USING AUTHENTIC RESEARCH TO ENHANCE PRESERVICE A=
ND
INSERVICE IMPLEMENTATION OF INNOVATIVE PEDAGOGY
Wendy M. File=
s,
Mary Anne Rea=
-Ramirez,
Abstract
Many teacher education pr= ograms introduce students to innovative pedagogies and encourage them to incorporate such techniques into their classrooms. Many students however, once graduated, revert back to other styles of teaching t= hat may or may not be research-based for one reason or another. This research project follows one teacher as she becomes both the researcher and teacher = in hopes of better incorporating such teaching techniques into her middle scho= ol science classroom. The teacher discusses her successes, failures, struggles and ah-ha moments as well as w= hat resources aided in her overall success.
Introduc=
tion
Constructi= ve learning of science has been defined as a dynamic process of building, reorganizing, and elaborating knowledge of the natural world in which the fundamental building blocks of this knowledge are conceptual models. Learning and reasoning involve constructing and manipulating these mental models (de Kleer & Brown, 19= 81; Johnson-Laird, 1983). When students have opportunities to use and design mo= dels it may actually lead them to reflect on other important issues in science education (Grosslight, Unger, Jay, & Smith, 1991). While this constructive process ha= s been widely applied to science classrooms, it may be just as important when it c= omes to science teacher education. Research in conceptual change suggests that teachers, like students, come to learning situations with strong preconcept= ions about teaching and learning. = These preconceptions are often deeply imbedded and hard to displace or modify. Wh= at this means in teacher education is that preservice and inservice teachers, while introduced to innovative pedagogy, will often hold on to their prior conceptions of what learning and teaching are. These preconceptions are most often based on how they were taught or how they learn. Because preconceptio= ns are often flat, static pictures of a fact or belief rather than a complex a= nd dynamic model of how a system works (Rea-Ramirez, 1998), these teachers fin= d it difficult to integrate new ideas or strategies. Therefore, it is important that te= acher education finds new ways to help preservice and inservice teachers achieve a kind of three-dimensional movie that individuals can manipulate and use to reason about other new situations. <= /span>This may help teachers become more effective lifelong learners who embrace change and challenge old ways of thinking.
Changing p= ractice requires that a deep conceptual change in internal beliefs, attitudes, and ideas take place within the prospective teacher. These beliefs are often based on p= rior experiences the teachers have had, models of teaching they acquired in teac= her preparation programs, and models of teaching and learning from other teache= rs. This then translates into a set of pedagogical strategies that teachers emp= loy in their classroom. These may or may not be based on sound research and theory. Even when teachers le= arn new strategies in the university classroom or at an inservice program, it is often difficult to translate these into the classroom. Many strategies rema= in distant and are seen as owned by the developer rather than the teacher. In addition, preservice and inserv= ice teachers are often overwhelmed with everyday issues of classroom management= and pressures to prepare students for state testing. To ask teachers to embrace= and implement innovative, research-based curriculum on their own, without additional support, is not only difficult but rarely effective.
How comfor=
table
teachers feel with change, risk taking, and implementing innovative pedagog=
y effects
whether they will not only undertake the challenge, but also whether they w=
ill
persist in the face of difficulties (Ashton & Webb, 1986). According to Cakiro=
glu,
“teacher=
's
efficacy judgments are the result of the interaction between a personal
judgment of the relative importance of factors that make teaching difficult=
and
a personal assessment of his or her personal teaching competence or skill&#=
8221;
(Çakiroglu, et al, 2005).
While secondary science teachers may feel competent in the science
content, they often feel less competent in pedagogical strategies that requ=
ire
them to engage in more student centered rather than teacher centered teachi=
ng.
If they see this as too difficult and even threatening, self efficacy may c=
ause
them to avoid such situations. This
is an important consideration when initiating preservice and inservice teac=
hers
into innovative pedagogy and expecting that they will change their practice=
.
Preservice and inservice = teachers at Western Governors University (WGU) currently complete their own action research project on a piece of curriculum that they develop near the end of their program. However, we have found that many students use very tradition= al strategies or strategies similar to their current beliefs and practices even though they have been taught current theory and pedagogy within their progr= am. In addition, since this is a graded assessment, students are not as likely to try innovative ideas and practice= s. To help teachers challenge their beliefs and practices and to integrate new re= search-based strategies for science education into their classrooms, Western Governors University’s Masters in Science Education program has piloted an innovative program that actively involves teachers in authentic university research as they transition from student to teacher.
