Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Science Educator
PS-A011655A-9/10a
Diversity Committee
Ana Lopez
CVSP Science Specialist
1628 W Paul
Fresno, CA 93711
Phone: 559-259-2902
aglopez@comcast.net
Informal Science Committee
Cheryl Lani Juarez
Director of Professional Development
Center for Interactive Learning
Miami Science Museum
1320 South Dixie Highway, Suite 720
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Phone: 305-284-2757
cheryl@miamisci.org
Nominations & Elections Committee
Pat Shane
CB #3500, 309 Peabody Hall
UNC Center for Math/Science Education
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3500
Phone: 919.966.3092
Fax: 919.962.0588
pshane@unc.edu
Affiliates Committee
Jerry Valadez
Central Valley Science Project
P.O. Box 1406
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Phone: 559.288.4953
jdvscience@aol.com
Public Relations Committee
David Wojnowski
University of North Texas
Department of Teaching, Education &
Administration
1155 Union Circle #310740
Denton, Texas 76203-5017
Phone: 214-662-7854
david.wojnowski@unt.edu
Membership Coordinator & Web Master
Beth Snoke Harris
98 West Lake Avenue
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Phone: 828.692.9875
Fax: 801.659.3351
beth@seven-oaks.net
NSTA Representative
Christine Royce
Associate Professor of Education
P.O. Box 305
Newberg, PA 17240
Phone: 717-477-1681
Fax: 717-477-4046
caroyce@aol.com
Region A Director
ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NJ, NY, PA
Joyce Tugel
Maine Mathematics & Science Alliance,
Southern NH Office
6 Birch Lane
Barrington, NH 03825
Phone: 207.899.8661
jtugel@mmsa.org
Region B Director
DE, MD, DC, MI, OH, IN, KY, WV, VA
Ted Willard
twillard@aaas.org
Region C Director
TN, NC, SC, AL, GA, FL, AR, MS, LA and
Caribbean
Darlene Ryan
Assistant Principal
Glenwwod Elementary School
535 Hudson Woods
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Phone: 919-656-2416
DRyan@chccs.k12.nc.us
Region D Director
TX, OK, NM, AZ, UT, CO and all of Canada
and Latin America
Jeffrey Patterson
Norman Public Schools
Science Coordinator
131 South Flood
Norman, OK 73069
Phone: 405-366-5832
Fax: 405-573-3505
jefferyp@norman.k12.ok.us
Region E Director
NE, KS, MO, ND, SD, MN, IA, WI, IL
Jim Puckett
Grandview High School
15102 Grand Summit Blvd Apt 104
Grandview, MO 64030-3381
Phone:816-261-9114
puckettj@mac.com
Region F Director
CA, NV, HI, OR, WA, AK, ID, MT, WY and all
other international members
Xan Simonson
Mesa Public Schools
Biotech Coordinator
702 W Emelita Ave
Mesa AZ 85210
Phone: 480-472-5783
Fax: 480-472-5990
rhinoxan@cox.net
Science Educator Journal Editor
Brenda Shumate Wojnowski
University of North Texas
Teacher Education and Administration
1155 Union Circle # 310740
Denton, Texas 76203-5017
Phone: 440-565-2941
bwojnowski@gmail.com
The Navigator Newsletter Editor
Janis Slater
Science Programs Coordinator, K20 Center
University of Oklahoma
3100 Monitor Avenue, Suite 200
Norman, OK 73072
Phone: 405-325-2683
Fax: 405-325-7592
jslater@ou.edu
NSELA Office Manager
Judy Hamilton
NSELA
2260 Thumb Butte Rd.
Prescott AZ 86305
Phone: 928-420-3774
judyhamilton51@gmail.com
Table of Contents
Teaching Science Using Guided Inquiry as the
Central Theme: A Professional Development
Model for High School Science Teachers...................................... 1
Anil Banerjee
The Use of Constructivist Teaching Practices by
Four New Secondary School Science Teachers:
A Comparison of New Teachers and Experienced
Constructivist Teachers................................................................ 10
Lee Yuen Lew
District Leadership for Science Education: Using K-12
Departments to Support Elementary Science
Education under NCLB................................................................. 22
Christopher L. Miller
Integrating Writing Frames into Inquiry-Based
Instruction..................................................................................... 31
Karthigeyan Subramaniam
Pre-service and In-service Science Teachers Conceptions
of the Nature of Science............................................................... 35
Khajornsak Buaraphan
Bend it, Stretch it, Hammer it, Break it: Materials
Chemistry Applied........................................................................ 48
Grace A. Neff, Jennifer Retsek, Lola Berber-Jimenez,
