Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 878-903

  Windschitl, Mark ^a   Thompson, Jessica ^a   Braaten, Melissa ^b   Stroupe, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865077337     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21027     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 633-653.
2. Alexander, R. J., Osborn, M., & Phillips, D. (2000). Learning from comparing: New directions in comparative educational research, Volume II: Policy, professionals and development. Oxford, England: Symposium Books.
3. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2010). The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Yearbook of the national society for the study of education, constructivism in education (pp. 193-224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
6. Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458-474.
7. Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation survey. In D. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), The impact of the state and national standards on K-12 science teaching (pp. 83-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
8. Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangieri & C.C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
9. Boerst, T., & Sleep., L. (2007, April). Uses and meanings of practice in learning to do the work of mathematics teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
10. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on developments in the science of learning. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
12. Brown, A. L., & Kane., M. J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493-523.
13. Bryk, T. (2009). Supporting a science of performance improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8), 507-600.
14. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, England: Heinemann Educational Books.
15. Chapin, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2004). Project challenge: Identifying and developing talent in mathematics within low-income urban schools. Boston University School of Education Research Report No. 1, pp. 1-6.
16. Chinn, C., Golan Duncan, R., Pluta, W., Buckland, L., Kempler Rogat, T., DiFranco, J., & Witham, S. (2010). Promoting reasoning: A microgenetic study of middle-school students learning through model-based inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
17. City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
18. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673-782.
19. Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258-277.
20. Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teachers' learning: A reflection from the field, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 165-199.
21. Cohen, D. (2007). Problems in educational policy and research. In S. H. Fuhrman, D. K. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy and research (pp. 349-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Cohen, D. (2011). Teaching: Practice and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2002). Resources, instruction, and research. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 80-119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24. Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus ca change .... In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
25. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Cole, M, & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Saloman (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651.
28. Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2004). Thinking together: A programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills (2nd ed.). Birmingham, England: Imaginative Minds.
29. Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007). "Coach" can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in reading first (issues & answers report, REL 2007-No. 005). Retrieved July 19, 2008, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
30. Duschl, R., & Duncan, R. (2009). Beyond the fringe: Building and evaluating scientific knowledge systems. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
31. Engle, R. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts, and developments. In D. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings New York: Taylor & Francis, Educational Psychology Press.
32. Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using children's mathematical knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555-583.
33. Franke, M. L., & Chan, A. (2007, April). Learning about and from focusing on routines of practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
34. Freese, A. R. (2006). Reframing one's teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflection and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 100-119.
35. Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G. (1993). Pre-service biology teachers' knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25-45.
36. Green, E. (2010). Building a better teacher. New York Times Magazine, March 2, 2010.
37. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfelt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100.
38. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205.
39. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation: Using technology to examine teaching (overview for a digital exhibition: Learning from the practice of teaching). Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 70-85.
41. Hausmann, R. G. M., Nokes, T. J., VanLehn, K., & Gershman, S. (2009). The design of self-explanation prompts: The fit hypothesis. Proceedings of the thirty-first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2626-2631). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Cognitive Science Society.
42. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 433-475.
43. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
44. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
45. Hogan, T., & Rabinowitz, M. (2009). Teacher expertise and the development of problem representation. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 153-169.
46. Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven, J. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247.
47. Horizon Research International. (2003). Special tabulations of the 2000-2001 LSC teacher questionnaire and classroom observation data. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
48. Ingersoll, R. M. (1996). Out-of-field teaching an educational equality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
49. Jackson, P. (1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
50. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. (2011). Beginning teachers' development of classroom practice and their narratives of practices toward reform-oriented instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.
51. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's Curriculum Review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
52. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53. Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34.
54. Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers' and teacher educators' learning. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491-509.
55. Lee, C. (2007). The role of culture in academic literacies: Conducting our blooming in the midst of the whirlwind. New York: Teachers College Press.
56. Lee, C. D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97-141.
57. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Supporting the development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.
58. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. (2005). Seeing the complexity to standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87-163.
59. Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), The handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington DC: Education Schools Project. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report_release.htm.
62. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
63. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Magnusson, S., & Palincsar, A. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary school level. In M. S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom (pp. 421-474). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
65. Mercer, N., & Middleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
66. Metcalf, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-it: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies in learning (pp. 77-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Reasoned participation: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297. Read more at http://www.clarku.edu/academiccatalog/facultybio.cfm?id=15#ixzz0KPZQlrC9&C. Accessed October 7, 2011.
68. Minstrell, M., & Kraus, P. (2005). Guided inquiry in science classrooms. In M. S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom (pp. 475-514). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
69. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
70. Murray, F. (1989). Explanation in education. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 1-12). New York: Pergamon.
71. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
72. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
73. National Research Council. (2005). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Committee on high school laboratories: Role and vision. S. R. Singer, A. L. Hilton, & H. A. Schweingruber (Eds.), Board on Science Education. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
74. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
75. National Research Council. (2011). Framework for the next generation science education standards. Retrieved September 22, 2011, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html.
76. Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 17-34). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
77. Newmann, F., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
78. Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1995). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student performance. Issues in restructuring schools (issue report no. 8). Madison, WI: Center on Reorganization and Restructuring of Schools. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cors/Issues_in_Restructuring_Schools/ISSUES_NO_8_SPRING_1995.pdf
79. Rand (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
80. Raudenbush, S. (2008). Advancing educational policy by advancing research on instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 206-230.
81. Resnick, L. (2010). Nested systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 183-197.
82. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
83. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
84. Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 99-111.
85. Rosebery, A., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). "The coat traps all your body heat": Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 322-357.
86. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61-94.
87. Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
88. Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 153-161.
89. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
90. Shulman, L. S. (1992). "Research on teaching: A historical & personal perspective." In F. Oser, A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 14-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
91. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. (2000). Sixth grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349-422.
92. Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newmann, F. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, Chicago Annenberg Research Project.
93. Stewart, J., Passmore, C., Cartier, J., Rudolph, J., & Donovan, S. (2005). Modeling for understanding in science education. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 159-184). Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum.
94. Sykes, G., Bird, T. & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476.
95. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (April 2009). How pedagogical reasoning and ambitious practice develops across "learning to teach" contexts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.
96. U.S. Department of Education (2008). The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Author.
97. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. S. (1996). "This question is just too easy!" Students' perspectives on accountability in science. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 97-125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
98. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from www.horizon-research.com.
99. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
100. White, B., & Fredericksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
101. Wilson, C., Taylor, J., Kowalski, S., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276-301.
102. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2010, December). Raising performance expectations for novice teachers: The promise of pedagogical tools and core practices. Paper presened at the DR-K-12 National Science Foundation Conference, Washington, DC.
103. 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 Education, 92(5), 941-967.