Curriculum philosophy & implications for science teaching & learning

Dewey, John (1951). Experience and Education. New York: The Macmillian Co. Chapters 1-4, 7-8.

Curriculum philosophy & implications for science teaching & learning

Bruner, Jerome (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Read Preface, CHAPTERS 1-4, 6

Continue discussing last week's Dewey.

Writing assignment (less than 1 page single spaced):  You are John Dewey, still alive, and you've written a lengthy book review of Bruner's book.

On your blog, you're posting shorter analysis/commentary about each chapter of Bruner.  Write your blog entry about either chapter 3 or chapter 4 (not both).  Since you're Dewey, you'll give a fair-minded quick summary of the chapter but also your analysis of the ways in which it does and does not reflect/build upon your ideas from Education and Experience.

What is scientific inquiry…

Schwab, J.J. What Do Scientists Do? In Schwab, J.J. (1978). Science, curriculum & liberal

education. Selected Essays.

NRC (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8.

National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

Writing assignment:  Schwab makes many fine-grained distinctions about different flavors of "enquiry" that the NRC chapter doesn't make.  Summarize one (or a small set) of those distinctions that are *potentially* relevant to your favorite grade level and science discipline. Then, offer an argument about whether those fine-grained distinctions actually matter for curriculum and instruction.  If you argue that those fine-grained distinctions *do* sometimes play into well-designed instruction, give an example (which need not be an actual lesson you've taught, though it can be).  If you argue that those fine-grained distinctions do *not* sometimes play into well-designed instruction, explain why not.

This is a more complex assignment than previous ones; please let me know if it's not clear.  And remember, you can always propose your own individualized assignment, if something strikes a nerve.

Please let me know if you're interested in leading discussion about these or future readings.

…and how is this often articulated in the classroom?

Given our discussion in class, I think these articles will be a natural follow-on.  I recommend reading the articles in this order:

Rudolph, J. (2005). Epistemology for the Masses: The origins of the “scientific method” in

American Schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341-376.

Windschitl, M. (2004). Caught in the cycle of reproducing folk theories of “Inquiry”: How preservice

teachers continue the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific

method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.

Hammer, D. Russ, R., Mikeska, J. Scherr, R. (2008). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students’ abilities. With response by Sandoval. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds). Establishing a Consensus Agenda for K-12 Science Inquiry. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.

Writing assignment.  Consider this statement from a hypothetical teacher who has read this week's readings:

"OK, OK, I get it, the 'scientific method' doesn't capture all the nuances of how scientists really work and it's highly artificial in some ways.  But I have such limited time to do 'science process' in my classroom that it's simply impossible for me to engage my students in all the nuances of science; and the scientific method is something well-defined that even young students can engage in -- and it is *part* of science, after all.  So, I think the scientific method should still have a central place in the 'science processes' part of my science instruction."

How would you respond?  Using readings from this (and maybe previous) weeks, write an argument for or against the hypothetical teacher's position.  If you argue against the hypothetical teacher's position, be sure to address the valid concerns and constraints the teacher brought up.  If you argue for the teacher's position, be sure to discuss and respond to the most compelling counterarguments that might be offered by the authors of this week's (and/or previous week's) readings.  Of course, you may argue for a "compromise" position; but whatever you do, support your argument partly with ideas from the readings.

Tensions between inquiry goals and other goals

These two articles provide rich descriptions of classroom "inquiry" episodes in which the teacher felt tension between different goals while deciding what to do next.  Please read them in this order:

Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the Mathematical Horizon: Dilemmas of Teaching Elementary

School Mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.

Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery Teaching, Discovery Learning. Cognition and Instruction 15(4),

485-529.

WRITING ASSIGNMENT:  Many people have strong reactions to one or both of these articles, so I'd like to encourage you to choose your own writing assignment if you feel you have something you want to say about either one.  Just let me know.  

   If nothing grabs you, here's what you could write about:  Dewey, Bruner, NRC2007,and Windschitl have all presented visions (not fully fleshed out, admittedly) about what science instruction should look like. Pick one of those four authors and summarize their vision of science instruction; then discuss in what ways Hammer's or Ball's classroom episodes are consistent and/or inconsistent with that vision.  For instance, what would Bruner say about Hammer's electrostatics lessons?  What would Dewey say about Ball's "Sean numbers" discussions?  Pick any pairing like that.

Curriculum (in the usual sense of "curriculum") that supports inquiry

Sandoval, W. & Reiser, B.J. (2004). Explanation-Driven Inquiry: Integrating Conceptual and

Epistemic Scaffolds for Scientific Inquiry. Science Education. 88:345 – 372.

Barab, S, Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D, Ingram-Goble, A, Kwon, E.J., Kouper, I., Herring,

S.C. (2007). Situationally Embodied Curriculum: Relating Formalism and Context.

Science Education 91:750 – 782.

WRITING ASSIGNMENT:  As always, you can make up your own, but here are two options.  Answer JUST ONE of these, not both.

Option #1:  Both sets of authors say they use "design-based research" principles to iteratively refine their curricula over multiple cycles. But the two articles advance slightly different versions of "design-based research."  First, briefly summarize the similarities and differences between the two versions of design-based research the two articles discuss.  Then, discuss whether those differences are consequential or "just words," using example(s) from the articles to support your argument.

Option #2:  The curricula discussed in both articles incorporate scaffolding to support the students' inquiry, and they discuss their reasons for designing those scaffolds in certain specific ways.  Do these discussions about the scaffolds and the reasons behind them "speak to" people develo

Inquiry and student epistemology

Smith, C.L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., Hennessey, M.G. (2008). Sixth-Grade Students'

Epistemologies of Science: the Impact of School Science Experiences on Epistemological

Development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3) 349-422.

Bell, P, Linn, M. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does instruction contribute? In Hofer, B. and

Pintrich, P.R. Personal Epistemology: The Psychology

Discourse in the Science Classroom

Lemke, J. (1991). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. NJ: Ablex. Chapter 2: A

Lot of Heat and Not Much Light (pp.28-43).

Kelly, GJ, Chen, C. (2007). The Sound of Music: Constructing Science As Sociocultural

Practices through Oral and Written Discourse. Science Education, 91:750 – 782.

Rosebery, A.S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating Scientific Discourse:

Findings from Language Minority Classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1),

61-94.

Diversity in the science classroom

Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the "standard" direction: Science emerging from the lives of

African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1000-

1014.

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A.S., Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001).

Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making, The

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (5): 529-552.

Lee C.D. (1995). A Culturally Based Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching African American

High School Students Skills in Literary Interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly,

30(4), 608-631...

Roth, WM, Barton, A.C. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. London: Routledge.

Assessment of and for learning

Black, P. J. & Wiliam, B. (1998) Inside the Black Box, Phi Delta Kappan.

Duschl, R.D. & Gitomer, D.H. (1997) Strategies and Challenges to Changing the Focus of

Assessment and Instruction in Science Classrooms, Educational Assessment, 4 (1),

37-73.

Learning in out of school settings

Nasir, N. (2005). Individual Cognitive Structuring and the Sociocultural Context: Strategy

Shifts in the Game of Dominos. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 5 – 34.

Kaptelinin, V., Cole, M. (2002) Individual and Collective Activities in Educational Computer

Game Playing.

Presentations

Teacher Education

Windschitl, M. (2005). The future of science teacher preparation in America : Where is the

evidence to inform program design and guide responsible policy decisions? Science

Education, 89 (4), 525-534.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review

of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers attention to student

thinking: Confronting stage-based models of teacher development. Journal of Teacher

Education.

Presentations