Planning Science Instruction for Critical Thinking: Two Urban Elementary Teachers’ Responses to a State Science Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- How do two urban fourth grade teachers plan for reform-based science instruction in response to the format of the state science assessment?
- (2)
- How do the teachers integrate their understanding of the state science assessment with resources and training they have available to plan for reform-based science instruction?
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Role of Education in Critical Thinking Development
2.2. Standards-Based Scientific Practices to Develop Students’ Scientific Literacy
- Learners are engaged by scientifically-oriented questions.
- Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and evaluate explanations that address scientifically-oriented questions.
- Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifically-oriented questions.
- Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explanations, particularly, those reflecting scientific understanding.
- Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations. ([8], p. 25, emphasis in original text)
- Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
- Developing and using models
- Planning and carrying out investigations
- Analyzing and interpreting data
- Using mathematics and computational thinking
- Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
- Engaging in argument from evidence
- Obtaining, evaluating and communicating information ([9], p. 49)
- (1)
- Activity-based—fun, hands-on activities designed to motivate students and keep them physically engaged
- (2)
- Investigation-based—abilities to engage in inquiry [2], ask testable questions and design fair tests; focus on collecting data
- (3)
- Evidence-based—need to support claims with evidence; evidence is not questioned in terms of quality, coherence, etc.
- (4)
- Argument-based—argument construction is central, coordinating evidence and claims is viewed as important; emerging attention to considering alternatives. ([38], p. 703)
2.3. Effective Equitable Science Pedagogy by Urban Elementary Teachers
2.4. Formats of Elementary Science Assessments Coherent with Reform Standards
3. Methodology
3.1. Setting and Participants for the Study
3.2. Data Sources
3.3. Data Analysis
Initial Codes | Examples from Ann | Examples from Lee |
---|---|---|
Plan for Activity | ||
1.1 Plan for fun hands-on activity to motivate students | “They loved it. The magnets, they love the magnets.” But no data regarding planning for this sole purpose. | “Science is so much fun for them, it’s so motivational.” But no data regarding planning for this sole purpose. |
1.2 Plan for activity to keep students physically engaged | No data | No data |
Plan for Investigation | ||
2.1 Plan for students to ask questions | “I’m going to let them create their own investigation from their wonderings instead of the focus question from the science kit.” | They’re the questions makers. They decide. I want to put as much in their hands as possible.” |
2.2 Plan for students to ask testable questions | No data | “If you changed the variable, what would the question be?” |
2.3 Plan for students to design investigation | “They’re required to create the procedure. I’m not telling them what they should be doing.” | “I need to be sure that they are excellent at doing experiments.” |
2.4 Plan for students to design fair test | No data | “So when we do investigations, we need to have some parameters [controlling of variables].” “I would question how do you know you are only testing one variable.” |
2.5 Plan for students to focus on collecting data | “Then, they do a data observation chart or a descriptive piece.” | “I’m planning for good observation. I’m planning for good recording.” “They’re on their own to collect data.” “They learned from the mistakes that they made before.” |
Plan for Evidence | ||
3.1 Plan for students to support their claims with evidence from investigations | “It’s taking the data and putting it in and analyzing it and learning from it.” “You need to provide evidence and tell them where you got those ideas from.” | “I’m planning for good written explanations of what they see, that explaining, that being able to speak what they’re seeing.” “What is happening in this circuit? I need you to explain it.” |
3.2 Plan for evidence to be reported out, but not questioned or evaluated | “I remind them, you know, ‘claims and evidence.’ What you claim, you need evidence.” | “What did you find? What information do you want to share?” “I need them to represent it in all different ways.” “You collect the data, get the median, and show me the data in graph form.” |
Plan for Argument | ||
4.1 Plan for students to construct arguments for their claims | “They know I’m going to ask, ‘Why do you think that?’” “They are getting to the point in their conversations, ‘I agree with___ because and I disagree with ___ because.” | No data |
4.2 Plan for students to evaluate evidence when making claims | “They were able, after working with each other’s information…to figure out what was accurate and what was not accurate.” | No data |
4.3 Plan for students to consider alternative arguments | “They have to listen so they can either add on or disagree or agree with it” “They know I’m going to ask…’What do you think of his thinking?’” | No data |
4. Research Context
4.1. Background and Format of the NECAP Science Assessment
Broad area of inquiry | Constructs to assess students’ ability with science processes |
---|---|
Formulating questions and hypothesizing |
|
Planning and critiquing of investigations |
|
Conducting investigations |
|
Developing and evaluating explanations |
|
4.1.1. Provide Explanations
Broad area of inquiry | Example of NECAP released items questions for the Inquiry Task requiring students to provide an explanation |
---|---|
Formulating questions and hypothesizing | “Based on what you learned in your investigation, predict which food(s) a bird with this type of beak would eat and explain why” ([83], p. 58). |
Planning and critiquing of investigations | “Explain why the models used in these investigations can be used to study how wind changes sand dunes. Use your data and observations to support your answer.” ([85], p. 43) |
Conducting investigations | “Describe the pattern in your graph. Explain how increasing soil particle size affects the amount of water soil holds.” ([81], p. 32) |
Developing and evaluating explanations | “Use what you learned in your investigation and what you know about what birds eat to explain how the shape of a bird’s beak affects its survival.” ([83], p. 54) “Explain what people could do to keep the dunes at the beach in place. Use your data to explain why this would work.” ([85], p. 47) |
4.1.2. Represent Data
4.1.3. Describe an Investigational Design
4.2. Professional Development
4.3. Science Kits
5. Results
- Standards-based scientific practices for K-12 science education [9].