As the stu=
dent
transitions to the role of teacher at graduation the student is given the
opportunity to take part in authentic research on innovative curriculum. The
curriculum is chosen based on the innovative nature of the strategies used,=
the
solid basis of theory, and the connection to National Standards in Science.=
The
teacher becomes a participant researcher and teacher of the new
curriculum. We belief this mi=
ght
better engage the teacher as an active participant rather than as someone u=
pon
whom research is imposed. With
increased participation, the teacher becomes more invested in understanding
both the theory behind the curriculum and how best to use the strategies.
One of the= most important factors of this approach is that the teacher is relieved of the responsibility of developing the research agenda or curriculum. This allows= the teacher to be an active participant in curriculum that has already been tes= ted as effective in student learning and meets National Standards. Therefore, issues of preparing stu= dents for state exams are lessened. In addition, teachers are provided with support throughout the curricular unit= rather than being handed a new curriculum and expected to simply “teach it” on their own. The most important issue, however, may be that teac= hers are provided with an opportunity to experience the effect of innovative, research-based curriculum on student learning and to actively participate in collecting quantitative and qualitative data on this effect. As they then reflect on their teaching and on student learning, teachers challenge their prior concepts of teaching and learning and begin to modify these beliefs a= nd practices.
Methodology
Participants
Ms Files w=
as the
primary researcher/teacher and, at the time of this case study, was just
completing her Masters in Science Education at
Since the = site of the research was a small school that had less than thirty middle school students, the primary teacher/researcher decided to collaborate with the 5<= sup>th/6th grade teacher within the district. The teachers not only worked toge= ther, but also integrated the two grade level groups for some classes. This was expected to reach more st= udents with the curriculum as well as help to promote learning across the four gra= de levels.
Teachers d= ecided to have the students work in groups of four for the duration of the project. Each group consisted= of students from each of the four grades.&nbs= p; It was expected that this setup would encourage the older students to lead as they pushed themselves to be leaders, and that the younger students would benefit from the lessons as well as what the older students could add= to discussions. Since this was a= very small school, most of the students knew each other and as a result blending= the two classes was a very smooth and successful process. Immediately teachers saw the older students striving to help the younger students. This was true even of the middle s= chool students who were normally shy and did not participate. In addition, the younger students = seemed to engage actively and quickly in the learning process and to help their gr= oup.
As a resul= t of mixing all four grade levels there were 45 total participants. Based on this number, it was not practical to meet together as a large group during each session. Instead, teachers met with their o= wn students on a regular basis and every few weeks combined all of the students togethe= r to work on team building or other collaborative projects. Even though the classes were not together at all times, the teacher/researcher and other collaborating teach= er worked together several times a week to discuss upcoming lesson plans and experiences within the classroom.
Curriculum
The curric=
ulum
chosen to use in this pilot program was the Energy in the Human Body Curric=
ulum
(Rea-Ramirez, Nunez-Oviedo, and Clement, 2004) that was researched, develop=
ed,
and tested at the
Purpose
This resea= rch is a case study of a researcher/teacher. The purpose of the case study is to understand at a deeper level how such a program might help teachers to conf= ront their own teaching and implement innovative, research-based strategies to t= each science. While the researcher/teacher collected extensive data on student learning which showed significant gains in understanding, our discussion in this paper is confined to the process that the teacher underwent as she eng= aged in the curriculum. This has provided us with new insights into how teachers approach new pedagogy and how strongly held beliefs about teaching and lear= ning are affected.
Data
Collection and Analysis
The major = source of data for this case study comes from teacher notes, video clips, and reflections both during and after instruction. The teacher took anecdotal notes o= n the learning process and her interaction with students as they worked through t= he curriculum. She noted specific reactions of students to strategies and lessons. After each lesson the teacher wrote a reflection focusing on challenges, successes, questions that arose, and ideas for changes in teaching. She also reviewed video tapes of = her teaching and student learning. The large volume of data was then analyzed to find patterns and themes.
