EXPLORING PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ CRITIQUE AND
ADAPTATION OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIALS IN RESPECT TO SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES
Cory T. Forbes,
Elizabeth A.
Davis,
Abstract
The work presented here represents
a preliminary effort undertaken to address the crucial role of the teacher in
supporting students’ learning and decision-making about socioscientific issues,
particularly through their use of curriculum materials. The objectives of this pilot study were to characterize
preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum
materials dealing with socioscientific issues and identify factors that serve
to mediate this process. Four undergraduate
preservice elementary teachers in an elementary science teaching methods course
were studied over the course of one semester.
Results from the study indicate that the teachers critiqued and adapted
curriculum materials dealing with socioscientific issues in ways that were both
consistent and inconsistent with their previous work in the science methods
course. Also, the teachers’ subject-matter
knowledge, informal reasoning about socioscientific issues, and their role
identity (especially in regard to value-neutral practice) emerged as mediating
factors in their efforts. Implications
for science teacher education and the design of curriculum materials,
particularly those intended to be educative for teachers, are discussed.
Theoretical
Framework
In recent years, an increasingly robust body of research has emerged addressing socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education (e.g., Kolsto, 2001; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a, 2005b; Seethaler & Linn, 2004; Zeider, Sadler, Applebaum, Callahan, & Amiri, 2005). Socioscientific issues are those that exist at the intersection between science and the broader social context in which the products and processes of science are situated (e.g., stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, climate change). They are typically part of public discourse, contentious in nature, and require a certain set of skills and abilities from those engaged in reasoning and argumentation about them. While the recent marked growth in SSI-related research suggests a renewed interest within science education, these topics have historically served as foundational elements of various disciplinary perspectives within the field (DeBoer, 1991; Turner & Sullenger, 1999), including those which emphasize the history and philosophy of science (HPS) and science, technology, and society (STS). Even within the current paradigmatic focus on constructivist, inquiry-oriented teaching and learning, the explicit link between science and students’ lived, real-world experience has been a cornerstone of project-based science classrooms (Crawford, 2000). The current science education policy environment, however, provides a strong impetus for further articulation of the role of SSI in science teaching and learning. The importance of an educated public capable of engaging in such topics has been acknowledged in various science standards documents (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996) and ‘science literacy for all’ has become a defining characteristic of science education reform efforts. Despite the relative youth of this research strand (Sadler, 2004b), it has contributed significantly to our understanding of students’ reasoning about SSI (Seethaler & Linn, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a), their requisite knowledge and affective orientations (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b; Sadler, 2004a), and effective SSI-based instructional frameworks around which to design learning environments (Kolsto, 2001; Zeider et al., 2005).
Even within the growing corpus of research on socioscientific issues in science education, the teacher’s many roles, as well as relevant implications for science teacher education, remain relatively unexplored (Sadler et al., in press). Much of the SSI research thus far has pertained to teachers only indirectly if at all, being focused primarily on students. However, some inroads are being made. Zeidler and colleagues (2005) recently reported on one teacher’s implementation a year-long, SSI-based secondary science curriculum meant to engage students in authentic discourse about various cross-disciplinary topics. They found that the teacher’s approach to science teaching within the context of an SSI framework involved a complex interplay of forms of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge, as well as a fundamental conceptualization of practice itself. What this suggests is that SSI-based instruction involves complex integration of multiple forms of knowledge in practice, a finding which reinforces dominant perspectives on a knowledge base for teaching.
However, many questions remain. How, for example, is science teaching within an SSI-based instructional framework, or teaching about SSI at all, unique in the demands it places on teachers? Teaching remains highly context-dependent so the treatment of SSI in science classrooms will, by default, be influenced by the myriad of knowledge, beliefs, values, and elements of identity students and teachers bring to these complex settings. Sadler and colleagues’ (in press) recent work suggests that middle and secondary science teachers almost uniformly acknowledge the significance of normative dimensions of science though exhibit extreme diversity in how their knowledge and beliefs coalesce in their descriptions of practice. What knowledge, beliefs, and/or orientations towards practice are required by teachers in order for them to effectively scaffold students’ learning about SSI? Due to the positioning of SSIs at the intersection of science and society, they inherently involve not only knowledge forms but normative questions as well, including moral and ethical considerations (Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Science teacher educators must work to learn more about how science teachers’ thinking about these issues influences practice which, in turn, largely determines the nature of students’ learning opportunities.
Beginning Elementary Teachers and Socioscientific
Issues
Promoting
science literacy consistent with the vision set out in National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(AAAS, 1993) is, however, just one of the many challenges novice elementary
teachers face relative to science teaching (
These factors have a profound effect on how elementary teachers approach and engage in science teaching practice. Just as subject-matter knowledge serves as a crucial dimension of the knowledge base for elementary teaching (Smith & Neale, 1989), so too does it influence the strength of undergraduate students’ reasoning about socicioscientific issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b). In addition to subject-matter knowledge, the development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999), or complex subject-specific knowledge for teaching, is prioritized as a primary goal for teacher learning. SSI-rich instructional contexts may well provide a productive context which promotes teachers’ development of integrated knowledge structures, including pedagogical content knowledge (Zeidler et al., 2005). While science teachers may view ethical and moral dimensions of science as important (Sadler et al., in press), this may not become an equally important dimension of their developing professional identity if not explicitly supported in teacher education programs or observed in authentic classroom settings.
Beginning Teachers, Curriculum Materials, and
Socioscientific Issues
One particularly salient challenge new teachers face is learning to effectively use curriculum materials in practice. While recent research has focused on teachers’ use of SSI-focused curricula (Zeidler et al., 2005), teachers’ access to well-developed, standards-based, innovative curriculum materials designed around SSI is limited. Thus, efforts to infuse socioscientific issues into science teaching and learning will likely require modification and adaptation of existing science curriculum materials by teachers. This is, however, in conflict with the view taken by many curriculum developers, who view curricula as static or inert agents in the ‘remote control’ of teaching (Shulman, 1983). It is no wonder, then, that many preservice teachers share this view of curriculum materials (Haney & McArthur, 2002; Southerland & Gess-Newsome, 1999), thus predisposing them to certain forms of interaction with such documents and artifacts.
We, on the other hand, adhere to a different perspective, consistent with recent research on the teacher-curriculum relationship, in which teachers are viewed as active agents in real-time, classroom-based curriculum design (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Remillard, 2005). Teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials, based in the myriad of knowledge, beliefs, values, and professional identity they bring with them to teaching, influence how they will interact with curriculum materials and enact them in practice (Enyedy, Goldberg & Welsh, 2006; Remillard & Bryans, 2004). Such interactions are inherently situated (Greeno and the Middle School Mathematics Through Application Project Group, 1998), thus serving to create a strong connection between the individual teacher and the context in which they engage in particular activity. This is an active, participatory relationship (Remillard, 2005) which emphasizes the role of curriculum materials as both cultural tools (Vygotsky, 1978) that serve to mediate social activity and as object of goal-oriented activity (Engestrom, 1987) undertaken by teachers.
Elementary teachers are therefore forced to draw upon a multitude of science curriculum resources in an effort to craft effective science teaching practice for socioscientific issues. Even in cases where innovative, SSI-focused curriculum materials are available, they make decisions about existing curriculum materials in an effort to adapt them to the particular needs of their teaching contexts (Barab & Luehmann, 2003; Baumgartner, 2004; Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003; Squire et al., 2003). This authentic dimension of practice can be characterized as a teacher’s pedagogical design capacity (Brown & Edelson, 2003), or his or her ability to draw on variety of resources to adapt curriculum materials toward constructive ends. Often times, however, such modifications are inconsistent with the intentions of curriculum materials developers, whether in mathematics (Cohen, 1990; Collopy, 2003; Putnam, 1992; Remillard, 1999) or science (Enyedy et al., 2006; Schneider et al., 2005).