- The 13 Inquiry Task constructs on the NECAP science assessment.
- The instances of each construct provided to teachers as an Inquiry task released item by the state for each of the tested years from 2008–2011.
- Examples of quotations from each teacher as evidence of instructional decisions.
Scientific Practices [9] | NECAP Standardized Science Test—Inquiry Task Constructs 1–13 | Construct Instances-Annual Inquiry Task Released Items | Ann—Sample Quote(s) of Instructional Decisions | Lee—Sample Quote(s) of Instructional Decisions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Asking questions and defining problems | 1. Analyze information from observations, research, or experimental data for the purpose of formulating a question, hypothesis or prediction. | 1. (3)—2008, 2009, 2011 | “I’m going to let them create their own investigation from their wonderings instead of the actual focus question from the science kit.” | “They’ve been stifled. I’ll get them knowing it’s comfortable and its OK…to question.” “They’re the question makers. They decide. I put as much in their hands as possible.” |
Developing and using models | No construct for this practice on the NECAP. | None on Grade 4 Released Items—Years 2008–2011 | “We defined what a series circuit is and they drew a picture with no materials about what they thought it would look like and what was going to happen.” | “Draw a series circuit that would be able to test if the flow goes through an object to close the circuit.” |
Planning and carrying out investigations | 4. Identify information/ evidence that needs to be collected in order to answer the question, hypothesis, prediction. | 4. (1)—2010 | “I give them the focus question and they figure out how they want to solve it.” “They’re required to create the procedure. I’m not telling them what they should be doing. Then, they do a data observation chart or a descriptive piece.” “My plan is they’re going to set up [the series circuit] designed by every person individually in the small groups….and they’re going to be able to talk it through and see if its right….what worked, what didn’t work and why.” | “So when we do investigations, we need to have some parameters [controlling of variables].” “They’re on their own to collect data.” “They learned from the mistakes [of data collection] that they made before.” “Think with your partner, what do you want to try, what do you want to test or experiment with?” |
Analyzing and interpreting data | 11. Analyze data, including determining if data are relevant, artifact, irrelevant or anomalous. | 11. (2)—2008, 2011 | “My focus is to slow down the amount of inquiry so we really delve into what is the data, what does it really mean.” “You did it this way and they did it this way. What is the difference in your data? Why do you think that? What are those things that you’re not realizing?” “They have to analyze it [the data], make decisions from it.” | “’What looks different about this teams’?’ “Let them notice there’s a difference and figure it out.” |
Using mathematics and computational thinking | 8. Use accepted methods for organizing, representing and manipulating data. | 8. (4)—2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 | “They have to make representations of it [the data], make graphs….It’s taking the data and putting it in and analyzing it and learning from it.” | “I needed them to represent it [the data] in all different ways.” “You collect the data, get the median, and show me the data in graph form.” “They have to represent data accurately….really labeled well….and attention to detail.” |
Constructing explanations and designing solutions | 10. Summarize results based on data. | 10. (3)—2009, 2010, 2011 | “You need to provide evidence and tell them where you got those ideas from.”“They know I’m going to ask, ‘Why do you think that?’” “What do you think of his thinking?” | “I’m planning for good written explanations of what they see, that explaining, that being able to speak what they’re seeing.” “What are your thoughts? What did you find? What information do you want to share?” |
Engaging in argument from evidence | 2. Construct coherent argument in support of a question, hypothesis, prediction. | None on Grade 4 Released Items—Years 2008–2011 | “My goal is student to student accountable talk…they have to listen so they can either add on or disagree or agree with it—‘We saw that too, and this is what we did next.’” | |
Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information | 13. Communicate how scientific knowledge applies to explain results, propose further investigations or construct and analyze alternative explanations. | 13. (3)—2009, 2010, 2010 | “We’re trying to get them…to apply what they’re learning.” “After working with each other’s information, they were able to figure out what was accurate and what was not accurate.” “They are getting to the point in their conversations, ‘I agree with___ because and I disagree with ___ because,’ but they need to put that into their writing too.” | “I want them to solve problems and I want them to apply their knowledge.” “I require more explanation not only verbally but through writing….sometimes it’s graphs, sometimes, it’s pictures.” |
- Science planning informed by the state science assessment. Despite pressure in high stakes subject areas, both teachers were committed to providing reform-based science. Though there were similarities in their approach to planning, the results indicated differences in their goals and focus areas informed by their respective training and resources.