Nicole Barber, Monica Coles, Christina Fintikakis, and
Brent Huigens
Featured articlePerspectives from Science Education
Leaders: Real Reform Takes More than
Stirring the Pot......................................................................... 56
Robert E. Yager, Mohamed Moustafa Ali, Esme Hacieminoglu
Editoral Board
Hans Andersen
Indiana University
Paul Kelter
University of Illinois
LaMoine Molz
Watertord, Michigan
Herb Brunkhorst
California State University
Christine Lotter
University of South Carolina
Robert Yager
University of Iowa
Karen Charles
RTI International
Gerry Madrazo
Hawaii Department of
Education
Ellen Yezierski
Grand Valley State
University
James MaKinster
Hobart and William
Smith Colleges
Ningfeng Zhao
Department of Chemistry
East Tennessee State
University
James E, McLean
The University of Alabama
Ken Miller
Montana State University
Manuscripts: Submit manuscripts to the Editor, Brenda Wohnowski, University of North Texas,
Teacher Education and Administration, 1155 Union Circle #310740, (Matthews Hall 206R, 1300
W. Highland Street), Denton, TX 76203-5017. Refer to the information for authors elsewhere in
this journal. The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors, and such
opinions and statements do not necessarily represent the policies of NSELA. Annual membership
dues for NSELA are $45, $30 individual journal-only, $75 institutional subscription. For subscription
orders and customer service, call (940) 565-2941.
Science EducatorISSN 1094-3277 Copyrighted 2010 by the National Science Education Leadership
Association (NSELA)is published biannually with provisions for quarterly publication in the future.
Printed at the University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #309615, Denton, Texas 76203-5017,
the journal serves as a vehicle for the exchange of information on current theory, research and
teaching/learning applications. It is indexed in the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics,
and Environmental Education. General inquiries may be directed to: Office Manger, Judy Hamilton,
judyhamilton51@gmail.com; Membership Co-Chair, Beth Snoke Harris, beth@sevenoaks.net; or
Editor, Brenda Wojnowski, University of North Texas, Teacher Education and Administration, 1155
Union Circle #310740, (Matthews Hall 206R, 1300 W. Highland Street), Denton, TX 76203-5017.
Phone: (940) 565-2920; e-mail: brenda.wojnowski@unt.edu.
Anil Banerjee
Introduction
Professional Development
and NSES
Methods
Participants.
A small group of 10 teachers from
Muscogee, Harris, and Troup counties in southwestern Georgia were
selected based on their willingness
and commitment to participate in this
PD program for three consecutive
years. The consent of principals and
school districts was also obtained for
participation in this long term study.
All teachers are from similar socioeconomic urban/rural high schools
Variations
1. Learner investigates
scientifically oriented
questions
Learner engages in
evaluating the question
provided by teacher,
materials, or another source
3. Learner formulates
explanations from
evidence
Learner formulates
explanation after
summarizing evidence
4. Learner connects
explanations to scientific
knowledge
Learner independently
examines other resources
and forms the links to
explanations
5. Learner communicates
and justifies explanations
Learner is coached in
Learner is provided broad
development of communica- guidelines to use that
tion that conveys justification sharpen communication
for explanations
PD program.
The components of this three-year
professional development program
take place as follows:
Year 1: Teachers attend a 40-hour
summer workshop over the course of
10 days, followed by academic year
workshops that take place two hours
per week for 10 weeks during both
the fall and spring semesters. The
schedule includes content updates,
development of guided inquiry labs,
practice using guided inquiry to
develop abilities to understand and
engage in inquiry, and development
of questions and post-lab discussion
strategies. Year 1 uses the apprenticeship model concept to develop
inquiry abilities in teachers.
Year 2: PD continues with field
testing of labs and lesson plans in
project classrooms. This is followed
up during the workshops with presentation of field test reports and discussion, and this feedback is used to
modify the labs and lesson plans.
