Relevant, useful, and meaningful learning opportunities in science using Building Science Concepts
Steven S. Sexton, Ruby Facer, and Courtney Ross
Abstract
This article reports how two first-year student teachers have used their initial teacher education programme experiences in science education to gain a better understanding of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and its overarching science strand, the Nature of Science. These student teachers demonstrate how they would explicitly include the Nature of Science in their use of the Building Science Concept. resource but also why the Nature of Science is important. They show how and why the Building Science Concepts series is still able to provide relevant, useful and meaningful learning experiences not only for student teachers but also in-service teachers as they explore ways of supporting primary school students to understand the Nature of Science.
Introduction
This article reports and discusses how two first-year student teachers, Ruby and Courtney, took their primary initial teacher education learning experiences and incorporated them into how they could use a Building Science Concept. book to deliver relevant, useful and meaningful science. It is a collaboration between a teacher educator and two student teachers. Ruby and Courtney explain through their writing for a science education task what the Nature of Science means to them and how the Building Science Concept. book they have selected reflects this understanding, as well as how it could be adapted to reflect the emphasis on the Nature of Science in The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (Ministry of Education, 2007). Their understandings are interpreted and discussed in relation to literature about understanding and teaching about the Nature of Science.
For this article, the “Nature of Science” (initial capital letters) refers to NZC’s overarching strand for science while “nature of science” (lower case) refers to, “the portraying of science as a way of knowing, including the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge” (Lederman & Neiss, 1997, p. 1). Ruby and Courtney show how their own discussions, based upon science activities, led to what Duschl and Hamilton (2011) referred to as “positive learning effects”. Specifically, these two student teachers present how the opportunities they experienced have influenced both how they now see science and how they are able to include science effectively in their primary teaching. Their inclusion in this article is with their permission. Both Ruby and Courtney were involved throughout the drafting and writing of this article and, as this article includes excerpts from their essay, they are co-authors.
Nature of Science in education
Education in mainstream New Zealand changed with the introduction of NZC in 2007. This new curriculum document was to be fully implemented by all English-medium schools in 2010. Most importantly for the present article, NZC required a significant shift in how primary teachers and schools approach science education. Primary school teachers no longer have a list of “possible learning experiences” or “assessment examples” that students “could”. complete for a given curriculum level (Ministry of Education, 1993, italics in original). Primary teachers and their schools should now take into consideration the content material that is seen as relevant, useful, and meaningful (Sexton, 2011) to their students based on their worldview.
NZC’s Nature of Science emphasis no longer necessitates teachers focus on the content strands of the Living World, the Material World, the Physical World, or Planet Earth and Beyond. Teachers should now be focusing their students’ learning through the Nature of Science, using whatever science content that is appropriate. With a list of “possible learning experiences” no longer directing the science content of their teaching programme, many teachers report a lack of science content knowledge (Education Review Office, (ERO) 2010, 2012; Sexton, 2011). In addition, NZC’s explicit directive to teachers to incorporate student-initiated topics in their teaching further compounds this situation.
As previously stated, this change was to be fully implemented for the beginning of the 2010 school year. Burgon, Hipkins, and Hodgen (2012) reported that about 20 percent of New Zealand teachers in their 2010 survey were not prepared for this change, as these teachers reported they had yet to explore the learning area statements or achievement objectives. Furthermore, Hipkins and Hodgen (2012) highlighted that approximately 55 percent of primary teachers in their 2012 survey were “unsure” or “disagreed” that the curriculum’s Nature of Science changed the way they taught science. Finally, the report Building a Science Curriculum with an Effective Nature of Science Component (Hipkins, 2012) contained the comment, “many teachers did not really understand the intent of the NOS [Nature of Science] strand, or how to use it in their programme planning” (p. 14). It would appear that although many teachers reported they are comfortable with implementing NZC (Hipkins & Hodgen, 2012), this is not what is happening in many classrooms (Education Review Office, 2012).
