Notes

Chapter 1

  

1 This case is based on work with teachers involved in the Accountable Talk in Math and Science Project, funded by the Davis Foundation and the Springfield, Massachusetts Public Schools, directed by Susan Catron, Sarah Michaels, and Richard Sohmer. For more information, visit http://www.investigatorsclub.com.

  

2 National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  

3 This case derives from the Accountable Talk in Math and Science Project, funded by the Davis Foundation and the Springfield, Massachusetts Public Schools, directed by Susan Catron, Sarah Michaels, and Richard Sohmer.

Chapter 2

  

1 The image of a length of rope representing interwoven strands is borrowed from a previous National Research Council volume on teaching and learning mathematics: National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  

2 National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  

3 This case is based on the work of teachers and researchers involved with the Modeling Nature Project, directed by Rich Lehrer and Leona Schauble at Vanderbilt University, as well as the work of botanist and teacher educator Glenn Adelson at Wellesley College.

Chapter 3

  

1 The term “theories” in this sense refers to the conceptual structure of children’s ideas. Children’s theories (or naïve theories) are like scientific theories in that they reflect interrelated and, to varying degrees, coherent accounts of the natural world. However, they are not explicit, accurate, or complete scientific accounts of phenomena.

  

2 This case is based on work with teachers at a middle school in Worcester, Massachusetts. It highlights the curriculum developed by Richard Sohmer for the Investigators Club, funded by the Spencer Foundation (for more information, visit http://www.investigatorsclub.com), and



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 167
draws on the teaching and writing of high school physics teacher and science educator Jim Minstrell (for more information, visit http://www.facetinnovations.com). Chapter 4 1National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science liter- acy. New York: Oxford University Press. 3Schmidt, W., Wang, H., and McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525­559. 4Much more on this learning progression can be found in Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.A., and Krajick, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessments: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4. 5This and the following two cases are based on an actual program, the Investigators Club, developed and researched with funding from the Spencer Foundation. 6 This case is based on Sohmer, R., and Michaels, S. (2007). The Investigators Club: An alternative to textbook science. In Voices in Urban Education, 14(winter). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. For more information and downloadable videos of the Air Puppies, visit http://www.investigatorsclub.com. 7 Given the age and experience of his students, Mr. Figueroa made a pedagogical decision to avoid distinguishing “weight” from “mass.” He recognizes that mass is the correct scientific term to refer to the amount of matter something contains and that weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object. Mass is a universal measurement, whereas weight changes with location. His children will learn these distinctions in subsequent years of instruction. However, because his children used the term weight and his goal was to help them understand that weight (or mass) can be measured in more precise ways than sense of feel, he chose to use weight. 8 For some teachers, two volleyballs and a bicycle pump will not be so easy to come by. The activ­ ity can be done with balloons as well. In this case, the teacher places two uninflated balloons on a pan balance and adjusts the scale so that they balance. With balloons, the demonstration is a bit more complex because the size of the balloon with air expands so dramatically and creates addi­ tional issues relating to air resistance. The inflated balloon will (as the children will likely point out) fall more slowly than the uninflated balloon, even though it is indeed heavier. 9 Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., and David, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding comparison of two approaches to teaching students about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 317­393. Chapter 5 1 This chapter draws on work by Cathy O’Connor and Sarah Michaels in “Accountable Talk: Classroom Conversation That Works” (3 CD­ROM set), Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh. (For more information, visit http://www.instituteforlearning.org.) 2 Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., and Anderson, N. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn: Grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions. 168 Ready, Set, SCIENCE!

