Sherry A. Southerland

Educational Reform, Personal Practical Theories, and Dissatisfaction: The Anatomy of Change in College Science Teaching:

The Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform model (TCSR) recognizes teaching context, teacher characteristics, teacher thinking, and their interactions as influential factors in attempts to implement classroom reform. Using the TCSR model, teachers’ personal practical theories, and conceptual change as a framework, the authors of this article studied three college science faculty members as they designed and implemented an integrated, inquiry-based science course. The documentation and analysis of context, instructors’ knowledge and beliefs, and teaching episodes allowed the authors to identify and study the interaction of factors, including grant support, that shape reform attempts. The results suggest that grant-supported mitigation of structural barriers is a necessary but insufficient precursor to change and that personal practical theories are the most powerful influence on instructional practice. The findings highlight the critical role of pedagogical and contextual dissatisfaction in creating a context for fundamental change.

Belief, Knowledge, and Science Education

Epistemological questions about the nature of knowledge and belief underlie many of the controversial issues fundamental to research and practice in science teaching and learning. In an effort to bring some clarity to questions of knowledge and belief embedded within science education research and teaching, we first describe the distinctions drawn between knowledge and belief in both philosophy and educational psychology, each of which have shaped the various definitions employed within science education. This discussion is followed by an examination of the distinctions drawn between knowledge and belief employed by three groups of science educators: the traditional distinctions of the foundationalists that are co-opted by researchers focusing on teacher thinking/cognition, the nonfoundational epistemology of the fallibilists and the evolution educators working from this framework, and the radical constructivists who react to and attempt to move past the limitations of these other positions. In this analysis, we explicate the different ways in which knowledge and belief are understood and operationalized in a broad spectrum of research, we describe the theoretical and philosophical assumptions underlying these approaches, and we explore the important areas of contention (both theoretical and empirical) surrounding each of these distinctions.

Chapter 2: Resisting Unlearning--Understanding Science Education's Response to the United States's National Accountability Movement.

The assessment head for the state Department of Education (DOE) travels across town to present a lecture to the university’s science education faculty. His talk is on the state’s science assessment and what the inclusion of this assessment in determination of AYP (adequate yearly progress) will mean for the state’s teachers. The room feels a bit uncomfortable because DOE staff and professors seldom speak, formally or informally. There is much handshaking and elaborate introductions as the faculty work to make the DOE representative comfortable and as he networks for possible resources. His PowerPoint begins with, “All of us here share an overriding goal . . .” The faculty nod, content that the DOE staff person is working to create a sense of community. He continues, “ . . . and that goal is to increase the performance of students in our state . . .” A hand shoots up. The DOE staff person tries to continue but the shaking hand will not go down. “Yes?” he asks. The owner of the hand quickly responds, “I hate to disagree with you so quickly but increasing performance is NOT our goal. Our job is to help teachers develop the knowledge and skills needed to better help their students learn science. If performance on some measure goes up, well so much the better.” He retorts, “But isn’t learning and increased performance the same thing?”

Epistemic Universalism and The Shortcomings of Curricular Multicultural Science Education

This paper identifies both epistemic and political shortcomings in the portrayal of science found in curricular multicultural science education. It is argued that this approach denies the unique characteristics of western science as it ignores the particular strengths of other systems of thought. This epistemic weakness has the unexpected political effect of reaffirming scientism. Drawing on parallels from writing instruction, it is argued that curricular forms of multicultural science education operate to limit student agency and potential. Finally, an example of a pedagogical alternative that meets the needs of diverse student populations is discussed.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of the Measure of Understanding of Macroevolution: Introducing the MUM

The challenges in teaching and learning of biological evolution continue to be documented (NAS, 2008). Developers of science standards continue their work to increase emphasis on evolution. Although gains have been made, many K–12 science curricula focus on microevolution (i.e., natural selection, genetic drift), and a more limited effort is in place to provide exposure to macroevolution (i.e., speciation). Many of the publics fundamental questions concerning evolution actually stem from macroevolutionary changes. This research involved the development and psychometric evaluation of the Measure of Understanding of Macroevolution (MUM), an assessment of college undergraduate understanding of the scientific portrayal of macroevolution. The MUM comprises 27 multiple-choice items and 1 free-response item. The authors achieved content validity based on feedback from professional biologists and evolution educators. The MUM was field tested with 3 unique cohorts of undergraduate students (N = 795). The validity and reliability analyses indicate that the MUM effectively, consistently, and accurately measures students’ understanding of macroevolution.