Findings
Analysis o= f the data presents several categories of interesting information. These include 1) the importance of understanding prior conceptions including conceptions the student brings to= the classroom initially and those that arise as the instruction progresses (to = fully understand what students know= it was noted the teacher needs to = go beyond the initial questions and assessments since many times that do not reveal the full picture); 2) the importance of social structures and interactions among students; 3) the need to adjust instruction based on stu= dent understanding regardless of where you are in the lesson or what you might h= ave planned for the day; 4) the necessity of continuous reflection to work thro= ugh issues of control and teacher-centered vs. student-centered; 5) recognition= of how difficult it is to teach “outside the box”; and 6) successes and ah-ha experiences.
Ms Files w= orked with this program for 2 months. During that time, she stresses that she experienced many ups and dow= ns, and even at the end was still learning.&nb= sp; This suggests that change takes time and does not occur in response = to one professional development experience, but rather is an on-going process = that necessitates that teacher trainers employ strategies and supports that are = long term.
In this po= rtion Ms. Files will describe her experiences as she engaged in the research proc= ess. We look first at three tools that were identified as most critical in supporting change. We then analyzed student attitudes about the innovation = and challenges of implementation and change.
Tools
After thor= ough analysis of the data and reflections, three tools were found to be most effective in supporting change and implementation of new pedagogy. These we= re:
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa=
mily:
Symbol'>·
An Experienced
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Pre-created, Research-Based Lesson Plans, including Assessments
<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>· Demonstrations/videos
Experienced
The most c= rucial aspect of success in this study was having an experienced mentor who worked along = with me, the teacher/researcher. T= he mentor, a WGU science faculty member and long time researcher, helped by gi= ving advice, listening to my accomplishments and failures and providing me with = the support necessary to try a new method of teaching.
When I beg= an this unit, I was neither accustomed to teaching my students in such a student-centered manner nor was I, myself, ever taught using such technique= s. Therefore, I was very uncomfortabl= e with the strategies and as I attempted each one, did not feel as though I was ve= ry good at implementing them. Ha= ving a mentor to support me through such hurdles was invaluable. As a result, the success that I ha= d in developing expertise in the theory and pedagogy would have been diminished had I not h= ad someone with whom to share my concerns who provi= ded encouragement to continue to try even when it was so foreign.
Dr. Rea-Ra=
mirez
was my mentor at
Before I b= egan the unit at my school and with my students, Dr. Rea-Ramirez and I discussed at length how I would go about the unit, how I was going to monitor student/teacher success, and how to best record my observations. These pre-unit meetings helped me = to share my concerns about the teaching approach as well as hear from someone experienced with the unit and the teaching method.
In additio= n to the numerous pre-unit phone and email conversations, Dr. Rea-Ramirez continued = to mentor me throughout the research trial. This was important since, unlike m= any university research projects that involve local teachers, Dr. Rea-Ramirez a= nd I were on different sides of the country. During this time we attempted to ta= lk or email once a week. During the= se conversations, I shared with her my progress with the material, general observations I was making in the classroom, stresses I was experiencing, an= d I asked many questions to reassure myself that I was progressing well. This reassurance was extremely cri= tical particularly at the beginning of the unit.= I was nervous to be outside of my comfort zone with my students, as = well as very nervous that they would neither enjoy, nor learn, from the new techniques. During such times= Dr. Rea-Ramirez would simply listen to my concerns and share her experiences wi= th me to help put me at ease. Th= is was very comforting and essential as it gave me the strength to continue even w= hen I was unsure of myself.
As the unit progressed, I began to need less reassurance from my mentor but continued to need the expertise to help me challenge my teaching as well as challenge the students. One area that I fou= nd most difficult, and that she helped me through, was remembering not to take= complete control of the classroom learning. <= /span>This included not answering my own questions, but instead allowing the students = the time necessary to generate their own answer, even if they are not completel= y correct. This was difficult, since it is fo= reign to traditional teaching and Dr. Rea-Ramirez had to remind me repeatedly tha= t it was okay if the students started with incorrect ideas because that would gi= ve me a place from which to build. From there, it was my job to encourage the students to challenge that idea (mental model) and prove or disprove it. This was very new to me, and it to= ok a long-time before I was even the slightest bit comfortable doing this. Having a mentor gave me someone experienced to talk with about my struggles, concerns and progress.