With support, however, novice teachers can learn to make effective adaptive decisions regarding existing curriculum materials. One way to support teachers’ work with science curricula is through the development of educative curriculum materials (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Schneider & Krajcik, 2002), or those that are designed promote teacher learning as well as student learning. Science teacher educators also play a crucial role in helping preservice elementary teachers learn to both effectively critique (Davis, in press) and make principled decisions upon which their local adaptation of existing science curriculum materials is founded, especially in regard to the value-laden landscape of socioscientific issues.
In order to
better inform these efforts, it is necessary to learn more about how preservice
elementary teachers use science curriculum materials, the relationship between
curriculum materials and teachers’ practice and learning, and contextual
factors mediating their interaction with science curriculum materials. The work
presented here is aimed at illuminating one salient dimension of teachers’
practice, specifically preservice elementary teachers’ use of science
curriculum materials, as it relates to the treatment of socioscientific issues
in elementary science learning environments.
The
objectives of this pilot study were to investigate the ways in which preservice
elementary teachers critique and adapt science curriculum materials dealing
with socioscientific issues and identify factors that mediate this process. The
research questions are:
Methods &
Organization
This study took
place during the third and fourth semesters of an undergraduate elementary
teacher preparation program in the
-
Developing an understanding of scientific
inquiry and inquiry-oriented science teaching, including three essential
features: questioning and predicting, explaining using evidence, and
communicating and justifying your findings
-
Learning to anticipate and address students' ideas,
including their prior knowledge and alternative (non-scientific) ideas
-
Developing the ability to critique and adapt
curriculum materials so they are more inquiry-oriented
The preservice teachers in the
elementary science methods course studied here were representative of the
population of elementary teachers in the
Interviews (see Appendix A) with each of the four participants were conducted at the end of the methods course soon after the start of their student teaching. These interviews were designed to elucidate their perspectives on the task of critique and adaptation and explore the ways in which they approached it in the context of socioscientific issues. During the interviews, the preservice teachers evaluated an inquiry-based lesson plan (see Appendix B) dealing with the effect of pesticides on simple food chains. This lesson was positioned within an ecosystems unit and built upon earlier lessons dealing with trophic interactions and ecosystems dynamics. The preservice teachers also responded to a hypothetical scenario (see Appendix C) which was written to illustrate differing ideas students might possess and contribute to classroom discourse upon completion of the lesson. In this scenario, the participants were confronted with both conceptual and normative issues that could reasonably arise in authentic elementary classroom discourse about the ecological impact of pesticide use.
Additional data
sources from the methods course included student coursework, journals, and
online discussion threads. In
particular, the preservice teachers completed a number of course assignments
during the semester which emphasized critiquing and modifying science
lessons. A summary of these assignments
is presented here – for a more detailed description, see
Analysis involved an iterative process of coding, reduction, displaying, and verification of data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The coding scheme (Appendix D) developed initially was organized around dominant criteria the preservice teachers used to critique and adapt curriculum materials over the course of the semester as related to aspects of scientific inquiry (effective use of questioning, evidence-based explanations, and communication and justifying findings) and the importance of students’ ideas. To account for the preservice teachers’ informal reasoning about the ecological consequences of pesticide use, we drew upon Sadler & Zeidler's (2005a) coding scheme. This framework contained codes for rationalistic, intuitive, and emotive patterns of reasoning, as well as various integrated patterns involving these three. Rationalistic informal reasoning is characterized by reliance on logic and reason, whereas the two affectively-oriented informal reasoning patterns, emotive and intuitive, where characterized by general empathy and immediate responses to prompts, respectively. As coding of the data progressed, additional emergent codes were added. These largely centered around topics related to teaching practice, especially as related to instructional goals, the use of instructional representations, student sense-making, and connections between learning experiences and students’ experiences outside of school. Two codes teacher-oriented codes were also added related to subject-matter knowledge and identity. Upon identification of significant themes in the interviews, these were triangulated through analysis of the numerous other data sources from the methods course.
The objective of
analysis was to situate the preservice teachers’ critique and adaptation of
science curriculum materials dealing with socioscientific issues within a
broader context of authentic curriculum design in which they had already been
engaged throughout the previous semester.
As part of the analysis process, thematic coding maps and interim case
summaries were constructed. As definitive patterns emerged, the data was reduced
to isolate and illustrate key factors - this process continued until dominant
themes had been refined and substantiated. While the small sample size and
descriptive nature of this study limit the degree to which results can be
generalized, this effort could serve as the first phase of a two-step,
multi-method approach in which quantitative analyses play a potentially confirmatory
role (Chi, 1997).
Results
In addressing the
first research question, how do
preservice elementary teachers critique and adapt science curriculum materials,
particularly in respect to socioscientific issues?, five dominant themes
became apparent. These are each
presented in the sections that follow and are supported with qualitative data
from interviews and coursework, but are briefly summarized here. Each of the
four preservice teachers cited the evaluation, critique, and adaptation of
curriculum materials as an important dimension of practice and described their
continued engagement in it as they transitioned from the methods classroom to
their student teaching experience. In
their efforts to scaffold students’ sense-making about pesticide use and its
potential impact on ecosystems, the preservice teachers emphasized five
specific aspects of practice. First,
they recognized opportunities in the lesson for student discussion and the
consideration of multiple student viewpoints about socioscientific issues and viewed
it as an opportunity to promote meaningful classroom discourse. Second,
they also recognized the importance of standards and objectives in science
curriculum materials and sought coherence between learning goals targeting
science content and the ethical dimensions of their relationship to human
activity. Third, they acknowledged the
importance of students making connections between instructional representations
and science concepts. Fourth, they
accounted for students’ prior knowledge and alternative ideas about
socioscientific issues. Fifth, they
acknowledged the relevance of socioscientific issues to students’ lives and
sought to make this link explicit in their critique and adaptation. For reporting of the results, pseudonyms have
been used for each teacher.
Classroom discourse and accounting for multiple
perspectives
The four
preservice elementary teachers recognized opportunities in the lesson for
student discussion and the consideration of multiple viewpoints about
socioscientific issues, in this case the potentially harmful effects of
pesticides on ecosystems. However, while
this was consistent across the four teachers, the particular ways in which they
sought to account for differing ideas varied.
The lesson modifications they proposed represented a wide variety of
potential pedagogical approaches that they could employ to promote the kind of
inquiry-oriented classroom culture in which discourse is valued. For example, in response to the students’
comments in the scenario, Lina suggested supporting classroom discussion by
scaffolding students’ understanding of the complexities of the issue by
co-constructing a chart in which students addressed “pros and cons or something
like that where they see that, you know even though there are some positives to
it that overall it has a damaging effect” (Lina, interview, 2.10.05). The use
of student journals was also emphasized by two of the teachers. Kelly proposed
journaling as a way to help individual students consider and make sense of
conflicting viewpoints, not only to support their developing understanding of
the issues addressed in the lesson but also to inform her teaching.
The other thing is I could write both
of these ideas up on the board and have each student responds to one or the
other, not both, in a journal or in a writing, some kind of writing example and
then, as a teacher, I would have time to read the responses (Kelly, interview,
1.27.05)
Lauren also suggested the use of
student journals in her initial critique of the lesson, though emphasized their
use as a form of collective meaning-making and discourse rather than as simply a
vehicle for individual reflection.
