Fostering second graders' scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and practice

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 381-414

  Beyer, Carrie J ^a   Davis, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 48049090694     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400802222917     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82, 491-509.
3. Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581-595.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135-167.
6. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers' development as teachers of science. Journal of Science. Teacher Education, 13, 43-61.
7. Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A. first-year elementary teacher's specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 965-986.
8. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
9. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454-467.
10. Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
11. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2006). Characterizing the quality of second graders' observations and explanations to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 43-49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008, January). Supporting preservice. elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials using educative curriculum materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, St. Louis, MO.
13. Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher's belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 835-868.
14. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
15. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 323-393.
16. Chinn, C. A., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A. comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
17. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327-343.
18. Cochran, K., & Jones, L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 707-718). London: Kluwer Academic.
19. Coleman, E. B. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387-428.
20. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 227-311.
21. Davis, E. A. (2008). Elementary teachers ' ideas about effective science teaching: A longitudinal study. Paper to be presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, June 2008, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
22. Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2007, April). Promoting pedagogical design capacity through teachers' narratives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
23. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
24. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607-651.
25. Davis, E. A., Smithey, J., & Petish, D. (2004). Designing an online learning environment for new elementary science teachers: Supports for learning to teach. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS2004 (p. 594). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63-103.
27. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 70(2/3), 105-225.
28. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
29. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
30. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
31. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education. 88, 915-933.
32. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edition (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
33. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001 ). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
34. Geddis, A. (1991). Improving the quality of classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75, 169-183.
35. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers' developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1653-1674.
36. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53-91.
37. Hammer, D., Russ, R., Mikeska, J., & Seherr, R. (in press). Identifying inquiry and conceptualizing students' abilities. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Establishing a consensus agenda for K-12 science inquiry. Rotterdam, NL: Sense.
38. Henenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
39. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451-493.
40. Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535-548). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
41. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
42. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
43. Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 282-292.
44. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
45. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-338.
46. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-2.1.
47. Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., & Putz, A. (2000). Designing classrooms that support inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 80-99). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
48. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
49. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
50. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341-358.
51. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (p. 233-265). New York: Taylor & Francis.
52. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53-78.
53. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191.
54. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A. guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
56. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.
58. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 5, 553-576.
59. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
60. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.
61. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
62. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331-350.
63. Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children's understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617-1636.
64. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346.
65. Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5-51.
66. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science. Education, 88, 345-372.
67. Schneider, R. (2006). Supporting science teacher thinking through curriculum materials. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 674-680). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. Schneider, R., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 221-245.
69. Smith, J., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
70. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753-766.
71. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
72. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
73. van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science. Teaching, 35, 673-695.
74. Weiss, I., Banilower, E., McMahon, K., & Smith, P. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science, and Mathematics Education. Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/reports/status.php
75. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
76. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.