OCR for page 167
3 This case is based on the work of teacher Gina Lally, in collaboration with researchers Suzanne Chapin and Cathy O’Connor. For more detail on establishing norms for productive class discussions, see Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., and Anderson, N. (2003). Classroom discus- sions: Using math talk to help students learn. Grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions. 4This section draws heavily on text from the “Accountable Talk: Classroom Conservation That Works,” e­book chapter “Equity and Access,” by Cathy O’Connor, Sarah Michaels, and Lauren Resnick. For more information, visit http://www.instituteforlearning.org. 5Lipka, J. (1998). Expanding curricular and pedagogical possibilities: Yup’ik­based mathe­ matics, science, and literacy. In J. Lipka with G.V. Mohatt and the Ciulistet Group (Eds.), Transforming the culture of schools: Yup’ik Eskimo examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 6 Au, K.H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91­ 115. See also: Tharp, R., and Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling social context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 7Lee, C.D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for under­ achieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97­141. 8 Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 23­69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. 9Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A.S., and Hudicourt­Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense­making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529­552. 10Hudicourt­Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73­93. 11 This case highlights the work of teacher researcher Judith Richard and is based on videotapes and verbatim transcripts from her class. The names of the teacher and students are pseud­ onyms. For more information, see Michaels, S., O’Connor, M.C., and Richards, J. (1994). Literacy as reasoning within multiple discourses: Implications for policy and educational reform. In Proceedings of the Council of Chief State School Officers 1990 Summer Institute on Restructuring Learning (pp. 107­121). Washington, DC: Chief State School Officers. Chapter 6 1 Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K.A. Renninger, and I.E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6th edition (vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2 Wisconsin Fast Plants is a popular curriculum tool that uses a small, hardy, fast­growing plant spe­ cies bred by Paul Williams of the University of Wisconsin–Madison for use in educational settings. 3 Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Education Research Journal, 41(3), 635­679. Reproduced with permission from the publisher. Chapter 7 1Reiser, B.J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W.A., Smith, B.K., Steinmuller, F., and Leone, A.J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S.M. 169 Notes

OCR for page 167
Carver and D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263­ 305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2 Krajcik, J., and Reiser, B.J. (2004). IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. 3Palincsar, A.S., and Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension­fostering and comprehension­monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117­175. 4 This case is based on a composite of classroom examples adapted from the research of Carol Smith and colleagues and Leslie Rupert Herrenkhol and colleagues. For more details, see: Smith, C., Snir, J., and Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight­density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221­283; Herrenkhol, L.R., Palincsar, A.S., DeWater, L.S., and Kawaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Science, 8(3,4), 451­493; Herrenkhol, L.R., and Guerra, M.R. (1998). Participants, structures, scientific dis­ course, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 433­475. 5 This vignette is taken from Hennessey, M.G., and Beeth, M.E. (1993). Students’ reflective thoughts about science content: A relationship to conceptual change learning. Paper presen­ ted at the Symposium on Metacognition and Conceptual Change at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Atlanta, April 1993). Available from the Education Resources Information Center (ED407271). 6 Smith, C.L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., and Hennessey, M.G. (2000). Sixth­grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological develop­ ment. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349­422. Chapter 8 1 Newmann, F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., and Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297­321. 2 Banilower, E.R., Boyd, S.E., Pasley, J.D., and Weiss, I.R. (2006). The LSC capstone report: Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. 3 Windshitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of the scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481­512. 4 Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., and Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664­687. 5 Hart, J.E., and Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 357­383. 6 Amaral, O., Garrison, L., and Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achie­ vement through inquiry­based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213­239. 7 Kahle, J., Meece, J., and Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African­American middle school sci­ ence students: Does standards­based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019­1041. 170 Ready, Set, SCIENCE!

OCR for page 167
Appendix A Questions for Practitioners Chapter 1 1. Does the story about Ms. Fredericks at the beginning of this chapter seem fami­ liar to you? In what ways are Ms. Fredericks’s experiences as a teacher similar to your own or to those of teachers in your school or district? In what ways are they different? 2. What did Ms. Martinez and Mr. Dolens do, specifically, to help their students build on the knowledge, interest, and experience they brought with them to school, while extending their understanding of scientific tools and practices? 3. The case studies describing Ms. Martinez’s and Mr. Dolens’s classes suggest that, in science, it is more important for children have a solid theory of measure, one that crosses several kinds of qualities and units, than to simply know how to measure things. What’s the difference between this and teaching children how to measure? Where do you see evidence in these case studies of the teachers helping their students develop an understanding of the principles of measurement? 4. If you were either Ms. Martinez or Mr. Dolens, how might you bring parents into the exploration of measurement, so that they understood what you are doing in the classroom and extended their children’s learning at home? 5. For principals: How could you facilitate a discussion with teachers, community leaders, or parents using either this chapter or the case studies in this chapter as a starting point? Chapter 2 1. Where do you see evidence of the four strands of scientific learning in Mr. Walker’s and Ms. Rivera’s investigation of biodiversity in their schoolyard? Which 171