New Zealand is not unique in the dilemma experienced and concerns raised about teaching the nature of science. There is a large body of international literature highlighting issues, concerns and various attempts to address confidence, understanding, and implementation of the nature of science in science education. Issues with the nature of science have most recently been reported in studies in Thailand (Faikhamta, 2013), Spain (Vázquez-Alonso, García-Carmona, Manassero-Mas, & Bennàssar-Roig, 2013), United States (Martin-Dunlop, 2013), and Korea (Yoon, Joung, & Kim, 2012). Faikhamta (2013) reports on a study into how, “Reflective and explicit teaching strategies embedded in various contexts help science teachers retain both their understanding of NOS and as awareness of these contents” (p. 851). Faikhamta uses “NOS” to mean the nature of science as a way of knowing, and reports on the positive benefits of organised and orchestrated discussions. Vázquez-Alonso et al. (2013) noted that a significant number of teachers and preservice teachers hold naïve conceptions regarding the learning the nature of science, such as not understanding the tentative nature of what counts as scientific knowledge. Their mixed-method study highlighted the weaknesses and strengths of their Spanish participants’ conceptions of the nature of science. Martin-Dunlop’s (2013) study reported on the benefits between a positive learning environment and knowledge acquisition of the nature of science for preservice teachers. Most important for this study, she reported on the benefits of a learning environment that explicitly included open-ended inquiry and cooperation between learners. Similarly, Yoon et al. (2012) reported on the importance of preservice teachers experiencing inquiry through inquiry activities that included collaborative working relationships.
As an initial teacher education lecturer and facilitator in science education, the lead author hears most of the incoming first-year student teachers in any year saying they do not have the science-content knowledge to teach science effectively, or they did not enjoy science in school, or both. As a result, most report they are reluctant to teach science. Fortunately, increasing teachers’ and student teachers’ confidence in science teaching has been shown to increase the amount of science that is taught in the classroom, as well as increasing their science-appropriate pedagogical practices (Appleton & Kindt, 1999; Harlen & Holroyd, 1997).
Science in education
Self-professed science-content knowledge limitations of teachers (Education Review Office, 2010, 2012; Lewthwaite, 2000), compounded with a perceived lack of classroom resources for science once entering the classroom (Fisher, 2010), has resulted in many primary students now experiencing ineffective learning of science (Education Review Office, 2012). Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse (2007) highlighted that many of the key ideas of and about science may be impossible for students to understand without the classroom teacher. They reiterated that for science learning to successfully engage students, it must be meaningful to the students and these students must be supported by the teacher.
Furthermore, Jadrich and Bruxvoort (2011) highlighted that scientifically literate people have a “rich understanding of fundamental scientific ideas and the practices associated with doing science” (p. 3). They did clarify this statement by saying that this does not mean they have to do science as a scientist any more than musically literate people have to be composers or musicians. To be very clear here, students do not practise science; they are learning about science. Kirschner (2009) highlighted this important distinction, and noted the difference as students are learning how to learn in science, not how to “do” or “perform” in science. Teachers, therefore, should be providing effective learning opportunities. To do this, many teachers and student teachers have to unlearn what and how they were taught science, so that they are able to provide relevant, useful and meaningful learning experiences for their students (Sampson & Grooms, 2008).
Student teachers need to learn that, for any long-term success with students incorporating any new experience, their students must come to identify with the value and learning purpose of the activity and then embrace the activity (Kuhn, 2007). This step, however, cannot be the end of the science learning. Students do need to experience the “wow” factor. However, without opportunities to discuss “how” and “why” this is science, this “wow” experience is most likely only going to be a fun activity with no real learning involved. Students should have the time to explore long enough to challenge what they thought they know, but not so long that they lose interest (Milne, 2009; Skamp, 2004). Positive learning effects have been seen when the use of organised and orchestrated discussions is a key part of the science process (Duschl & Hamilton, 2011; Faikhamta, 2013; Martin-Dunlop, 2013). Teacher-facilitated activities that incorporate inquiry and discussion enable students to experience both the power and the usefulness of these skills (Kuhn, 2007).
A science resource for New Zealand education
The Ministry of Education has produced a wide array of resources that are available to teachers. Many of these resources, unfortunately, do not reflect the changes made in NZC. Most importantly for this article, the changes made to the science learning area, which now recognises the Nature of Science as the overarching strand for this learning area, are not reflected in many of the science resources. This, however, does not mean these resources are no longer relevant, useful or able to provide meaningful learning opportunities for primary and intermediate students. For instance, Hipkins and Hodgen (2012) noted that about 65 percent of their surveyed primary teachers reported using a Building Science Concepts book in the previous 12 months: as a means to engage students; as a source of good ideas; or a means to address their own content knowledge gaps.