…after journals like you have like
sharing time where some of them share… I also collect them to see what everyone
said but I think it’s also cool if maybe you have some other students share
their journal entries and then have other kids, like they're allowed to make
like so many comments on them. Like we
can have three kids’ comments on this journal entry or like after they say
something, you know like, you know if you agree they do some sort of hand
motion or something with what they're saying or … and if you disagree why. I think if you add comments they'd do their
journal entry, to actually like then bring them altogether with them … and
discuss it a little. (Lauren, interview,
1.26.05)
In most cases, the four preservice teachers
sought to emphasize the public and interactive nature of classroom discourse
around the effect of pesticides on ecosystems though, similar to Sadler’s (in
press) findings with preservice secondary science teachers, largely towards the
goal of promoting students’ conceptual understanding rather than as an
objective onto itself. One approach,
suggested by Amy and Lauren, was to engage students in a more structured,
debate-like form of discussion. Amy, who
elaborated on a recent student teaching experience with student debate in
social studies, valued this pedagogical approach not only as a means for
students to be exposed to multiple perspectives on a topic but also as a way
for them to assume roles and communicate their thinking, noting “it’s important
that they have perspective from as many sides as possible. So to just kind of explain this is not as
effective….It’s important that they, that they are able to convey their ideas
and argue with each other” (Amy, interview, 2.9.05). Amy’s response, in contrast to other three
preservice teachers, illustrates an awareness of the ‘many-sidedness’ of
socioscientific issues (Sadler et al, in press), avoiding a dualistic
oversimplification of possible perspectives. In response to the scenario,
however, she abandoned this approach for more traditional, teacher-centered
instruction. Lauren, on the other hand,
viewed the students’ response as an affordance of authentic classroom activity
that enhanced the culture of scientific inquiry she sought to promote.
To be honest like I think its kind of
cool that they, that both these sides came up in this in a way …because it,
then you could get up the whole idea of like well there's trade offs for
everything, especially stuff affecting the environment. I don't know if I would change it because I
almost feel like it actually leads into it pretty well…it shows you that like
the kids are really thinking about it…it’s like a problem but like a good
problem … like a good teaching problem in a way. Maybe once I'm teaching more I will, will see
it more, like troublesome, I don't know. (Lauren, interview, 1.26.05)
It is clear that the scenario
effectively altered her approach to the task of adapting the lesson. In her
initial critique of the lesson, she had not accounted for the multiple
perspectives and solutions that usually characterize open-ended,
ill-structured, and inherently debatable socioscientific issues (Sadler &
Zeidler, 2005). In response to the students’ ideas presented in the scenario,
Lauren continued her emphasis on journaling but, acknowledging the value of
active discourse around such issues, also now proposed having them account for
multiple perspectives in their journal responses, initially through a debate
activity.
I guess after a debate maybe would
having them write in their journals again about both sides, you know saying
what they said and what I said and ultimately what their, what, maybe what they
came to an end after weighing everything and they have to like consider, but
they have to address both sides as they're saying what they finally, you know
think about the whole issue. (Lauren, interview, 1.26.05)
Whereas before she emphasized student communication in a general sense, afterwards she prioritized consideration of evidence as a crucial component of discourse and individual sense-making. While journals remained an important tool to facilitate reflection and sense-making, the scenario presented in the interview altered the problem space such that Lauren recognized the value of collective discourse around the effect of pesticides use on ecological systems. By recommending a debate activity and asking students to address multiple perspectives in formulating an independent conclusion, she was promoting more sophisticated explanation construction on the part of her students.
Relating to life outside the classroom
In addition to
promoting discourse about socioscientific issues, the preservice teachers
acknowledged the relevance of socioscientific issues to students’ lives and
sought to make this link explicit in their modification of the lesson. Whereas many science concepts can be
difficult to make accessible to students with references to their lived
experiences, socioscientific issues are, by definition, directly relevant to
life outside of the classroom. However, attending
to these issues in educational settings without acknowledging their inherent
ethical and moral implications can actually serve to reinforce the disconnect
that often exists for students between school science and their everyday lived
experience (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002; Zeidler et al., 2002). All
four of the teachers called upon common, everyday experiences with which
students would likely be familiar in order to help them make sense of pesticide
use and its effect on ecosystems. For
example, Kelly compared the additive effect of pesticide exposure to other common
sources of human illness, saying “I mean relate it to the kids' life. If we drink a teeny sip of spoiled milk we're
not going to get sick but if we drink an entire glass of spoiled milk …we're
going to get sick. That kind of thing”
(Kelly, interview, 1.27.05). These types
of references to students’ real-life experiences were common in the teachers’
critique and suggestions for adaptation.
Other research has shown (
I really hope
to learn more about how to design strong lessons and units around driving
questions in the months ahead. I just
hope that I can come up with questions that also will address the benchmarks
and standards I am expected to meet for the grade level I am teaching. Also, that the questions connect to my
student's lives in an interesting and meaningful way. (Lauren, journal entry,
9.18.04)
Lauren was consistent in her
emphasis on making real-world connections throughout the course. Following her first science teaching
experience in her placement classroom, she noted that she “…really liked how our investigation question connected to a
real life scenario for the children as it related to their time in school” (Journal
entry, 11.18.04l). This emphasis continued in critique
assignments from the science methods course, in which Lauren critiqued various
science lessons in light of this criterion.
She sought to help students connect science concepts and knowledge to
their lives in what she called a “meaningful and useful way” (Critique #1, 9.9.04), for
example in explaining evaporation (Critique #1, 9.9.04) or air pressure (Critique #2, 10.17.04). Yet,
in during the interview after the methods course, in her critique of the
pesticide use lesson, Lauren did not initially suggest any modifications
related to this criterion. After reading
the scenario, though, she once again revisited the importance of making
real-world connections. She said:
I would probably like go into…like look
at what would happen if those, I mean if you don't think those are important
but then look how it would affect their lives in the long run. I probably try to show them in a sense how
everything is kind of important for like balance …in the world, I guess.
(Lauren, interview, 1.26.05)
Amy, on the other hand, emphasized
this criterion of making connections to the real-world far less during the
course. She did not account for the this
relation to students’ lived experience at all until the final critique activity
of the semester in which she noted the lesson she critiqued “has real world
applications and it answers the question “so what?”. Why does this matter to them? That is critical!” (Amy, Critique #5,
12.14.04). Despite the relative lack of
emphasis in her coursework on applications to students’ experiences, Amy
strongly emphasized it in her critique of the pesticide lesson. For example, she saw this connection as a
motivating context for introducing the lesson.
the motivation I would probably use is
how many of you have to wash your fruit and vegetables before you eat them so
that they knew, then they'll like oh well, you know my mom always says don't
eat it before you, you know. Well we're
going to pretend that we are such and such and we're going to see what happens
if we decide not to wash the fruit or to eat something that has eaten something
that has not been washed or whatever…and what it is that actually makes us sick
if we don't wash whatever. (Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
Amy sought to insure students would
understand the role of humans in ecological systems, stating “I think it’s
important that they…eventually come to us as people because otherwise it
doesn't have as much relevance for the kids” (Amy, Interview, 2.9.05). However, she also sought to help students
understand that damaging these systems is, then, ultimately detrimental to
humans. However, Amy felt that because humans
were not included in the food web in the lesson, this was a detriment to her
efforts to promote students’ understanding of the role human beings occupy in
biological systems.
I think because we weren't included in
this activity, like us as humans…it really has no relation to us because, as
the kid (student in the scenario) said, because we're more important. I think if we had more involved in this and we
could have seen the effects of pesticides on us which is something that
probably should have been the goal um, I think something like that, and that
comment might have been a little bit different … (Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
In effect, Amy argued that the absence from humans in the model served to disconnect the concepts targeted in the lesson from their own lives such that students’ ideas as presented in the scenario were much more likely to persist. In order to relate the learning experience to their own experiences outside of school, and see the issue of pesticide use as relevant, Amy argued that the role of humans in this complex problem should be made explicit in the lesson. Despite Amy’s lack of emphasis on real-world connections in her coursework, she appears to value these connections in respect to this SSI-focused lesson.
Making connections between instructional representations
and science content
In an effort to scaffold
students’ sense-making about the science of the socioscientific issues, each of
the preservice teachers also sought to help students make connections between
the modeling activity and the concepts which the lesson explicitly sought to
address. Not surprisingly, given their preservice
status on the professional teaching continuum (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), each of
them suggested various approaches to providing a greater degree of structure to
the activity, thus making it more teacher-directed. Beyond that, however, their adaptations
varied in respect to helping students make necessary conceptual connections
between the role-playing activity and the potential effects of pesticides on
trophic interactions. For example, Amy,
who had felt the absence of humans from the model served to make the activity
less meaningful for students, suggested modifying the model to include humans.
