TEACHING SCIENCE FOR CONCEPTUAL CHANGE:

teaching SCIENCE for CONCEPT= UAL CHANGE:

A TAXONOMY OF DIAGNOSTIC TEACHING STRATEGIES TO GAUGE STUDENTS= 217; PERSONAL SCIENCE CONCEPTIONS

Richard E. Shope I= II, World Space Foundation

Abstract

Science education, as all education, should lead to independent self-activity. It should empower individuals to think and to act. It should give individuals = new ideas and investigative skills that contribute to self-regulation, personal satisfaction, and social responsibility. Knowledge that is richly interconnected, intellectual skill that allows individuals to work with wha= t is known, and an awareness of the contexts within which that knowledge and tho= se skills apply—all of this should be a part of science education. (DeBo= er, 1991, p. 240)

&= nbsp; This study was framed by a view of the global importance of science education as expressed by DeBoer in the quote above, in essence, a conviction that scien= ce education provides a viable approach to comprehending the world and its phenomena.

&= nbsp; Science instruction aims to ensure that students properly construct scientific knowledge so that each individual may play a role as a science literate cit= izen or as part of the science workforce (National Research Council, 1996). Stud= ents enter the classroom with a wide range of personal conceptions regarding sci= ence phenomena, often at variance with prevailing scientific views (Duschl, Hamilton, & Grandy, 1992; Hewson, 1992). The extensive misconceptions research literature emphasizes the importance of diagnosing students’ initial understandings in order to gauge the accuracy and depth of what each student knows prior to instruction and then to use that information to adapt the teaching to address student needs. (Ausubel, 1968; Carey, 2000; Driver = et al., 1985; Karplus & Thier, 1967; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1998; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Project 2061, 1993; Strike & Posner, 1982, 1992; Vygotsky, 1934/1987). To gain such insight, teachers diagnose not only the content of the students’ personal conceptions but also the thinki= ng processes that produced them (Strike and Posner, 1992). Indeed, when teache= rs design opportunities for students to express their understanding, there is strong evidence that such diagnostic assessment also enhances science teach= ing and learning (Black & William, 1998).

&= nbsp; Just as in medical practice, diagnosis forms an integral and systematic part of every good doctor’s repertoire, so in science teaching practice, diagnosis has the potential of becoming an integral and systematic part of every good teacher’s repertoire. To care for the patient’s well-being, the doctor must probe the prior existing conditions of the patient’s health, and start from there. Likewise, to care for each of their student’s well-being with respect to understanding of science, = teachers must diagnose each student's prior science conceptions and start from there.

&= nbsp; Diagnostic teaching strategies are those that evoke, interpret, and involve active stu= dent expression of what they know or thi= nk they know prior to instruction as they encounter a science phenomenon. = Of central importance is the yield of useful information that indicates the initial or emerging condition of the student’s conceptual understandi= ng. Those instances of diagnosis that evoke the most active and thoughtful expressions of a student’s personal science conceptions, in both quan= tity and quality, afford the greatest opportunities for teachers to gain diagnos= tic insight and to consider the plausibility of the conceptions from the student’s perspective. Diagnosis is followed by a resultant act of teaching that is strategically responsive to the diagnostic insight gained, aimed at optimizing student progress toward advanced understanding of viable scientific knowledge. Thus diagnosi= s and differentiation work hand in hand. =

The functional knowledge of effective science teaching practice resides in the professional practitioners at the front lines— the science teachers in the classroom. Nevertheless, how teachers actually engage in the practice of diagnosis is not well documented. To help fill this gap, the researcher conducted a study of 16 sixth grade science classrooms in four Los Angeles = area middle schools. Diagnostic teaching strategies were observed in action and = then followed up by interviews with each teacher. Results showed that teachers u= se a range of strategies that vary by the

complexity of active student involvement, including pretests, strategic questions, interactive discussion, participatory demonstration, active inqu= iry, and metacognitive dialogue. Based on extensive science teaching experience,= the researcher also identified a strategy utilizing the principle of mimesis, evoking dramatic enactments of science concepts (Shope & Chapman, 2001). Each strategy involves progressively increasing complexity of active expres= sion of what students know prior to instruction, yielding different levels of us= eful information.

Diagnosis was observed to be more vigorous among teachers who also: a) expressed a high sense of instructional efficacy, b) indicated a high estimation of students’ l= earning potential, c) exhibited adaptive agility, and d) evidenced well-negotiated student self-regulation. These findings guided the construction of a taxono= my of diagnostic teaching strategies to gauge students’ personal science conceptions. The taxonomy may provide a fruitful structure to guide future research and professional development of science teaching practice.

References=

Ausubel, D. P. (1968) Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View= New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

<= o:p>

Black, P.= , & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, (2). 139-148.

&nbs= p;

Carey, S.= (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 13-19.

&nbs= p;

DeBoer, G= . E. (1991). A history of ideas in scien= ce education: Implications for practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Pr= ess.

&nbs= p;

Driver, R= ., Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, England: The Open University Pre= ss.

&nbs= p;

Duschl, R= . A. & Hamilton, R. J. (Eds.) (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

&nbs= p;

Hewson. P= . W. (1992, June). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at a meeting on “Research and Curriculum Development in Science Teaching,” under the auspices of the National Center for Educational Research, Documentation, and Assessment, Ministry for Education and Science, Madrid, Spain.

&nbs= p;

Karplus, = R. & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look and elementary school science: Science curriculum improvement study. Chicag= o, IL: Rand McNally & Company.

&nbs= p;

Mintzes, = J. J. Wandersee, J. H. and Novak, J. D. (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

&nbs= p;

National = Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

&nbs= p;

Osborne, = R. & Freyberg, P. (Ed.) (1985). Learning= in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Publishers.

&nbs= p;

Project 2= 061, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. N= ew York, NY: Oxford University Press.

&nbs= p;

Shope, R.= and Chapman, L. (2001). The space exploration team inquiry model: Linking NASA = to urban education initiatives. Association for Science Teacher Education, 2001 Proceedings.

&nbs= p;

Strike. K. A. & Posn= er, G.J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European &n= bsp; = ; Journal of Science Education, 4, 3, 231-240.

Strike. K. A. &= amp; Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In Duschl, = R. A. & Hamilton, R. J. (Eds.) (1992). Philosophy of science, cognitive &nb= sp; psychology, and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.=

&nbs= p;

Vygotsky,= L.S. (1934/1987). Thinking and Speech. <= /i>In Rieber, R. W. & Carton, A.S. (Eds.) (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology). New York: Plenum Press.<= o:p>

For Further Information, contact:

Richard E. Shope III, Ed.D.

Education Director

World Space Foundation<= /p>

email: <= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Palatino'>shope@worldspacefoundation.= us

tel:&nbs= p; (562) 201-7889