Initial teacher education: A science education task
In 2012, Ruby and Courtney began an undergraduate degree in primary education at a large New Zealand university. As part of this programme, science is a compulsory subject taken in the first year. The science component of this initial teacher education programme aims to introduce science education and science in New Zealand. Specifically, the course introduces student teachers to the Nature of Science strand as the overarching strand for science so that they are able to make appropriate links to NZC. Over the course of eight 1-hour lectures and 10 hours of workshop tutorials, the student teachers are given specifically targeted learning opportunities and experiences of relevant content knowledge for how to approach science content through the Nature of Science. Additionally, this programme includes a one-on-one teaching opportunity at a local school. The lecturer works with the student teachers to plan a 25-minute science lesson that they then conduct at a local school. As this course is grounded in constructivist theory (Skamp, 2004), it models to the student teachers how to include science in primary education to include how to set-up organised and orchestrated discussions (Duschl & Hamilton, 2011).
In 2012, two of the science contexts used to model learning included making ice-cream, and floating and sinking. The experiences include lecturer-facilitated discussions on how these activities can be an effective science-learning experiences. For example, making ice-cream allowed the students to explore both the Material World and the Physical World strands through changing ingredients of milk, sugar, and a flavour of their choice into ice-cream. Floating and sinking used a selection of materials such as large and thin candles, pumice, pieces of ebony and pinewood, aluminium foil, and grains of sand to investigate which materials float and which sink. The lecturer then modelled to the student teachers how to set-up organised and orchestrated student discussions about these activities. For making ice-cream, the student teachers discussed the impact salt has on the freezing process. For floating and sinking, the student teachers used their experiences to develop explanations of what floats or sinks and why.
At the completion of this course, the student teachers were required to select one of the Building Science Concepts books and explain in a 2,000-word essay how and why they would explicitly incorporate the Nature of Science into this resource. The student teachers were informed that their essay must include: their understanding of the Nature of Science; what the four substrands of the Nature of Science mean to them (“Understanding about science”, “Investigating in science”, “Communicating in science”, “Participating and contributing”); why the Nature of Science is important in teaching science; how and why they would explicitly incorporate the Nature of Science in their chosen Building Science Concepts book; and their own reflections on learning in science.
Two student teachers’ essays stood out as excellent examples of how they would update the Building Science Concepts books. Ruby and Courtney provided a thorough explanation of what the Nature of Science meant to them. They explained how and why they would adapt their chosen Building Science Concepts books to reflect NZC’s focus on the Nature of Science. It is not the purpose of this article to present their actual essay assignments. This article provides a summary and evaluation of their responses comparing their suggestions with the intentions of the Nature of Science to demonstrate why the Building Science Concepts series are still relevant when adapted to support the changes made in NZC.
At the end of 2012, the lead author approached Ruby and Courtney about being included in this article. It was explained that the lead author wanted to highlight how organised and orchestrated positive learning opportunities (Duschl & Hamilton, 2011: Faikhamta, 2013; Martin-Dunlop, 2013), to those with self-reported lack of science content knowledge, could influence not only their understanding about science in primary education but also their confidence in teaching science.
Ruby and Courtney’s understanding of the Nature of Science
Both Ruby and Courtney were able to articulate clearly their understanding of the Nature of Science and its relationship to the four content strands. Ruby believed that as a teacher, if you want to extend the world of your students, you must first start with their existing knowledge and then relate your content knowledge to their world and what they want to know about it. She summarised her understanding this way: “It is through the Nature of Science strand that students learn what science is and how it works. The other four strands provide contexts in which students can develop their understanding of the Nature of Science.” Courtney highlighted that teachers need to understand that the Nature of Science’s four substrands do not occur in isolation from one another; they occur simultaneously. She concluded her essay by stating, “Through the implementation of the Nature of Science strand into our science programmes we are able to challenge students’ thinking and broaden their perspectives on the way they understand and view the world.”