… I would say humans, cows, you know
grasshopper, plant or even just humans, cow, plant. Because then it, then it directly affects us
and we're a part of that…if we were directly involved, you know if some of the
kids got to play humans then they could see the effect…that would make us a
little bit vulnerable and in that case Alex would maybe be able to see how
we're not so, you know immune to everything…It seems like he's putting us into
just another category altogether. And
we're not. We need to be, for the sake
of this lesson, we need to be kept in the food chain. (Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
To Amy, the student’s comment in
the scenario suggested that he had not derived the relevance of this issue to
humans from the modeling activity. Like
Amy, Kelly sought to modify the lesson in order to better help students make
sense of the science concepts from the activity. She was concerned that students would not be
able to derive the differentiated effect of pesticides on different species,
specifically based on their size.
I think that the part that was
confusing to, that would be very confusing is, if a grasshopper somehow
consumed any non-yellow corn the grasshoppers die. If a shrew has half or more food, why half or
more and then if the hawk, the hawk would probably not die because the
pesticide used. I think the kids would
say if it got any…non-yellow corn, well then it would die. Like I don't think they would understand why
the bigger animals required more …to be hurt.
I don't think they would come to that conclusion at all. (Kelly,
interview, 1.27.05)
Instead of altering the tropic model
itself, however, she sought to provide students with additional scaffolding to
help them interpret it.
The kids would need, they would either
need a chart saying that the hawk needs fifteen corn kernels to die or whatever
it is. But then they need to understand
that animals relationships to one another too and so I would need to make sure
that that was clear. Whether it was
just…three pictures of animals and just saying that this animal is so big and
therefore it needs more harmful materials.
A little bit isn't going to hurt us.
(Kelly, interview, 1.27.05)
Because the role-playing activity was the primary learning experience around which the lesson was constructed, it is not surprising that the preservice teachers focused on modifying it according to the instructional objectives explicated in the lesson. In each of the cases, they sought to adapt the activity in ways that reinforced science concepts related to trophic interactions and the transfer of harmful chemicals within them, such that rational decision-making about the use of pesticides would result from conceptual understanding of the science.
Accounting for students’ ideas and prior knowledge
The four teachers also
sought to account for students’ prior knowledge and ideas about the topics
addressed in the lesson. Because this
had been one of the three main emphases of the methods course, each of them had
already had extensive experience critiquing and modifying instructional
materials for science utilizing this criterion. Additionally, the scenario they were
presented with in the interview explicitly dealt with potential student responses
to the lesson. For the preservice teachers
in this study, the hypothetical student’s comment was a strong indication that
learning goals for the lesson had not been met.
For example, Amy said:
…then they didn't get it anyway. I mean…okay the point of the lesson was for
the kids to understand what pesticides do to the environment. In order for that child, Alex, to have an
understanding to not say something like that because he would understand that
we're not the only thing that matters…I'm just like picturing in my mind the
child not asking that question because we would have covered why that was not
the case. (Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
Prior to encountering the scenario
during the interview, Amy did not suggest any modifications to the lesson that
might help her better account for ideas which students may bring with them to
the learning context. The same was true for
Lina who, however, in an earlier journal response from the course, had
criticized hypothetical beginning elementary teachers for doing similarly.,
writing “…it is apparent that [this fictional beginning teacher] does not plan
for mishaps. Planning without taking
into account students' questions and misunderstandings causes ineffective
teaching, which in turn causes ineffective learning” (Lina, journal entry,
9.24.05). In the same entry, Lina also
critiqued her own efforts at planning for instruction and recognized the
importance of accounting for students’ ideas in this process.
In the past, I have had trouble with
creating lessons that are too complicated or that require too much time. But I have learned from my mistakes. I must be able to predict students' ideas and
create lessons around them, not despite them. (Lina, journal entry, 9.24.05)
During the critique of the lesson in
the interview, Lina’s primary suggested modification was to more heavily
emphasize the food chain itself prior to the lesson so that students would be
better prepared to understand the ways in which pesticides might affect it. After accounting for the student’s ideas in
the scenario, however, Lina attributed it to not meeting the learning goal for
the lesson and suggested that these ideas could not have come from the lesson
itself.
I don't really see that coming from the
lesson um, because a lot of it is how pesticides are damaging and, and that's
such a negative thing. I don't see him
seeing it as a positive. So maybe it
comes from, you know somewhere else. I
don't know. I was talking about was like
discussing the food chain and how its such an important thing and I think
really its emphasizing the fact that, you know one animal relies on another
animal who relies on another animal …you know and I think emphasizing that
importance of the food chain maybe would have been um, a benefit to him seeing
that, you know damaging the food chain could damage, you know it'd be like, you
know chain reaction. It would be you
know damaging to other species as well. (Lina,
interview, 2.10.05)
In the end, Lina’s approach to the
task of lesson adaptation did not appear to fundamentally change based on her
exposure to this hypothetical scenario in which students retained ideas about
socioscientific issues that conflicted with the explicit learning goal as well
as the teachers’ more tacit personal objectives. However, she did acknowledge the inherent
difficulty of this task when asked about other potential changes she would
make.
I don't know. I mean its, its so hard…to predict that
students are going to say those things so …you know as much as I'd like to say
I'd prepared, you know that I would, you know try to prepare the class in order
to avoid something like this its hard to say.
Like if they're, you're always going to have situations come up where,
you know you wished you would have addressed that earlier in your lesson or
something like but I think then you just take that opportunity to address it
then and, you know make it known to the class that, you know it either isn't
right or, you know it’s a good point but its, you know not necessarily true or
something like that um I think is the best way to go about it. (Lina,
interview, 2.10.05)
In summary, Lina recognized – and
in fact emphasized – the importance of accounting for students ideas in
practice. She was unable, however, to do
so effectively in the context of the interview.
Like Lina, Kelly
acknowledged the importance of accounting for students’ ideas in her coursework,
writing for example, “it is essential that a teacher takes student
misconceptions into account before, during, and after teaching a lesson…it is
important for the teacher to have ample time to review the student ideas. This
will better equip him/her to respond to their misconceptions” (Kelly, Critique
#5, 12.14.04). Unlike Lina, though, Kelly
emphasized this aspect of practice immediately in her critique of the lesson
and suggestions for modification during the interview.
I think it would definitely be a good
idea to collect the students' opinions and ideas before you started. If it’s a case of you all, well they write
down what they know, what they want to know and what they learned or if it’s
just a simple journal entry asking them what the effects of pesticides are or
what are pesticides or um, how do pesticides affect the food chain, something
like that where you can collect their opinions and their ideas before. Um, and then refer back to them or if you
just ask the kids to, I've seen this, make predictions on sticky notes and then
…pick them up and stick them on a predictions page and then draw a conclusion
at the end and write around the sticky note and put it on the conclusion side. Then you're having the kids kind of involve
themselves and their ideas in the actual material of the lesson and as a
teacher you're way better prepared to um, like respond to their misconceptions
or, you know understandings. Okay and
know what's going to …that they're going to surprise you with. (Kelly, interview, 1.27.05)
Rather than merely responding to students’ ideas about pesticide use, she viewed this as an affordance that she could harness in her practice to promote learning. For Kelly, students’ ideas could serve to drive instruction – they were a means through which to actively engage students in, and be metacognitively aware of, their own learning.
Curricular coherence and the importance of learning goals
Finally, the
preservice teachers in this study recognized the importance of standards and
objectives in science curriculum materials and sought coherence between
learning goals targeting socioscientific issues and inquiry-oriented activities
in the lesson itself. While each acknowledged
the importance of objectives and learning goals, they also cited what they
perceived to be an apparent disconnect between those stated in the lesson and
those most prominently targeted by the student activities. Amy, for example, said:
It’s frustrating for me because this
lesson doesn't tell you what it’s teaching (laugh). I don't feel like they're, like I told you,
like the objective doesn't meet the end of the lesson so I don't know if they
want us to learn about pesticides or they want us to learn about food chain or
what. (Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
Whereas Lina, as discussed
previously, suggested a heavier emphasis on the mechanics of food chains in her
modification of the lesson, Amy sought to deemphasize it based on what she
perceived to be a mismatch between that topic and the objective of the lesson.
