23 coherence of ideas is important, and it makes sense to call on students who have relevant contributions at the moment. Handing off In “handing off,” the student who spoke last calls on the next speaker. This technique gives the students more control over the discussion, and makes it more likely students will talk directly to one another, linking their contributions and building on one another’s ideas. This makes the discussion feel more “kid-run” and sometimes motivates more students to want to contribute their ideas. There are a couple of downsides to this strategy. It gives you less control over who speaks and in what order. As a result, turns at talk might become less equitably distributed. It also can become a distraction if students orient to speakers based on friendship, taking their time looking around the group, trying to make up their mind about whom to choose. If you do turn this responsibility over to the students, it is important to establish the norm of equitable participation. They should understand that it is important that those who have something important to contribute get a chance to talk and that no one should dominate the conversation. Jumping in (or Popcorn) This strategy allows anyone who wants to talk to do so, without raising their hand, as long as the current speaker has finished. In addition, the next speaker MUST link their contribution to the previous speaker or something that has occurred earlier in the conversation. This has some of the same benefits of handing off in that it gives the students a sense of agency and ownership over the discussion process. The downside to this approach is that it requires a certain amount of restraint among the students if two or more students start to talk at once. They have to be able to negotiate -- on their own -- a turn-taking order. This approach tends to favor the dominant talkers, as well as those students who can formulate their ideas quickly. For this strategy to work (and not promote highly inequitable participation), you have to discuss with students the importance of giving quieter students a chance to enter the conversation. For example, if two students start to talk at once, the rule should be that the student who has participated less often should go first. The Talk Ball This is the term we’ve given to a strategy where the teacher designates an object that can easily be passed around from speaker to speaker. The object indicates who has the floor. It serves as a pseudo-microphone, signaling that only the person with the object has the right to speak, and needs to be heard. We have found that a soft object, such as a small nurf ball or foam block works well because it is easy to toss, easy to catch, and impossible to hurt anyone with. We have found that the “talk ball” makes it easy to introduce and enforce the “one person talks at a time” rule in situations where the students find it very hard not to talk over one another. We also find that students like the sense of having the floor (often holding up the ball if others start to speak and saying, “I have the floor”), and that the process of passing the ball slows the conversation down, giving everyone a bit more time to think. We have seen this strategy work well with students as young as pre-schoolers and as old as high school students. However, with older students, it’s possible for the talk ball to become a distraction if the students start to throw the ball hard or have to chase after it if dropped.
24 Round-Robin Talking This strategy is used to get everyone, in turn, to contribute their ideas to the conversation. A question is posed and everyone has to go on line with their best thinking. It’s best used when a good deal of talk has already occurred and it is time to take stock of the group’s viewpoints. For example, in science, the strategy can be used after an experimental apparatus has been discussed (“What will happen when I pump this volleyball with 20 pumps of air? Will it be heavier, lighter, or weigh the same?”). Before determining the outcome, the round-robin strategy can be used. Everyone has a chance (and the obligation) to go public with their prediction and reasoning. The value of this strategy is that everyone has a chance to talk and even shy, ELL, or struggling students are expected to contribute. However, because this occurs after a good deal has occurred, and it is fine to use others’ ideas, the entry threshold is low. The Gender Rule This strategy involves alternating boys and girls and can be used selectively and for a relatively short period of time in a discussion. It’s introduced simply by saying something like, “OK for now, let’s alternate boy, girl, boy, girl — just to make sure everyone’s getting a chance to talk. Once one person has spoken, the teacher (or the last student to speak) must select someone from the other gender. This strategy is particularly helpful if a small group of boys or girls seems to dominate the conversation. We have found that in math and science, especially in the upper grades, girls are sometimes more reticent to volunteer to speak. And we have found consistently that the girls LOVE the gender rule, even if it slows the conversation down a bit, in selecting the next speaker. Threats to equitable participation In many classrooms, over a long series of discussions, one does find enduring patterns of inequality. Some student consistently dominate the conversation and the same few students rarely participate. Some of the students have begun to opt out of the conversation all together. What are the causes of these patterns of inequitable participation and what can be done to counter them? Some causes of inequity lie in student characteristics: students are shy, or domineering; confident or insecure. We have to find ways to balance these features. Other causes of inequity lie in us as teachers. We need to reflect on these, explore them, and address them. In every case, it is important to act consistently to maintain fairness. Often where we see enduring patterns of inequitable participation, we find that the teacher has simply failed to establish norms for academically productive talk at the outset. Over time, a pattern has taken hold in which the “talky kids” or the so-called “smart” kids dominate. This can become a case where the “rich get richer.” Those kids who are good talkers to begin with get more practice and more support. Gradually others stop trying to get a turn, stop engaging deeply with the ideas, and have less to actually contribute. Whatever the reason, the solution here is simply to establish norms and hold the students accountable to them, following the guidelines set forth in this chapter. Quiet and shy students Research had shown that a student who doesn’t talk in a given discussion CAN be engaged and learning at high levels. Some have called this phenomenon
25 “silent participation.” In these cases, the student can hear what others are saying and is IN the conversation as an engaged listener, silently identifying with speakers who take up positions he or she agrees with. At the same time, it is important that — over time — students have a variety of opportunities to formulate complex ideas (even if merely repeating a complex idea that someone else has originated). It is important that students get a chance to explicate and elaborate their ideas and do the hard but rewarding work of making sure that their ideas are clear to others. For students who are by nature very shy, for English language learners, or for students new to academic discussions, a good deal of scaffolding and support (from the teacher and peers) will be required to help them formulate arguments and explanations in a way that others can hear and understand. But all students must get the time and support they need to publicly express complex ideas. Only then can others build upon or challenge their ideas. This in turn will motivate these students to develop their ideas further. Students who tend to dominate Some students are by nature comfortable and confident talking in front of a group. They may come from families where this kind of talk is practiced regularly at mealtime, during car trips, or bedtime. Some kids are simply particularly knowledgeable about a topic under discussion. And finally, some students, no matter what their background or preparation, are simply gifted in the verbal realm. In these cases, there are a number of ways to promote equitable participation without squelching these willing and gifted participants. First of all, these students can provide interesting material for others to repeat in their own words. “Wow, did everyone hear what Juan just said? Does anyone think they understood Juan’s point well enough to put it into their own words?” This kind of teacher move has many benefits. It credits Juan with a substantive contribution. It models complex thinking for others and gives someone else a chance to put this complex idea into words publicly. (This is often a helpful way to support ELL students in acquiring academic English.) Finally, it gives everyone a second chance to hear and think about a complex idea, serving as a kind of “wait time.” Another strategy to use is to ask for a contribution from someone “who hasn’t yet had a chance to speak.” Still another is to invoke the “gender rule” which asks for a boy to speak after a girl. This gives the students who are anxious to speak practice waiting for others to take a turn. English Language Learners Sometimes, students are reluctant to participate in a whole group discussion because they lack proficiency with academic English. They may be learning English as a second or third language or they may lack experience engaging in academic conversations. For these students, it is highly beneficial simply to listen in on and participate in academically productive talk discussions. These student require practice in an environment that supports them to try, to take a chance, even if only to repeat what someone else has said, and to be given wait time or a chance to “say more about that.” If a reluctant or struggling speaker has offered a substantive contribution (even if poorly formulated), it is helpful to ask someone if they can put that idea into their own words. Often the next student will expand or clarify the thought and at the same time credit the original student as having made a substantive contribution to the conversation. The reluctant or ELL student will
26 also then be hearing a revoicing of their contribution, perhaps in more grammatical English, a more academic register, or in a more elaborated form. This then provides additional linguistic input that is highly accessible for that student, because it expands or rephrases their own original idea. This serves as a kind of “linguistic amplification” rather than simplification (Walqui, 2000), and supports language acquisition within the context of an academically rigorous curriculum. 3 Students with conflicting home-based norms Some students are reluctant to participate vocally in large group discussions because it is not something they do regularly in their home or home community. Among some Native American groups, for example, it is considered unseemly to set yourself apart from others by taking center stage and speaking out in a large group. In some communities, it is considered rude or arrogant to be fully explicit about your ideas, to state the obvious, so to speak. If you did that at home, you might be chastised for “hitting the other guy over the head with your point.” Here, stating the obvious is considered bad form because you are acting as if your audience is too stupid to read between the lines, or is not listening carefully. These home-based norms are in direct conflict with the norms for academically productive talk, where students are expected to take the floor and fully explicate their reasoning. This means stating a claim and providing evidence for that claim, as well as providing an explicit link between the evidence and the claim. In practicing academically productive talk, we are asking students to talk in ways they would not be expected to talk at home. How can you work with students from a wide variety of home communities which will have many different norms for public speaking? First of all, it is helpful simply to acknowledge that reluctance to speak in a group does NOT indicate lack of intelligence or a dearth of good ideas. It might well be a cultural norm or value that creates harmony in group discussion in one’s home community. But a willingness to recognize or acknowledge that cultural differences exist will only get you so far. What can you do to get these kids to participate more? Some students will participate more vocally in small group settings because they do not feel that they are calling attention to themselves or acting like they are more important than others. For these students, the question is how can you help them move from contributing in a small group to contributing in a whole group setting. One strategy is to encourage them within a large-group context simply to repeat what someone else has said, in order to help clarify a classmate’s idea. In this situation, they may feel more comfortable as they would be seen to be helping others, rather than tooting their own horn. With students who are reluctant to fully explicate their ideas, because of a cultural norm that prohibits stating the obvious and potentially insulting a listener, a number of teacher moves can be very helpful. “Why do you think that?” “What’s your evidence?” or “How does that evidence relate to your claim?” encourages students to unpack their reasoning. Gradually, these students 3 Walqui, A. (2000). Access and Engagement: Program Design and Instructional Approaches for Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
27 begin to do so spontaneously. Inequities in our own expectations Sometimes the root cause of inequitable participation is subtler and harder to talk about. Teachers may unwittingly be expecting less from certain students because of deeply held prejudices or misunderstandings about cultural differences. If teachers act on these differential expectations and ask less of certain students, they may unwittingly create fewer opportunities for these students to participate and practice academically productive talk. If that happens, the teacher will have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. “My boys are more scientifically inclined and better at math than my girls. That’s why they have so much more to say in math discussions than the girls.” “Some of my kids have a hard time reading and discussing books because they don’t speak Standard English.” The trouble with these kinds of differential expectations (gender bias or differential expectations for children of different ethnic or social class backgrounds) is that it’s hard to recognize bias in oneself. To some extent we may not even be aware we work with these differential expectations. Or if we are aware of differential expectations, they may not seem like bias at all; they seem like simple, self-evident truth! What can be done in cases like this? First of all, it is helpful to pay attention to one’s assumptions and expectations for children from a particular ethnic, class, or gender group. There is a great deal of research that suggests that decreased expectations of children often lead directly to decreased opportunities to learn for these children. For this reason, it is helpful to look closely at one’s own practice – of calling on children or scaffolding their participation. Sometimes it is helpful to tape record a discussion and simply look closely at who talks, and for how long. It is also helpful to look at how much support for talk (“Say more about that.” “Who can repeat…?”) different children receive. We all have ideas about individual children and make efforts to individualize our support. But if we have ideas about girls as a group, or African American children, or poor children, or English language learners, and those ideas lead us to expect less from these children in certain contexts, it is worthwhile to look closely at how these children participate in discussions. It may turn out that WE are part of the problem and that we can intervene strategically to create more equitable opportunities for participation. Calling on ‘reliable’ talkers One last cause of inequitable participation is a common problem that many of us have, or have had at one time or another. We call on the same students again and again, students who we know reliably say something “smart.” Why do we do this? Because leading discussions that support academically productive talk in science is really hard to do. And being human, we have a hard time with the uncertainty and unpredictability of these discussions, where so much of the content is provided by the students themselves. We feel the need to stick with reliable right-answerers to avoid the discomfort of wait time. (What if I wait and no one else raises their hands? How long should I wait?) Another reason we may call too much on the ‘reliable’ talkers is that we are uncertain about how to deal with wrong answers. (Should I correct a wrong answer? Let it hang in the air and see if anyone else notices? Will a student feel humiliated if an incorrect answer is exposed publicly?)
