Search

Background/ContextThe emphasis on scientific practices articulated by the National Research Council framework and the Next Generation Science Standards requires significant pedagogical shifts for U.S. science teachers.Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of StudyThis study provides a rare window into the challenges and opportunities teachers encounter as they introduce argument writing into their science classrooms with support from the National Writing Project's Inquiry into Science Writing project. The purpose of this study is to better understand the teacher-change process so as to inform the development of future professional development efforts.Population/Participants/SubjectsCase studies were drawn from a professional development network led by the National Writing Project to support teachers in studying and improving their practice while sharing knowledge and benefiting from the expertise of others. The network included 28 middle school teachers at five writing project sites around the United States; the case studies presented in this article are based on the experiences of three of these teachers.Intervention/Program/PracticeThe Inquiry into Science Writing Project was a 2-year practitioner-driven professional learning experience seeking to better understand and support student practice around evidence-based science writing. During the duration of the project, teachers taught at least one lesson series culminating in written arguments by students each semester, and participated in two summer institutes, an ongoing national professional learning community, and monthly meetings of their local teacher research group.Research DesignThe study uses a qualitative comparative case study approach.Data Collection and AnalysisThe case studies draw on interviews, lesson artifacts, written teacher reflections, and samples of student work.Conclusions/RecommendationsThe study findings reinforce the complexity of the change process: The relationship between teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes and their practice was not linear and unidirectional (i.e., change in attitude leads to change in practice) but rather iterative and mediated by both student work and the external supports they received. These findings confirm the need for sustained learning environments with features that promote enactment and reflection on student work to support teacher change. Further, they suggest that professional development providers should think about how to build habits of reflection into their own design processes, allowing space for feedback and learning from practitioners.

This paper proposes three new measures of components STEM career preferences (affinity, certainty, and goal), and then explores which dimensions of science learning activation (fascination, values,...

The Ocean Literacy movement began in the U.S. in the early 2000s, and has recently become an international effort. The focus on marine environmental issues and marine education is increasing, and y...

The authors of this article, all of whom have been a part of this effort to assess argumentation in literacy-rich science curriculum, have struggled with our attempts to build 3 argument-related assessments—understanding, critiquing, and constructing arguments about scientific phenomena in both oral and written modes. Loosely affiliated with the Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading Project at Lawrence Hall of Science, this effort focused on creating a suite of assessments as models for how middle school science teachers might create their own school-based, curriculum-embedded assessments of science. After reviewing the broad scope and insights derived from a 10-year history of assessments that operate at the intersection of science and literacy, we zoom in on 3 vexing but informative challenges they encountered—and addressed (if not resolved)—as they tried to assess the comprehension, critique, and construction of oral and written arguments.

Science consists of a body of knowledge and a set of processes by which the knowledge is produced. Although these have traditionally been treated separately in science instruction, there has been a shift to an integration of knowledge and processes, or set of practices, in how science should be taught and assessed. We explore whether a general overall mastery of the processes drives learning in new science content areas and if this overall mastery can be improved through engaged science learning. Through a review of literature, the paper conceptualizes this general process mastery as scientific sensemaking, defines the sub-dimensions, and presents a new measure of the construct centered in scenarios of general interest to young adolescents. Using a dataset involving over 2500 6th and 8th grade students, the paper shows that scientific sensemaking scores can predict content learning gains and that this relationship is consistent across student characteristics, content of instruction, and classroom environment. Further, students who are behaviorally and cognitively engaged during science classroom activities show greater growth in scientific sensemaking, showing a reciprocal relationship between sensemaking ability and effective science instruction. Findings from this work support early instruction on sensemaking activities to better position students to learn new scientific content.

In the United States, there is enormous controversy about how teachers ought to be prepared and licensed. Many of the sharpest controversies stem from acute public skepticism about whether formal teacher preparation is really necessary at all given the lack of conclusive evidence that teacher preparation has a direct impact on students' achievement. With these larger issues in mind, this article presents a review of recent research that empirically examines the connection between teachers' education and either teaching practice or teacher retention (or both). The literature in six distinct genres of research is reviewed with cross-genre conclusions and implications.