Both Ruby and Courtney drew on course material and experiences to explain what teachers and students would need to be able to do to demonstrate their understanding of the Nature of Science’s four substrands, for example: Courtney about the “Understanding about science” substrand; and Ruby about the “Participating and contributing” substrand.
Courtney sees the Nature of Science’s substrand of “Understanding about science” linked closely with the curriculum’s key competency of thinking. She made this connection, stating: “when interacting with new knowledge and making connections to prior learning in order to form an advanced meaning … both the teacher and student are to be open-minded.” She reported an important way for students to gain a stronger understanding about the science of a new concept was to ask questions about the science. She felt this shows that the learner is thinking about the topic, and the learner’s inquisitiveness indicates a willingness to deepen their knowledge. She based this on her own experiences in the course, for example, making hokey-pokey. This activity required the student teachers to discuss how the making of hokey-pokey would model the process of pumice formation. Courtney and her colleagues, through questioning and discussions of the solidification process of the hot sugary liquid as it cooled, related hokey-pokey to volcanoes. To support her idea she quoted a required reading from the course: “children’s questions that arise from curiosity and the desire to understand have a key part to play in learning science” (Harlan & Qualter, 2009, p. 149).
Ruby believes the Nature of Science’s “Participating and contributing” substrand is where the students start to look at bigger issues and questions, and use their science learning to participate and contribute to their own lives and wider society. Ruby explained that for her “Participating and contributing” means students need to learn to make personal decisions about their own lives, such as “which foods to eat and which risks to take”. For her, “Participating and contributing” requires students to use their knowledge of the Nature of Science to decide what scientific information is relevant, and how much confidence they can have in that information. Ruby believes that if, as a teacher, she can relate the content of her science lessons to her students’ worlds, she can help them to make these “Participating and contributing” links between their science learning and their daily lives. To support her ideas of why teachers need to link the students’ world to their science lessons, she noted her own positive learning experiences and then quoted from a course reading: “[the Nature of Science’s “Participating and contributing” substrand] allows students to link what they are doing in the classroom to their world” (Casey & Sexton, 2012, p. 43). Ruby feels that being able to relate science to the students’ lives is important; if the learning is put into context and relates to what they already know, children are more likely to accept ideas and be more willing to take on new information. She does qualify this statement by quoting from one of the science lectures, “we are not able to make children learn; we are only able to challenge what they think they know”. Ruby explained that, to her, this quote means that student learning is contributed to by students participating in activities, and then seeing for themselves how things might be different from what they originally thought.
Why is the Nature of Science important for teachers?
Ruby and Courtney believe teachers need to understand how to incorporate the Nature of Science in science teaching. Both discussed their own positive learning experiences that resulted from the programme’s science activities. They agreed that the importance of the Nature of Science within the science area of the curriculum is expressed by Henri Poincaré: “an accumulation of facts is no more science than a heap of stones is a house” (cited by Science Learning Hub, 2007, para. 4). Ruby and Courtney believe teaching science would not be effective if students cannot understand how and why this comprises science as they make discoveries themselves through hands-on involvement. Ruby’s and Courtney’s agreement with Poincaré’s statement would indicate they would be less likely to be the type of teacher who sees science as a set of directions that lead to “the” correct answer.
Vázquez-Alonso et al. (2013) noted that teachers who view science similarly to Ruby and Courtney are more likely to encourage student discussions of their experiences. Ruby and Courtney would appear to agree with Vázquez-Alonso et al. (2013) as they felt students’ learning in science is something that needs to be constructed through the five strands of science in NZC, with the Nature of Science as the overarching strand incorporated throughout all the rest. Courtney supported this idea by quoting Venville and Dawson (2004): “learning is an active process in which learners make sense of their world by developing meaningful constructions between what they know and the new experiences that change what they know” (p. 58).
Courtney elaborated on why she sees it is important for teachers to have a deep understanding of the Nature of Science. For her, it holds great significance for students and her future classroom practice. By learning how to apply this strand, Courtney felt students would “develop the skills, attitudes, and values to build a foundation for understanding the world” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 28). She acknowledged this was important, as not all students would go on to be scientists. However, her students would have developed key skills of “Understanding about science”, “Investigating in science”, “Communicating in science”, and “Participating and contributing”, which would be fundamental to whichever field they decided to enter.