28 We feel the need to control the direction of the conversation, so that it proceeds in a coherent manner. (I don’t want the majority of the students to get confused if someone proposes an off- base idea.) We fear looking foolish or ignorant if a student comment takes the conversation off in a direction we are unprepared for. (I’m not sure where this is going. What if he knows more about this subject than I do???) And many of us worry about “coverage.” We fear wasting time while kids struggle to build meaning. (The state tests are coming up…) All of these concerns are legitimate and all of us entertain them from time to time as we attempt to lead discussions. Nonetheless, it is important to trust the process of opening up the conversation to all participants while using teacher moves to maintain the academic rigor and focus of the conversation. How do I decide whether or not my discussions are equitable? Because the goal is not to make sure that every student speaks in every discussion, it is not a good idea to assess the degree of equity in your discussions after a single session. Rather, it makes sense to look over a stretch of discussions, over the course of a week or two. It is helpful to keep track of participation in some way, and then to look over your “results” during a number of sessions. Some teachers find it helpful to use a seating chart (a simple drawing of students’ names in the seating arrangement they are in for that discussion). Every time a student speaks, you can make a tick mark next to their name, or even jot down a word or two to help you remember their contribution. Seating charts serve a number of purposes in addition to providing you with a rough tally of contributions and contributors. It shows the students that you are very serious about their ideas and want to think hard about them and remember them. It helps to slow the conversation down a bit, and give you a moment to collect your thoughts, as you are jotting down a note about what was just said. Another advantage of taking notes and using a seating chart is that it takes your gaze off of the students and makes it easier for you NOT to respond with an evaluative comment (such as, “yes, that’s right,” “no, that’s not quite right,” “great point,” “brilliant idea,” or even “OK.”). These comments often orient the students to correctness of the idea, putting yourself in the role of authority. This motivates students to come up with an answer that YOU will want, rather than allowing the students to grapple with the ideas themselves, learning to make their own judgments about how compelling or convincing some ideas are compared to others. If you do use a seating chart (or even a listing of names with tick marks), you can look over a set of these records (from 5 or so discussions) and ask yourself if there are some obvious patterns or imbalances. Are some students not talking at all? Are some students talking way more than others? Are the boys talking much more than the girls? Are ELL students not contributing?
29 5. Can I really do this? The main worries that teachers have about their own capacity to orchestrate academically productive talk in science tend to be expressed in two questions: Can I make progress in the academic content while using this kind of talk? Can I manage student interactions in ways that will work for all my students? Why should these worries emerge? The main reason is that when you use discussion you are opening the door to unpredictability. In a lecture or direct instruction format, you control all the ideas and questions. When you allow students to explain their reasoning, and to talk to one another in partner talk, and to ask questions that occur to them, you are introducing a source of uncertainty. This uncertainty is exciting but at the same time it may provoke anxiety. Will you be able to stay on track in terms of content? What if students want to talk about ideas that are incorrect? What if the unpredictability and open character of the talk brings out behaviors in students that are undesirable? Once you have begun to use academically productive talk strategies, you will have a better sense of how to manage these issues, and the anxieties you have now will fade. As you start the process, there are several things to keep in mind about your own preparations. Starting slow: build confidence in using talk moves Before you begin ‘officially’ using academically productive talk in your class, you can build your confidence and that of your students by starting to use some of the teacher moves yourself. Many teachers have told us that the first time they consciously used revoicing, asking students to repeat, and so on, they found themselves distracted and discombobulated, unable to focus full attention on the academic content of students’ contributions. This makes sense: any time we do something new it increases our overall processing load. Therefore, we think the best way to begin is by starting slow: practice using a few of the talk moves even before you introduce the full set of talk norms to your students. To do this, you need to plan an activity in which you will be asking your students substantive and open-ended questions on a topic that you are fully confident about. For example, you may revisit a previous lesson and ask them how they solved a complex problem, or how they interpret a piece of text, or how they explain or describe a complex procedure. In short, you must find a somewhat familiar activity in which the questions call for more than a single word or yes/no response. One of the easiest ways to start is by practicing the teacher revoicing move. Whenever you ask a question and a student answers it with more than a minimal answer, revoice their contribution, making sure to leave room for them to agree or disagree with your revoicing. This is particularly helpful in building your confidence that you can deal with unintelligible contributions. It also gets students used to the fact that you will respond to their statements with full attention, taking
30 them seriously and following up. When a student provides only a minimal answer, you can begin to encourage them to go further by saying something like “I’m not sure I totally understand. Can you say more?” If they refuse to say more, you can tell them in a friendly way that you will give them time to think more and will come back to them. Then make sure that you do return to them later in the same class session. It may take several days of patient and gentle persistence, but eventually you will get responses from even the most reluctant students. During this breaking-in period, make sure that you make full use of wait time. Students will gradually come to believe that you actually will wait for them to think through their answer. This will increase their willingness to participate. Many English language learners and other students who need time to process have learned that their most reliable strategy is simply not to respond. Then teachers will not call on them. It may take time to change this perception. You need persistence and kindness, but eventually, they will get the message that you do want to hear from them. Some students will find this level of attention intimidating in itself. Some students have learned to ‘fly beneath the radar,’ in the words of one teacher. As you gradually introduce the discourse- intensive practices of academically productive talk, these students will find that they are expected, perhaps for the first time, to express their reasoning aloud. You may want to do this gradually, giving each student the experience of having their answers revoiced and discussed a number of times before you go into the full range of student talk moves. Academic issues: plan ahead to integrate talk with content One of the chief sources of uncertainty is that students will say things that you don’t expect or don’t understand. Whether you are teaching science, math, ELA or social studies, you can address this ahead of time by considering how the talk might interact with student knowledge and misconceptions. In your lesson planning, look at the materials you will use in the lesson. Review the texts or problems or hands-on materials you will be using. Identify the places where you will ask questions to create the opportunity for discussion or explanation or other reasoning. Write down the questions you plan to ask. You are making a lesson plan that explicitly incorporates academically productive talk. Consider where you might want to use Partner Talk. Plan where you will pose an open-ended question that may evolve into a discussion, an opportunity for students to externalize their reasoning. Now sit back and think about what students know about the material at each point. If you are experienced in this area you will have a good idea of common student misconceptions and likely misunderstandings. You will know which vocabulary items are likely to be difficult. If you are not experienced, ask other colleagues who have more experience, or make some working hypotheses. Until you feel comfortable with the process, make explicit notes for yourself about this. Next, try to imagine a scenario in which a student says something completely unexpected or
31 wrong or uninterpretable. What will you say? What are the range of options you have? Considering how you will deal with mistakes and unclear responses is tremendously important. Many students believe that mistakes are a reason for embarrassment and indicate only that the mistake-maker lacks understanding and awareness. Thus mistakes must be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of not participating. The way you handle mistakes and unclarity can make the difference between full and enthusiastic participation, and a quiet, reluctant class dominated by a few confident students. It’s important to know that there are several “no-fail strategies” you can always use when a student’s contribution is problematic. These strategies will socialize students into valuing mistakes as a resource for learning, rather than as evidence of a personal failure. •If the talk strikes you as productive but confusing, you can always use the talk move “Can anyone repeat?” Invariably, this will take the conversation in a productive direction. Usually someone can actually explicate and elaborate the idea, and if they can’t, the original student is motivated to try again and work hard to make the ideas clear to everyone. •If the talk is completely unclear (even after you have asked students to repeat) and it is unclear to you that it is worth a good deal of time to unpack the contribution, you can always simply move on by soliciting additional viewpoints. You can say, “Does anyone have another idea?” or “Does anyone else have something to say?” •If the talk is clear but likely to take the conversation in the wrong direction, you can acknowledge the contribution and say, “I’m not sure we can go there now. Remind me and we can talk about this later.” [It’s important to follow up with this student. You might write the comment on the board to remind you to return to it later.] •If the student’s answer is wrong but wrong in a way that might well be productive to unpack, you can always ask someone to repeat it. This may sound counterintuitive, but opening up the idea to the group has several advantages. First of all, it buys you a little bit of time to think. Second, it allows students time to fully process the idea. This makes it more likely that one of the students will see the problem and be able to comment productively on it. Finally, every time you allow students to think about an idea that turns out to be not completely correct, you are socializing them to truly think, rather than to just orient to your cues about what is correct. Students who have learned that their teacher will pursue ideas that need to be repaired tend to be far better at thinking critically and at persevering when presented with a complex idea. In any subject matter area, you can think ahead of time about various ways to move through the material. There are multiple ways to solve a problem, interpret a text, understand a science demonstration or model, or contextualize a historical document. These will help you understand the content from the point of view of various students, which is in itself a useful outcome. As you think ahead and imagine what students might say that would throw you off, you are actually improving your ability to respond to what they might say, and thus you are improving your ability to help them learn. Academic issues: reflect afterwards and adjust your course Particularly in the first few days
32 and weeks of incorporating academically productive talk strategies into your classroom, you will benefit greatly from finding time to reflect after a class. It is always difficult to squeeze one more thing into your day, but allocating even ten minutes for reviewing what worked and what didn’t will bring great rewards. During class, you can take notes about things you want to remember. At first this may feel strange, but jotting down notes about what students are saying actually gives everyone a bit more time to think. It also indicates to your students that you are taking their words seriously. You can even let them know why you are doing this: “I’m going to take a few notes about what you’re saying, because that will help me think about what is the best way for us all to learn this material.” It is difficult in the blur of classroom interaction to remember everything that was said. Jotting down student comments and questions that are unexpected or problematic or fruitful will help you greatly as you go back to planning. As you reflect on what worked and what didn’t, adjust your course. Incorporate into your plans what you have learned that day about the material and about your students. Your ability to predict what is going to happen and your confidence will rapidly improve. Social and behavioral issues: plan ahead for equity and respect Before you carry out your official presentation or negotiation of the talk norms in your classroom, you may want to consider the challenges your classroom will present. Do you have many students who are very quiet and unlikely to participate? Do you have a few students who are used to ridiculing and teasing other students? Do the boys dominate the girls, or vice versa? Is there a small group of very able students and a large group of students who have opted out, leaving active participation to that small group? Academically productive talk norms tend to look fairly similar across classrooms. Nevertheless, your unique circumstances will lead you to want to emphasize certain aspects of the norms. If your class is made up of many raucous students who compete to shout out their thoughts, you will not have to spend much time worrying about making sure that each speaker is audible. But you will perhaps have to spend extra time on making sure that turn-taking norms are followed. At this point it would also be wise to consider how you will deal with violations of the norms. Any experienced teacher (or parent!) knows that as soon as norms are agreed upon, the limits will be tested by some. This limits-testing will continue throughout the year, no matter how enthusiastically your students are participating in academically productive talk. Therefore, it is important to have established beforehand how you will enforce the talk norms. Check with colleagues and the administrators at your school at this point, just to make sure that your behavioral system will be backed up by appropriate parties in the school. Social and behavioral issues: reflect and assess your progress After a week or two of officially incorporating these talk strategies into your classroom, it is important to assess your progress. Are students largely adhering to the norms? Are their contributions to classroom talk becoming more interesting, more extensive, and more thoughtful? Are students spontaneously saying that they agree or disagree with their classmates’ ideas? If so, congratulations. You are seeing the benefits already. If not, don’t give up. Continue to work at it, and assess your progress at the end of each week. Again, we encourage you to take notes during class so that you can remember the high and the low points, and adjust your instruction accordingly.
