=
Inquiry
and the Teaching of Electricity and Magnetism: An Online Course for Teacher=
s
<= o:p>
Mary V. Mawn,
Chris Emery, University=
of
Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract
This paper will describe an online introductory physics course
designed for teachers of the upper elementary and middle school grades. &nb=
sp;A
significant feature of this course is a design that supports increasing
students’ knowledge and skills of both content and pedagogy through a
combined use of text materials, laboratory kit and discussions/interactions
with peers and instructors. B=
ased
on informal data collection, we believe that upon completing the course,
students have increased content knowledge as well as confidence and enthusi=
asm
for teaching this material in their school settings.
Introduction
The
Glenn Commission report, Before It'=
s Too
Late (2000), states that better mathematics and science teaching is
grounded in improving the quality of teacher preparation and in making
continuing professional education available for all teachers. With the call=
for
states to put highly-qualified teachers in every public school classroom (No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S. Department of Education, nd), there is a
great need to provide science teachers with on-going and relevant professio=
nal
development and certification opportunities.
In
the past, accumulating a specified number of credit hours in a particular
discipline was indicative of content mastery. However, researchers have com=
e to
see that much more is needed for teachers to acquire a deep understanding of
the discipline and its practices (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994; Kennedy,
1999). In a study of 2,829 students from the Longitudinal Study of American
Youth, it was found that while teachers’ content preparation was
positively related to student achievement in mathematics and science, teach=
er
education coursework also had positive effects on student learning and
sometimes had “more powerful effects than additional preparation in t=
he
content area" (Monk, 1994; SE Center for Teaching Quality, 2002). Similarly, in a review of 65 studi=
es of
science teachers' characteristics and behaviors, Druva and Anderson (1983)
found students' science achievement was positively related to the teachers'
course taking background in both education and science (Darling-Hammond, 20=
00).
The
National Science Education Standards (NSES) summarizes the first three
professional development standards as learning science, learning to teach
science, and learning to learn. (The fourth standard addresses the
characteristics of quality professional development programs.) Recommendations for the profession=
al
development of teachers include: involve teachers in actively investigating
phenomena that can be studied scientifically; build on the teacher's current
science understanding, ability, and attitudes; incorporate reflection on the
process and outcomes of understanding science through inquiry; encourage and
support collaboration among teachers; make connections between science and
science teaching; build on teachers' current knowledge of science content,
teaching, and learning; model and guide science teaching practice; and prov=
ide
opportunities for reflection, feedback, and support during professional
development activities (NRC, 1996).
Having
access to professional development programs can be problematic, particularl=
y in
rural areas. To obtain the necessary training, and with the closest training
center sometimes several hours away, rural teachers often must deal with
significant time and travel constraints, which can be further exacerbated by
budget pressures. Teachers wo=
rking
in vast suburbs with widely distributed school districts also face similar
travel difficulties, while teachers in urban districts with large numbers of
in-service days and increased classroom hours face time constraints (Pittin=
sky,
2005). To address these issue=
s,
online professional development courses and programs can provide convenient
alternatives for teachers who do not have access to traditional learning
opportunities based on geographic remoteness, time, or both.
While
growing numbers of universities and colleges are offering graduate programs
online, only a few offer programs in science education (Viadero, 2003). A
search of the 894 online programs found in the SLOAN-C catalog
(http://www.sloan-c.org/programs/), a consortium of institutions and
organizations committed to quality online education, lists only six masters
programs in science education (Drexel, East Carolina State, Florida State, =
and
Lesley Universities, UMassOnline, and the University of Texas System
Telecampus). These programs provide varying degrees of science content and
pedagogy, but one program in particular combines the expertise of science
faculty with science educators to develop science and science education cou=
rses
steeped in inquiry and are tied to state and national standards.
Offered
through UMassOnline, Science Education Online (SEO) at the
The
SEO course, Inquiry and the Teachin=
g of
Electricity and Magnetism, is an online introductory physics course app=
ropriate
for teachers of grades 5-8 consistent with state and national standards. Co=
urse
content includes the topics of static electricity, current electricity and
circuits, and magnetism and electromagnetism. In addition to providing a
foundation in physics content, inquiry-based investigations and lab activit=
ies
are an integral part of the course.
