MAKING SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS EXPLICIT THROUGH EXPLANATIONS: SIMULATIONS OF A HIGH-LEVERAGE PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION

Keywords: Explanation, Simulations, High-leverage practice, Science Education

Abstract

There is a current research interest into high-leverage teaching practices which are geared towards making concepts explicit to learners. Explanations are a common practice in science education for sharing and constructing meaning with students. However, current studies insufficiently articulate a framework for understanding pre-service teachers’ explanations; neither do they assess the practical criteria for development. This article documents various criteria for pre-service science teachers’ explanations as related to the cognitive science literature and their assessment in the context of an instrument designed for teacher education. A rubric was constructed which organized structural and supportive elements into three levels. A validation process is described, and its application in teacher education programs to detect possible patterns and changes in pre-service science teachers’ explanations. The results show the explanation strengths of pre-service teachers working with examples, graphs and images. However, difficulties were found in using and improving analogies, metaphors, and models, and also approaching mis-conceptions as a learning opportunity. Theoretical and practical issues are discussed from a cognitive perspective. We conclude that the signaling implications of using rubrics sensitive to progress-monitoring during teacher education for high-leverage teaching practices give opportunities to simulate and rehearse practices that are highly conducive to learning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht: Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_1.pdf

Ball, D. L. & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach and connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35(2), 17-39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ931211.pdf

Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848

Baglama, B., Yucesoy, Y., Uzunboylu, H., & Özcan, D. (2017). Can infographics facilitate the learning of individuals with mathematical learning difficulties?. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education/IJCRSEE, 5(2), 119-127. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1702119B

Cabello, V. M. (2013). Developing skills to explain scientific concepts during initial teacher education: the role of peer assessment. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Dundee. https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/2250078

Carrascosa, J. (2006). El problema de las concepciones alternativas en la actualidad (parte III). Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 3(1), 77-88. https://revistas.uca.es/index.php/eureka/article/view/3883

Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C. & Ball, D. L. (2011). Prospective teachers’ learning to provide instructional explanations: how does it look and what might it take?. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(6), 441-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9182-z

Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Princeton: The Danielson group http://www.loccsd.ca/~div15/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2013-framework-for-teaching-evaluation-instrument.pdf

Danielsson, K., Löfgren, R., & Pettersson, A. J. (2018). Gains and Losses: Metaphors in Chemistry Classrooms. In Tang, K. S. & Danielsson, K. (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 219-235). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_14

Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000097424

Feynman, R. (1994) Six Easy Pieces; Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher. New York: Helix Books. https://www.biblio.com/six-easy-pieces-by-feynman-richard-p/work/112435

Geelan D. (2012) Teacher Explanations. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 987-999). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_65

Geelan, D. (2013). Teacher explanation of physics concepts: A video study. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1751–1762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9336-8

Koteva-Mojsovska, T. & Nikodinovska-Bancotovska, S. (2015). The effects of the pedagogical experience on the quality of teacher education. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 3(2), 41-46. http://www.ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/95

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X

Larkin, D. (2017). Planning for the elicitation of students’ ideas: A lesson study approach with preservice science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 425-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1352410

Legare, C. H., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Inconsistency with prior knowledge triggers children’s causal explanatory reasoning. Child Development, 81(3), 929-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01443.x

Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063

Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Applied Experimental Psychology, 11(1), 13-18. http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-02947-002

Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Gerlovich, J. (2009). Teaching science for all children: methods for constructing understanding (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Martin-Teaching-Science-for-All-Children-Inquiry-Methods-for-Constructing-Understanding-4th-Edition/PGM121469.html

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Press https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/product/Marzano-Classroom-Instruction-that-Works-Research-Based-Strategies-for-Increasing-Student-Achievement/9780131195035.html

Mohan, R. (2013). Innovative science teaching for physical science teachers (3rd Ed.). India: Prentice Hall. https://www.bookdepository.com/Innovative-Science-Teaching-For-Physical-Science-Teachers-3Rd-Edition-Radha-Mohan/9788120331570

O’Flaherty, J., & Beal, E. M. (2018). Core competencies and high leverage practices of the beginning teacher: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(4), 461-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1450826

Ogborn, J., Kress, G., & Martins, I. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/27106/

Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (3rd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97369-000

Podolefsky, N.F. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: Empirical studies. Physics Review Studies - Physics Education Research, 3, 1-12. https://journals.aps.org/prper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010109

Rodrigues, R. F., & Pereira, A. P. d. (2018). Explicações no ensino de ciências: revisando o conceito a partir de três distinções básicas. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 24, 43-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320180010004

Rodrigues, S. (2010). Exploring talk. Identifying register, coherence and cohesion. In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Using Analytical Frameworks for Classroom Research (Vol. 1). London: Routledge http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2660/

Roth, W. - M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103-136 https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<103::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-G

Sevian, H., & Gonsalves, L. (2008). Analysing how scientists explain their research: A rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific ex-planations. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1441-1467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802267579

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Snyder, J. L. (2000). An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 979-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416866

Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009471630989

Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 537-544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290603

Treagust, D., & Harrison, A. (1999). The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classroom. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781135700799/chapters/10.4324%2F9780203487365-5

Wenham, M. (2005). Understanding primary science: ideas, concepts and explanations. London: SAGE. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED488824

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878-903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Educa-tion, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259

Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88(3), 465-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10126

Published
2018-12-20
How to Cite
Cabello, V., & Topping, K. (2018). MAKING SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS EXPLICIT THROUGH EXPLANATIONS: SIMULATIONS OF A HIGH-LEVERAGE PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 6(3), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1803035C