33 Can my students really do this? The main worries that teachers have about their students’ capacity to participate in academically productive talk tend to be expressed in these questions: Will my students be willing to participate? Will my students have anything worthwhile to say? Will the talk be dominated by the one or two most able students? These concerns are reasonable. As you incorporate academically productive talk into your instruction, students will be called on to talk in ways that they may never have done, at least in class. They will have anxieties and fears about being embarrassed, about having their lack of knowledge revealed, perhaps even about being ridiculed. You want to allay their fears, but you know these fears are not unrealistic. How can you encourage them to participate and make sure that things stay under control so that no student has a truly negative experience? In addition to your anxieties about their willingness to participate, you may have concerns about their ability to participate. You probably have a few students whose abilities are obvious, and who you know will shine. But what about the others? Will this kind of talk turn out to be a showcase for these few most able students? If it does, then other students will eventually turn off, inferring that this talk is not really meant for them. For these reasons it’s important that you acknowledge these concerns at the very outset and plan to deal with them proactively. If you do, it is very likely that you—like virtually all of the teachers we have worked with—will be surprised by the degree to which your students like participating in academically productive talk. We wager that you will also be surprised by their ability to do so. Starting slow: give students a chance to get used to APT If you follow our advice above, you will be trying out some of the teacher talk moves before you officially introduce the APT norms. As you do this, notice that your students need time to get used to the pressures to talk just as you do. Many teachers have pointed out to us that it is important to build a positive talk environment. Specifically, they have told us that it is very important how one first begins to use the student repeating move. Early on, when you ask a student if they can repeat what another student said, very often they cannot. While eventually you will be able to expect that students should not violate this norm, at the beginning, it will take them some time to get used to. Teachers have told us that it is very important to use this move in a positive way: when a student makes a contribution, don’t look around for the one student who is not paying attention, and ask him or her to repeat. Instead, ask “Who understands what Rita said well enough to repeat it for us?” Make the ability to repeat another student’s utterance a positive accomplishment. Don’t hesitate to praise a student for their ability to repeat or rephrase a complex contribution. Later, when the
34 obligation to do this is clearly established as a positive norm, you can begin to sanction students for not being able to repeat due to attention problems. Make sure everyone has a chance to participate from the beginning. As you start to use academically productive talk, it will be awkward at times. You will inevitably want to rely on students who are competent and articulate. However, if you limit yourself to these students in order to avoid social awkwardness, you will be setting up tacit norms that will be very hard to dismantle later. Review the section on Turn-taking strategies above. Why isn’t this working? Trouble-shooting and FAQs Inevitably, problems will crop up. Here we have assembled a collection of some of the most common, along with suggestions about how to deal with them. The bottom line, however, is that you will need to diagnose and solve your problems in ways that fit the circumstances of your particular classroom. (a) My students won’t talk—they just sit there Particularly at the beginning, you may have trouble getting students to speak up. Here are the questions to ask yourself, and strategies to use. 1) Do they really understand the question? Sometimes teachers underestimate the amount of time it takes students to process a question, and then formulate an answer to it. The students may not yet have understood the question. As you wait for hands to go up, a ten second pause may feel like an eternity. First, use wait time skillfully. Ask the question, then silently count to ten. Then repeat the question using other words. Count to ten again. If there are still no hands up, ask someone if they can put the question—not the answer, but the question itself—in their own words. If no one can do it, rephrase the question again. Work to make your question understandable. Resist the urge to make the question into a simple, yes-no question. You can only get good discussion if you have a good question to begin with. 2) Are they having trouble putting together an answer? It may be that the question is understandable, but the answer is elusive. It’s time to build up to an answer by letting them talk about it. Try partner talk. Announce that they should turn and talk to the person next to them about their answer. They will likely burst into talk. Walk around the room with a clipboard and listen in, taking notes. When you hear students who seem to have the beginning of an answer, note that and then when you return to the front of the class, call on one of them. 3) Are they afraid of being ridiculed? Occasionally a teacher will tell us that his or her students will not talk. On investigation, it turns out that there are one or two
35 students in the class who have found clever ways to tease or make fun of other students but have not been disciplined for it. Students who have fear of ridicule will simply make up their minds never to talk. To figure out whether this is the case in your classroom, you may have to honestly examine your attitudes about fear, teasing, and creating an environment in which all students will feel safe to express their thinking. Students must be convinced that you care about their potential loss of face or they will not ever be willing to abandon their guarded stance. 4) Is talking in class culturally strange for them? Some students find it very difficult to talk in class because they have been taught that students should never talk: teachers do the talking. Often students who are recent immigrants from countries with very teacher-centered education practices find academically productive talk moves very strange and even objectionable. You will need to talk specifically about why these practices are helpful, and about how they are a special part of education in your classroom. Take care not to cast aspersions on cultural attitudes about silence or speaking. Eventually, students will be able to adopt new norms, even if these are only used in your classroom. (b) A few always want to talk but most won’t The same questions should be asked here as in example (a) above. However, in addition, you should ask another question. 1) Am I relying overly much on a few students? As we’ve said above, it is all too easy to continually call on students who want to talk. You feel that you are responding to their initiative, and that you are not putting pressure on students who don’t want to take. Moreover, it’s rewarding to listen to a few very able students move through the material. This approach, however, will not result in your students all receiving the benefits of using academically productive talk. Therefore, you need to consider another approach. You might want to address both problems in private conversations with the relevant students. You need to let the active students know that you appreciate their contributions, but you would like them to hold back a bit so that other students may contribute. There are many reasons that students jump in all the time. Some just want the attention. Others have a more altruistic motivation: they want to rescue you from long silences. You need to let them know that you are prepared to wait for students to talk, and that silence is not a bad thing: it allows for thinking. Then you need to approach the silent students individually and let them know that they must be willing to participate, just as everyone in the class does. Ask them if there are any reasons you should know about that they don’t want to speak up. Then negotiate a way that they are willing to start to participate. One teacher we know got students to agree that they would participate at least once each class period, even if that participation was only to raise their hand and ask someone to repeat. After these shy or hesitant students got a bit of practice at speaking in public, they became used to it and soon fit right in with the rest.
36 (c) My students are disrespectful and out of control This is a frequent complaint or concern, particularly among teachers with very large classes. In addressing this problem, it’s important to ask a number of questions: 1) Are the students just excited or testing limits of the new practices? It’s possible that the students are excited about a new approach and are overly exuberant. It’s possible that the students are testing you and are simply pushing the limits to see what will happen in this new practice. If this is the case, you will find that in the context of a rigorous and rich task with a good framing question, the students will quickly (after a session or two) settle down into a respectful discussion. You will find that being very clear about the rule “one person talks at a time” and trying a specific strategy such as the “talk ball” will have a noticeably positive effect. Then the experiences students begin to have motivate them to participate and work hard at explicating their ideas. Getting a chance to express complex ideas or the honor of having one’s ideas taken seriously by others is a heady and highly motivating experience. Students realize that the “one person talks at a time” rule – though restrictive — nonetheless protects their right to the floor and is fair to all. There is a kind of snowball effect. As students listen harder, they have more to say, and more motivation to be heard, speak clearly, and listen hard to one another. We have found that as students adjust to the norms of academically productive talk, they begin to take one another more seriously as academic colleagues, and behave accordingly. 2) Do I have a more serious classroom management problem? If, however, you have carefully introduced your students to the ground rules, established clear consequences for breaking the rules, and applied sanctions when violations occur, and your students are STILL not taking turns, speaking respectfully or listening to one another, you have a more serious classroom management problem. This may be a problem with the school culture at large or it may have to do with specific students in your class. It may also have to do with your management style and strategies overall. Whatever the cause, major classroom management problems are beyond the scope of this introductory text. It’s critical that you seek assistance from a colleague, coach, or administrator in your building. You must assess the nature of your management problems and seek specific interventions to address them. Academically productive talk will NOT solve major classroom management problems. Instead, stable management of the classroom is a pre- condition for effective academically productive talk and learning in any classroom. (d) My discussions quickly become slow and boring If you find that your discussions start on a good note, but quickly turn into something less rewarding, ask yourself the following questions.
37 1) Do your discussions turn into ‘quizzing’ sessions? Do you notice that discussion starts off well, but you quickly revert to a more familiar role of asking known-answer questions, with students providing short answers, followed by an evaluation from you? If so, you need to look closely at how you are actually posing your questions. Sometimes teachers start out posing a question and following up in ways that quickly close off the discussion, as in the example below. Teacher: So why do you think the volleyball with more air in will weigh Student: more? Teacher: I think because you added more to it, it will have more stuff in it Teacher: and it will weigh more. Good answer! Does everybody agree? [Silence. Several students nod.] Does anybody disagree? [Silence. No response.] By responding in a way that appears to favor the student’s answer, whether or not that was intended, the teacher may have set up a barrier to alternative answers. As the teacher tries to continue the discussion, she may find herself relying more and more on known-answer questions in order to get a response. The key to avoiding this problem is to spend time thinking about the questions you are going to use, and the follow-up questions you have ready to continue to support the discussion. 2) Do your discussions seem listless? If students seem uninterested, it may be that they do not understand. It may also be the opposite: that you are using the academically productive talk moves too mechanically, requiring students to answer questions that are too low-level. Occasionally, in his zeal to use revoicing, a teacher might overuse this move. Student: I found forty-seven seeds in my pumpkin. Teacher: So you’re saying you got forty-seven? Student: Uhh, yeah. Teacher: Can anyone repeat what he said? Students: [incredulous expressions] There is nothing wrong with using traditional methods of question and answer when the material warrants it. Academically productive talk moves are best suited to classroom activities in which you want to foster rigorous thinking, coordination of theory and evidence, and externalization of complex reasoning. (e) My students are at different levels Some teachers find that their classes are very heterogeneous, and that this seems to make it difficult to use academically productive talk effectively. Some students are thinking at a much higher level, or are able to articulate
38 more complex ideas. Other students in the same class may have severe learning problems or have educational histories which put them at a disadvantage. Academically productive talk cannot fix all of these problems; it is not a panacea. However, we have observed a number of teachers who are able to skillfully use the APT moves to provide most or all of the students with more enriching instruction than might otherwise be possible. For one thing, often times able students can understand an issue more quickly or at a more sophisticated level than another student, but this does not mean that they can express that idea fully. Their role in a discussion may be to put forth an idea and then struggle to make it understood by the other students. By using the device of having students repeat the idea, it will become clear to the originator that he or she has to continue to clarify until the idea becomes fully available. This benefits the able student, and also provides a tremendous amount of clarifying input for students who have more difficulty with the material. Less able students can contribute as well, even if their contributions are repetitions, or answers to queries about whether they agree or disagree, and why. There is a place for every student, and teachers who work at using the tools skillfully will find that they are able to orchestrate intellectually productive activity across the entire class. We end with a protocol for thinking through or planning a lesson to support academically productive talk.
39 Thinking Through a Lesson in Order to Promote Academically Productive Talk: Making Thinking Visible Through Talk, Argumentation, and Models The main purpose of the Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol is to prompt you to think deeply about a specific lesson that you will be teaching that is based on a cognitively challenging task, related to core concepts you are trying to teach. Part 1: Selecting and Setting up a Task or Theorizable Situation ! What are your goals for the lesson (i.e., what is it you want students know and understand about a core concept as a result of this lesson)? ! In what ways does the task build on students’ previous knowledge? What definitions, concepts, or ideas do students need to know in order to begin to work on the task? ! What are the variety of ways (some correct, some incorrect) that this task or phenomenon under investigation may be approached, or explained? o Which of these approaches (or methods, models, or explanatory tools) do you think your students will use? o What misconceptions might students have? o What errors might students make? ! What are your expectations for students as they work on and complete this task? o What resources or representational tools will students have to use in their work? o How will the students work -- independently, in small groups, or in pairs -- to explore this task? How long will they work individually or in small groups/pairs? Will students be partnered in a specific way? If so in what way? o How will students record and report their work? How will they make their thinking visible, to themselves and to their peers? ! How will you introduce students to the activity so as not to reduce the demands of the task? What will you hear that lets you know students understand the task? Part 2: Supporting Students’ Exploration of the Task ! As students are working independently, with partners, or in small groups: o What questions will you ask to focus their thinking? o What will you see or hear that lets you know how students are thinking about key ideas? o What questions will you ask to assess students’ understanding of key concepts or representations? o What questions will you ask to advance students’ understanding of the ideas? o What questions will you ask to encourage students to share their thinking with others or to assess their understanding of their peers’ ideas?