The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning

Puzzling Through Gravity Much of the excitement of scientific discovery seems to get lost when science is taught as facts by lectures. Granger et al. (p. 105) present a large study of outcomes comparing inquiry-based teaching with more traditional teaching methods. Over 2000 students were involved, in 125 classrooms of 4th- and 5th-graders. The classes studied space-science with a curriculum that uses models and evidence to entice students into improving their own understanding of the science. Students who were encouraged to use evidence to support their models seemed to develop improved knowledge of content. A randomized trial reveals that opportunities to support models with evidence aids understanding in grade-school students. Transforming science learning through student-centered instruction that engages students in a variety of scientific practices is central to national science-teaching reform efforts. Our study employed a large-scale, randomized-cluster experimental design to compare the effects of student-centered and teacher-centered approaches on elementary school students’ understanding of space-science concepts. Data included measures of student characteristics and learning and teacher characteristics and fidelity to the instructional approach. Results reveal that learning outcomes were higher for students enrolled in classrooms engaging in scientific practices through a student-centered approach; two moderators were identified. A statistical search for potential causal mechanisms for the observed outcomes uncovered two potential mediators: students’ understanding of models and evidence and the self-efficacy of teachers.

Examining the Interaction of Acceptance and Understanding: How Does the Relationship Change with a Focus on Macroevolution?

The goal of this research was to illuminate the relationship between students’ acceptance and understanding of macroevolution. Our research questions were: (1) Is there a relationship between knowledge of macroevolution and acceptance of the theory of evolution?; (2) Is there a relationship between the amount of college level biology course work and acceptance of evolutionary theory and knowledge of macroevolution?; and (3) Can college student acceptance of the theory of evolution and knowledge of macroevolution change over the course of a semester? The research participants included 667 students from a first-semester biology course and 74 students from the evolutionary biology course. Data were collected using both the MATE (a measure of the acceptance of evolutionary theory) and the MUM (a measure of understanding of macroevolution). Pre-instruction data were obtained for the introductory biology course, and pre- and post-data were obtained for the evolutionary biology course. Analysis revealed acceptance of evolution (as measured by the MATE) was correlated to understanding of macroevolution, and the number of biology courses was significantly correlated to acceptance and knowledge of macroevolution. Finally, there was a statistically significant change in students’ understanding of macroevolution and acceptance of evolution after the one-semester evolutionary biology course. Significance of these findings is discussed.

Chapter 4 – “what do you mean by that?” using structured interviews to assess science understanding

Publisher Summary There is a growing consensus that traditional quantitative assessment tools are largely inadequate for producing an adequately fine-grained description of both what learners know and how they build and revise that knowledge. In recent years, teachers, researchers, and curriculum planners have found that a rich understanding of the common alternative conceptions can be a useful guide for planning effective instruction. The selection of the task to be used in a structured interview, including any graphics or other props, is the most critical decision in planning an interview. The interview task should be tightly focused on the concept of interest and at a level of difficulty appropriate to the learner. It should be carefully structured to focus on likely conceptual difficulties based on prior experience with similar students. In interviews about instances, a student is typically presented with a specific set of examples and counterexamples of the concept of interest, and is asked to identify which cases are examples of the concept and then, to explain that decision.

A National Survey of Middle and High School Science Teachers' Responses to Standardized Testing: Is Science Being Devalued in Schools?.

This study explored American high school and middle school science teachers’ attitudes toward the use of standardized testing for accountability purposes, their justification for the attitudes they hold and the impact of standardized testing on their instructional and assessment practices. A total of 161 science teachers participated in the study. Analyses were based on teachers’ responses to a questionnaire including nine-item likert-scale questions and two-item open-ended questions. The analyses revealed that science teachers have mixed reactions to the administration of standardized tests and its use for accountability purposes. The findings also reveal that standardized testing has a significant influence on science teachers’ instructional and assessment practices in ways that are counter to the learning goals promoted by science education reformists. Our discussion focuses on the implicit and explicit influences of the NCLB Act on science curriculum, teaching and assessment, and how the NCLB driven policies undermine the goals of science education reform.

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.