Designing and Teaching the Elementary Science Methods Course

Sandra Abell, Ken Appleton, Deborah Hanuscin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781135281342
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

What do aspiring and practicing elementary science teacher education faculty need to know as they plan and carry out instruction for future elementary science teachers? This scholarly and practical guide for science teacher educators outlines the theory, principles, and strategies needed, and provides classroom examples anchored to those principles. The theoretical and empirical foundations are supported by scholarship in the field, and the practical examples are derived from activities, lessons, and units field-tested in the authors' elementary science methods courses.

Designing and Teaching the Elementary Science Methods Course is grounded in the theoretical framework of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which describes how teachers transform subject matter knowledge into viable instruction in their discipline. Chapters on science methods students as learners, the science methods course curriculum, instructional strategies, methods course assessment, and the field experience help readers develop their PCK for teaching prospective elementary science teachers. "Activities that Work" and "Tools for Teaching the Methods Course" provide useful examples for putting this knowledge into action in the elementary science methods course.

Part I
Theoretical, Contextual, and Pedagogical Foundations for the Elementary Science Methods Course

Chapter 1
Perspectives on Science Teacher Learning

Imagine, if you will, an informal conversation in the college coffee shop. The elementary science methods instructors, Noeline, Sam, and Joan have met with two colleagues, Asmar and Peter, from the science department. They are all seeking relief from marking assignments and exams. Peter complains, “I get so frustrated with these students! They get the simplest things wrong.” Asmar nods in agreement, “Doesn’t matter how many times you tell them, they still mess it up.” Peter continues, “I mean, I’ve told them three times, and it’s in their text book. Why can’t they just learn it?” They are both looking at Noeline as if she can explain the mystery. What could she say?

Do Asmar’s and Peter’s comments sound familiar and align with your experience? Is there an explanation? In this chapter, we explore some possible answers, and ways they might be addressed, by exploring ideas about how your prospective teachers learn.

It’s Your Turn

In the above scenario, Asmar and Peter have revealed aspects of their views about learning.

What views about learning do Peter and Asmar seem to have?

How would you answer if you were Noeline?

Could you make any suggestions as to how Peter and Asmar might change the way they do things?

Views about Learning and Teaching

When you, the elementary science methods instructor, design and implement a science methods course, you draw upon your own pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching teachers. Your orientation to teaching and learning (see Chapter 3) has influenced the development of your PCK for teaching teachers, and also influences the types of instructional strategies that you use. Furthermore, your orientation to teaching and learning has two facets: an orientation to teaching and learning science, and an orientation to teaching and learning in science teacher education. Your views about the former need to be consistent with those you are promoting in your science methods course, and your views about the latter also need to be consistent with that view, but also need to take into account aspects of adult learning, and the particular characteristics of prospective elementary teachers.

A key goal of your methods course, explicitly stated or implicit, is to help your methods students develop sufficient PCK for teaching science to enable them to commence teaching science—what might be called a “starter pack.” So, to design and implement a science methods course, you need to have a clear idea about the development of PCK for teaching elementary science and your PCK for teaching teachers. In this chapter, we examine several ideas about learning that are pertinent to your views of teaching and learning in science teacher education, and invite you to re examine your own views in the light of what you discover.

Our Interpretation of the Scenario

If we read between the lines, Peter and Asmar seem to think that knowledge can be put into students’ heads if it is repeated enough, and that the knowledge can then be relayed back to him, as delivered, in an assessment exercise. As far as Peter is concerned, learning is a simple exercise, where knowledge is somehow crammed into a person’s head, analogous to an empty glass being filled with water from a jug.

This is a fairly common view held by many college and university professors, some teachers, most students, and the majority of those in the community. Unfortunately, it is not a particularly accurate view according to research, and it can lead to ineffective teaching, inappropriate curriculum, and poor assessment. At the moment, we have no inkling of what views Noeline holds. What she believes about learning is going to be passed on to her students during her methods course. Could she be passing on a view that perpetuates a defective idea, or would she have a different view? As you read the next section, compare the ideas to your own, and the ways in which you may have considered answering Peter and Asmar.

Views about teaching are partially derived from views about how people learn, which in turn are influenced by epistemological views (views about how knowledge is organized and developed). So, in this part of the chapter, we focus on some contemporary views about knowledge and learning, and how these relate to teaching.