40 ! How will you ensure that students remain engaged in the task? o What will you do if a student does not know how to begin? o What will you do is a student finishes the task almost immediately and becomes bored or disruptive? o What will you do if students focus on ancillary or non-academic aspects of the activity (e.g., spend most of their time making a beautiful poster of their work)? Part 3: Sharing and Discussing the Task ! How will you orchestrate the class discussion so that you accomplish your academic goals? Specifically: o Which ideas, predictions, or explanations do you want to have shared during the class discussion? In what order will ideas, predictions, or explanations be presented? Why? o In what ways will the order in which ideas are presented help develop students’ understanding of the ideas that are the focus of your lesson? o What specific questions will you ask so that students will: \" make sense of the ideas that you want them to learn? \" expand on, debate, and question the ideas being shared? \" make connections between the different explanations or representations that are presented? \" look for patterns? \" reflect on the status of their own knowledge (the plausibility, usefulness of their ideas, their degree of certainty, etc.) \" begin to form generalizations? ! What will you see or hear that lets you know that students in the class understand the ideas or concepts that you intended for them to learn? ! What will you do tomorrow that will build on this lesson? The Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol is adapted from the collaborative efforts (lead by Margaret Smith, Victoria Bill and Elizabeth Hughes) of the mathematics team at the Institute for Learning and faculty and students in the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Smith, M.S. & Bill, V. (2004, January). Thinking Through A Lesson: Collaborative Lesson Planning as a Means for Improving the Quality of Teaching. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, San Diego, CA.
41 Appendix A: Nine Productive Talk Moves Encourage individual students to share, expand and clarify their own thinking: 1. Say More: “Can you say more about that?” “What do you mean by that?” “Can you give an example?” 2. Verifying and Clarifying by Revoicing: “So, let me see if I’ve got what you’re saying. Are you saying…?” (always leaving space for the original student to agree or disagree and say more) 3. Wait Time: “Take your time; we’ll wait.” Encourage students to listen carefully to one another: 4. Who Can Repeat? “Who can repeat what Javon just said or put it into their own words?” 5. Explaining what Someone Else Means: “Who can explain what Aisha means when she says that?” Press for deeper reasoning: 6. Asking for Evidence or Reasoning: “Why do you think that?” “What’s your evidence?” “How did you arrive at that conclusion?” “How does your evidence relate to your claim?” 7. Challenge or Counterexample: “Does it always work that way?” “How does that idea square with Sonia’s example?” “That’s a good question. What do you think?” Press students to apply their own reasoning to that of others: 8. Add On: “Who can add onto the idea that Jamal is building?” 9. Agree/Disagree and Why?: “Do you agree/disagree? (And why?)” “Are you saying the same thing as Jeyla or something different, and if different, how is it different?”
42 Notes:
Chapter 1: Moving beyond “knowing” science to making sense of the world Christina Schwarz, Cynthia Passmore & Brian Reiser An Introduction to Scientific and Engineering Practices Sarah is a conscientious teacher. She has been teaching science to middle school students for 8 years. During that time she’s gone from a tentative novice teacher to a competent veteran. Throughout her career she’s been alternatively frustrated and pleased with her teaching. Sometimes things seem to be going well and other times she feels she should be able to get more from her students; she wants them to think more deeply and she wishes that she had more “aha” moments in her class. Sarah uses the district-‐wide pacing guide and follows the textbook that was adopted by her school several years ago. Of course, she supplements the district materials with things she’s found online, gotten from teaching colleagues and picked up at conferences, but for the most part, she does many of the same activities from one year to the next. Recently, she has begun to hear about changes that may be coming to the science standards in her state. She is at once excited and intimidated by the big changes in science education. The more she hears about these reforms, the more questions she has about what this means for her as a teacher of science. As she looks over the Framework for K-‐12 Science and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) documents, she has a lot of specific questions about what she is reading. She wonders: • What is this focus on practices all about? • Is this just a new name for inquiry? • How should my class look different if I am “doing” NGSS? • If I'm pretty happy with what I’ve been doing, why would I want to take this on? In another school district, Carlos has been teaching 3rd and 4th grade for many years and loves working with his students. He tells great stories and they enjoy doing hands-‐ on activities like the ones they sometimes have in science – exploring different rocks and taking the field trip to the local children’s garden. His state has recently adopted NGSS, and he is wondering what these new standards mean for him. • What will I have to do differently? • How is this different from the hands-‐on inquiry I do now? • How will I have time for NGSS? There is already so much to cover with the literacy and math curricula. Perhaps you can see yourself in Sarah’s or Carlos’ situation. You may have some of the same questions about the goals of this reform and what it means for you as a teacher of science. This is an exciting time in science education. We have many opportunities before us to make significant and lasting change in the ways we teach science at the K-‐12 level. But with major change comes some anxiety. We hope this
book can begin to answer some of your questions about the reforms found in The Framework for K-‐12 Science Education and The Next Generation Science Standards. Even if your state is not adopting NGSS, you and your colleagues can take advantage of the research-‐based recommendations in the Framework for making science learning more meaningful and effective for all students. The title of this book expresses a major goal of the current science education reform effort – that students make sense of the natural and designed world by engaging in science and engineering practices. To some educators, this may seem like nothing new. For many years, it has been a goal of science reforms to move from students as passive recipients of knowledge to classrooms in which students are active participants in generating knowledge. Attempts since the 1990s to incorporate inquiry in science classrooms have been a step forward in efforts to accomplish this. Yet, while these efforts have made some inroads, studies of today’s U.S. classrooms and curriculum materials show that many of our classrooms do not involve students in very sophisticated versions of scientific practice (Banilower et al. 2013). Instead, in many classrooms, students are primarily studying and recounting factual information and definitions provided by textbooks and teachers and reinforced through hands-‐on activities that may not be linked to advancing students’ conceptual ideas and practices. As a science education community, let’s embrace an opportunity to do more. The reform agenda articulated in the Framework and NGSS provides a vision and way forward toward making science education inspiring and meaningful. While the Framework and standards do not tell us exactly how we should teach, they do provide clear direction for what we should be aiming for in our science instruction. They help us see that there are productive ways to integrate the processes of science with the learning of science and help clarify that we should be pushing for outcomes related to what students should be able to do with the knowledge they have developed over time. The Framework states that: K-‐12 science and engineering education should focus on a limited number of disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts, be designed so that students continually build on and revise their knowledge and abilities over multiple years, and support the integration of such knowledge and abilities with the practices needed to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design. (p 2) Even though some of the themes in the Framework and NGSS around engaging students in science and engineering may sound familiar, the documents offer new ways to talk about and organize instruction to meet these goals. In this book we focus on one of the key innovations of the Framework: a focus on the practices of science and engineering. The editors and contributors to this book have a great deal of experience in working on how to focus our science classrooms to be about making sense of the world through engaging in the practices of science and engineering. The contributors include science education researchers and teachers who have explored these ideas in their own classrooms. We, along with many other
science educators and researchers, have been collectively working on these problems for years preceding the publication of the Framework and NGSS. The work of many of the authors within this volume contributed to the vision put forth in the Framework. What you will read about in this volume are not ivory tower, “experimental” ideas, or the latest fad some hope will make all the difference. Instead, these are ideas that have been tested and refined in real science classrooms over many years. This book represents a true collaboration between practicing teachers, those in science education, and learning sciences researchers. From Scientific Inquiry to Practices The emphasis on science and engineering practices attempts to build on prior reforms, and take advantage of what research has revealed about the successes and limitations of inquiry classrooms. We like to think of the focus on practices as a kind of Inquiry 2.0 – not a replacement for inquiry, but rather a second wave that articulates more clearly what successful inquiry looks like when it results in building scientific knowledge. Inquiry classrooms, as they are often configured, typically let students explore the relationship between two variables (e.g. how does the mass of a toy car affect its velocity going down a ramp), but often this empirical exploration is not taking place in an ongoing process of questioning, developing, and refining explanatory knowledge about the world. Testing and confirming or disconfirming hypotheses is part of science, but these actions become meaningful by being a part of the broader work of building explanatory models and theories. This attempt to take our ideas of inquiry in science beyond designing investigations and testing hypotheses has led to the fuller articulation of inquiry as the scientific and engineering practices that enable us to investigate and make sense of phenomena in the world by building and applying explanatory models, and by designing solutions for problems. Making sense of the world or sense-‐making for short is the fundamental goal of science and should be at the core of what happens in science classrooms. What is involved in this sense-‐making? Sense-‐making, as we are using it here, is the conceptual process in which a learner actively engages with the natural or designed world, wonders about it, develops, tests, and refines ideas with peers and the teacher. Sense-‐making is the proactive engagement in understanding the world by generating, using, and extending scientific knowledge within communities. In other words, sense-‐making is about actively trying to figure out the way the world works (for scientific questions), and exploring how to create or alter things to achieve design goals (for engineering questions). When student sense-‐making is the focus of the classroom goals and purposes – then science and engineering practices used to make sense of the world become critical. Science and engineering practices are the way we build, test, refine, and use knowledge, either to investigate questions or to solve problems. As defined in the Framework, the science and engineering practices are the different parts of the
sense-‐making process. Here are the eight practices identified in the Framework and used in NGSS: 1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) 2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Now that we have listed these practices, we can be a little more specific about how the practices are designed to flesh out scientific inquiry. There are some familiar ideas in the list that are often present in classrooms attempting inquiry. Planning and carrying out investigations and analyzing and interpreting data are typically what we think of as involving students in an inquiry investigation. But the list of practices moves beyond these two practices and includes others such as constructing explanations. As we will see later (in Chapter 10), using the explanation practice involves more than what sometimes happens with hypothesis testing, where students figure out how two variables are related. The goal of constructing explanations (practice 6) is to be able to say why something happens. In the process of figuring out why something in the world happens the way it does, students will often have different ideas, and will need to evaluate one another’s ideas against evidence (practice 7). As students’ reach consensus through this argumentation, they represent their general account for why something happens as a general model (practice 2). And of course this all should be sparked in the classroom from explanatory questions (Practice 1) that arose from an attempt to make sense of some data or patterns in the world. We will get to specifics about these practices and consider the engineering thread through the practices, in Section II of this book. For now, notice that the mix of these practices is to develop explanations and models and involve interacting with one another to compare ideas and reach consensus. One critical feature of a sense-‐making classroom is that if students are genuinely engaged in science and engineering practices, an observer should be able to walk in to a science class on any day and tap a student on the shoulder and ask: “what are you trying to figure out right now?” The intellectual aim of any work in the science class should be clear to everyone. Rather than stating, “We are learning about photosynthesis or plate tectonics,” students should be able to say (and believe!) “We’re trying to figure out how the tiny seed becomes this huge oak tree” or “we’re trying to better understand why volcanoes and earthquakes happen more often in some parts of the world.” These examples illustrate how the students are figuring out the world and illustrate a sense-‐making goal in the classroom.