Pre-created, Research-Based= Lesson Plans
Being able= to use already created and tested lesson plans also helped me very much in the beginning stages of this unit. At the beginning I did not know enough to create my own student-centered lesso= ns. I was not comfortable enough with the style or steeped in the theory to do = so. Instead, following a set of research-based and tested lesson plans allowed = me to focus on shifting my teaching strategies rather than concentrate on the act= of creating lessons. It also mad= e me more confident, knowing that I was following a curriculum that had already = been research tested to both increase student learning and to meet National Standards.
Following = the prescribed unit helped me to stay focused. It also made the pedagogical goa= ls very clear to me from the beginning. I knew right away what the goals of each le= sson were and how to test students’ progress. The curricular unit was fill= ed with teacher instructions, actual video of real teachers using the strategi= es, and advice from individuals that have worked with the material before.
Before I b= egan using the unit I printed out all of the teacher notes and student misconcep= tions. These were brief summaries, but contained very valuable information. Typically the notes gave prompts t= o the teachers about how to approach the day’s lesson, what questions to as= k to get the students thinking in the right direction, scientific notes to clari= fy topics for the instructor and lastly, possible misconceptions that the stud= ents may already hold. Unlike your typical text book notes, these notes felt as though they were actually writ= ten by someone who had taught the material before and as a result they were on target at all times. For exam= ple, during the first unit I was teaching on energy, the ”Misconceptions” warned that many students believe that energy = not only comes from food but also from sleep, air and even water. I was a little shocked by this, th= inking that surely my students knew better than this….but to my surprise when asked to write down all of the things that give them energy, almost all cam= e up with air, sleep and even exercise. <= /span>Time and time again I saw things in my classroom which were exactly what were predicted by the unit. At first I was skeptical, but as time passed I really learned to use the notes and misconceptions to help me prepare for the lesson. They gave me insight = before class began about what students may understand and misunderstand about science. These notes offered wonderful insight into my students learning and also why learning some conc= epts may be so difficult for them. Before this unit, I had no idea how many misconceptions the students bring with them to the learning situation.
Demonstrations and Videos
I also fou= nd the demonstrations and the videos provided by the curriculum essential for successful implementation. The demonstrations and videos allowed me to experience student-centered learning from the perspective of the student. From the videos, I was able to see the instruction when taught by a seasoned teacher, which then helped me to help my students. The demos allowed me to watch some= one else teach the same material. From them, I was able to get teaching ideas and see how they asked questions whi= le avoiding giving away answers. Towards the end of my unit, I began to shift my focus during the vid= eos away from the instructor and more onto the students.
Besides th= e demos provided by the unit, I also found self-taped videos of my own classroom to= be very helpful in the process toward better facilitating a learner-centered classroom. During the unit I video-taped several of my own lessons and viewed them after school. This allowed me to watch things several times, observe what I was doing well, as well as see areas that I could improve on, and focus on how the students we= re progressing in their learning. From the videos, I was able to see how students were responding to the material and to the instructor. I found that by watching the video= s of myself teach I was better able to see how the students were responding to t= he new techniques as well as review my progress with the new style of teaching= .
Student
attitudes
When we st= arted the new unit, the majority of students seemed pleased. At first, I was not sure if they w= ere just happy about change in general, about doing something new in the classroom. However, as time p= assed, it became clear that the students were enjoying the new experience of active learning.
Throughout= the entire unit, I had only a few students and one parent complain about the new teaching techniques. The students’ complaints were centered on the lack of book work and that = they did not like having to communicate with their peers. The parent complaint c= ame from a concerned school board member/parent who also questioned the lack of book work being completed in the class.&nb= sp; To the students, I responded by asking them to challenge themselves = and give the unit a try. After do= ing so, the students began to change their attitude and became engaged. As for the parent, I found her com= ments interesting as well and provided her with research materials that supported such learning techniques and also invited her to attend class. After attending class, she instant= ly changed her view on the lack of book work and was impressed with the learni= ng that was obviously taking place.
Student comments throughout= the unit included:
“I definitely like do= ing this more”
“I like working with = a group. You can help each other.”
“I like working with = younger kids. I like to help teach them.”
“I like to learn more= science that I didn’t already know”
“I can learn new things”
“I like to share my thoughts”
Challenges
and Successes
Letting Go
It was dif= ficult to teach a style that was not my natural teaching style. It was also not a style that, as a Biology student in college, I had ever experienced. As a result, at the beginning, I o= ften felt as though I was “letting go of my classroom.”