…it talks all about well who's higher
in the food chain and all of that…that's what would have been the objective in
my lesson but that's not the objective.
Students want to show how pesticides and other environmental pollutants
can natively impact a food chain but we see here its discussing what the food
chain is, an order of a food chain so I think that I would probably cut this
stuff out at the beginning. I wouldn't
talk about it. I would talk about what a
shrew, a hawk, a corn plant, a grasshopper are and where they are in the food
chain for like a minute, just so they know.
(Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
For Amy, this was a fundamental causal
issue in the student’s responses in the scenario. She suggested that students needed to know
not only what food chains and broader ecological systems were, but also why
they are important to humans.
I think that before, and like I said, I
think I would, you know the lesson before this might touch on that a little bit
and it wouldn't have to be this, you know elaborate activity …but just to kind
of give them some information regarding the importance of the environment and
what it does for us and how we get our food and if any of us are meat eaters
and, you know well if we eat meat where does the cow come from. If he didn't have his food then he couldn't
yeah, yeah, yeah. So it’s, I would be
interested to know what the background information was and what [was] the
student’s background. Students seem to
understand how a food chain operates.
That's it...but they also need to understand why the food chain's
important. So great, so we know how it
works physically but who cares, but so what and I think that the kids need to
know that and I think that if they did that Alex would have already made that
connection and wouldn't have to ask a question like that. Well wouldn't think like that. (Amy, interview, 2.9.05)
Kelly had similar concerns as those
of Amy’s but focused on the student response questions at the end of the
lesson.
the last question is how can we stop
these things from happening which is going back to like what, could bring in a
whole new thing, like human interaction and like what we do as people that
affects the ecosystems and environment and etc, but that doesn't, number one
that's not laid out here in the objective.
But number two the kids aren't equipped, I don't think, through this
lesson to answer those questions. They
don't know how the pesticides got in the corn like … the corn was just bad corn
or corn with pesticides in it. (Kelly, interview, 1.27.05)
Kelly’s responses clearly show that
she felt students needed more information to adequately make sense of the ways
in which food chains operate, how chemicals would travel within them, and why
they are potentially harmful to the various species involved. This theme persisted in her critique of the
lesson and how it addressed the specific health affects pesticides have on a
given organism. For example, she
wondered what specific effects pesticides had on individual organisms, saying “once
it consumed the pesticides, whether it consumed the corn or consumed the animal
that consumed the corn…then what happens?”
(Kelly, interview, 1.27.05). For
students to understand how environmental pollutants can impact ecological
systems, Kelly also emphasized that students must also understand their effects
on individual species that constitute them.
In response to the scenario and the students’ comments, she sought to
insure students had access to all the information they would need to adequately
address the learning goal.
… so in order to, when you first said
it, that the student said that we should stop using pesticides, my first
reaction was we should really look into why pesticides are used and bring to
the class. So one of the first things I
would say was go and look up pesticides and found out why we use pesticides and
what we do. As far as the one, the
students who think that um, pesticides are, humans are more important and it
doesn't matter what else is happening, I would really challenge those students
to find out if humans need, I would say do we need, you know I might just say
to him and to the other students, do we, if there are no animals or no other
organisms on earth would be it be okay, do we need them at all? Let’s look that up, let’s find out? (Kelly,
interview, 1.27.05)
In order to develop a deeper
understanding of the science concepts being targeted in the lesson, as well as
the social implications of pesticide use, both Amy and Kelly sought to further
reinforce the connection between the lesson’s emphasis on ecological systems
and their importance for human beings.
However, as all the preservice teachers noted, the standards and
learning objectives contained in the lesson prioritized the former, leaving it
to the teacher him or herself to extend the lesson such that students could
make connections to the latter.
Factors mediating critique and adaptation of science
curriculum materials
In addressing the second research question, what factors mediate preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials, particularly in respect to socioscientific issues?, three factors were especially important: the preservice teachers’ subject-matter knowledge, informal reasoning about socioscientific issues, and identity (especially in regard to value-neutral perspectives on teaching).
Subject-matter knowledge
The limitations of elementary teachers’ subject-matter knowledge is well-documented (Anderson & Mitchner, 1994). Not surprisingly, the preservice teachers’ subject-matter knowledge appeared as a mediating influence on their critique and adaptation of curriculum materials in regard to socioscientific issues. This was particularly evident in their evaluation of the lesson plan dealing with the effects of pesticides in the food chain. While their knowledge of energy transfer, food chains, and other fundamental ecological concepts was fairly strong, none of the teachers could clearly explicate what pesticides are or adequately address controversial aspects of their use.
During the
semester of the methods course, three of the teachers cited their own subject
matter knowledge as an area of concern, consistent with previous research which
found that a majority of preservice elementary teachers feel their subject
matter knowledge is weak (Rice & Roychoudhury, 2003). Amy, for example, worried
that insufficient knowledge of science subject matter would serve to
disadvantage her and her students, writing “I need to learn more about the
subject itself. I do not know enough
regarding science to teach a classroom full of inquisitive and insightful
students” (Amy, Journal Entry, 9.13.04). Lina looked to the course itself to
help her develop a deeper understanding of science concepts, writing “I hope
this class gives me the tools to inspire my students in this way. I already have a great amount of enthusiasm
for teaching science, but I feel as though I lack the knowledge in the area of
science to teach scientific facts” (Lina, Journal Entry, 9.13.04).
The concerns the preservice teachers had about their own conceptual understanding of science became apparent in the interviews when they were asked to critique and adapt the lesson dealing with the effect of pesticides on trophic interactions. Amy, who had suggested modifying the food chain model used in the activity, was unable to identify some of the species represented in the model contained in the original lesson. Lina also struggled to identify the species in the food web model but, more importantly, was unable identify the reasons underlying pesticide and use. She said,
…you know, I don't even, I don't want
to even pretend I know what pesticides do…they keep our crops healthier,
whatever, I don't know. Um, or they grow
faster. I have no idea what pesticides
do exactly (Lina, Interview, 2.10.05)
Lauren, too, acknowledged her limited background knowledge about the issue of pesticide use but, in doing so, also recognized the opportunity it presented for her own learning.
I don't feel like very strongly in a way because I guess I just haven't thought about it much so. But if I was teaching it I would want to know more definitely. (Lauren, Interview, 1.26.05)
However, of the four teachers, Lauren was the only one who did not cite her subject matter knowledge as a concern during the methods semester. In fact, she exuded a great deal of confidence in her past preparation in science, writing “I have taken many basic science courses throughout the past three years (i.e. biology, chemistry, weather, geological science, physics, genetics) and therefore do feel that I know a great deal about the various science subject matters” (Lauren, Journal Entry, 9.8.04). Whereas the other three teachers cited inconsistencies between the lesson’s learning objectives and the lesson itself, and sought to help students relate the science to its socially-relevant dimensions, Lina’s critique and modifications centered around more strongly emphasizing the science, in this case the dynamics of energy transfer and trophic interactions in ecological systems. Of the four teachers in this study, she possessed the least background knowledge about pesticides, their use, impacts on ecosystems, and implications for human health. This resulted in her lesson critique, and subsequent modifications being focused primarily on those aspects that about which she did possess sufficient subject-matter knowledge. Lauren, on the other hand, appeared to view her lack of background knowledge on the topic as an affordance. After acknowledging that she didn’t know a great deal about the use of pesticides and the potential effects they can have on ecological systems, Lauren suggested this as an opportunity for her to learn herself.