Similarly, Ruby stated it was important for teachers to have a thorough understanding of the Nature of Science. Through the implementation of the Nature of Science into science programmes, Ruby highlighted how she would be able to challenge students’ thinking and broaden their perspectives on the way they understand and view the world. Ruby believed as a teacher she must start with what her students already know and then relate her content to their world and what they want to know. For her, the Nature of Science allows students to see how they can link the science they are doing to their world. She goes on to explain how through the Nature of Science students can start to link the science learning with other curriculum areas and activities such as mathematics.
Ruby and Courtney felt this depth of student learning is achievable in science with relevant, useful and meaningful learning opportunities provided by the Building Science Concepts books when explicitly adapted to include the Nature of Science.
Building Science Concepts: Why these books can still be relevant, useful, and meaningful
In the following excerpts, Ruby and Courtney describe how and why the Building Science Concepts series, when used in conjunction with explicit reference to the curriculum’s Nature of Science strand, are still able to provide effective learning opportunities. They demonstrate useful adaptations to this resource with the aim of supporting other teachers to better interpret the Nature of Science for their students.
Ruby: Putting the Nature of Science into Book 23: Fresh Foods
The Building Science Concepts book I have been working with is Fresh Food: How Food Keeps and Loses its Freshness (Ministry of Education, 2002). It is aimed at levels 1–2 in the Material World strand of science. Some of the main concepts of the topic focused on water content in food, different types of foods having different qualities, foods that stay fresh longer than others, and how packaging helps to keep food fresh.
Focusing on the “Investigating in science” substrand, I found that most of the activities involved the teacher preparing samples for the students to observe. For example, Activity 3 “How much Juice?” (pp. 13–14) has the teacher juice various fruits and vegetables and then allows the students to discuss which fruit or vegetable has more juice than others do. An essential part of the “Investigating in science” substrand is students having hands-on experience; therefore, I thought that to incorporate this substrand better into the book, the students could actually prepare most of the food samples for the activities themselves.
The topic of fresh food is one that is easy to relate to in the everyday lives of students, as everybody needs food to survive. Activity 2, called “What’s in our lunchboxes?” (p. 13) allows the students to see directly the links between the science and their daily lives. This activity also involves a teacher-led class discussion about the different food items in a lunchbox, and has an element of working collaboratively, allowing the students to hear the thoughts and suggestions of their peers. This activity, like many others, asked students to write up individual tables recording their observations and outcomes of each sample. I felt this was unnecessary, as all of these could be shared in a class discussion with the teacher recording the students’ findings in a table on the whiteboard. Investigating in Science should not require a pen and paper; instead, it should include plenty of exploring and some recording, only when there is a valid reason (Milne, 2009).
The topic of this book and the activities within it easily incorporate the “Participating and contributing” substrand of the Nature of Science. The students can use their new learning of the science behind food losing and keeping its freshness at home or in the supermarket, choosing which fruit and vegetables to buy, and knowing how long they will last in the cupboard at home and why. Building on the students’ knowledge of words such as “off” or “rotten” and using words such as “mouldy”, “fungus”, and “bacteria” are all part of the “Communicating in science” substrand and help the students to communicate their observations of various food samples to others. Food is part of their lives—what better way to relate the science to their world?
Courtney: Putting the Nature of Science in Book 55: Mammals
The Building Science Concepts book that I have worked with is Mammals: Investigating a Group of Animals (Ministry of Education, 2004). The concept of “Understanding about science” is implemented throughout the Mammals resource. In Section One (pp. 8–9), the activities aim to discover what the students already know. The students’ prior knowledge therefore provides a foundation so that the teacher is then able to appropriately identify what content the students understand and where to go next in order to extend their learning. These suggested experiences are shown throughout Section Two and Three (pp. 9–15). “Understanding about science” is shown throughout the book, but specifically in the Section Two where students are asked to categorise mammals into subgroups based on the features of mammals which they have learnt about prior to this activity. “Understanding about science” would be shown here, when students are able to successfully apply knowledge to tasks in order to create new meaning.
