidence and model building connected with biological evolution.
The Nature of the Developing CoP During the resident summer institute the teachers, the scientists, and the science educational researchers, all worked toward a common goal of bringing authentic science to children in classrooms. Although the teachers, scientists and educational researchers brought different levels and kinds of expertise, they all contributed in different ways, to the developing CoP. There were incidents during the first summer institute where communication did not also seem to go as well as we would have liked. Some of the challenges included the PD organizers need to clearly communicate the language of science to teachers, using understandable terms. Another challenge included recognizing the classroom needs of teachers. In their efforts to give teachers as much background scientific knowledge as possible in a limited timeframe, the scientists did not always model inquiry-based pedagogy. One of the three scientists involved in the PD had limited experience working with classroom teachers, prior to the summer institute. This is understandable. Another issue related to teachers dealing with the controversial nature of teaching evolution in science classrooms. One paleontologist raised teacher concerns in conducting a discussion of what to expect, if one encountered resistance from creation scientist parents. Only through a follow-up discussion the next day when teachers and educational researchers had an open and honest and sharing of ideas, did teachers’ fears become lessened. During the first Fossil Finders summer institute an external evaluator conducted a site visit and observed activities and participants during the two of the days. The evaluator reported the following: 1) teachers were engaged in field work and follow-up conversations; 2) there was evidence of many aspects of effective PD; 3) the PD appeared well-organized; 4) PD facilitators were exceptionally attentive to participant needs, 5) there was an emphasis on developing teacher and student understanding of NOS and abilities to do scientific inquiry; 6) teachers were enthusiastically engaged in most project activities; 7) strong collegial relationships were developing among participants and between participants and project personnel; and 8) participants saw value in instructional materials and planned to use them with their students. As part of our evaluation of the PD activities, we elicited teachers’ perceptions of the summer institute. See Table 3 for mean responses to a few of the items. Teachers noted that our attention to the potential difficulties that arise from teaching about evolution in public school classrooms was very useful. For example, related to Question # 11. Discussion about Science and Religion 4.83 -HUGE! -I especially enjoyed this topic as it was an eye-opener for me. I had very little prior experience with the topic and was amazed to hear about the ideology behind Intelligent Design. I think it was an important topic and would have liked to hear more about it in a smaller venue that would be more conducive to discussions. The comments related to the cultural controversy of evolution connects with the complexity associated with professional development related to evolution.
Table 3. Teacher Perceptions of the Integrated PD experience. Samples of mean ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being most useful). 5. Identification and Measurement of Devonian 4.71 -Practice time with this was essential if this is Fossils what we expect our students to do. I will remember how it felt to struggle with this.
6. Making interpretations based on data about 4 This aspect of the Fossil Finders workshop NY’s Devonian Sea was useful, because I needed to be aware of the necessity of teaching interpretation of scientific findings for my students.
7. Digging into the Devonian: Tour of Museum of 4.43 - Helped put it all into a big picture for better the Earth understanding - I loved the museum and the activities, timelines, which were presented. I could have spent a lot more time in the museum exploring.
In the fall teachers were back in their classrooms, and they carried out the background lessons and investigation of the Fossil Finders project. P-1 teachers were expected to help their students identify the fossils found in the authentic samples shipped to their classrooms and to use the fossil data as evidence in inferring past environments. Additionally teachers helped students submit their data on the interactive website, and to write and submit reflections on their lessons. A Fossil Finders project team member visited each classroom at some time during the instruction. Student learning and the translation of these P-1 teachers’ knowledge and views will be reported in separate papers.