- Student ownership of investigations. Both teachers promoted student ownership of the investigations, informed by the tasks and constructed-response format students were expected to complete on the test reflecting the investigation-based level [38]. However, the emphases on promoting students’ development of testable questions, controlled variables and fair tests varied between the teachers, which correlated with the nature of the professional development each received in investigation-based science.
- Student scientific discourse as precursor to writing. Both teachers promoted students’ scientific discourse as a means to build their capacity to generate and write evidence-based conclusions on the test reflecting the evidence-based level of teaching science [38]. However, only Ann provided the argument-based level of teaching science, informed by the training she received in Accountable Talk®.
5.1. Science Planning Informed by the State Science Assessment
“They’re great at doing the Inquiry Task in their small group…. So we’re not so focused on the content knowledge….We need to work on their data and their analysis and their written output of what they’ve really learned. It’s analyzing the data and writing about it. That’s where we’re falling apart.”
“I realize that the NECAP is application, whereas with the textbook, I saw content….I need them to apply their knowledge to real life. That’s what the NECAP does. So I’m always telling them they’re going to ask you, “Now you have this knowledge, apply it.” I think I was missing the application piece before.”
5.2. Student Ownership of Investigations
- Promotion of student capacity to investigate scientific questions
- Adoption of an “open” investigation approach to the science kit
- Development of students’ capacity in writing for investigations
5.2.1. Promotion of Student Capacity to Investigate Scientific Questions
5.2.2. Adoption of an “Open” Investigation Approach to the Science Kit
5.2.3. Development of Students’ Capacity in Writing for Investigations
5.3. Student Scientific Discourse as a Precursor to Writing
- Development of students’ scientific vocabulary
- Promotion of oral discussions and student writing for evidence-based explanations
- Creation of a climate for scientific discourse and argumentation
5.3.1. Development of Students’ Scientific Vocabulary
5.3.2. Promotion of Oral Discussions and Student Writing for Evidence-Based Explanations
5.3.3. Climate for Scientific Discourse and Argumentation
6. Discussion and Conclusion
Conflict of Interest
References
- National Research Council, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
- National Research Council, National Science Education Standards; The National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
- U.S. Department of Education (USDE). Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 8 January 2002. Available online: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#sec1111 (accessed on 4 October 2008).
- National Science Foundation. NST at a Glance. Available online: http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp (accessed on 10 June 2013).
- Lazerson, M. American Education in the Twentieth Century; Teachers college Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Atkin, J.M.; Karplus, R. Discovery of invention? The Sc. Teach. 1962, 29, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
- BSCS, Science for Life and Living; Kendall/Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1988.
- National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; The National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
- National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
- NGSS. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; Achieve Inc. on behalf of the 26 states and partners: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Available online: http://nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards (accessed on 10 June 2013).
