Search

Facilitating discussions is a key approach that science teachers use to engage students in scientific argumentation. However, learning how to facilitate argumentation-focused discussions is an ambitious teaching practice that can be difficult to learn how to do well, especially for preservice teachers (PSTs) who typically have limited opportunities to tryout and refine this teaching practice. This study examines secondary PSTs' perceptions and engagement with a science performance task--used within an online, simulated classroom consisting of five middle school student avatars--to practice this ambitious teaching practice. Findings showed that the PSTs had a strong understanding of the discussion's primary goal and perceived the task components to be easy to understand, useful in helping them prepare for the simulated discussion, and an authentic representation of what middle school students would say and do. In addition, while the PSTs attended to similar content and pedagogical features within their facilitated discussion, they varied in their ability to successfully facilitate the discussion. This study adds to the growing literature on innovative, technology-based solutions for supporting teacher learning and points to one productive approach that can be incorporated within science teacher education as an approximation of practice of this ambitious teaching practice.

Engaging students in scientific argumentation is a hallmark of high-quality science instruction. Despite the importance of this practice, it is not a ubiquitous one within K-12 classrooms since scientific argumentation is complex and difficult to learn how to do well. In this study, we examined similarities and differences in how preservice teachers (PSTs) and in-service teachers (ISTs) facilitate an argumentation-focused discussion with five upper elementary student avatars in an online, simulated classroom. Developing a better understanding of how science teachers at different stages of their career foster scientific argumentation will support teacher educators and researchers in designing more directed interventions to scaffold teacher learning of this complex practice. Findings showed that most teachers provided opportunities for students to engage in both argument construction and critique during these discussions. In addition, both PSTs and ISTs frequently prompted students to reference data or observations to engage in argument construction and were most likely to prompt students to agree or disagree and explain the reason for their agreement or disagreement to engage in argument critique. Finally, findings showed that ISTs used a wider variety of talk moves and used them more frequently in an integrated fashion throughout the discussions to engage the students in scientific argumentation. Implications for studying and promoting teacher learning of this complex teaching practice and for integrating simulated classrooms as practice-based tools in science teacher education and professional development settings are discussed.

The aim of this study was to assess evidence for the validity of General Mindset (GM) and Engineering Mindset (EM) surveys that we developed for fifth-grade students (ages 10-11). In both surveys, we used six items to measure student mindset to determine if it was more fixed (presuming intelligence is fixed and failure is a sign that one is not smart enough) or more growth-minded (presuming one can become smarter and that failures are signals to improve) (Dweck, 1986). We administered surveys to 2473 fifth-grade students (ages 10-11) who learned one or two engineering units during one academic year. Using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) then Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), we identified a single factor for each survey. We assert that there is strong evidence for the validity of using the GM or EM survey with students ages 10-11. The EM survey should be given after students have engaged in engineering classwork in school.

In this report of an action research study, the authors describe how one elementary science teacher educator used transcript coding of simulated classroom discussions as a pedagogical approach to learn about her elementary preservice teachers' (PSTs') abilities to notice key aspects of scientific argumentation discussions. Elementary PSTs (n = 19) enrolled in a science methods course engaged in transcript coding before and after facilitating their own argumentation discussions in the Mursion® simulated classroom environment with five upper-elementary student avatars. The first transcript was from a PST outside of the course; the second was from PSTs' own discussions. The study examined how PSTs' coding of the transcripts could provide the teacher educator with insights regarding PSTs' noticing about engaging students in argument construction and critique. The study also aimed to investigate PSTs' perspectives on the utility of transcript coding. Findings showed that PSTs can code with accuracy, yet they may be more apt to miss coding teacher prompts that encourage students to share reasoning. Results also revealed that PSTs sometimes coded nonexamples of argument construction and critique, suggesting a need for more targeted learning experiences to connect teaching principles with classroom interactions, and the PSTs perceived coding their own and other's transcripts as uniquely valuable learning experiences.

The purpose of this research study was to examine in-service teachers' perceptions about, attention to, and use of two different types of written formative feedback designed to support them in developing their ability to engage in one core teaching practice: facilitating discussions that engage students in scientific argumentation. This core teaching practice has been nominated as important for building students' scientific literacy and has been perennially difficult for teachers to learn how to engage in successfully. This study used an online, simulated classroom made up of five upper elementary student avatars as the practice-based space where the participating in-service teachers facilitated two science discussions. Following the first discussion, each teacher received one of two types of written formative feedback (namely, specific feedback or scoring level feedback) based on their discussion. Findings indicated that the teachers perceived both types of feedback as useful and strongly attended to areas of improvement suggested in the written feedback, regardless of feedback condition. Study results suggest that the use of specific or scoring level feedback can serve as one valuable mechanism to support improvement when using online simulations with elementary science teachers.