This paper will outline course design and strategies used by the cou=
rse
instructors (the authors), as well as describe lessons learned while develo=
ping
and teaching this online course.
Course Overview
Inquiry
and the Teaching of Electricity and Magnetism
&nb=
sp; The
purpose of this course is to provide an introduction to the basic concepts =
of
electricity and magnetism appropriate for teachers of grades 5-8 and consis=
tent
with the National Science Education Standards. Several assignments require studen=
ts to
review their own state frameworks documents and content-related learning
standards. We have found that
including focused discussion topics in this area has helped teachers become
more aware of both the similarities and differences that exist in expectati=
ons
for student learning across the
&nb=
sp; One
of the significant outcomes of this course should be the participants' abil=
ity
to recognize and utilize the skills of inquiry learning in the design and
implementation of science curricula in their own classrooms. Skills such as:
designing investigations; collecting, organizing and presenting data;
identifying patterns; using math as a tool for analysis, and a basis for ma=
king
inferences; communicating with others using "scientific language";
learning to ask new questions and to redesign investigations based on new, =
but
perhaps incomplete understanding is presented and reinforced throughout the
course. During the study of circuits, for example, students design and buil=
d a
conductivity tester which will then allow them to classify materials as
conductors and insulators. In the study of electromagnets, Oersted's discov=
ery
provides the basis for investigating the variables which affect the nature =
and
strength of an electromagnet. Threaded discussion activities, as well as mo=
re
formal assignments involving model lesson plans, provide a mechanism for
sharing and critiquing ideas and outcomes.
&nb=
sp; Our
goals for the course are reflected in the student objectives, each of which=
is
supported through a specific learning activity and assignment:
Objectives
Upon successful
completion of this course, the student will have:
<=
span
style=3D'color:black;font-weight:normal;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>Texts and
Materials
&nb=
sp; This
course is supported by a number of books and other resources; it is not
designed to be a “sit at the terminal to complete all work”
class. Students are expected =
to
complete a number of investigations/activities using the kit of parts that
supports the learning of concepts in electricity and magnetism. The books include both factual,
background information on the topics as well as sample student and/or teach=
er
learning activities. The cour=
se
reading packet includes journal article reprints as well as additional samp=
le
guided-inquiry student activities (Operation Physics), and although some of=
these
resources could have been accessed via electronic means, it was our decisio=
n to
provide students with hard-copy versions of these readings.
&nb=
sp; Required
texts and materials for this course include:
Text: Schafer, L.E. 2000. Taking
Charge: An Introduction to Electricity.
Text: Livingston, J.D. 1996. Dr=
iving
Force: The Natural Magic of Magnets.
Course Reading Packet: Journal
articles and book excerpts for use with reflection papers; magnetism lab
activity sheets.
Lab Kit: #790-1255 Emery Intro =
to
Electricity & Simple Circuits. Delta Education.
National Research Council (NRC). 1=
996.
National Science Education Standards.
Massachusetts Department of Educat=
ion.
To find Standards/framework for any
state, go to Developing Educational Standards.
http://edstandards.org/Standards.html
Course
Assignments
All
course assignments were designed to support both the teachers’ learni=
ng,
and their preparation of materials for use both in their own classroom and =
as a
potential professional development resource within their schools. Sections =
of
the Course Reading Packet provided foundation readings which teachers were
encouraged to supplement with a combination of related material they may ha=
ve
been familiar with, or through a literature search of their own design.
Course
assignments and activities include:
=
Threaded
Discussions: Students
are expected to participate in two discussion sessions each week, with
“participation” being defined as consisting of both a response =
to the
topic item, and at least one comment related to another student’s
posting. Students are reminde=
d that
this forum is replacing the normal verbal interactions - both student to
instructor, and student to student - which take place in a classroom. To emphasize the importance of this
component of the coursework – as we perceive it – this activity
counts as 25 percent of the course grade.