Section Three of the Mammals resource, provides a valuable example of “Investigating in science”. Here, the students are asked to research sea mammals and investigate their similarities and differences compared to other mammals and animals as a way of exploring and classifying. This activity allows students to come to their own conclusions based on their newfound knowledge of what makes a mammal a mammal, and what makes sea mammals unique. Activities that allow students to investigate for themselves and develop their own conclusions not only gives them more freedom to explore but also empowers them as the learner. This is because they are able to come to their own conclusions rather than simply accepting what the teacher might tell them, which is sometimes hard for students to do.
“Communicating in science” and sharing observations is achieved in Section Two of Mammals, where the activities involve small groups of students making a presentation based on a particular mammal and communicating their ideas through the form of a poster (refer to Activity 4, pp. 11–12). Many of the activities throughout the resource involve students discussing topics in groups. This is where students are able to implement scientific vocabulary into classroom conversations with their peers so they are able to learn from one another, as well as from the classroom teacher. Peer communication and group work is important because “teams develop the social skills of sharing leadership, communicating, building trust and managing conflict ... These skills develop longer-term benefits” (Venville & Dawson, 2004, p. 65).
In the Mammal. resource book, “Participating and contributing” is fundamental to students developing their understanding about mammals. Although students may be told what the features are that makes a mammal a mammal, if they do not readily Participate and Contribute in activities, for example categorising mammals and non-mammals into subgroups (refer to Section Two, Assessment Activity, p. 12) they will potentially struggle to apply this information to new contexts. In this assessment activity, the aim is for the teacher to see how well students understand if an animal is a mammal or non-mammal. This is a more effective way of learning as opposed to simply being told something with little or no evidence by a teacher. By “Participating and contributing”, students are able to come to their own conclusions about a topic and are therefore likely to be more satisfied with what they find as they have had the opportunity to explore and act on issues (Ministry of Education, 2007) to their own satisfaction.
Evaluating Ruby and Courtney’s responses
Two distinctive features set these two student teachers apart from their colleagues. The first was how they articulated what the Nature of Science meant to them. The second feature was how they explicitly incorporated this understanding in how they would use and modify their chosen Building Science Concepts book. Ruby and Courtney highlight how their use and modifications to their Building Science Concepts book evidence the effective teaching strategies identified by ERO (2012): building on students’ knowledge, providing engaging and relevant practical learning activities, and enabling students to see science as relevant to their futures.
Ruby and Courtney, like most of the primary teachers in Hipkins and Hodgen’s (2012) report, see the benefits of using the Building Science Concepts series as a means to engage students in learning. These two student teachers were in the first year of their initial education programme and a more critical evaluation of their responses does reveal some of this inexperience. For example, Ruby’s focuses on first-hand experience as “an essential part of the ‘Investigating in science’ substrand” but she does not go on to include any other essential parts. “Investigating in science” should provide students with the opportunity of hands-on activities, but these activities must also provide students with the opportunity to extend their world through relevant, useful, and meaningful activities. The teacher educator and lead author of this article argued throughout the course that students should: build on their experiences; experience targeted play; have organised and orchestrated discussions that may include simple models; and/or ask those questions that allow students to continue with their investigation. Investigation in science is where students get to actually do the science, but it is also where students further develop the skills they need to extend their understanding of their world.
Similarly, Courtney presents a less-experienced teacher’s description of the Nature of Science’s “Participating and contributing” substrand. Courtney makes an argument for students gaining more from being challenged in what they think they know about a topic rather than just being told by the teacher, but she implies that students completing a categorising activity can accomplish this. The lead author would argue that Courtney is correct that student-directed learning is a more effective learning strategy. She is basing this, however, on her own experiences of being involved in lecturer-facilitated discussions. Her own scaffolded one-on-one teaching experience has not yet given her the personal experience in the classroom to understand the prior planning, organising, and orchestrating that teachers must provide to allow students to have such effective discussion opportunities.