By “= letting go of my classroom” I am referring to the lack of direct control of student learning. I was used = to a more traditional approach to teaching in my classroom. For example, a typic= al day in my classroom would begin with a short quiz, during which I would ask questions directly linked to what I had taught during the previous lessons. I would then lead a = review or recap of what we had been learning, I would give a short segment of note= s, during which I would write the notes on the board and expect the students to copy them. Finally, I would lead a short discussion on the notes and finish with a short demo or student lab to allow them some hands on learning. Looking at this now, it is clear t= o see that I was directing the entire learning process. I was quizzing the studen= ts on what I thought was important, telling them what was important through no= tes, and then finally allowing them to experience it on their own. It seemed to work, in that my stud= ents became very good at memorizing information and regurgitating it back at me.= However, I now realize that there = is more to learning that memorization. I have also learned that the learning process itself is far deeper t= han that. As a result, I am conti= nually working on my teaching to better meet the needs of my students. This project was just one attempt in becoming a better more effective teacher. Now, even though it is clear that I liked to be in control of the learning that occurred within my classroom an= d I have learned that is not the best teaching approach. Change is very difficu= lt, but important.
Using an a= lready created curriculum really helped me to start moving in the right direction. The unit suggested= how to begin class and how to ask probing questions. However, it then gave advice on ho= w to sit back and let the students control where they went with their responses = and answers. My mentor also helpe= d with this greatly, by providing me with additional tools to use as well as reass= ured me that by stepping back did not mean that I was losing control.
Student Interaction
From the f= irst day of the new unit, I worked very hard to study the unit materials to best pre= pare me for the lessons as well as what to expect from the changes. Instantly, I found that the studen= ts enjoyed the freedom, and really rose to the challenge of asking questions a= nd interacting with one another, creating a very positive learning environment. One stressful as= pect however, for me was the increased discussion that was occurring between the students. It sounds silly, bu= t I have always thought of a loud classroom as being a poorly controlled classr= oom and one in which learning was not taking place. Although I could hear that much of= the discussion was positive and group conversations demonstrated the work that = the students were completing, it was clear that they were learning, this was st= ill very hard for me to believe. Suppo= rt from my mentor helped ease this transition and allowed me to gradually modi= fy my own beliefs about teaching and learning.
Beyond the elevated noise level in my classroom, I was also very concerned that without pushing the students along through the material we would not progress throu= gh the necessary content, i.e. “cover the material”. During the first week, the student= s did very well with the changes in presentation of the lessons, but it was not really until the second and third weeks that they really started to push themselves, to ask questions and to begin manipulating information on their own. Students finally began to manipulate the material and take more charge= of their learning, engaging in the curriculum. They began to share their concepti= ons with the class and with me and then challenge those with questions that surprisingly led to wonderful and very beneficial learning experiences. This suggested to me that students= need time, just as I did, to adjust to new learning situations. Students had not previously worked together in such an intense situation. While group work w= as previously used in the classroom, students were not charged with actually engaging each other, challenging ideas, and modifying models.
My favorit= e of all such experiences with my students occurred towards the beginning of the uni= t when we were discussing how food goes through the body. It was very surprising to me how v= ery little the students knew beyond that the food goes in, and eventually comes out. After I realized this, I= then allowed the students to create models of what they thought happened to the food, which we then shared as a class.&nbs= p; As we were sharing the models, there were many discrepancies that the students noticed which led them to begin asking many questions. Now, using the new model of instru= ction, instead of simply answering the questions myself, I had the opportunity to = ask open-ended and challenging questions back to the students that helped them to create t= heir own answers. This was impress= ive and had a powerful effect on changing my beliefs about teaching and learnin= g. The students really were capable of leading the learning process and going far beyond what I ever expected. As = the lessons progressed both the students and I became more and more comfortable with the changes. They learne= d to challenge their own beliefs in search of reasonable and plausible solutions, and I learned that I did not need to lead the learning process directly to = help my students become great learners.
In this new situation, in many ways I became a more critical partner in the students= 217; learning. The students were generating their own questions and, in doing so, they became active learners and were very inquisitive, asking me endless questions. Now, instead of si= mply answering the questions, I tried to pose questions back at the students whi= ch would challenge them to think about all the possible answers. This was again difficult to teach = myself to do. It is a reaction to answer the students’ questions directly instead of making them do so themselves or as a class. But, with time I became better and= as a result, I saw the students utilizing deeper thinking skills than most middl= e school students do on a regular basis.