&=
nbsp; Reflecti=
on
Paper: The two reflection papers are
intended to provide an opportunity for students to link relevant readings
(areas of inquiry, curriculum/lesson design, structuring learning, assessme=
nt
etc.) with classroom practice. We
have focused on the topics of inquiry and assessment, and support these wri=
ting
exercises by the inclusion of related discussion topic questions near the
due-dates for these assignments.
Reflection papers count for 10 percent of the course grade.
&=
nbsp; Weekly
Quizzes: Throughout the course, ther=
e are
five, five-question multiple choice question quizzes. These are not designed to probe fo=
r deep
understanding of content, but rather to ensure that students have a minimum
comprehension of some of the fundamental ideas (and in many cases, facts)
related to the course content.
Quizzes count for 12.5 percent of the course grade.
&nbs=
p; Lesson/Activity
Plans: Teachers
need to develop two lesson or extended activity plans during the course.
&nbs=
p; Web
Reviews: Students
complete two Web review assignments each consisting of producing an annotat=
ed
bibliography of at least four sites.
The goal of this assignment is to help teachers become a=
ware of
appropriate technology-related resources, and have the ability to access an=
d use
these with students. This
assignment constitutes 10 percent of the course grade.
&nbs=
p; E-Journal:
=
Students
are expected to keep a “journal” – recording comments abo=
ut
their own learning process, ideas for use in the classroom, modifications a=
nd
other information related to student activities, new questions generated du=
ring
the course, etc. Twice during=
the
course, they submit (privately, for the instructor’s use only) excerp=
ts
or summaries from the most recent week’s writing. Journaling is worth 12.5 percent o=
f the
course grade.
&nbs=
p; Final
Project: The purpose of the=
final
project is for students to incorporate information and/or material from the
course - which should include both content and pedagogy - in a product which
has some value or benefit in the school setting. Examples include:
&nb=
sp; Write
a unit plan for use by yourself or others in the building (new teachers, or
those who may not be teaching science, for example). It should include some
connection to research in teaching (Reading Packet or related material),
content, methodology, and assessment;
&nb=
sp; Write
a proposal for an innovative teaching model. This might be aimed at an
administrator - or someone you need to convince to support your project. The
work would describe the rationale, goals, project "substance", and
evaluation of project;
&nb=
sp; Write
a grant proposal - this work would support the way(s) in which you would use
the funding to support some teaching and learning project for your classroo=
m,
or school. Keep in mind that if this is a business/industry funding source,
state frameworks are a critical element, and you might want to also include
reference to the technology/engineering learning standards.
Throughout
the course, students are encouraged to begin thinking about this piece of t=
he
course requirement, and to continually collect and organize material and
information that might be included in it.&=
nbsp;
This project constitutes 20 percent of the course grade.
&nb=
sp; The
course was intentionally designed to integrate the teaching of physics cont=
ent,
in this case electricity and magnetism, with pedagogy. Although it has long been our phil=
osophy
that this approach “makes sense” when providing professional
development experiences for elementary and middle school teachers, it is
reassuring to note that studies also support this idea.
In a 1=
994
analysis of student performance and the science and mathematics subject mat=
ter
preparation of their teachers, Monk reported a positive relationship between
student gains in performance and the number of courses their teachers had t=
aken
in the subject taught. What is more, Monk also found that coursework in sub=
ject
matter pedagogy (i.e., teaching methods) appears to contribute more to stud=
ent
performance than academic courses in the subject taught. (http://nces.ed.go=
v/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/2_2.asp)
In
the first three offerings of the course, we have focused on two areas,
incorporating the process of inquiry in science teaching, and assessing stu=
dent
understanding. Several journal
article reprints were included in the Course Reading Packet with the intent=
of
providing “seed” material for students in the class. In addition, we suggested and supp=
orted
the use of outside resources that teachers may have identified or found use=
ful
through other professional development experiences.
In
addition, other course assignments (Lesson plans, Web Reviews, Journal entr=
ies
and Threaded Discussions) provided the opportunity for teachers to share
knowledge and approaches to implementing techniques for making the process =
of
teaching science in the middle and elementary classrooms a positive experie=
nce
for students and teachers alike.