Faikhamta (2013) and Martin-Dunlop (2013) both reported on the positive benefits of organised and orchestrated discussions. Faikhamta (2013) reported that the teachers in his study viewed directed and explicit reflection of own experiences as positively influencing their views of the nature of science. Similarly, Martin-Dunlop (2013) highlighted the positive effects of open-ended inquiry conducted in co-operating peer-groups. Most importantly for this article, Martin-Dunlop (2013) then acknowledges the importance of cognitive and affective variables to improve both the teaching and the learning of the nature of science. Ruby and Courtney both used their own programme experiences as the basis for how and why they see the Nature of Science as important for teachers and teaching. Both referred back to their own initial teacher education experiences in science education. Both expressed how their organised and orchestrated experiences led to positive learning effects (Duschl & Hamilton, 2011) through open-ended inquiry and collaborative discussions that targeted not only what the science was they were doing but also how and why what they were doing is science.
Importance of discussions about science
At the beginning of every year, the lead author and teacher of the science education course expects to hear most of his first-year student teachers raising personal concerns over their science content knowledge. In fact, in the first science-education lecture the student teachers are asked to raise their hand if they like science. To date, there have not been more than a few hands raised each year. Ruby and Courtney were two of those student teachers in 2012. When student teachers are asked why they do not like science, the most common responses are: science is boring; it is too hard; or they “hated” their science classes. These two student teachers, along with their first-year colleagues, were told science is not boring or that hard, it is more likely that your teachers just did not teach you in the way you are now going to learn to do it. You are going to see for yourselves how science lets you explore why your world does weird and wonderful things. You are going to learn that science is a doing verb and I will be modelling to you throughout this course how you are able set-up, organise, and orchestrate your students doing and discussing science activities. This leads into an LPG gas bubble/fireball activity in the lecture theatre that requires student volunteers followed by discussions of what happened, why it happen and how this activity is relevant, useful and meaningful learning.
Ruby, Courtney and their fellow student teachers were told they do not have to know it all. They do need to model to students, however, what to do when you do not know the answer. They must also be prepared to say, “I don’t know, but let’s find out.” They learn that they need to be able to discuss what they did, how they did it and why this science is relevant, useful, and meaningful to them. They see, by their own experiences such as making ice-cream, seeing what objects float or sink, or throwing fire-balls into the air, the importance of ensuring that students have opportunities to discuss explicitly the science ideas in activities. For Ruby, Courtney and the other student teachers in this initial teacher education programme, their discussions included the following three questions. What did we do that challenged what we thought we knew? How did this impact on my own understanding? What did we do that was like a scientist? Here is where they learn to listen, reflect, and participate in discussions about the science that they did and what they were able to accomplish.
Ruby and Courtney acknowledge the importance of peer-group discussions in their growing understanding of science, which is consistent with Yoon et al.’s (2012) findings about the importance of discussions in supporting preservice teachers learning about science. Similarly, Ruby and Courtney noted the influence their positive learning environment had on overcoming their own self-reported lack of content knowledge. This aligns with Martin-Dunlop’s (2013) study that highlighted the positive relationship between preservice teachers experiencing a positive learning environment as they were learning about science. Faikhamta’s (2013) study noted the positive impact of reflective and explicit discussions about the nature of science and teaching science. Both Ruby and Courtney recounted how after undertaking an activity their participation in organised and orchestrated group discussions supported their understanding not only of what science they were doing, but also how and why this was science. They both noted the lecturer-facilitated discussions were designed explicitly to address misconceptions and areas of weakness in their science content knowledge. The importance of discussions that is highlighted by Ruby and Courtney resonates with research literature that similarly emphasises the importance of talk in supporting learning about science and the teaching of science (for example Vázquez-Alonso et al., 2013).
Conclusions
Ruby and Courtney were first-year student teachers that have shown how the Building Science Concepts series is still relevant, useful, and meaningful for learning opportunities in science. As their facilitator in science education I find it personally gratifying how they have been able to take their own experiences and use them as examples of their own positive learning in science. More importantly, for them, is how they have been able to show their understanding of the Nature of Science strand and its relationship to science in NZC. These two student teachers demonstrated several of the characteristics ERO (2012) identified as effective teaching strategies. These student teachers see the benefits of using the Building Science Concepts series as a means to engage students in the learning with good ideas; however, they also explicitly showed how they would them turn them into “high quality investigations, reflections and discussions that help students develop their understanding of scientific knowledge and processes” (Education Review Office, 2010, p. 5). In addition, their modifications showed how they would base these high-quality investigations around engaging practical activities (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007). Ruby and Courtney highlighted where the Building Science Concepts was more teacher-centred than they would be, and then how they would alter the activities to allow students, “to investigate their own ideas as well as other” (Education Review Office, 2010, p. 5). Ruby and Courtney have demonstrated how the Building Science Concepts series with explicit inclusion of the Nature of Science allows this resource to remain a very valuable tool for relevant, useful and meaningful science in the classroom.