In addition to these sense-‐making goals, another critical aspect of engaging successfully in science and engineering practices is related to classroom community. These practices create a need for designing our classrooms as places in which students are working together to share ideas, evaluate competing ideas, critique one another’s ideas, and reach consensus as a classroom community. This shift to practices highlights the importance of working with one another to build and debate knowledge, adding social interaction and classroom discourse to what students need to learn as they participate in scientific sense-‐making. In this way, the practices extend prior visions of inquiry to define processes for building and refining scientific knowledge as a community. Exploring the Difference in Vision in Two Classroom Cases One way to begin to explore the implications of a focus on student sense-‐making with practices is to examine two contrasting learning environments. Below we will explore vignettes of two science classrooms. Both vignettes involve middle school students learning about the phases of the Moon, but they differ in some important respects. As you read these vignettes, look for several critical parts of the science learning environment. Ask yourself • Where do the questions come from? • Who is involved in figuring out how to investigate the question? • How do students get to an explanation? • What is the role of agreement, disagreement, and consensus? Case 1 Moon phases in Ms. Sheridan’s class The students come into Ms. Sheridan’s class and find that the topic for the day is Moon phases. The day before this class, students had reviewed the order of the planets from the Sun. They had also made a chart about some of the key characteristics of each planet. After she introduces the topic of the day, Ms. Sheridan asks the students to raise their hands and tell the class one thing they know about the Moon. Students offer ideas such as, “I know that we’ve sent rockets to the Moon” and “Isn’t the Moon involved in tides?” After three or four students have shared, the teacher asks them if they have ever noticed that the Moon has different shapes at different times. She explains that the different shapes are called the “phases of the Moon” and puts up a list of eight Moon phase names. Next she explains that today they are going to learn why the Moon’s shape appears to change. She starts with the main facts about Moon phases. The phases occur in a cycle. The cycle is one revolution of the Moon around the Earth, about 28 days. She explains that the Sun is relatively far away from the Earth and the Moon. She shows the class how light from the Sun falls on the Moon, always lighting up exactly half of the Moon. Then she explains that what part of the lit Moon you can see varies depending on where the Moon is in its orbit around the Earth. She shows the
class a diagram on the smart board, and walks them through the different steps in the Moon’s orbit, and describes the phase that can be seen at that point in the orbit, along with telling students the names of each Moon phase that she expects them to learn. Ms. Sheridan then tells the class that now they can try it out for themselves to see each of the Moon phases. She divides the class into 8 groups and gives each group a small Styrofoam ball to represent the Moon and a larger blue one to represent the Earth. Each group also gets a flashlight to represent the shining sun. She gives each group one of the 8 phases to prepare to demonstrate. Each group gets the name of their phase and a diagram showing the position of the Moon, Earth, and Sun for that phase. She gives each group 5 minutes to match the position of the Moon (the small Styrofoam ball), the Sun (flashlight) and the Earth (larger blue ball) to the diagram for their phase. She turns out the classroom lights and students excitedly position the Moon and Sun to match their diagrams. Then, each group shows the rest of the class their Moon phase and the position of the Sun, Earth and Moon for their phase. At the end of the activity, she assigns students to make 8 flashcards that evening with a picture of the phase on one side of the card and the name of that phase on the other. She lets them know that they will have a quiz the following day on this material and on the planets from the previous day. Ms. Sheridan has shared this lesson with some of her colleagues. They all like how hands-‐on the lesson is. They really like having students demonstrate the phases with a flashlight and Styrofoam balls, and feel that this activity helps make the ideas more concrete and understandable to students. One of her colleagues wonders whether using a flashlight and Styrofoam ball to represent the Sun and Moon is what NGSS means by “developing and using models.” There is much to like in Ms. Sheridan’s lesson. Let’s come back to it after we look at how Ms. Lee’s classroom works on similar ideas. Case 2. Moon phases in Ms. Lee’s classroom The students in Ms. Lee’s class have been working on near-‐Earth astronomy for a few weeks. They have been pursuing an overarching question of “Why do the Sun, Moon and stars move in our sky and change in appearance over time?” Most recently they have been investigating the appearance of the Moon. They wonder why it is visible in the sky at different times of day and appears some nights and not others. For over a month they have been spending a few minutes each day recording the appearance of the Moon on that day in a data table in their notebooks and as it goes through the cycle of the phases they learn the technical names of each. Prior to this lesson, they used Moonrise time data to figure out that the Moon orbits the Earth in the same direction as the Earth spins and it takes about a month to complete one orbit. Ms. Lee begins class on this day with a discussion to help the class summarize what they have figured out so far, and what questions remain about their observations. Ms.
Lee draws their attention to a major question about the Moon that started them off on their investigation – why does the Moon change its shape during the month? They have collected data about the Moon’s appearance with the observations made throughout the month. They know that it takes the Moon 28 days for a full cycle, as the Moon orbits the Earth. But they still haven’t figured out why the shape changes during that time. Based on what they have figured out so far, the class refines their original question to be: “Why does the appearance of the Moon change as it orbits the Earth?” The students brainstorm their initial ideas about why the apparent shape of the Moon might change, using what they have figured out about the orbit of the Moon around the Earth as a starting point. In the discussion, Ms. Lee raises the question of how it is even possible to see the Moon from Earth. Students draw on what they know about light sources and how light allows us to see, and generally agree that it must be the light from the Sun that reflects off the Moon that is the part of the Moon visible from the Earth (since the Moon is not a light source). But students are not in agreement about why this would change as the Moon revolves around the Earth. Ms. Lee suggests they try to picture what is happening as the Moon goes around the Earth, and suggests they use physical props to see for themselves why the shape might appear to change. Students like the idea and are eager to see what would happen to light from the Sun as the Moon orbits the Earth. As in earlier modeling activities in their classroom, Ms. Lee has the class agree on the question the model needs to explain, and then brainstorm what needs to be represented in the model. In discussion students decide they need to represent the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun. Ms. Lee gives each group of students a Styrofoam ball and suggests that they can use the ball to represent the Moon. She suggests using a lamp she has without the shade to represent the Sun and places it in the center of the room so all the kids can use its light in their investigation (she also covers the windows so that the “Sun” is the only light in the room). Since the goal of the activity is to see what the Moon looks like from the Earth, Ms. Lee helps the students come up with the idea of using the ball and their own bodies to simulate the Moon’s orbit around Earth (recalling what they had already figured out about that from the Moonrise times). Ms. Lee asks students to state what they are trying to figure out, and how they will use the props to test their ideas before they begin. Students agree that they need to figure out what parts of the Moon they can see in each part of the orbit. Students actively talk as they engage and make notes about what they can see from each position. Once students have been able to collect all their evidence and report they are ready to try to explain the phenomenon, Ms. Lee
asks them to discuss in their groups and draw a representation on their poster paper that shows why the Moon’s appearance changes over the course of the month. Once each group has finished she has the class put up their diagrams around the room. They do a gallery walk so they can all see what the other groups have created. Then they spend time in their groups talking about what they have seen, trying to identify where they have agreed or disagreed with other groups and what makes for a good representation. As a whole class they then discuss the differences between the various explanations and how they have represented them. The teacher guides a discussion to help them decide on a consensus explanation and a way to represent it in a diagram. Ms. Lee tells students that their homework for the day is to write a short paragraph that they could use to explain to a friend from a different class why we see phases of the Moon from Earth. The next day in class they apply their ideas by finding pictures in children’s books that should be drawn differently based on their knowledge of the Moon and it’s phases. There are some similarities between these classrooms, as well as a number of important differences. In both classrooms, students are engaged in hands-‐on science using physical materials and active learning strategies. In both classrooms, they are trying to generate an explanation about why the shape of the Moon appears to change. In both classrooms, students are being challenged to think through the ideas. But there is an important difference in the work the teachers and students are doing in these two classrooms, and in how that work is divided. We could summarize Ms. Sheridan’s classroom as one in which students are learning about lunar phases, while Ms. Lees’ classroom is one in which students are figuring out lunar phases. In Ms. Sheridan’s class, her job is to provide the explanation, and students’ job is to work with the explanation and try to learn it. The purpose of doing the hands-‐on activities was so that students could see and make sense of the teacher’s explanation. The students’ role is to follow the directions, do the activity, try to apply the ideas provided by the teacher, and to work on learning them for assessments. Although students are working hard to understand the explanation provided by Ms. Sheridan, it is Ms. Sheridan who has the authority and has done the “heavy lifting” of building the knowledge, not the students. And while the explanation was stated as the goal, the teachers’ assessment in fact ended up focusing mostly on the names of the phases and their order, rather than assessing whether students could use that explanation and reason with it. In contrast, Ms. Lee’s class engaged students in the science and engineering practices that are targeted in NGSS. Students are positioned in the class as the ones who will be doing the figuring out. They are guided by the teacher and given appropriate props. If you were to walk over to a group of students during the activity, you could ask them “what are you trying to figure out?” and they would say something like “we know that the Moon is lit up by the sun, but we are trying to figure out why the sunlit part of the Moon changes in shape as it goes around the
Earth.” They are manipulating the objects or analyzing data not because they are simply following directions, but because they are trying to figure out and construct an explanation in response to a question. It’s not that Ms. Lee gave them the challenge and let them just “discover,” “explore,” or “do inquiry.” She gave them a lot of probing questions and guidance to get them to realize what needed to be investigated, and helped them converge on a good starting point. But throughout students were taking on the responsibility of making sense of phenomena, developing explanations, comparing them as a class, and reaching consensus. Ms. Lee’s students are investigating why the Moon appears to change shape. They are engaged in scientific practices like questioning, analyzing data, modeling to make sense of the phenomenon. The students and their ideas are at the center in this classroom.1 To go a bit deeper on the differences between these two classrooms, we will ask a series of questions about the sense-‐making process that help us see how the practices played out in in these classrooms. Where do the questions come from? In both cases, students are working on a similar idea -‐-‐ the apparent shape of the Moon changes over time. But in Ms. Sheridan’s class, the question originally came from the teacher. The teacher told the class they were going to learn about the phases of the Moon, introducing it as the next topic in their unit. In contrast, in Ms. Lee’s classroom, the question emerged from the students’ own observations. As part of a larger investigation of why things change in the sky, they noticed patterns in the shapes of the Moon, and uncovered the fact that these occur in cycles. In both cases, “lunar phases” is the name of the scientific idea they are investigating, but in Ms. Lee’s classroom, the question was identified and phrased in terms of the phenomena they experienced – why does the shape of the Moon change over time? Students were involved in co-‐constructing this question with the teacher. In Ms. Sheridan’s class, a question was not at the center of their work at all. Although she made an attempt to motivate the work on moon phases by pointing out that the shape of the Moon changes during the month, they did not frame their exploration of moon phases in terms of a question at all. (You will read more about the importance of the posing questions practice in Chapter 5.) Who is involved in figuring out how to investigate the question? In both cases, students were exploring how sunlight falls on the Moon and how that influenced what could be seen from Earth. Notice however that in Ms. Sheridan’s class, the design of the investigation came directly from the teacher, and it wasn’t really an investigation at all. The students were given direction about how to demonstrate something they had already been shown. In contrast, in Ms. Lee’s classroom, this was a co-‐construction. Certainly the teacher played a critical role, but the students were also involved in thinking through how they would investigate their question and why particular aspects of the set-‐up might relate to their ongoing work. The 1 See Barton, 2001 and http://ncisla.wceruw.org/muse/earth-‐moon-‐sun/index.html for more information on the instructional sequence described here.