Beyond the= noise and the giving up direct control, this type of learning was also more diffi= cult to plan for because the students played a larger role in the pace and direc= tion that the class took each day. This was startling at first, but I began to like it. I had been nervous beginning the p= roject that I would lose my role as the instructor/teacher and that was not at all= the case.
Becoming
a Researcher
Bridging t= he gap between teacher and researcher was another important component of this project. This was supported t= hrough the mentor-teacher relationship. Since my mentor was also a researcher/teac= her, the relationship allowed me to stretch myself, seeing my role as more than a distributor of information but also as an important researcher in how stude= nts learn. Having learned about t= he basics of conducting research in my masters coursework, and having conducte= d a short research project during my capstone, this new experience challenged m= e to move into a more active role of researcher rather than student. It also suggested to me that I could engage in research that made a difference to my own teaching, to my students’ learning, and to the practice of other teachers. This was both rewarding and challenging. It also encourages me to= go on in my graduate education.
Relevance for Preparation of Science T=
eachers
As teacher= s are asked to prepare students to demonstrate competence in science and to ready students to meet the challenges of a scientific world, it becomes more and = more important for teacher preparation programs to also meet this challenge to prepare highly competent teachers of science. Even in innovative teacher preparation programs such as the competency based program at Western Govern= ors University, students often find that they fall back on old patterns and strategies even though they were exposed to the latest learning and teaching theory. This suggests that we may not be providing enough support and pract= ice to allow teachers to work through their own beliefs and practices leading to lasting change. Without this it seems impossible for the teacher to continue when the every day problems of school, such as state mandated testing, dist= rict policies, and social issues arise. Helping teachers to work through the “messiness” of trying new curriculum while being supported by university staff may be one way to meet this challenge. This case study provides important information for further investigating the use of authent= ic research in teacher preparation.
From this = case study the teacher was able to explore the effects that a learner-centered classroom had on the students but more importantly on herself as the teache= r. By monitoring her own success and documenting the process of change we believe that she will not only be able apply this new understanding to other teaching situations and content, but = also help other science teachers who want to engage in innovative teaching pedag= ogy but do not know how or where to start. From a research perspective, this ca= se study provides a beginning step in understanding how we can begin to bridge= the gap between research and practice. We also have begun to understand at a de= eper level the process that teachers undergo as they challenge prior models of teaching and learning and move toward change. This will allow us to develop more effective support materials and training strategies that we hope will resul= t in long term change.
Such resea= rch is necessary in order to assist preservice and inservice teachers to understand that the teaching takes time - time to learn new techniques, time to adapt = to changes in the students and in how material is presented. Such documentation may encourage teachers to step out of their comfort zone and try new methods that have been proven to improve student comprehension and that are based on the standards.
Beyond simply motivating teachers and off= ering reassurance to them about the challenges of learning a new technique, furth= er research could teach us how to better ‘teach’ our science educa= tors. Such improvements could include mo= re student-centered classroom activities, computer animations or demos to illustrate science concepts. =
There is always room for improvement in how we teach our educators as well as how we teach our students. We believe that the experiences shared in this case study help to improve classroom instruction through the discussion of actual classroom experiences and shared successes= and failures. Further study needs to be undertaken with a larger group of teach= ers.
Referenc=
es
Ashton, P.T. & Webb, R.B.
(1986). Making a differen=
ce:
Teacher’s sense of efficacy and student achievement.
Çakiroglu, J., Çakiroglu, E, & Boone, W. (2005). Pre-Service teacher self-ef=
ficacy
beliefs regarding science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in=
de Kleer & Brown, (1981). Mental models of phy=
sical
mechanisms and their acquisition. &nb=
sp; In
J.R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition.
Grossligh= t, L., Unger, C., Jay, A. & Smith, C. L. (1991) Understanding models and their= use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. = Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
Johnson-L=
aird,
P.N. (1983). Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive S=
cience
of Language, Influence, and Consciousness.
Univers= ity Press.
Rea-Ramirez,
M. A. (1998). Models of
Conceptual Understanding in Human Respiration and Strategies for Instructio=
n. DAI - 9909208,
Rea-Ramir=
ez, M.
A., Nunez-Oviedo, M. C., Clement, J., & Else, M. J. (2005). Energy in the Human Body Curriculum.