Examples of student work, or comments, making connections between
content concepts and pedagogical content include:
“After four weeks of playing with various equipment and studying
electricity I am happy with my results and happy with my learning. The approach has not only been a
successful tool for me to learn but an example of how I can teach my kids.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Promoting inquiry through experime=
nts
and activities in my class as we have been doing in this class is definitel=
y a fun
and successful approach to teaching”
·
In addition to the hands-on
activities and the related discussions, the journals also served to provide=
a
connection between content, and teaching/learning. While keeping journals –
reflecting, making entries, reviewing and identifying excerpts to share =
211;
teachers made frequent reference to having new ideas for developing teaching
techniques, and approaches to engaging their students in the process of doi=
ng
science.
·
On a number of occasions,
photographs depicting related phenomena (hair standing on end due to a char=
ged
balloon, compass needle pointing toward a nail, modification of wiring to
simple circuits) were included in the course with a leading question, and
suggestion for student comments.
This technique triggered some interesting discussions, but perhaps of
greater importance, resulted in teachers generating new and interesting ide=
as
for either using photographs in their own classroom, or designing a student
activity based on similar stimuli. <=
/span>And,
it provided a motivation for students (teachers) to develop
“settings”, then take and post digital photographs for the clas=
s as
a whole. As a result of this
activity, it appears that this use of technology in the distance learning
environment provides a rich opportunity to initiate discussions around: making predictions, identifying
pre-/misconceptions, "constructing" knowledge, examples of how so=
me
teachers have perspectives that other’s hadn’t thought of, and =
of
how this approach could be used in the learning environment of their own
classrooms.
<= o:p>
=
The
WebCT Vista discussion board was used to foster interaction among all
participants in the class. On=
e of
the questions raised during the design of this course was how to create and
support an environment that would provide a mechanism for exchanging
information among members of the class.&nb=
sp;
How can we “replace” the opportunity for dialogue and
discussion that takes place in the live classroom? A precursor to this course had been
taught for a number of years in a classroom setting (Emery and Murray, Phys=
ics
100, UMass-Amherst, 1995 – 2001) where students regularly engaged in
hands-on activities supported by small group conversations and whole-class
discussions.
=
Several
features emerged during the process of designing the threaded discussion
component of the online course; in retrospect, it appears that they may ser=
ve
the purpose of being a cohesive force for other pieces. A primary consideration – an=
d one
which could perhaps lead to interesting debate – was to assign a
significant point value (25% of course grade) to participation in this part=
of
the course. Our rationale for=
this
decision was based on a desire to encourage – perhaps “force=
221;
– student interactions in this potentially isolating teaching/learning
environment. Other features o=
f the
Threaded Discussion include:
Although
guidelines were provided for all assignments, “directions” were
broad enough to encourage and support individuality in completing the
tasks. This design feature of=
the
course was also the result of thought and discussion by the instructors, wh=
ere
two factors – one more a “philosophy” than a factor ̵=
1;
shaped the final decision making.
Fundamental to the idea of providing broad descriptions of assignment
products was the goal of encouraging students – all of whom were work=
ing
at the graduate level – to “take ownership” of the task, =
or
assignment, and make some thoughtful decisions about how to best approach t=
he
work. In more than a few case=
s,
significant e-mail dialogue took place between students and instructors pri=
or
to assignment due-dates. Rath=
er
than viewing this as being unnecessary, and time inefficient, it was found =
to
be a beneficial extension of the process of completing an assignment. Perhaps a “pre-conference=
221;
should be a mandatory part of many assignments in the distance learning
environment?
A
second factor that played a role in the design of assignment guidelines was
based on the recognition that students were coming from backgrounds that we=
re
more different than similar. =
Not
only was there a range of grade levels being taught by teachers in the class
(elementary through middle school), but there was also a diverse geographic
distribution. By providing the
opportunity for students to tailor their assignment products to local needs=
, we
demonstrated that we were both serious and sincere about wanting the assign=
ment
products to be useful to students (teachers), and not merely the completion=
of
coursework “tasks”. The
Lesson Plan assignments (two Lesson Plans throughout the course) provide
another example of how students were encouraged to have input in assignment
design. Rather than provide a
criteria “list”, or rubric for what a high-quality Lesson Plan
should consist of, we asked students (via one of the Threaded Discussion
questions) to discuss their perceptions – which in many cases are con=
strained
by building administrators or local school boards – of what constitut=
ed a
Lesson Plan. Key
“features” from all students’ postings were included in a
class-guideline for completing this assignment, but with the recognition by=
all
that the product for each student would be a reflection of local needs.