- Diamond, J.B.; Spillane, J.P. High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teach. Coll. Rec. 2004, 106, 1145–1176. [Google Scholar]
- Spillane, J.P.; Diamond, J.B.; Walker, L.J.; Halverson, R.; Jita, L. Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 918–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravitch, D. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Darling-Hammond, L. Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race. Ethn. Educ. 2007, 10, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haertel, E.; Herman, J. A Historical Perspective on Validity Arguments for Accountability Testing; (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 654); University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hursh, D. Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race Ethn. Educ. 2007, 10, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, C.C. Effective science teaching, professional development and No Child Left Behind: Barriers, dilemmas, and reality. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2007, 18, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, O.; Krajcik, J. Large-scale interventions in science education for diverse student groups in varied educational settings. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2012, 49, 271–280. [Google Scholar]
- Darling-Hammond, L. Performance Counts: Assessment Systems that Support High-Quality Learning; Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhn, D. A developmental model of critical thinking. Educ. Res. 1999, 28, 16–26, 46. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhn, D.; Weinstock, M. What Is Epistemological Thinking and Why does It Matter? In Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing; Hofer, B., Pintrich, P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 121–144. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, A.L. Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-regulation, and Other More Mysterious Mechanisms. In Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding; Weinert, F.E., Kluwe, R.H., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 65–116. [Google Scholar]
- Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Boujaoude, S.; Duschl, R.; Lederman, N.G.; Mamlok-Naaman, R.; Hofstein, A.; Niaz, M.; Treagust, D.; Tuan, H. Inquiry in science education: International perspective. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 397–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, L.A. Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 835–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, K.; Shumow, L.; Lietz, S. Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Sci. Educ. 2001, 85, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, O.; Hart, J.E.; Cuevas, P.; Enders, C. Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 1021–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yerrick, R.K.; Hoving, T.J. One foot on the dock and one foot on the boat: Differences among preservice science teachers’ interpretations of field-based science methods in culturally diverse contexts. Sci. Educ. 2003, 87, 390–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anyon, J. What Should Count as Educational Research: Notes toward a New Paradigm. In Education Research in the Public Interest: Social Justice, Action, and Policy; Ladson-Billings, G., Tate, W.F., Eds.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Delpit, L. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom; The New Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Duschl, R.A. Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- McNeil, K.L.; Lizotte, D.J.; Krajcik, J.; Marx, R.W. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolding in instructional materials. J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15, 153–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandoval, W.A.; Reiser, B.J. Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 345–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driver, R.; Newton, P.; Osborne, J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 287–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osborne, J.; Erduran, S.; Simon, S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 994–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All Americans: Education for a Changing Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
- Barrow, L.H. A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2006, 17, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minner, D.D.; Levy, A.J.; Century, J. Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47, 474–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zembal-Saul, C. Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 687–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linn, M.C. Designing the knowledge integration environment. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 781–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thadani, V.; Cook, M.S.; Griffis, K.; Wise, J.A.; Blakey, A. The possibilities and limitations of curriculum-based science inquiry interventions for challenging the “pedagogy of poverty”. Eq. Excell. Educ. 2010, 43, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schibeci, R.A.; Hickey, R. Is it natural or processed? Elementary school teachers and conceptions about materials. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 1154–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartholomew, H.; Osborne, J.; Ratcliffe, M. Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88, 655–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varelas, M.; Pappas, C.C.; Kane, J.M.; Arsenault, A. Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 65–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, N. What do effective teachers of literacy do? Subject knowledge and pedagogical choices for literacy. Literacy 2007, 41, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaral, O.M.; Garrison, L. Missing the forest for the trees. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlone, H.B.; Haun-Frank, J.; Webb, A. Assessing equity beyond knowledge- and skills-based outcomes: A comparative ethnography of two fourth-grade reform-based science classrooms. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2011, 48, 459–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upadhyay, B.R. Practicing reform-based science curriculum in an urban classroom: A Hispanic elementary schools teacher’s thinking and decisions. School Sci. Math. 2005, 105, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berube, C.T. Are standards preventing good teaching? Clear. House 2004, 77, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, J.L. Accountability and Assessment in the Service of Learning: Is Public Interest in K-12 Education Being Served? In The Future of Test-Based Accountability; Ryan, K.E., Shepard, L.A., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 211–232. [Google Scholar]
- Herman, J.L. Moving to the Next Generation of Standards for Science: Building on Recent Practices; (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 762); University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Herman, J. Making Accountability Work to Improve Student Learning; (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 649); University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST): Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Polikoff, M.S. Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. Am. J. Educ. 2012, 118, 341–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Au, W. High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educ. Res. 2007, 36, 258–267. [Google Scholar]