The broad case being made in this paper is that recognizing student assets--rather than focusing on deficits--is essential for making engineering education more equitable. The paper begins with our exploration of an epistemic practice of engineering, ''making tradeoffs,'' as enacted by kindergartners after experiencing design failure and during redesign. We then acknowledge through a reexamination of data that our understanding of children's grappling about a trade-off was incomplete without considering another asset that children brought to the design experience: ''enacting empathy and an ethic of care.'' We argue for the inclusion of this asset as an epistemic practice of engineering. Doing so has implications for improving learning experiences, research, and equity in engineering education.

Background: Students may exhibit growth mindsets, where intelligence is seen as malleable and failures prompt more effort and new approaches, or fixed mindsets, where intelligence is seen as immutable and failures indicate lack of intelligence. One's mindset in general may be different from that for a particular domain such as engineering. Having a growth mindset predicts more positive learning outcomes. Purpose: We described the general and engineering mindsets of students in fifth-grade U.S. classrooms (ages 10 and 11) who received engineering instruction. We explored how general mindsets may predict engineering learning outcomes and how engineering mindsets may be predicted by general mindset and other variables. Design/Method: We collected General Mindset (GM) and Engineering Mindset (EM) surveys from 2,086 fifth graders. We analyzed and correlated their GM and EM scores and survey item responses. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we measured the contribution of GM to models predicting EM and engineering learning outcomes and identified factors that predicted EM. Results: Almost three quarters of students who submitted EM surveys agreed with a growth mindset. Students with higher GM scores had higher engineering postassessment scores. Those who had a higher socioeconomic status did not receive special education services, experienced more whole-class discussion and activity, or had a higher GM score were more likely to have a more growth-minded EM score. Conclusions: Engineering education should help students see that they can grow in their capacities to engineer. Instructional interventions may positively impact mindset, which could be particularly important for some students. Engineering design may encourage an especially growth-minded approach to failure experiences.

Providing opportunities for students to talk directly with their peers is a critical dimension to facilitating discussions in mathematics and science, including argumentation‐focused discussions in which students construct arguments and critique others' arguments. Research suggests that supporting student‐to‐student talk and facilitating argumentation discussions are complex and challenging practices for preservice teachers (PSTs). Elementary PSTs from two mathematics and two science methods courses practiced facilitating student‐to‐student talk within the context of an argumentation‐focused discussion. This study's main purpose was to explore the prompts that 29 PSTs used to encourage student‐to‐student talk in a simulated classroom. Findings show the PSTs were able to use direct prompts that encourage student‐to‐student talk but were just as likely to use prompts that may discourage students from talking to each other. Most direct prompts PSTs used to encourage student‐to‐student talk were for the purpose of argumentation construction and/or critique. PSTs were more likely to use indirect prompts, much like Talk Moves, that encourage students to consider others' ideas rather than requesting that students talk with each other. These findings have important implications for future research, as well as for teacher educators and professional learning facilitators who support teachers learning to encourage student‐to‐student talk during argumentation‐focused discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engaging children in argumentation‐focused discussions is essential to helping them collaboratively make sense of scientific phenomena. To support this effort, teachers must listen and be responsive to students' ideas to move the discussion forward with the goal of reaching consensus. Given the complexity of this ambitious science teaching practice, in lieu of traditional field experiences, online simulated teaching experiences provide opportunities for preservice teachers to practice implementing these strategies in a low‐risk, high‐support environment. Limited research has explored elementary preservice teachers' responsiveness while navigating an argumentation‐focused discussion, particularly in an online simulated teaching experience. The purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas while eliciting students' initial constructed arguments and encouraging argument critique in two online simulated teaching experiences. Findings showed that preservice teachers' responsiveness to students' ideas was high in both online simulated teaching experiences when asking students to share evidence as well as engage in critique. However, their responsiveness varied when prompting for reasoning and was often low when eliciting students' claims. These findings provide empirical evidence that such online simulated teaching experiences can be used as productive spaces for PSTs to practice being responsive to students' ideas during argumentation‐focused discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This mixed-methods study examines how teachers who have taught one or two units of the Engineering is Elementary (EiE) curriculum for two years reported on: students' responses to design failure; the ways in which they, the teachers, supported these students and used fail words (e.g. fail, failure); and the teachers' broad perspectives and messages to students about failure. In addition, the study explores how strategies, perspectives, messages, and fail word use may change after two years of engineering instruction. This study builds on previous work about elementary teachers': perspectives on failure prior to teaching engineering, and responses to and perspectives on failure after teaching EiE unit(s) for one year. Data collected included 74 surveys, containing both quantitative and qualitative items, and ten in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed via non-parametric methods, and qualitative analysis involved an iterative search for codes and themes. The convergent mixed-methods design enabled comparison across quantitative and qualitative findings. Findings included that the elementary engineering classroom is a complex space in which teams may or may not experience design failure; for those teams that do, they--and, in turn, their teachers--may respond to this experience in a wide range of ways. Also, after two years of teaching engineering, teachers felt more comfortable preparing students for design failure experiences, and responding when design failure occurred. Most also felt more comfortable using fail words, and when they used these words, learned to do so with context and care.