Posting Assignments in Common Areas
– Generating/Sharing Resources and Valuing Work Products Developed Wi=
thin
the Class
=
As
the course was taught multiple times, modifications to assignment structures
and procedures were made. One,
which proved to be beneficial, involved having students post selected
assignments in common areas that would be accessible to all class members, =
not
just the instructors. This re=
sulted
in the compilation of a valuable student-generated resource
“library” of curriculum related materials which was shared by a=
ll
in the course. During the mos=
t recent
teaching of the class (Summer 2006), the Web Reviews and Lesson Plans were
posted to common areas, for a total of four contributed works per student.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Student reaction to this approach =
for
sharing course products was positive, and as an instructional model it prov=
ided
reinforcement of the idea that students’ work is viewed by the
instructors as not merely being the completing of an assignment, but the
development of worthwhile resource material.
The sh=
aring
is extremely helpful for me - I think I need much more of this, and am very
much appreciating the opportunities to ask questions, see examples from oth=
ers,
and get feedback "off the job" - the opportunity to "see&quo=
t;
at least slices of what others do in their classrooms, and what other
situations require/don't require/provide (or don't) in the way of support -=
I
am just beginning to scratch the surface of these extremely useful
opportunities.
=
Often,
when comparing the delivery of on-line and face-to-face classes, the focus =
of
both thought and discussion centers on what can’t be done in the dist=
ance
learning mode. This example of
collaboratively sharing student work – electronically, without the ne=
ed
for hard-copy duplication of papers – provides an example of how the =
use
of technology can provide a valuable and worthwhile component to the course
design.
Summary and Lessons Learned
=
The online course, Inquiry and the Teaching of Electricity and Magnetism, provided
elementary and middle school teachers with an introduction to the basic
concepts of electricity and magnetism consistent with state and national
standards. Participants engag=
ed in
a variety of inquiry-based activities and reflected on the use of inquiry in
science and science education. The online nature of the course allowed for
extensive and ongoing interactions among all participants, unlike the typic=
al
face-to-face course where such exchanges are limited in duration and where
every voice may not be heard.
Asynchronous interactions also allowed for opportunities for reflect=
ion
and served as a valuable resource for teachers, where feedback, ideas, and
support were readily shared among all course participants.
=
Developing,
teaching and revising this online course has been a worthwhile
“professional development” opportunity and learning experience =
for
us, as well as for our classroom teacher audience. In the spirit of sharing what̵=
7;s
been learned, and for the use of others as appropriate, we offer the follow=
ing:
Acknowledgements
Course
development funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF/ESI 0243536).
References
Anderson, R. D. &
Mitchener, C. P. (1994). "Research on science teacher education."=
In
D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A
project of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 3-44).
Darling-Hammond, L. (20=
00).
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8:1.&n=
bsp;
Retrieved on June 21, 2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.
Glenn, J. (2000). Before
It’s Too Late, A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Retrieved July 30, 2=
006
from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999).
"The role of preservice teacher education." In Darling-Hammond, L.
and Sykes, G. Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Teaching and
Policy (pages 54-86).
McMillen Seastrom, M.,
Gruber, K.J., Henke, R., McGrath, D.J., Cohen, B.A. (2003). Qualifications =
of
the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching
1987–88 to 1999–2000. Education Statistics Quarterly, 4:3. Retrieved December 31, 2006 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/2_2.asp.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Sub=
ject
area preparation of secondary math and science teachers and student
achievement. Economics of education review 13(2), 125-145.
National Research Counc=
il.
(1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academies Press:
Pittinsky, M. (2005). No
Teacher Left Behind: Online learning tools provide the foundations for toda=
y's
professional development programs. T.H.E. Journal, 32(11), pages 32-34.
The
Viadero, D. (2003). Onl=
ine
Master's Program for Teachers Shows Promise. Education Week, 22:39, p.8.