- Marx, R.W.; Harris, C.J. No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elem. School J. 2006, 106, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raudenbush, S.W. What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice? J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2004, 29, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, L.A.; Atwater, M.M. Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs. Sci. Educ. 2002, 86, 821–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldston, D. Elementary science: Left behind? J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2005, 16, 185–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geier, R.; Blumenfeld, P.; Marx, R.; Krajcik, J.; Fishman, B.; Soloway, E. Standardized Test Outcomes of Urban Students Participating in Standards- and Project-based Science Curricula. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Science; Kafai, Y., Sandoval, W., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A., Herrera, F., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 310–317. [Google Scholar]
- Songer, N.B.; Lee, H.S.; Kam, R. Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 128–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrams, L.M.; Pedulla, J.J.; Madaus, G.F. Views from the classroom: Teacher’s opinion of statewide testing programs. Theor. Prac. 2003, 42, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedulla, J.; Abrams, L.; Madaus, G.; Russell, M.; Ramos, M.; Miao, J. Perceived Effects of State Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning; National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, O.L.; Lee, H.-S.; Hofsetter, C.; Linn, M.C. Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educ. Assess. 2008, 13, 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, S.S. Test worth teaching to: Constructing state-mandated tests that emphasize critical thinking. Educ. Res. 2001, 30, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Songer, N.B.; Wenk Gotwals, A. Guiding explanation construction by children at the entry points of learning progressions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 141–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erlandson, D.A.; Harris, E.L.; Skipper, B.L.; Allen, S.D. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods; Sage: London, England, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Guba, E.G.; Lincoln, Y.S. Effective Evaluation; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Merriam, S.B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Kid’s Count Data Center. Data by State. Available online: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Default.aspx (accessed on 10 June 2011).
- Duncan-Andrade, J. Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers in urban schools. Int. J. Qual.Stud. Educ. 2007, 20, 617–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladson-Billings, G. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Farr, S. Teaching as Leadership: The Highly Effective Teacher’s Guide to Closing the Achievement Gap; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lazar, A. Literacy teachers making a difference in urban schools: A context-specific look at effective literacy teaching. J. Read. Educ. 2006, 32, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, K.D.; Bennet, B.; Sherman, D.F. Themes of uncommonly successful teachers of at-risk students. Urban Educ. 1991, 26, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, C.M.; Peterson, P.L. Teachers’ thought Processes. In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed.; Wittrock, M.C., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 255–296. [Google Scholar]
- Joyce, B. Toward a theory of information processing in teaching. Educ. Res. Quart. 1978–79, 3, 66–77. [Google Scholar]
- Erickson, F. Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed.; Wittrock, M.C., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 119–161. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, M.; deMarrais, K.; Preissle, J.; Roulston, K.; St. Pierre, E.A. Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educ. Res. 2007, 36, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- NECAP. Guide to Using the 2011 NECAP Science Reports. 2011. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/Assessment-Schedule-Workshops/Guide-to-Using-the-2011-NECAP-Science-Reports.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2011: Grade 4 Science. 2011. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2011-Gr4-Science-Released-Items.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- NECAP. NECAP Assessment of Inquiry. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Science/NECAP-InquirySchema.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2008: Grade 4 Science. 2008. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2008-Gr4-ScienceReleasedItems-SupportMaterials.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2009: Grade 4 Science. 2009. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/2009-Grade-4-Science-Released-Items-Support-Materials.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- NECAP. Released Items Support Materials 2010: Grade 4 Science. 2010. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2010-Gr4-Science-Released-Items-V2.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- NECAP. Task Booklet 2008 Grade 4 Released Science Inquiry Task: Bird Beaks and Survival. 2008. Available online: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/NECAP/Released-Items/NECAP-2008-Gr4-ScienceReleased-TaskBooklet.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2012).
- Michaels, S.; O’Connor, M.C.; Hall, M.W.; Resnick, L.B. Accountable Talk® Sourcebook: For Classroom Conversation That Works; University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Institute for Inquiry. Fundamentals of Inquiry. Available online: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/workshops/fundamentals/ (accessed on 10 June 2011).
- Full Option Science System (FOSS), Magnetism and Electricity: Teacher Guide; Delta Education: Nashua, NH, USA, 2005.
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Electric Circuits: Teacher’s Guide; Carolina Biological Supply Company: Burlington, NC, USA, 2004.
- Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J. Understanding by Design; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Keys, C.W.; Kennedy, V. Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 1999, 10, 315–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhn, D.; Pease, M. What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cogn. Instruct. 2008, 26, 512–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz, K.E. On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children’s science curricula. Rev. Educ. Res. 1997, 67, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz, K.E. Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cogn. Instruct. 2004, 22, 219–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Stanne, M.B. Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. 2000. Available online: http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%20Learning%20Research%20.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2012).