Informal reasoning about
socioscientific issues
Drawing on Sadler and Zeidler’s (2005) framework for informal reasoning about socioscientific issues, analysis of the data suggests that while the preservice elementary teachers exhibited some emotive and intuitive reasoning about the issue of pesticide use, it was primarily rationalistic in nature. Emotive or intuitive reasoning was rare and, when they were apparent, had virtually no impact the teachers’ decision-making. The preservice teachers’ critiques of the lesson, and suggestions for adaptations, were heavily grounded in logic-oriented reasoning about the science content relevant to the lesson. In response to the scenario, an in their general approach to the critique and modification of the lesson, the preservice teachers relied primarily on more rationalistic reasoning patterns, supporting the findings of other research on students (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). In discussing the advantages and disadvantages of pesticide use, Lauren noted, “we couldn't probably completely stop using pesticides because sometimes there's certain insects like you need to kill off” (Interview, 1.26.05), an indication that she was aware of the complex nature of this particular socioscientific issue. However, most of the rationalistic reasoning exhibited by the teachers centered around the relationship between humans and the environment, a fundamental concept which the student’s comment in the scenario was written to challenge. Kelly’s response was indicative of this reasoning.
…the students who say, who said humans are better than everyone else needs to understand that humans need some of these other animals to survive. I mean that they're part of our environment and our ecosystem and that humans and animals or organisms are not, are co-dependent, like they're not … totally unrelated. (Kelly, Interview, 1.27.05)
Emotive reasoning patterns exhibited by the teachers were centered around general feelings of empathy for animals. The emotive and intuitive reasoning patterns that were present were largely influenced by the preservice teachers’ appreciation for, and expectations of, elementary students. Often their immediate, intuitive reactions were followed by references to young children’s developmental stage. However, these instances of intuitive and emotive reasoning were few and far between.
Identity
Why did the teachers rely so little on affectively-oriented forms of reasoning? Why was their rationalistic reasoning so centered around this one particular concept related to ecological relationships? The data clearly indicate that the preservice teachers’ developing sense of identity as teachers proved particularly important. On one hand, they identified strongly with their role as enactors of standards, benchmarks, and objectives as manifested through the curriculum materials themselves. While this perspective was consistent with their shared conception of science teaching as value-neutral, the participants also exhibited an awareness of the role their own values and beliefs play in negotiating socioscientific issues in the classroom. As evidenced in their informal reasoning patterns about the issue of pesticide use, the teachers viewed themselves primarily as value-neutral actors and enactors of standards and benchmarks. For example, Amy said, “I've just been blatantly honest with them because I think that's the way to go. You know censor my beliefs…I try to just give them the facts” (Amy, Interview, 2.9.05). In order to wield factual content effectively, however, the teachers emphasized it as support for particular arguments they sought to help their students make. Kelly, who proposed providing students with additional information relevant to the topic, perceives helping students make evidence-based claims an essential dimension of her role as a teacher.
I mean this brings in like other ethical issue because you can't really, I don't think that as the teacher you can stand up there and say you're right, humans are more important than anything else or you can stand up there as the teacher and say you're wrong …the birds are just as important as the humans. Um, I think that obviously every student's entitled to their opinion but that we have to make sure as teachers that they're opinions are ground, not that their opinions are, but we have to make sure as teachers that we're providing them with all the information necessary. I, from this lesson, have no proof that the kids know why…people use pesticides. (Kelly, Interview, 1.27.05)
The preservice teachers
acknowledged that in order for students to navigate the complex spaces of
socioscientific issues, they would need access to all relevant information and that
the teacher’s role was to support this process.
However, while this implies a value-neutral stance on their part, the
teachers’ strong adherence to standards and benchmarks meant that certain
knowledge and ways of knowing were being prioritized. In response to a discussion about the
teaching of evolution earlier in the semester, Amy discussed this dynamic.
In regards to this particular situation, there is an important thing (among others) that I have learned from class and from working in the field. When a situation arises such as this way, you can approach it by telling the students that there are various ways to think about the question, "Where did we come from?" Scientists believe... and others believe... You can remind students that there may not be one way to think about where we came from, but that you are going to focus this particular unit/lesson on what some scientists believe. This way, you are not telling students what you believe; you are simply giving them one view that may or may not be your own. I know this sounds basic and amateur, yet I believe that by approaching it in this way, especially with younger children, you are offering one point of view the one that they probably should be learning in school. (Amy, Discussion thread, 11.14.04)
It is clear that Amy is
prioritizing certain explanations, in this case those that pervade in
science. Similarly, when asked if her
own beliefs influence her practice, Kelly reinforced the salience of science
standards in defining her own perception of herself as a teacher.
I think that it’s our job to, it’s my
job to try to … I think they influence the way I look at this, the way I, you
know respond to it but I think that its my job to try to say that I have to
really go according to the standards and the benchmarks of my district or state
or whatever it is and teach it as straightforward as I can, as accept the kids’
ideas and I, I don't think that I personally would judge the students …I mean
that I could judge the material or the lesson um, but I've already encountered
things where kids say stuff that they really belief and I just don’t. Maybe
because they're in third grade and I'm not … or maybe just because that's their
belief and that's not mine but that's okay I think. (Kelly, Interview, 1.27.05)
Given the teachers’ developing
sense of identity, their reliance on more rationalistic forms of reasoning
about the use of pesticides and their effect on ecological systems is more
easily understood. Both Kelly and Amy
reference the lesson’s standards-based learning objectives as a primary
constraint of their practice, including modification of the lesson. While Kelly appears more willing than Amy to
acknowledge diverse student ideas and leverage them towards productive
pedagogical ends, these objectives are a strong referent for both of them in
respect to the form of practice in which they envision themselves
engaging.
Discussion
The purpose of this pilot study was twofold: to both characterize preservice elementary teachers’ critiques and adaptation of science curriculum materials that explicitly address socioscientific issues and to identify salient factors that serve to mediate this process. In summary, five dominant features were evident in these four teachers’ interactions with the particular lesson referenced in the interviews. The preservice teachers sought to draw upon students’ existing ideas about socioscientific issues and make the link between the lesson and students’ lived experience explicit. They acknowledged the importance of students making connections between instructional representations and science concepts and specifically targeted learning objectives in the lesson. They also viewed such learning experiences as a valuable context in which to promote student discourse about science concepts and the normative questions raised in the lesson. Additionally, three factors were identified as particularly significant in mediating this process: the teachers’ subject-matter knowledge, their informal reasoning about the issue of pesticide use, and their own self-image in the role of teacher.
The elementary
science methods course emphasized three main goals: teachers developing a
deeper understanding of scientific inquiry, developing their capacity for
principled critique and adaptation of existing science curriculum materials,
and accounting for students’ ideas in practice. The four preservice teachers in
this study viewed these kinds of interactions with instructional materials to
be a valuable and necessary dimension of authentic teaching practice. In order to respond to the unique
characteristics of a given classroom setting, and in an effort to maximize
individual strengths while minimizing their self-perceived weaknesses, the
preservice teachers viewed existing curriculum materials for science as pliable
documents that often required modification and adaptation. The criteria that they emphasized in their
critique and modification of the lesson reinforce the findings of previous
research (
Preservice teachers must, therefore, not only learn to recognize the importance of students’ ideas but also develop the capacity to address them in the context of a particular science learning content and context – a crucial characteristic of PCK (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Each of the teachers recognized the value of accounting for students’ ideas in their practice though they varied in the degree to which they were able to articulate effective strategies for doing so in the context of this lesson and scenario. Additionally, while the four teachers rarely referenced inquiry-oriented teaching and learning directly, elements of inquiry which had been emphasized in the methods course - questioning and predicting, making evidence-based explanations, and communicating and justifying findings - were often evident in their critique, suggestions for modification, and general talk about practice. In respect to this lesson and the scenario, the latter two elements were particularly prevalent and served an important role in supporting students’ sense-making about science content as well as the their consideration of multiple perspectives on the use and potentially harmful ecological effects of pesticides. In effect, the dimensions of practice emphasized in the science methods course for purposes of promoting students’ conceptual understanding remained valuable tools for the preservice teachers as they navigated the rocky terrain of related socioscientific issues.