Discussion and Conclusion In our combined PD and curriculum project, we based our curricular approach on the assumption that it is not useful or effective to teach about evolution using a totally didactic, teacher-centered approach in which the teacher herself builds the case for evolution (Farber, 2003). In a mainly didactic teaching environment, students rarely have opportunity to investigate phenomena and grapple with data to develop their own explanations. This, in our PD we hoped to model the kinds of interactions between teacher and students that offer opportunity to investigate phenomena and grapple with data. The grappling with data and use of evidence is an important aspect of inquiry-based learning, which should parallel the way in which scientists work, develop theories, and make sense of evidence (Harlan, 2004; Roth, 1995). Central to our position is that children and teachers need to understand how scientists gather and use evidence to build theory. Thus, we need to support teachers in enhancing their students’ abilities to do inquiry and understand about inquiry. An understanding of evolutionary theory is directly tied to scientific literacy and an understanding of NOS. The authenticity of the learning environment results from the use of real-world data and a scientifically valid driving question. Our PD approach involved situating teachers in the dual role of learner and collaborator. We integrated field experiences and pedagogy (moving back and forth from the field to the classroom to the museum) in order to help teachers understand how to support their students in carrying out an authentic paleontological investigation. Paleontology is the kind of science, in which scientists try to determine the nature of past environments by reconstructing it from fossil evidence. This kind of scientific thinking is different from most teachers’ view of science, which involves mainly the experimental method using controls and variables in a laboratory setting. To guide teachers in understanding how to facilitate their students in formal classrooms in learning about what science is, we used an informal setting (museum and fieldwork). We strived to develop a CoP stemming from the overlap of various professional worlds (scientists, teachers, educational researchers). We hoped to establish a community of practice centered on the mutual goal of supporting children’s learning of science (See Figure 4). Besides supporting teachers in learning new science content and pedagogical approaches, we also learned from our teachers. Teachers raised points about the development level of their students and the challenges of fitting additional lessons into an already full district curriculum.
Figure 4. Developing a community of practice (CoP) centered on teachers and children learning about authentic Devonian fossil research.
Teachers provide: •Classroom experience •Contextual knowledge •Field testing •Professional feedback & reflection •Agency for change •Additional resources
Scientists provide: •Research question & research experience •Content knowledge expertise •Support with science process skills •Data collection & data analysis protocols •Resource development •Classroom support
Educational Researchers provide: •Inquiry-based teaching strategies •Explicit NOS support •Curriculum and resource development •Facilitation for collaboration and reflection •Link between scientists and teachers •Strategies for teaching •Classroom support
We believe that for substantial change to occur in science classrooms, there is tremendous need for high quality and sustained teacher support. As a component of teacher support it is important to develop a collaborative environment of trust and mutual sharing aligned with a CoP, in which teachers work with other teachers and members of a team of researchers, scientists, and curriculum developers. Not only do teachers learn about the practice of science, but all members of the CoP work towards translating this kind of work to a school classroom. One particular requirement of an effective PD is to identify where teachers are, what are their concerns, their present level of subject matter expertise, and goals for their classrooms, at the beginning of engaging in the actual professional development week. The Fossil Finders project recruited and carefully selected its first cohort of teachers for the 2008 summer professional development program to meet these goals. We engaged teachers as learners in a summer institute setting, assessed their initial ideas of inquiry and NOS, and geology and evolutionary concepts. We worked to explicitly make connections of the subject matter of evolutionary concepts to aspects of NOS. During the fall of 2008 Teacher participants piloted the Fossil Finders lessons and authentic investigation in their classrooms. Teachers involved their students in authentic research using fossils. (See findings from analyzed videotapes of teachers translating their knowledge to classroom practice in Capps, Crawford, & Epstein, 2010.) The next summer, this first cohort returned for continued professional development and to share their insights on implementing the innovative instructional approach, thus extending the PD to a two-year experience. In this paper we present one example of how complex ecologies involve interactions within and across multiple settings, and how teacher learning can stem from these multiple interactions. This paper presents an emerging model of an integrated teacher PD, centered on perhaps one of the most challenging and culturally controversial areas of teaching science—that of evolution, combined with teaching about NOS and inquiry. Fundamental to our work is the belief that teachers need substantial support in learning about NOS, and in how to engage their students in authentic science practice. Although resources and tools are critical for carrying out reform- based instruction, we claim that it is not enough to develop innovative instructional materials centered in science inquiry; but that without substantially helping teachers move towards the core of a scientific CoP, the innovative materials alone will not sustain change in teaching science. Teachers need support in understanding the core science concepts and principles, multiple science methods, and the pedagogical approaches needed to move their students towards the core of authentic