- Mercer, N.; Dawes, L.; Wegerif, R.; Sams, C. Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2004, 30, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Appendix 1
Weekly Semi-Structured Interview Guide
- Describe your plans for science instruction for this week.
- Suppose I was present as you planned, what would I see you doing or how would you describe your thought process?
- What factors influenced your decisions for this week?
- Describe the resources that you used to assist you with your planning (i.e., curricular materials, team planning, experts).
- Describe any resources you needed that you sought out on your own.
- Describe your feelings about your content knowledge for this week’s science lessons.
- What did or will you do to acquire the content knowledge for this week’s lessons?
- Describe the impact, if any, that the students had on your planning this week?
- What specific aspects of science did you explicitly plan for students to experience for this week’s science lessons?
- Describe your view of the role you will take in the science classroom this week.
- Describe your view of the role that your students will take in the science classroom this week.
Selected Emergent Questions about NECAP Testing
- In which areas did your students make progress last year on the NECAP science test?
- How are your plans this year different from past years as a result of the information you received from the released items or the test results?
- Why do you take note of the NECAP science test results if they do not affect AYP?
- How do you make time for science with the district’s emphasis on reading and math?
- You mentioned that you plan to focus this year on _______in preparing your students for the NECAP science test? Why?
- You mentioned that your goal is to promote your students’ questioning? What is involved in planning for student questioning?
- You mentioned that you wanted students to design their own procedures for investigations? What is involved in that planning?
- Lee) You explained that you focus on data collection and data representation? Why? What decisions do you make to promote your students’ development of these practices?
- What steps do you take or decisions do you make to promote students’ explanations about their findings?
- Ann) You mentioned that your goal is for students to evaluate their data and their claims. What steps do you take to promote students’ development of these practices?
- Describe the nature of your students’ conversations in science.
- Describe the nature of your students’ written conclusions.
Appendix 2
List of Open Codes
- Planning for the teacher role
- A1
- Classroom climate
- A2
- Teacher questioning
- A3
- Modeling
- A4
- Teacher guided vs. open investigations
- A5
- Teacher guided discourse
- A6
- Connections to real life
- Planning for the student role
- B1
- Collaboration in teams
- B2
- Student questioning
- B3
- Generating testable questions
- B4
- Designing investigation
- B5
- Designing data recording
- B6
- Representing data
- B7
- Student-generated scientific discourse
- B8
- Written documentation (see below)
- Planning in response to NECAP science test
- C1
- Goals for science instruction
- C2
- Controlling variables
- C3
- Designing a fair test
- C4
- Recording data
- C5
- Representing data in graph form
- C6
- Interpreting graphs
- C7
- Explaining reasoning
- C8
- Writing conclusions
- C9
- Applying findings to situations
- Planning for science discourse
- D1
- Science vocabulary
- D2
- Reporting out of findings
- D3
- Developing explanations based on evidence
- D4
- Evaluating evidence
- D5
- Listening to peer’s claims
- D6
- Evaluating claims
- D7
- Building on other’s ideas
- D8
- Considering alternative explanations
- Planning for writing
- E1
- Data recording
- E2
- Data representation
- E3
- Summary of findings
- E4
- Written claims supported by evidence
- E5
- Written evaluation of evidence and/or claims
- Planning for students with special needs
- F1
- English language learners
- F2
- Students with learning differences
- Professional Development Training
- G1
- Reform-based science
- G2
- Literacy
- G3
- Evidence-based discourse
- Resources Available
- H1
- NECAP science test released items
- H2
- Mentors
- H3
- Collaborating colleagues
- H4
- Commercial science kits
- H5
- Teacher-developed materials
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Mangiante, E.S. Planning Science Instruction for Critical Thinking: Two Urban Elementary Teachers’ Responses to a State Science Assessment. Educ. Sci. 2013, 3, 222-258. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3030222
Mangiante ES. Planning Science Instruction for Critical Thinking: Two Urban Elementary Teachers’ Responses to a State Science Assessment. Education Sciences. 2013; 3(3):222-258. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3030222
Chicago/Turabian StyleMangiante, Elaine Silva. 2013. "Planning Science Instruction for Critical Thinking: Two Urban Elementary Teachers’ Responses to a State Science Assessment" Education Sciences 3, no. 3: 222-258. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3030222