Year 3: Project teachers use guided
inquiry labs as the central theme to
teach physical science/chemistry in
high schools for two semesters using
pre- and post- design and assessment
instruments. The last year is focused
on studying the effect of PD on student content knowledge as well as
students abilities to understand and
engage in inquiry.
Instruments.
Science inquiry test: This 15-item
test measured abilities to understand
and engage in inquiry. Released
tests of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) and
other sources were used to develop
the test items. A pre-test was administered in the fall semester of the
second year of PD, and the post-test
took place at the end of the academic
4
Table 3, continued
7. What are your inferences? Does the product contain magnesium metal? (The product does not
have magnesium metal, since it did not react with hydrochloric acid).
8. Question: What does the product contain? (Possible student questions/hypotheses: Does it
contain Mg as metal? Answer: No. What happened to the magnesium metal? Hypotheses:
It evaporated to air; converted to another form; the product does not contain magnesium.)
9. Does the product contain magnesium in some other form? If yes, in what form? (Discuss this
topic in groups and then generate a whole class discussion. What do we do to investigate the
possibility that magnesium is present in some other form in the product? Discuss with students
the need for content knowledge and abilities to engage in inquiry. Then demonstrate to students
a lab test that detects magnesium ions in a known sample and perform the same test on the
residue left after burning magnesium. If the test shows the same results in both known and
unknown samples, what do you infer? (The unknown has magnesium ion.)
10. What do you conclude? (The product contains magnesium ion.)
11. Challenge students to come up with a possible explanation of how the magnesium metal
became the magnesium ion in the solid product after burning in air. Is this a chemical or
physical change?
12. Use this lab to develop concepts of chemical and physical changes, chemical reactions, ionic
bonding, and the transfer of electrons from magnesium to oxygen during the formation of
magnesium oxide.
13. Extension of this lab: What is the empirical formula of the product formed after burning Mg?
Figure1. Increase in guided inquiry labs from fall 07 to spring 08
120
fall 07
% inquiry labs
100
s pring 08
80
60
40
20
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
Mean
P roje c t T e a c he rs
Spring 2008
% Inquiry labs
Difference
% inquiry labs
T1
25
50
25
T2
20
40
20
T3
25
50
25
T4
25
40
15
T5
30
70
40
T6
30
60
30
T7
25
55
30
T8
30
75
45
T9
20
70
50
T10
25
75
50
Mean
25.5
58.5
33.0
SD
3.7
13.5
Teacher/Statistics
Effect size
A 20-50% increase in post-lab discussion is observed after one semester of inquiry teaching. The mean
increase from fall to spring semester was 30% with an effect size of
1.4. Some teachers (T1, T10,) were
doing a substantial amount of postlab discussion in the fall semester
and maintained or increased the level
3.33
1. Organize a post-lab discussion for 30 minutes after each guided inquiry lab.
2. First, organize group discussion on lab results and interpretation, followed by
presentation of group reports to the whole class.
3. Ask students why different groups think different ways and how they would resolve
the differences. Encourage each group to synthesize their findings and conclusions
based on whole class discussion.
4. Then you (the teacher) should summarize the post-lab discussion and offer your ideas/
comments, being sure to connect the inquiry-based lab activities to the academic
content being covered.
5. Wrap up post-lab discussion with questions such as:
Q 1. What are data in your lab today?
Q 2. What are the evidences you collected?
Q 3. If a scientist were to perform the lab you did today, would he/she complete it in the
same way?
If not, what do you think the scientist would do? (Hint: Scientists follow similar
procedures to discuss and share their viewpoints)
Q 4. Do you see any similarity between you and a scientist? (Hints: Both raise questions,
hypothesize, design experiments, collect data and evidences, and develop
explanations/theories)
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2
120
100
fall 07
s pring 08
80
60
40
20
0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
Mean
References
Fall 2007
% post-lab discussion
Spring 2008
% post-lab discussion
Difference in
% post-lab discussion
T1
80
100
20
T2
20
50
30
T3
25
45
20
T4
25
50
25
T5
20
45
25
T6
25
70
45
T7
30
80
50
T8
20
50
30
T9
30
70
40
T10
75
90
25
Mean
35.0
65.0
30.0
SD
22.7
20.0
10.5
Effect size
1.4
50
40
30
20
10
0
rarely
s ometimes
F re que ncy
fall 07
60
frequently
Science Educator