This mixed methods study examines perspectives on failure in the classroom by elementary teachers new to teaching engineering. The study participants included 254 teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade who responded to survey questions about failure, as well as a subset of 38 of those teachers who participated in interviews about failure. The study first examines the literature about failure in the contexts of engineering and education. Failure is positioned as largely normative and expected in engineering, whereas in education, learning and failure have a more tenuous relationship. Identity, failure avoidance, failure as part of the learning process, growth and fixed mindset, resilience, perseverance, and grit are addressed in a discussion of failure and education. Quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized to examine how participants: reacted to the words failure or fail, reported allowing students to fail or revise their work, considered how failure should be avoided in education, considered how failure may be construed as a learning experience, and reported using the words failure or fail in their classrooms. Conclusions from the study include that: failure has a largely negative connotation within education and by teachers, which influences how teachers use the words fail and failure and create failure experiences for their students; many teachers practice resilience and perseverance and encourage similar practices in their students with respect to mistakes in the classroom, which serves as a helpful yet somewhat inaccurate analogue for failure in engineering design; and there is evidence that many teachers have adopted a growth mindset and encourage this mindset in their classrooms--however, there are some challenges to a true adoption of this mindset by teachers.

Engaging students in scientific argumentation is a hallmark of high‐quality science instruction. Despite the importance of this practice, it is not a ubiquitous one within K‐12 classrooms since scientific argumentation is complex and difficult to learn how to do well. In this study, we examined similarities and differences in how preservice teachers (PSTs) and in‐service teachers (ISTs) facilitate an argumentation‐focused discussion with five upper elementary student avatars in an online, simulated classroom. Developing a better understanding of how science teachers at different stages of their career foster scientific argumentation will support teacher educators and researchers in designing more directed interventions to scaffold teacher learning of this complex practice. Findings showed that most teachers provided opportunities for students to engage in both argument construction and critique during these discussions. In addition, both PSTs and ISTs frequently prompted students to reference data or observations to engage in argument construction and were most likely to prompt students to agree or disagree and explain the reason for their agreement or disagreement to engage in argument critique. Finally, findings showed that ISTs used a wider variety of talk moves and used them more frequently in an integrated fashion throughout the discussions to engage the students in scientific argumentation. Implications for studying and promoting teacher learning of this complex teaching practice and for integrating simulated classrooms as practice‐based tools in science teacher education and professional development settings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this research study was to examine in-service teachers' perceptions about, attention to, and use of two different types of written formative feedback designed to support them in developing their ability to engage in one core teaching practice: facilitating discussions that engage students in scientific argumentation. This core teaching practice has been nominated as important for building students' scientific literacy and has been perennially difficult for teachers to learn how to engage in successfully. This study used an online, simulated classroom made up of five upper elementary student avatars as the practice-based space where the participating in-service teachers facilitated two science discussions. Following the first discussion, each teacher received one of two types of written formative feedback (namely, specific feedback or scoring level feedback) based on their discussion. Findings indicated that the teachers perceived both types of feedback as useful and strongly attended to areas of improvement suggested in the written feedback, regardless of feedback condition. Study results suggest that the use of specific or scoring level feedback can serve as one valuable mechanism to support improvement when using online simulations with elementary science teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this report of an action research study, the authors describe how one elementary science teacher educator used transcript coding of simulated classroom discussions as a pedagogical approach to learn about her elementary preservice teachers' (PSTs') abilities to notice key aspects of scientific argumentation discussions. Elementary PSTs (n = 19) enrolled in a science methods course engaged in transcript coding before and after facilitating their own argumentation discussions in the Mursion® simulated classroom environment with five upper-elementary student avatars. The first transcript was from a PST outside of the course; the second was from PSTs' own discussions. The study examined how PSTs' coding of the transcripts could provide the teacher educator with insights regarding PSTs' noticing about engaging students in argument construction and critique. The study also aimed to investigate PSTs' perspectives on the utility of transcript coding. Findings showed that PSTs can code with accuracy, yet they may be more apt to miss coding teacher prompts that encourage students to share reasoning. Results also revealed that PSTs sometimes coded nonexamples of argument construction and critique, suggesting a need for more targeted learning experiences to connect teaching principles with classroom interactions, and the PSTs perceived coding their own and other's transcripts as uniquely valuable learning experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]