teacher proposed using physical props to explore light falling on the Moon, but asked the students what objects they would need to represent. After agreeing on what the model needed to contain, and providing the objects they needed, she asked the class how they would manipulate the objects to explore the question. In both cases the students ended up doing something similar, interacting with balls and light sources. But in Ms. Lee’s classroom, the students were part of thinking through the logic of what they were doing. (You will read more about the “planning and conducting investigations” practice in Chapter 7.) How do students get to an explanation? This is perhaps the biggest contrast between our two scenarios. In Ms. Sheridan’s classroom the teacher walked the students through the explanation up front. She then gave them the opportunity to see the ideas in action, by exploring the different lunar phases. As they were working with the props, they were attempting to match the diagram they had been given. They already knew that they should be seeing different amounts of the half of the illuminated Moon’s surface. Doing the activity helped them visualize that idea, and see that it worked. But, they had already been given this explanation as the correct answer before the activity. In contrast, in Ms. Lee’s classroom, the students were more involved in building and using this explanation. They didn’t start from scratch, of course. Ms. Lee helped the class converge on a good starting point, so that all students were starting their investigation constrained by the ideas that what we see is Sunlight reflecting off the Moon, reaching the Earth. But students had to figure out why different positions in the orbit of the Moon around the Earth led to the different apparent shapes and why a host of other possible explanations (namely the Moon phases are caused by a shadow from the Earth) would be inaccurate. In Ms. Sheridan’s classroom, students had to understand and replicate the teacher’s explanation; in Ms. Lee’s classroom, students were involved in constructing that explanation, guided by the teacher. (You will read more about the “developing and using models” and “constructing explanations” practices in Chapters 6 and 10.) What is the role of agreement, disagreement, and consensus? In Ms. Sheridan’s classroom, the teacher was the authority, providing the explanation. The students’ job was to try to understand and use it. In Ms. Lee’s classroom, the authority was more distributed. In their groups, students grappled with trying to explain why the shape of the Moon changed. In the gallery walk, they shared their group’s ideas, and compared them to other groups’ ideas. In the discussion, they figured out where all the groups agreed, identified disagreements, and talked through the disagreements to figure out a class consensus that everybody was convinced of. The decision for the final model involved all the students, guided by the teacher. (You will read more about argumentation in Chapter 11.) Coordinating Practices to Achieve Sense-‐making Now that we have seen an example of a class engaged in using scientific practices to make sense of scientific phenomena, we turn towards thinking about how this
happens in general, and how you can think about using practices to help your students make sense of the world. How do we use the science and engineering practices to work toward sense-‐ making? It may be tempting to think of the practices as a sequence, perhaps like “the scientific method,” or as an instructional sequence like the 5 E’s. As we will see in Section II of this volume, there are many different paths we may end up taking through the practices, depending on the specific investigation or design problem. And practices may need to be brought in at multiple points as we build and refine an explanation, model, or design. But regardless of the path, here are four guiding questions that can help organize the work of the practices as part of sense-‐making: (1) What are we trying to figure out? What is the observable phenomenon, object, or system we are trying to figure out or problem we are trying to define? Investigations and engineering problems are built around phenomena and the questions connected with them. Engaging in practices means that we are always trying to figure something out or solve some problem connected with some phenomenon in the world – rather than defining terminology (such as ‘what is gravity/energy/an ecosystem?’). While the word “phenomenon” is not explicitly part of the names of any of the eight practices, phenomena are central to what the practices are all about. A goal of NGSS is connecting the science that students are learning with the application of these ideas in the world. What can we explain with this idea? What problems do these ideas help us understand and solve? When engaging in practices, there must be something about the world we are trying to figure out. In other words, there is some event (like an earthquake, a storm, movement of objects in a collision, change of materials in a chemical reaction) or a pattern (resemblances of offspring to prior generations, changes in atmospheric conditions before a storm, changing shapes of the Moon) that we are trying to figure out, or problems connected with events or patterns that we are trying to understand to design a solution (e.g., early warning system for tsunamis, less polluting sources of energy). In science, once we recognize the phenomenon, we need to ask what, how, and why is this phenomenon happening? For engineering, once we have a problem, we ask what are the factors influencing this problem and how can we intervene to alter these factors? The most obvious practice involved in making sense of the world around deciding what we are trying to figure out is asking questions and identifying problems. But it’s important to stress that sense-‐making is an incremental process. Questions will arise not only in the beginning of an investigation or design, but also throughout the ongoing process of sense-‐making. In our attempts to explain phenomena, we may uncover new questions, or realize that our models work for some parts of the phenomenon but not others. So we may end up in the asking questions and identifying problems practice as we are in the midst of trying to design solutions, construct explanations, or develop models, as well as when we are starting an investigation or design. Furthermore, we may need to compare alternative
questions or framing of the design problem in principled ways, drawing on the practice of argumentation. So part of refining what we are trying to figure out needs to build on the next three questions. (2) How will we figure it out? How will we develop, explore and test the model and associated explanation or solution? When we have phenomena that have motivated questions to investigate and problems to address, another collection of practices come into play to make progress on the work. The most obvious practice relevant here is planning and carrying out investigations. Typically this may also involve clarifying what is known to inform the investigation or design, drawing on the practice of obtaining and evaluating information. Again, because of the incremental nature of sense-‐making, constructing explanations and developing solutions will be ongoing, perhaps with initial ideas informing the planning of subsequent investigations or design explorations. Argumentation may be needed to make principled decisions between competing investigation plans or design ideas. (3) How do we keep track of what we are figuring out? Making sense of what we are seeing goes hand in hand with planning and conducting the investigation or design work. Key questions related to this aspect of sense-‐making include – what happened? Is this what we expected? What worked, what didn’t work? And most important, why did this happen the way that it did? Rather than viewing investigation or design as a sequential process, proceeding stepwise from questioning to planning to solution, it is often more accurate and productive to view sense-‐making as incrementally building understanding or solutions, engaging in cycles of questioning, gathering data through investigations or tests of part of a design, making sense by developing or revising models, constructing explanation or solutions, and then evaluating progress and determining where to go next. In order for this to be effective, we have to have a way to keep track of what we are figuring out along the way. There are many effective strategies for this kind of work (See Windschitl & Thompson, 2014 for a nice summary of some tools). The practices central here are analyzing data, mathematics and computational thinking, feeding into the processes of developing or revising models, constructing explanations and designing solutions as well as communicating information. Argumentation is especially important in a classroom since there are often many different ongoing students ideas, which the class will need to compare, evaluate, and eventually reach consensus about. (4) How does it all fit together? What does it mean? How does what we have figured out answer the questions or solve the problems we identified? How do we decide? Ultimately our goal is to develop deep understanding of the disciplinary core ideas that help us account for how the world works the way it does. We have to continually check our developing ideas against the phenomena
that inspired our work to begin with. Two practices that are central in this process are developing and using models and constructing explanations and designing solutions. In other words, we have to see if what we have figured out so far is helpful in answering the questions that drove us at the beginning of our inquiry. This cycle of wondering, working to figure out and checking if our emerging ideas are actually useful to satisfy our initial wondering is at the core of deep engagement in the practices. As has been necessary throughout the process, we also need to engage in principled evaluation of competing ideas through argumentation and reaching consensus as well as the processes of communicating information. As this quick overview has shown, scientific and engineering practices need to be used together to work towards for making sense of the world. This idea is summarized in Figure 1. Asking Developing Questions & Using & Defining Models Problems Obtaining, Planning Evaluating, & & Carrying Communicating Information Out What are we trying to figure out? Investigations Analyzing & How will we figure this out? Interpreting How can we keep track of ideas? Data Engaging How does it all fit together? In Argument From Evidence Constructing Using Explanations Mathematical & Designing & Computational Solutions Thinking Figure 1: The science and engineering practices work together to achieve four parts of sense-‐making. This diagram illustrates how the practices always operate in conjunction with each other.
We saw a number of these connections in Scenario 2 from Ms. Lee’s classroom. In her scenario, we saw the practice of asking questions as students brainstormed questions about why objects appear to move in the sky. The class conducted an investigation of rising and setting times for the Moon, analyzed data (their own and a secondary data) and constructed an initial model that included the explanatory idea that the Moon orbits the earth. This led to another question about why the shape changes in patterns, which then led to the main investigation using a physical depiction of the Moon, Sun, Earth system. Students worked together to construct an explanatory model of why the Moon shape changes, shared their models and engaged in argumentation from evidence to reach consensus on a shared explanation. The idea that practices work together for making sense of the world is one of the most important themes in this book. The goals of the Framework and NGSS will not be met if lessons are taught by focusing on one practice at a time. The practices work with one another to help us understand how and why the world works and for engineering how to design solutions to problems. Focusing on the larger investigation context leads to authentic and purposeful reasoning and connected practices. Looking back at our questions informing the sense-‐making process, we can see how thoughtful work can happen in many places – during initial attempts to understand phenomena, efforts to make sense of patterns in empirically-‐related phenomena and related scientific theories, and in applying the revised theories and models to explain and predict other phenomena in the world. The Structure of the Book We compiled this book in order to help teachers of science grapple with three sets of questions related to the NGSS Practices, and we suggest that you use these to guide you as you read. Section I: What is the vision put forth in the Framework and NGSS and how will engaging students in science and engineering practices help us improve our science classrooms? The chapters in Section I, including this one, take a big picture view and show how a focus on practices has the potential to re-‐shape our classrooms. This chapter introduces the book and explores the fundamental shifts implied by engaging students in science and engineering practices; Chapter 2, authored by two of the authors of the Framework, explicates the rationale for focusing on science and engineering practices and traces the development of this idea from earlier notions of inquiry in science; Chapter 3 examines some important questions about equity in the science classroom and explores how a focus on practices is in line with goals we have to make science accessible, intelligible and meaningful for all learners; Chapter 4 takes up the question of our broader societal goals for science literacy and explains the connections between these goals and the focus on engaging students in science and engineering practices.
Section II: What are the practices, and what does it look like to engage students in the practices within the classroom? Section II of the book addresses this question. Chapters 5 through 13 take up each of the practices and provide rich descriptions and rationales for each practice as well as detailed accounts of what is involved in engaging students in them. There is a chapter dedicated to each of the eight practices described in the Framework. Section II also contains a chapter that discusses aspects of the eight practices that focus on engineering design. Although each chapter focuses on a single practice, an important section in each chapter highlights the connections between and among the practices. Section III: How do I get started? What are some ways to begin? The individual practices chapters in section II each contain some ideas about how to begin to involve your students in the practices. In addition, section III of the book provides some guidance for planning NGSS aligned instruction, for creating classroom discourse environments that create opportunities for students to engage in the practices and the concluding chapter highlights some key ways to get started. This book is intended to help teachers of science to develop a strong understanding of what the Practices strand of the Framework and NGSS is all about. Engaging students in practices can help motivate them, build their curiosity, help them understand how science is connected with their lives, and is more consistent with how science and engineering is practiced in the world. Conclusion Despite past reforms and the best of intentions of all of us as educators, there are many ways in which our typical science instruction continues to send the message to students that all they need to do is know some information, use the right vocabulary, follow the right procedures and they have learned science. But, this is not what science learning should be about. People do need to know some information to make sense of the world, but simply learning a set of facts will not guarantee that one will come to understand or make sense of anything. Likewise, engaging students in a hand-‐on discovery with little conceptual guidance or grounding will not lead students to robust and accurate understanding of the science ideas – because the data don’t speak for themselves about what is the most scientifically accurate and explanatory idea. The emphasis on science and engineering practices in NGSS attempts to continue key themes from past efforts to reform science classrooms, integrating inquiry and the doing of science, and pushing toward conceptual understanding rather than focusing solely on facts, definitions, and formulae. The sense-‐making emphasis in NGSS focuses on incrementally building and testing explanatory models, and working together with argumentation to compare ideas and reach consensus. The
practices reflect the different ways that we need to be able to develop and use knowledge to make sense of the natural and designed world – explaining phenomena, critiquing arguments, evaluating explanations or tradeoffs in an engineering argument. Three-‐dimensional learning in Framework and NGSS is about using the practices to develop and use the disciplinary and crosscutting ideas of science. If we define science in this way, preparing literate adults requires that we give students experience engaging in the practices of science and engineering in order to build and gain facility with science and engineering ideas. In this chapter, we have introduced the theme of the book – the contrast between merely knowing about scientific ideas compared to figuring out how the natural and designed world works by formalizing, sharing, and refining those idea within a community. We call this figuring out aspect, sense-‐making. NGSS reflects the contrast between asking students to know and recall scientific information that has been given to them, compared to scientific ideas and practices as useful tools for reasoning and making sense of the world. This is a radical shift in framing what learning science is about. This book is intended to give you ideas about how to engage students in practices for the purpose of making sense of the world – by sharing ideas and strategies about the practices and ideas about how to get started using the Framework and NGSS in your own teaching. We hope that you are inspired by this radical shift, and that this book is helpful to you as you learn ideas and strategies for moving this vision forward so that all learners can participate in science and engineering practices to make sense of the world. References Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc, 1-‐309. Barton, A. M. (2001). The Moon Also Rises: Investigating Celestial Motion Models. Science Teacher, 68(6), 34-‐39. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-‐12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. J. (2013). The Modeling Toolkit: Making Student Thinking Visible with Public Representations. The Science Teacher, 80(6), 63.
Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Why Ask Why? Melanie M. Cooper* Department of Chemistry, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan 48824, United States ABSTRACT: There is a strong case to be made that the goal of science is to develop explanatory theories that help us organize our understanding and make predictions about the natural world. What then, is the goal of science education? What is it that we want students to know and be able to do, and how do we achieve these goals? Here, I argue that one overarching goal is to help students construct causal, mechanistic explanations of phenomena. In chemistry this means we are working to help students use their under- standing of molecular level interactions to explain and predict macroscopic events. Furthermore, while constructing explanations is an important goal in itself, the very act of constructing explanations helps students develop a deeper understanding, and provides the kind of intellectual satisfaction that memorizing facts cannot. I hope to convince you that our current approaches to assessing student learning are, in fact, all too often counterproductive and almost certainly contribute to students’ inability to connect ideas and develop a useful understanding of chemistry and that hat these assessments send the wrong message about what chemistry means (and why it is valuable). I will offer some suggestions how we might design more meaningful approaches to curriculum development and assessment of student understanding. After reading this essay, I hope that I will have convinced you that: (i) if we value something, we must assess it; (ii) we cannot assume students will construct a coherent framework from the fragments we teach; and (iii) we must design assessments that provide us with enough evidence to make an argument that the student understands. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Chemical Education Research, Testing/Assessment, Curriculum FEATURE: Award Address ■ INTRODUCTION that it is readily accessible. This contrasts with the often frag- mented jumble of facts and concepts that beginning learners There is general agreement that learning environments that (and, as it turns out, many who are not beginners) frequently support student active engagement are effective in improving work with.2,6 Yet in most of our introductory courses there course grades and retention, particularly for underprepared is a tendency to favor breadth over depth, often trying to students,1 but there is less evidence about what students are provide courses that “cover” everything that might be deemed actually learning in these courses. There is an implicit assump- important for future chemists, despite the fact that most tion that the grades students earn in our courses are a reflection students in introductory courses will never take another chem- of their understanding of the subject matter, and therefore, istry course. There is often a focus on an extensive array of facts increased success and retention rates in a course must mean and skills that are duly tested−but almost never synthesized that more students have learned more deeply. But we know into a deeper, resilient and applicable understanding. Without that even “good” students, who have done all that we asked of an underlying explanatory framework, students are often unable them, often emerge from our courses with profound mis- to put the pieces together themselves; it is no wonder then that conceptions and a fragmented understanding of important students are rarely able to make sense of what we tell them, and concepts, and there is still little evidence that students are able often resort to memorization−not because it is easier, but to transfer what they have learned to a new situation in the because they do not have any alternative. The current model in same course, never mind across courses or disciplines.2,3 The which most introductory courses are a “mile wide and an inch literature is rife with descriptions of what students cannot do,4 deep” is, in essence, providing students with the fragments to but sadly, there are far fewer reports of successful strategies that build a coherent framework without providing the experiences report strong evidence of sustainable improvements in student and context that allow the necessary connections to be made. understanding. While it is easy to blame students (for laziness, By analogy, we are providing students with the building lack of motivation, or general inability to do the work), in fact materials (bricks), and expecting them to build the Taj Mahal the only constant from year to year is our efforts to teach these by themselves as shown in Figure 1. students, and in this, we seem to be failing a large fraction of them. The question then is, what features characterize the curricular structures and instructional activities that can provide the nec- We know that experts in a field have a robust underlying essary scaffolding so that students can build a strong foundation theoretical understanding of the concepts in their discipline.5 on which to build their subsequent knowledge? A “blueprint” Certainly most scientists have a large database of information at their fingertips and, even more importantly, they have this knowl- edge organized into coherent frameworks and contextualized so © XXXX American Chemical Society and A DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 Division of Chemical Education, Inc. J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Commentary Figure 1. Experts have assembled their fragments of knowledge (the marble blocks) into a coherent, contextualized, and useful framework (the Taj Mahal). for how STEM education might be redesigned based upon the that can be considered as the disaggregated parts of inquiry. best available evidence is outlined in the National Research The Framework states:6 Council (NRC) A Framework for K−12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.7 While the Scientific explanations are accounts that link scientific theory NRC Framework was developed for K−12, the research and with specific observations or phenomenafor example, they learning theories on which it is based are also applicable to at explain observed relationships between variables and describe least the first two years of college (and probably beyond). The the mechanisms that support cause and effect inferences NRC framework approach is designed to support students as about them. they build their own robust underlying knowledge frameworks This approach is particularly appropriate in chemistry, by identifying the core ideas in each discipline on which all where the causal mechanisms lie at the unseen molecular other concepts can be built.8 Students’ knowledge cannot be level. Although we chemists tend to reserve “mechanism” for installed but must be built up over time, a process that enables the curved arrows that represent the flow of electrons in the student to organize and link these core ideas together to organic reactions, it means so much more. A major goal of form a solid foundation for subsequent learning. However, chemistry is to provide molecular level, mechanistic explan- at the college level, most current efforts aimed at improving ations for macroscopic phenomena, which includes for example, student understanding tend to be focused on developing how and why energy is transferred, why particles interact, why student-centered, interactive learning environments that are chemical reactions occur, and why, in a closed system, reactions often layered on top of the existing curriculum.9,10 reach equilibrium. I should also note that the scientific practices of constructing explanations, arguments,12 and models13 are While there are many potential ways to support students as closely linked, and while in this paper I will be focusing mainly they develop a deep understanding, in this paper I will discuss on explanations, much of what I have to say is also relevant to an approach that focuses on helping them develop scientific these other practices. explanations. Over the years, evidence has accumulated indi- The science education literature is clear about the benefits of cating that getting students to articulate not just that something constructing explanations.14−17 For example, “Asking deep happens, but why something happens, is exceedingly valuable explanatory questions” is one of only two instructional practices for a variety of reasons. Researchers from cognitive science, that are considered to have strong evidence for their efficacy, as philosophy, and science education have all weighed in on the reported in the IES practice guide18 (Strong evidence requires value of explanation as an instructional practice, and while each multiple studies, across a wide range of disciplines and age discipline has a somewhat different approach and rationale, ranges that show improvement in learning). A wide range of there is agreement that helping students construct explanations instructional approaches that support students in their develop- is crucial. ment of explanations have been proposed. Some combine the practices of explanation and argumentation, which are closely ■ WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION? linked, using a claim-evidence-reasoning framework that originated with Toulmin’s argumentation schemes.19 While Just what we mean by explanation may depend on the context, there has been some discussion of the differences between the but it has been noted that explanations can be characterized two,12,16,20 for our purposes it is not necessary to go beyond by the kinds of thought that are evidenced. The Institute of the idea that having students construct explanations (and/or Education Sciences (IES) states11 arguments) using evidence or scientific principles and reasoning is supported by a large body of evidence that shows improved Shallow knowledge taps basic factual or skill knowledge, student learning. whereas deep knowledge is expressed when learners are able It is the act of constructing explanations that provides the to answer “why” questions and describe causal relationships well-documented beneficial effects. That is, simply reading or between facts or concepts. hearing an explanation does not promote the same kind of and cognitive engagement, nor does summarizing the textbook, or By (deep) explanations, we mean explanations that appeal taking notes. Constructing explanations requires students to to causal mechanisms, planning, well-reasoned arguments, engage in a wide range of cognitive activities and skills; it and logic. requires that students articulate their thoughts and that they Similarly, the NRC Framework for Science Education7 defines connect and reflect on and consider their ideas. For these constructing explanations as one of the eight science practices B DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Commentary Figure 2. Sequence by which properties can be determined from a molecular structure. reasons, a number of researchers have incorporated construct- An Example from Structure−Property Relationships ing explanations into proposed pedagogical frameworks. For example, Chi has proposed that as student engagement with Much of our work has focused on student understanding of learning materials progresses “from passive to active to con- structure−property relationships, and therefore, I will use this structive to interactive” (ICAP), their learning will improve.21 construct as an example. As might be expected, we have The “constructive and interactive” parts of this framework rely documented a litany of problems including student difficulties on student-generated explanations, predictions, and arguments. with drawing Lewis structures,27 the problems that students Linn’s knowledge integration framework22,23 also supports have with decoding the information contained in such struc- students as they make connections between key concepts to tures,27−29 and the startling finding that the majority of students develop causal explanations. in our studies represent intermolecular forces as interactions within small molecules.30 Indeed, when we interviewed students Philosophers of science have also weighed in on the value about how they use structures to predict properties, we found and nature of explanations. Strevens24 has written that most little evidence that they used much of what they had been taught, contemporary philosophers believe that “to understand a and instead relied on rules and heuristics.2 phenomenon is to grasp how the phenomenon is caused” and that there is “no understanding without explanation.” If we step back and think about just what is involved, it Indeed, if we know how something is caused, then it is much becomes clearer why students have such difficulty. Consider, more likely that we will be able to make testable predictions for example, the sequence of steps that students must follow to about the future when conditions change. Gopnik,25,26 goes predict the properties of a substance from its structure even further and proposes that understanding is an evolutionary (Figure 2). The student must be able to (1) draw the Lewis adaptation. She postulates that in order to survive humans have structure accurately; (2) use the Lewis structure appropriately evolved the need to develop theories about how the world to determine the electron pair geometry and molecular shape; works, and that the pleasure we get when we understand (3) make predictions based on relative atomic electronegativities to something−that is, when we construct a causal explanation−is determine bond polarities and use molecular shape to determine our built in reward system. overall molecular polarity; (4) use the molecular polarity to predict the types and strengths of intermolecular forces, and (5) synthesize So, there is general agreement, helping students construct these factors, together with an understanding of the intermolecular causal, empirically based explanations about phenomena is potential energy changes and the influence of thermal energy, to crucial for a number of reasons: it is an important goal of predicate interaction stabilities and their implications for the science education in itself, it improves learning, and perhaps macroscopic physical and chemical properties of a substance. most intriguingly it can provide an intellectual satisfaction that memorizing facts and performing rote calculations typically The road from structure to properties is complex, and cannot. However, it is a truth (almost) universally acknowl- although experts can and do “chunk” parts of this pathway, edged (at least by students) that the tests and quizzes we use to for beginners we must acknowledge how difficult it is to per- assign grades signify what is actually important. Regardless of form these operations in sequence. Consequently, we dutifully our intent, the activities we use to grade students send an im- assess each step, separately, as if each were the important idea portant, and sadly perhaps the only, message that some (Table 1). For most of us−and particularly those of us who students hear. Even the most well constructed and evidence- teach large enrollment courses−the most common types of based learning activities and curricular materials may not questions (the ones that appear on many of our tests, and that produce observable or meaningful learning gains if we do not are prevalent in publishers test banks), typically target the recall develop assessments that actually assess what is important. In of these fragments of knowledge, the steps in the pathway, fact, it is entirely possible that many reform efforts might have rather than the end goal. failed to show improvements because the assessments used to measure reform were not commensurate with the reform itself. However, as the saying goes, “when everything is assessed, everything becomes important”, and when we emphasize the C DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Commentary Table 1. Steps in the Structure−Property Pathway and the Ways They Are Commonly Assessed Step Action Common Instructional Strategies Common Assessment Items Identify which is the correct structure, or construct a Lewis structure 1 Draw the Lewis structure Usually rules based, often where completing “octets” is the goal Identify or list the electron pair geometry and/or molecular shape of a particular 2 Determine electron pair molecule geometry and molecular shape Usually rules based (VSEPR) Identify whether a particular molecule is polar 3 Determine bond and molecular Know electronegativity differences, and polarities vector addition of bond dipoles Identify which molecule will exhibit hydrogen bonding, or what intermolecular forces are present in the liquid phase of a particular compound 4 Determine the strengths and Understand the electron density types of intermolecular forces distribution in the molecule Ranking tasks: Identify which compound has the highest boiling point, etc. 5a Determining physical properties Identifying (relative) strengths of Ranking tasks: Identify which compound is most acidic, etc. Predicting interactions between molecules outcomes of reactions 5b Determining chemical properties (e.g., acidity) Look for particular groupings of atoms pieces rather than the whole, it