Just as subject-matter knowledge is an important mediating factor in students’ decision-making about socioscienfic issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b), so too is it relevant for teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials in which they are addressed. The teachers struggled with content related to species represented in the lesson’s model and basic understandings of issues related to pesticide use. For Lina, in particular, insufficient subject matter knowledge proved a significant constraint in her efforts to adapt the lesson, both in general and in response to the scenario. In contrast, Lauren, who also acknowledged her limited background knowledge in respect to this particular topic, viewed the task as an opportunity to advance her own understanding. During their semester in the methods course, both teachers discussed their subject-matter preparation. Whereas Lina has less science content coursework and seemed to struggle to self-efficacy related to her subject matter knowledge, Lauren was a science minor and exhibited a high degree of confidence in her subject matter knowledge and capacity to call upon it in her science teaching. It is possible that the teachers’ treatment of socioscientific issues, as well as their critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials addressing them, is not mediated merely by their subject matter per se – rather, feelings of self-efficacy related to their science subject-matter preparation may play an important role as well (Rice & Roychoudhury, 2003).
Consistent with the results of others research involving undergraduate college students (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a), the four preservice teachers’ talk about the ecological consequences of pesticide use was dominated by logic-based, rationalistic patterns of informal reasoning. Even when emotive and/or intuitive responses were given, they were quickly reasoned away with references to elementary students’ development or the science content in the lesson and had no observable effect on the decisions teachers made about alterations to the lesson or other elements of practice. Because they perceived their role as teacher largely to involve ‘just teaching the facts’, the majority of their reasoning about socioscientific issues relevant to teaching practice reflected a similar commitment to this principled and technical professionalism. In effect, they were describing a value-neutral approach to practice, a trend echoed in other recent work with middle and secondary science teachers (Sadler et al., in press). While no human endeavor can ever be truly value-free, this conception of practice and the nature of teaching was influential to the preservice teachers and their orientations toward the role of teacher. They acknowledged the important role their own values and beliefs played in helping students negotiate these issues in the classroom but sought to minimize their effect.
Implied in this discussion is a subtle assertion that decision-making about socioscientific issues is inherently value-laden and therefore incompatible, at least in part, with the epistemology of science. As noted by Sadler and Zeidler (2005a), this presents practitioners with a unique problem. What room is there in school science for other, non-empirical forms of knowledge construction? Of course, Kuhn (1962) himself argued that scientific progress is marked not by closer theoretical approximations of universal truths but rather the development an increasingly sophisticated set of tools for puzzle-solving, as well as more specialized and defined forms of practice. In effect, knowledge is constructed in practical social activity in which participants interact with each other and their material environments and that is shaped by their shared norms, standards, and expectations (Engestrom, 1987; Greeno et al., 1998).
The four preservice teachers studied here were aware of both explicit and implicit norms of professional teaching and sought to craft their own practice in light of them. The fundamental question is likely not whether considerations of socioscientific issues and scientific practice involve different ways of knowing but rather why, and in what contexts and settings, and to whose benefit they are characterized as distinct and one is afforded priority over the other. The primary aims of schooling, particularly related to science education, are not the same as those of scientific practice. If the calls for scientific literacy and ‘science for all’ to be taken seriously, then science education must, at its core, be concerned with the preparation of citizens capable of effective democratic participation in a science and technology-rich world. What is required is a formulation of science literacy that is concerned with students’ ability to wield science as participation in activities and activity settings where its use is meaningful, relevant, and necessary (McGinn & Roth, 1999). In order to achieve this goal, students must have the opportunity to engage with socioscientific issues in authentic ways in science classrooms. It is therefore essential that teachers not only have the resources and supports necessary to support students in such learning activities, but also be supported to develop a teaching identity in which such science teaching practice is valued.
This research has important implications for both science teacher educators and science curriculum developers. The results of this study support the need for educative curriculum materials (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Schneider & Krajcik, 2002) in supporting new teachers. Given their well-documented aversion to science teaching and limited subject-matter preparation, beginning elementary teachers, in particular, can benefit from additional subject matter supports. Additionally, as Magnusson and colleagues argued (1999), it is impossible for preservice teachers to develop robust PCK for all topics they might encounter in practice prior to completion of their formal teacher preparation. Rather, PCK development is an ongoing process of learning through practice which can be supported through educative features of curriculum materials they use. Interestingly, however, the How Pesticides Can Affect an Ecosystem lesson utilized in this study is part of an innovative, standards-based, inquiry-oriented science curriculum designed specifically for beginning elementary teachers. They include many features designed to be educative for teachers, including relevant science subject matter, potential students’ ideas and suggestions for addressing them, supports for lesson adaptation, and fictional narratives that illustrate how other preservice and early-career elementary teachers used them. Despite this, the preservice teachers struggled with content relevant to the lesson, suggesting that they either did not utilize this particular curricular feature or, if they did, found it insufficient to meet the subject matter demands of the lesson. In either case, educative elements in the lesson they were critiquing and adapting could have further facilitated the professional growth so critical at this early stage of their careers. Developers of educative curriculum materials must continue to investigate the ways in which teachers use curriculum materials so as to better inform their development (Remillard, 2005).
The effective use of curriculum materials should also be a central dimension of professional teaching emphasized in science teacher education, as it was in the science methods course described here. While the preservice teachers’ limited subject-matter knowledge influenced their critique and adaptation of the lesson, they valued these interactions and viewed them as authentic. Drawing on their experiences in the course, they also accounted for important aspects of inquiry, emphasized student sense-making, and exhibited a child-centered, constructivist orientation toward practice in responding to hypothetical problems of practice illustrated here in the context of socioscientific issues. Just as there exists a “false dichotomization of teaching for socioscientific decision-making and teaching for conceptual understanding” (Sadler et al., in press, pg. 21), so too may it be the case in science teacher education.
This suggests that science teacher education experiences, including methods courses, that emphasizes a student-centered, inquiry-oriented approach to practice may go far in helping prospective elementary teachers develop a conceptual framework through which they can effectively address new content as it arises in practice (Zembaul-Saul, Blumenfeld, & Krajcik, 2000), including ethical aspects of socioscientific issues. However, preservice teachers’ capacity to craft effective teaching practice in the context of socioscientific issues is only as powerful as their willingness to fully engage in the ethical and normative dimensions of such topics. Doing so requires viewing such activity as a constituent component of the teacher’s explicit role. The significance of the preservice teachers’ conceptions of their role as teacher reinforces the importance of identity in teacher education (Bullough, Knowles, & Crow, 1992) and science teacher education (Appleton & Kindt, 2002; Eick & Reed, 2002; Enyedy et al., 2006). It is imperative that we, as science teacher educators, not only assist preservice teachers in developing the skills necessary to effectively critique and adapt curriculum materials in light of student-centered, inquiry-oriented teaching practice, but also encourage the development of a functional role identity in which attentiveness to socioscientific issues is valued as a crucial aspect of authentic practice within the complex, value-laden milieu of science classrooms.
Conclusions
This work contributes to the growing body of literature
regarding socioscientific issues in science education and the dynamic
interactions between teachers and curriculum, particularly in respect to their
critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Of course, there
remains a great deal of research yet to do. While this work focused on
preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum
materials dealing with socioscientific issues, it would be useful to undertake
similar work with practicing elementary teachers, both new and experienced, as
well as secondary science teachers across specific science subject matter
areas. Also, there is a need to
understand how teachers interact with curriculum materials in real-time in
authentic classroom settings where social activity and discourse around
socioscientific issues is not merely hypothetical. How is the increasingly prevalent use of standards
and benchmarks in science education, and science teacher education serving to
shape the ways in which preservice teachers see themselves as
practitioners? How can we support
preservice and early career teachers as they balance the demands of standards-based
teaching with the value-laden dimensions of practice inherent to
socioscientific issues? It is in seeking
to address questions like these that we take another step towards the education
of a scientifically-literate citizenry.