Ideas about Knowledge

A major difficulty in developing views about knowledge is that we are speculating about what goes on in people’s heads. Brain scientists and neurologists have worked out which parts of the brain have particular roles, and can map brain activity when certain tasks are undertaken. We know that neurons (nerves in the brain) can form many interconnections with other neurons, and that the more frequently connections are used, the “stronger” they become; just as a path can be worn in grass by many feet passing the same way. But this is only telling us about the physical. While it gives us clues about how knowledge is arranged and stored in the brain, how it is retrieved, and how it is added to, the picture is very incomplete. So we must rely on some theories about this, which are consistent with both the physical evidence, and studies of human learning. We cannot pretend that this book is about psychology, so we will only refer to those theories that we think are contemporary, have currency in science education, and are helpful to science methods instructors. Schema theory gives us one way of thinking about knowledge organization and extension (epistemology) that is very useful.

Schema Theory

The key idea of this theory is that our past experiences are linked mentally in our memories, to form an organized structure of ideas, which psychologists call a cognitive structure. It is postulated that experiences are stored in the memory as separate events, but those having some commonality are linked in clusters. These clusters form an idea, consisting of multiple links across a network of experiences. Similarly, ideas with commonalities are linked to each other forming a complex network of linked ideas and experiences. These are often represented diagrammatically by Venn diagrams or concept maps.

A network of mental ideas centered round some commonality is called a schema (the plural of this Latin word is schemata). Often the anglicized version of the word, scheme (plural, schemes), is used. An example of a schema would be a simple concept like “duck.” Imagine, if you will, a young child walking past a pond with a parent, pointing to a white bird swimming on the surface, and asking, “What’s that?” The parent’s answer, “A duck,” allows the child to store in memory the word and the visual impression of a swimming white creature. They later encounter a white swan on the pond, and the child points, exclaiming “Duck!” The parent responds, “No dear, that is a swan. See, it has a long neck, and is a lot bigger than the duck.” The child processes this information, forming in her mind links between this experience and the earlier memory of “duck,” specifically linking to remembered aspects of neck length and body size. They later encounter a Mallard duck, and again there is an exchange where the parent patiently points out the differences and similarities between this duck, the white duck and the swan. In this way, the child builds a network of memories of different water birds and their language labels, with specific differences and similarities noted. A schema of “duck” is being constructed, with links to other schemata centered round “swan,” and perhaps later, “goose.” Each of these schemata is in turn linked to the others to form a general schema of water birds, and more generally, one of birds.

Notice in the above example, the notion that schemata are constructed. This is an important idea when we come to look at learning theories. Construction is a subconscious activity, but it does require deliberate attention to experiences and information extracted from them. Also, note that networks between schemata are constructed, linking those with similarities, and often forming more general schemata. Network construction is also a subconscious activity, which still requires attention to experiences, remembered experiences, and information embedded in them. Finally, note that new information gathered from experiences via the senses is incorporated into memory by association with existing schemata.

This process of making links between experiences and ideas can be considered as analogous to neurons in the brain forming links to other neurons—though perhaps in very different parts of the brain. According to this view, then, at some point soon after neuron development in a baby begins, the neurons start forming links with other neurons. Some links endure; some fade. As sensory organs begin to deliver information to the brain (such as sound penetrating into the womb), simple schemata begin to develop. As the brain receives new information the schemata are modified and extended. This process continues as the child grows. There is evidence to suggest that neuron growth (or at least replacement) continues throughout life, and that there are a couple of periods of rapid neuron growth in children.

Schema theory also provides a perspective on what happens when we remember something. A sensory stimulus that occurs in a particular context is linked to a schema selected by the brain. This both helps us interpret the stimulus, and activates a string of memories related to that schema: those memories have been recalled. Problems in recall can occur if the brain selects a different schema that activates a different set of memories, or if the link to a particular memory has faded.

Revisiting the Scenario

Noeline knows about schema theory, and could use it to explain why Peter and Asmar’s students are having difficulty with their courses. Her thinking goes something like this:

During a lecture the students are being presented with a lot of new information all at once, which they have to fit into their existing schemata if they are to learn it. The trouble is, a lot of the ideas are abstract, and the students have few schemata that can form links to the new information. Because so much is coming so fast to just a few schemata, some links become established, but some are too weak.

Some information is simply missed because the students are concentrating in an effort to fit ...

Table of contents

• Teaching and Learning in Science Series
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgment
• Introduction
• Part I Theoretical, Contextual, and Pedagogical Foundations for the Elementary Science Methods Course
• Part II Activities that Work for the Elementary Science Methods Course
• About the Authors
• Index