Patrick Enderle

Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Discontentment: Its Sources and Potential for Change

This research explored science teachers’ pedagogical discontentment and described its role in teachers’ consideration of new teaching practices. Pedagogical discontentment is an expression of the degree to which one is discontented because one’s teaching practices do not achieve one’s teaching goals. Through a series of structured interviews conducted with 18 practicing science teachers of various grade levels, content areas, routes of preparation, and amount of experience, areas of commonality in the teachers’ pedagogical discontentment were identified. The common areas of pedagogical discontentment include the ability to teach all students science, science content knowledge, balancing depth versus breath of instruction, implementing inquiry instruction, and assessing science learning. We draw implications for using this construct to craft more effective professional development.

The Development and Validation of the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom (ASAC) Observation Protocol: A Tool for Evaluating How Students Participate in Scientific Argumentation

This chapter describes the development and initial validation of a new instrument that researchers can use to assess how students participate in scientific argumentation. This instrument, which is called the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom (ASAC) Observation Protocol, includes 19 items that target the conceptual or cognitive, epistemological, and social aspects of scientific argumentation. The chapter includes an overview of the methodological and theoretical frameworks that were employed to develop and validate the instrument, the steps used in the development and validation process, and the final version of the instrument. Our findings indicate the ASAC is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the quality or nature of the scientific argumentation that takes place between students within a classroom setting. This instrument will therefore enable researchers or teachers to examine how students learn to participate in scientific argumentation over time, to document learning gains in response to an intervention, or to compare strategies for promoting or supporting engagement in scientific argumentation in a more emergent or in situ context.

Does Prior Knowledge Matter? Do Lamarckian Misconceptions Exist? A Critique of Geraedts and Boersma (2006).

The existence, preponderance, and stability of misconceptions related to evolution continue as foci of research in science education. In their 2006 study, Geraedts and Boersma question the existence of stable Lamarckian misconceptions in students, challenging the utility of Conceptual Change theory in addressing any such misconceptions. To support their challenge, they describe the study of a particular pedagogical strategy (which they describe as being influened by dynamic systems theory) and report the results supporting its effectiveness in enhancing students’ understanding of evolutionary theory. However, we argue that the description offered by Geraedts and Boersma demonstrates several flaws, both in its theoretical assertions and methodological decisions. In response, we reject the disavowal of Conceptual Change theory argued for by these authors due to several theoretical misinterpretations. As well, we question the validity of the data presented and assertions generated based on the methodologcal limitations of the study design.

Essential Aspects of Science Teacher Professional Development

Current reform efforts in science place a premium on student sense making and participation in the practices of science. Given the disparity between these activities and current teaching practices, effective means of professional development around such practices must be identified. We use a close examination of 106 science teachers participating in Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) to identify, through structural equation modeling, the essential features in supporting teacher learning from these experiences. Findings suggest that participation in RET shape science teacher practice and beliefs, which in turn influence practice. Essential features of RET include engaging teachers socially in the research context and in research projects that are personally relevant to them. The model suggests ways to maximize the professional development potential of RET intended to support engagement in disciplinary practices.