scientific practice. In our PD we used an informal setting to help teachers learn about aspects of NOS, inquiry- based pedagogy, and basic principles of geology and paleontology. The finding that teachers did learn would be expected and is not groundbreaking. The significant finding of the PD is not simply the positive results of the pre-post test measure of a teacher’s growth. Instead, it is the possibilities for the PD model to provide opportunity for continued development of new and robust knowledge within the CoP setting. Distinguishing features of the PD are the productive interactions between and among teachers, science educators, and multidisciplinary scientists (geology and paleontology). We believe our PD aligned with the three conceptual themes proposed by Putnam and Borko (2000) as central to the situative perspective—that cognition is (a) situated in particular physical and social contexts; (b) social in nature; and (c) distributed across the individual, other persons, and tools. Our findings report positive teacher growth, as teachers were situated in working with scientists out in the field along a road cut, in a museum setting, and with science education researchers in a professional development classroom, in learning about inquiry-based pedagogy and NOS. To support our PD model we draw on the construct of situated learning and participation in a CoP as a framework for teacher learning (Wenger, 1998). In this case multiple participants engaged in learning about how to support children in using fossils in understanding past environments and how scientists use evidence to develop explanations. Teachers entered the practice of paleontology as newcomers; scientists participated in the PD as content experts, but as newcomers to actual school practice; and educational researchers tried to mediate and overlapped between the two practices with educational materials. Each participant learned more of other’s kind of work in these multiple settings, as together the team members worked towards developing a productive CoP focused on a common goal-- that of helping children learn about how scientists use evidence to develop explanations and the foundational concepts of evolution.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. (1998) The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-437. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: author. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching. What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12. Bishop, B.A., & Anderson, C.W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427. Borko, H. (2004) Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 8 (Nov., 2004), pp. 3-15 Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education, 68 (4), 493-503. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Epstein, J. A. (2010). Teachers translating inquiry based curriculum to the classroom following a professional development: A pilot study. A paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference in Philadelphia, PA March 21-24, 2010 Catley, K. Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2004). Tracing a perspective learning progression. Paper commissioned by the National Academies Commission on Test Design on K-12 Science Achievement. 2005. National Academy of Sciences. Chinn, C. A., &Malhotra, B., A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175– 218. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-20. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (4), 613-642. Crawford, B.A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (6), 613-637. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Deboer, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: McMillan Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 4.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press. Evans, E.M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 221-254. Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945. Jensen, M. & Finley. F. (1996). Changes in students' understandings of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879-900. Krajcik, J. S., Mamlok, R., Hug, B., & (2000). Modern content and the enterprise of science: Science education in the twentieth century. In L. Como (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume. One-hundredth yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after and instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607-636. Loucks-Horsley S., Hewson P.W., Love N., Stiles K.E. (2003). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Meyer, X. & Crawford, B. A. (2010). Integrating inquiry with nature of science and multicultural strategies in teaching science to underrepresented students. A paper /poster presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting - Denver, Colorado Theme: Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World April 30 – May 4, 2010. McComas, W. F. (2002). Science and its myths. In The skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, 430-442. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC CLIO Press. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moore, R. & Kraemer, K. (2005).The teaching of evolution & creationism in Minnesota. The American Biology Teacher 67(8), 457- 466. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Putnam, R. and Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2000), pp. 4-15. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Roth, W. M & Calabrese-Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab and P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Schwartz, R. & Crawford, B. A. (2005). In Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (Eds. Flick, L., & Lederman, N.). The Netherlands: Kluwer Publishing Co. Scharmann, L & Harris, WS. (2006). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 375-388. Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anselmo, J. (2001). Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or P-Prims. Science Education, 85, 328-348. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Windshitl, M. (2003) Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112–143.
Appendix A Overview of Summer Institute PD
Appendix B Part 1 and Part 2--Views of NOS and Inquiry and Knowledge Test
29
30
31
32
Appendix C Views of NOS and Inquiry 4- point scoring rubric
33
34
35
View publication stats