References
American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Project 2061.
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.
Appleton,
K., & Kindt,
Ball,
D., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role
of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational
Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.
Barab,
S., & Luehmann, A. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum:
Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
Baumgartner,
E. (2004). Synergy research and knowledge integration: Customizing activities
around stream ecology. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education
(pp. 261-287).
Brown,
M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as
design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we
can better design materials to support their changes in practice? (Design
Brief).
Bullough, R.V., Jr., Knowles,
J.G., & Crow, N.A. (1992). Emerging
as a teacher.
Chi,
M. (1997) Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3),
271-315.
Cochran,
K., & Jones, L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science
teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707-718).
Cohen, D.K. (1990). A
revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329.
Collopy,
R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics
textbook affected two teachers' learning. The
Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 227-311.
Crawford,
B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9),
916-937.
Crawford,
B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an
inquiry-based classroom? Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.
Davis,
E.A. & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to
promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science
Education: Implications for Practice.
Eick, C. & Reed, C. (2002).
What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning
histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86(3),
401-416.
Engeström,
Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research.
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., &
Welsh, K.M. (2006). Complex dilemmas of identity and practice. Science
Education, 90, 68-93.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best,
S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve
professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.
Greeno, J. and the Middle
School Mathematics Through Application Project Group (1998). The situativity of
knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1),
5-26.
Haney,
J.J. & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science
teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783-802.
Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Models standards for beginning teacher licensing and development: A
resource for state dialogue.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J.,
& Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content
knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The
construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). The
McGinn,
M. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Towards a new science education: Implications
of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher 28(3), 14-24.
Miles,
M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative
data analysis.
National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1987). NCATE standards, procedures, and policies
for the accreditation of professional education units: The accreditation of professional education
units for the preparation of professional school personnel at basic and
advanced levels.
National
Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (1994). Expectations of excellence:
Curriculum standards for social studies.
National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional teaching standards for teaching mathematics.
National
Research Council (NRC). (1996). National
science education standards.
Peterson, R.F. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215-237.
Putnam,
R.T. (1992). Teaching the "hows" of mathematics for everyday life: A
case study of a fifth-grade teacher. Elementary School Journal, 93,
163-177.
Remillard, J.T. (2005).
Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review
of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
Remillard,
J.T. & Bryans, M.B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum
materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-358.
Remillard,
J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework
for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 315-342.
Rice, D. C., &
Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice elementary science
teachers: One elementary science methods
teacher's self-study. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 14(2), 97-126.
Sadler, T.D. (in press).
Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi,
A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (in press). Socioscience and ethics in
science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Sadler,
T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of the nature of science, socioscientific
issues, and critical thinking. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Sadler,
T.D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context
of socioscientific decision making. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Sadler,
T.D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for
informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics
knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science
Education, 89(1), 71-93.
Sadler,
T. D. (2004a). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of
socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral
Education, 33, 339-358.
Sadler,
T. D. (2004b). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical
review of research. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Sadler,
T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues:
Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
Schneider,
R.M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reformed-based science
materials. The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3),
283-312.
Schneider,
R.M. & Krajcik, J. (2002).
Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum
materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245.
Seethaler, S. & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765-1785.
Shulman, L. (1983). Autonomy and obligation: The
remote control of teaching. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp.
484-504). Hew
Shulman,
L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Smith,
L.K. & Gess-Newsome, J. (2004).
Elementary science methods courses and the National Science Education Standards: Are we adequately preparing
teachers? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 91-110.
Smith, D. C., & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-20.
Spillane,
J. P., Diamond, J. B.,
Spillane, J. P. & Diamond, J. B. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.
Squire,
K., MaKinster, J., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A., & Barab, S. (2003). Designed
curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468-489.
Turner,
S. & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab:
Science educators confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology
and Human Values 24 (1), 5-30.
Vygotsky,
L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological
processes.
Zeidler,
D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B. & Amiri, L. (2005). Socioscientific
issues in secondary school science: Students' epistemological conceptions of
content, NOS, and ethical sensitivity.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching,
Zeidler,
D.L.,
Zembaul-Saul,
C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of
planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science
content representations. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318-339.
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Reference Lesson Plan
1.
Describe what you do when you come across a new science
lesson for the first time. How do you
decide if you’ll use it and, if so, how you’ll use it?
2.
What do you think about modifying science lessons? When you do change lessons before teaching
them, how do you go about it?
3.
Have you ever developed a science lesson from scratch
and then taught it? If so, describe the
lesson and how you went about doing this.
4.
What are your initial thoughts on this lesson?
5.
How does this lesson compare to science lessons you
taught or observed being taught during your field experiences and/or student
teaching?
6.
What are some aspects of it you like?
7.
What are some aspects of it you like less?
8.
What are some management concerns you’d have with this
lesson?
9.
How does the lesson meet or not meet each of the
following criteria? Recall the criteria
we used in class for critiquing lessons.
10.
What might you change about the lesson and why? How would you rate the relative importance of
the changes you suggested?
Read scenario
11.
What is your immediate personal response to Alex’s
comments?
12.
Do you believe humans are more important than other
forms of life? Explain.
13.
Do you think environmental issues are important? Why or why not?
14.
Do you think morals or ethics should play a role in how
we address environmental issues? Why or why not?
15.
What do you want your students to understand about
environmental issues? Why?
16.
Why do you think environmental issues are so
controversial?
17.
How would you respond to Alex’s comment and wrap-up the
lesson?
18.
Does this scenario change your initial opinion of the
lesson?
19.
Do you think your own beliefs and values affect how you
would teach this lesson? How?
20.
How might your critique of the lesson change based on
the scenario?
Appendix B
Interview Lesson - How
Pesticides can Affect an Ecosystem (a 3-5 Ecosystems lesson plan)
From the unit: How do
things live in my neighborhood?
Appendix C
Interview Scenario
After having your students answer the lesson’s follow-up
questions in their science journals, you decide to facilitate a whole-class discussion
about the students’ responses. When you
get to the last question, How can we stop some of these things from
happening?, Jeff says that we should stop using pesticides because
they’re bad for animals and insects. You
ask the rest of the class what they think about that and another student, Alex,
says that it doesn’t matter if humans hurt the ecosystem because we’re more
important than other living things. Some
of the other students nod their heads in agreement with the comment. How do you address this?
Appendix D
Coding Key
|
|
Definition |
|
Class Criteria |
|
|
Questioning |
Use
of engaging and challenging questions |
|
Students’ Ideas |
Acknowledging and accounting for students’ ideas |
|
Evidence-based Explanations |
Collecting evidence and using this evidence to construct
explanations about objects, organisms, and/or events in the natural world. |
|
Communicating & Justifying
Findings |
Communicating understandings of the objects, organisms,
and/or events in the natural world to others. |
|
Emergent Criteria |
|
|
Assessment |
Assessment of students' understanding. |
|
Inquiry & Investigations |
Student engagement in scientific inquiry. |
|
Real World Applications |
Making connections to real world examples of the
scientific ideas. |
|
Instructional Representations |
Represents the science content in scientifically accurate
ways, and will not promote alternative ideas. |
|
Instructional Goals |
Worthwhile science learning goals for learning science
concepts and scientific inquiry. |
|
Student Ownership and Engagement |
Engages students in science learning that is meaningful
and engaging to them. |
|
Teacher's Subject-matter
Knowledge |
Teacher’s knowledge of science subject-matter |
|
Teacher’s Identity |
Teacher’s dispositions, interests, sense of efficacy,
locus of control, and orientations toward teaching practice. |
|
Other |
Other response not captured in above categories. |
|
Informal Reasoning |
|
|
Rationalistic |
Sole reliance on reason and logic. |
|
Emotive |
Empathy, caring, and/or sympathy, especially towards
others |
|
Intuitive |
Personal reactions or immediate feelings. |