References
Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). How do beginning elementary teachers cope with science: Development of pedagogical content knowledge in science. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/?q=how+do+beginning+elementary+teachers+cope&id=ED448998
Burgon, J., Hipkins, R., & Hodgen, E. (2012). The primary school curriculum: Assimilation, adaption or transformation: NZC at primary and intermediate level: Findings from the NZCER national survey of primary schools 2010. Retrieved from New Zealand Council for Educational Research: http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Primary_school_curriculum_Web.pdf
Casey, P., & Sexton, S. (2012). Nature of science activity. New Zealand Science Teacher, 130, 42–43.
Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 78–107). New York: Routledge.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science to grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Education Review Office. (2010). Science in Years 5 to 8: Capable and competent teaching. Wellington: Author.
Education Review Office. (2012). Science in The New Zealand Curriculum: Years 5 to 8. Wellington: Author.
Faikhamta, C. (2013). The development of in-service science teachers’ understandings of and orientations to teaching the nature of science within a PCK-based NOS course. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 847–896.
Fisher, S. (2010). Encouraging practical science in primary schools. Retrieved from Science, Technology & Society: http://sci-tech-soc.org/Encouraging-Practical-Science.html
Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 93–105. http://dx.doi/10.1080/0950069970190107
Harlan, W., & Qualter, A. (2009). The teaching of science in primary schools (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Hipkins, R. (2012). Building a science curriculum with an effective nature of science component. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Hipkins, R., & Hodgen, E. (2012). Curriculum support in science: Patterns in teachers’ use of resources. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Jadrich, J., & Bruxvoort, C. (2011). Learning and teaching scientific inquiry: Research and applications. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). New York: Routledge.
Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113. http://dx.doi/10.1080/00461520701263376
Lederman, N. G., & Neiss, M. L. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1–2.
Lewthwaite, B. (2000). Implementing science in the New Zealand curriculum: How teachers see the problems. In G. Haisman (Ed.), Exploring issues in science education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Martin-Dunlop, C. S. (2013). Prospective elementary teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and perceptions of the classroom learning environment. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 873–893.
Milne, I. (2009). Time to bring science alive. New Zealand Science Teacher, 120, 32–33.
Ministry of Education. (1993). Science in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Fresh food: How food keeps and loses its freshness. Building Science Concepts, Book 23. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2004). Mammals: Investigating a group of animals. Building Science Concepts, Book 55. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Sampson, V., & Grooms, J. (2010). Generate an argument: An instructional model. The Science Teacher, 77(5), 32–37.
Science Learning Hub. (2007). Reasons for teaching the nature of science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Nature-of-Science/Reasons-for-teaching-the-nature-of-science
Sexton, S. S. (2011). Revelations in the revolution of relevance: Learning in a meaningful context. The International Journal of Science in Society, 2(1), 29–40.
Skamp, K. (2004). Teaching primary science constructively (2nd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Thomson Learning Australia.
Vázquez-Alonso, á., García-Carmona, A., Manassero-Mas, M. A., & Bennàssar-Roig, A. (2013). Science teachers’ thinking about the nature of science: A new methodological approach to its assessment. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 781–808.
Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2004). The art of teaching science. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Yoon, H.-G., Joung, Y., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for preservice teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 589–608.
The authors
Steven S. Sexton is currently a senior lecturer at The University of Otago, College of Education. His research interest areas include teacher cognition, science education, and heteronormativity in schools.
Email: steven.sexton@otago.ac.nz
Ruby Facer and Courtney Ross are still enrolled in their initial teacher education programme to become primary teachers.