undermines the ultimate goal. compound has, the higher its boiling point, because they thought We ask questions about identifying correct structures, or deter- that it takes energy to break bonds. So, while ranking tasks may mining electron pair geometry, or which of these molecules will seem like an efficient way to test student understanding, exhibit hydrogen bonding, but rarely do we ask students to unless accompanied by extensive student reasoning, even when synthesize what they know to answer the far more important answered correctly, they do not provide evidence that the types of questions, about how and why molecular structure student understands. Clearly, there is a need for other types of predicts macroscopic behavior. assessment that assess deeper learning. No one is disputing that students must have the skills and ■ ASSESSMENT AS A PROCESS FOR ELICITING knowledge to perform each step, but what we have to re- EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT STUDENTS KNOW AND member is that there is no reason to teach students these CAN DO intermediate steps if we do not help them understand the ultimate purpose for why they are learning them. Most We can never really know what a student knows; all we can do questions do not provide explicit linkages from one step to is make assumptions from the answers that they give on tests another and appear (to the student) to be isolated fragments. and quizzes. As we have seen most tests and quizzes assess facts We should not be surprised then that many students do not or skills, they may test whether a student knows that something know the purpose of Lewis structures:27 without context, they happens, but rarely why it happens. The question then is, how have no meaning. The tenets of meaningful learning31,32 hold do we design tasks that both help students to (for example) that any new knowledge must be solidly connected to students explain how and why a molecular structure can be used to prior knowledge, and that students must also understand the predict properties, and also provide evidence that the student purpose of the new knowledge, so that they can choose to learn has indeed used scientific reasoning to engage with the task? meaningfully rather than in a rote, shallow fashion. While it is clearly easier to assess the individual components, doing While it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this sends a message to the students not only about what is assessment design in detail, the NRC report Knowing What important, but also that each task exists in isolation with no Students Know37 is an excellent resource on this topic. The ultimate purpose. report identifies three essential aspects of assessment: cognition (what it is that you want student to know and do), observation Certainly, multiple choice tests are reasonable ways to test (what you will ask students to do and what observations low level knowledge, providing reliable and valid information you will make), and interpretation (how you will interpret the about some aspects of what students know.23 Although multiple observations). There are a number of approaches to the choice questions can be made difficult (a common, but flawed development of assessments that make use of this so-called measure of “rigor”), there is little evidence that they are useful assessment triangle,38−42 including Evidence Centered Design for measuring deep thinking33,34 or the complex constructs that (ECD).41 The central tenet of these approaches is the idea that are involved in structure−property relationships. Even multiple- we must collect evidence that students understand the construct choice questions that are intended to assess students’ ability to being assessed, so that we can make an argument about what it use their knowledge to make predictions may not evoke the is that students know and can do. Clearly, there are many kind of thinking that is intended. For example, as shown in possible ways to elicit such evidence, but it seems clear that a Table 1, a common approach is to ask students to rank, for well-constructed explanation should provide evidence that the example, boiling points (or solubility or acidity or any number student understands a phenomenon. of other properties), the implication being that students who can do so correctly are making predictions based on their Scaffolding Student Constructed Explanations understanding of why the compounds have this particular property. However, several studies2,35,36 have shown that even Asking students to construct explanations is an excellent students who make the correct choices often use strategies that formative assessment strategy and, with appropriate rubrics, can are not scientifically valid. Often students rely on heuristics, be useful in summative assessments. One thing is certain, rules, and test taking strategies. As noted previously,2 we asked however, we cannot expect students to develop the ability to students to use molecular structures to predict relative melting construct explanations without coaching and practice. In our and boiling points. Many students chose the right answer (in experience, asking students to explain how a phenomenon is fact, they mentioned that they had seen similar questions on caused, without rather extensive support and practice, usually tests), while providing faulty reasoning to justify their choices. results in shallow responses that lack the reasoning component For example, some students told us that the more bonds a we are looking for. If the goal is to have students develop the ability to generate coherent causal explanations for complex D DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Commentary Table 2. An Example of a Question Designed To Elicit Evidence That Students Can Reason about the Link between Structures and Properties Question Rubric Dimethyl ether (CH3OCH3) and ethanol (CH3CH2OH) have the Correct Lewis structures same molecular formula, but one of these compounds is a liquid at room temperature and the other is a gas. Draw Lewis structures for Claim: Ethanol is a liquid at room temperature, while dimethyl ether is not each substance and use them to help you determine which substance is a liquid. Provide a molecular level explanation for your Evidence: Ethanol is capable of hydrogen bonding, while dimethyl ether is not. choice, being sure to include a discussion of the interactions and energy changes involved. Reasoning: The interactions between ethanol molecules are stronger than the interactions between dimethyl ether molecules; Therefore, more energy is needed to overcome the attractions between ethanol molecules compared to dimethyl ether molecules; More energy needed to overcome attractive forces between molecules corresponds to a higher temperature, meaning ethanol will boil at a higher temperature. phenomena, then they must be given ample opportunities respond to the questions. Although this is more time- to practice this kind of activity, while receiving appropriate consuming than grading all multiple choice, or hand grading feedback. calculations, it sends an important message to students; the constructed response sections of the exam are significant and There are a number of studies reporting ways to help must be taken seriously (especially since they are worth 50% of students develop complete explanations,14,15 and most agree the exam grade). Table 2 gives an example of a potential that scaffolding the explanation can produce a more coherent question and grading rubric that emphasizes the reasoning that and rich response,20 for example, by situating the explanation in we are expecting students to use. a phenomenon, or having students draw models and diagrams. We have also been investigating how to encourage students It is also possible to write multiple-choice questions that to construct coherent explanations using our online system, approximate this claim, evidence and reasoning scaffold for beSocratic.43,44 We pose questions that ask students to draw explanation questions. For example, Box 1 shows a question diagrams, molecular-level representations, and write explan- ations in response to prompts. We learned that simply asking Box 1. A Multiple-Choice Question That Uses an students to “explain” did not elicit the kind of rich discussion Explanation Format in the Answer Choices (Claim, that we were hoping for. This is not surprising, since most of Evidence, Reasoning) our students are acculturated to assessment items that typically require them to choose an answer or calculate a number. Which is a stronger base? CH3NH2, or CH3OH One approach involves a scaffolded framework where we A. CH3NH2, because N is more electronegative than O, tell students that an explanation should have (i) a target or and therefore is not as able to donate its lone pair into a claim (what the explanation is about), (ii) the scientific bond with an acid. principle or evidence on which the explanation is based, and (iii) the reasoning that links the two. It is the reasoning part of B. CH3NH2, because N is less electronegative than O, and the explanation that not only provides the most useful insight therefore is better able to donate its lone pair into a into student thinking, but also is almost always missing from bond with an acid. student-generated explanations. Using this scaffold, our goal is to help students develop the connections that lead them back C. CH3OH, because O is more electronegative than N, and to the core ideas that underlie all that they are learning. Other therefore is not as able to donate its lone pair into a approaches involve asking students to draw a molecular level bond with an acid. picture or diagram, or a graph and use it to help them explain a phenomenon. In general, we try to provide “hints” in the D. CH3OH, because O is less electronegative than N, and question about what we are looking for in terms of an explana- therefore is better able to donate its lone pair into a tion. So for example, a question about why one substance has a bond with an acid. higher boiling point than another might include a reminder to discuss the forces and energy changes that are involved when a where students must make a claim, and choose the correct substance boils. explanation. This type of question is easier to grade, and while it may be tempting to return to all multiple choice tests, if this Currently, I teach sections of over 400 students−a less than is the case, we may also be tempted to abandon formative optimal situation that precludes individual feedback for explanation tasks−and then we are back to square one. complex student responses. After every class, students construct their answers to homework questions; they draw and write This brings me to one final (important) point; if we expect using our beSocratic system.44 In the next class, we show students to develop deep understanding, it is highly unlikely to examples of student homework to discuss what factors are happen with the current “mile wide inch deep” curricula that required for a complete answer to the homework. Our are encompassed by traditional textbooks. Unless students have examinations combine both multiple choice and free response the opportunity and time to develop the ability to reason about questions that require students to construct explanations and phenomena, they are unlikely to be able to produce coherent arguments, models, diagrams, and molecular pictures. Student explanations. Focusing on the “big ideas” in the context of responses on the constructed answer section of the exam are scientific practices that put knowledge to use takes time, and graded by graduate students and instructors using rubrics makes it impossible to “cover” 25 or 30 chapters. There is a developed by considering what we deem to be acceptable growing body of evidence that these important ideas should be evidence of student understanding. These rubrics evolve over developed over time in a carefully scaffolded progression.8,45 time as we collect more information about how students One possible approach is exemplified by our general chemistry curriculum, Chemistry, Life, the Universe and Everything (CLUE). CLUE is organized around three interconnected core ideas, structure, properties, and energy that are linked together E DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Commentary by the idea of forces and interactions.46 Each of these ideas is (3) National Research Council. Education for Life and Work: developed and connected throughout the curriculum starting Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century; with the structure, properties and energy changes associated National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2012. with atoms and progressing to the interconnected networks (4) National Research Council. Discipline-Based Education Research: of chemical reactions that are the basis of simple biological Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and processes. These core ideas of chemistry are developed as Engineering; Singer, S. R, Nielson, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A., Eds.; students use their knowledge to explain and model chemical National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. phenomena, to help them construct for themselves a frame- (5) National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, work on which to build for the future.47 We have emerging Experience, and School.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, evidence from this curriculum that not only are students more 1999. likely than those in traditional courses to understand (6) Bodner, G. M. I Have Found You an Argument: The Conceptual fundamental concepts, but that this improvement is maintained Knowledge of Beginning Chemistry Graduate Students. J. Chem. Educ. throughout organic chemistry.48 1991, 68 (5), 385−388. (7) National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science ■ SUMMARY Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. I hope that I have convinced you of the importance of asking (8) Krajcik, J. S.; Sutherland, L. M.; Drago, K.; Merritt, J. The students to explain: to themselves, to others, and perhaps most Promise and Value of Learning Progression Research. In Making It importantly (if we want lasting change) on the assessments that Tangible: Learning Outcomes in Science Education; Bernholt, S., we use to assign grades. There is an enormous evidence base Neumann, K., Nentwig, P., Eds.; Waxmann: Münster, 2012; pp for the efficacy of using student-constructed explanations as a 261−284. learning tool, and yet, we rarely use them in our assessment (9) Gafney, L.; Varma-Nelson, P. Peer-Led Team Learning: practices. I hope you will take up the banner, design assess- Evaluation, Dissemination, and Institutionalization of a College ments that provide explicit evidence for the construct you want Level Initiative. In Inovations in Science Education and Technology; to measure, and not be satisfied by merely assessing low level Cohen, K., Ed.; Springer: Weston, MA, 2008. knowledge. In conjunction with this, I hope you will be inspired (10) Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL); Moog, R. to redesign your curricula so that students can build a founda- S., Spencer, J. N., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, tion of core ideas that can be used as the basis for predicting how 2008. novel systems will behave and for use when needed. If we do not (11) Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning: ask students to put together coherent explanations, we cannot be What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ surprised when even our best students do not understand. PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=1 (accessed Feb 2015). (12) Osborne, J. F.; Patterson, A. Scientific Argument and ■ AUTHOR INFORMATION Explanation: A Necessary Distinction? Sci. Educ. 2011, 95 (4), 627− 638. Corresponding Author (13) Clement, J.; Rea-Ramirez, M. A. Model Based Learning and Instruction in Science; Springer: Secaucus, NJ, 2008. *E-mail: [email protected]. (14) McNeill, K. L.; Krajcik, J. S. Supporting Grade 5−8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science: The Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning Notes Framework for Talk and Writing; Pearson: Boston, MA, 2011. (15) Songer, N. B.; Gotwals, A. W. Guiding Explanation The authors declare no competing financial interest. Construction by Children at the Entry Points of Learning Melanie M. Cooper, Professor of Chemistry and Lappan- Progressions. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49 (2), 141−165. Phillips Professor of Science Education at Michigan State (16) Berland, L. K.; Reiser, B. J. Making Sense of Argumentation and University, Lansing, Michigan, received the 2014 American Explanation. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93 (1), 26−55. Chemical Society Award for Achievement in Research for the (17) Chi, M. T.; Bassok, M.; Lewis, M. W.; Reimann, P.; Glaser, R. Teaching and Learning of Chemistry, sponsored by Pearson Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning Education, on March 17, 2014, in Dallas, Texas. This paper is To Solve Problems. Cogn. Sci. 1989, 13 (2), 145−182. adapted from her award address. (18) Karpicke, J. D.; Roediger, H. L. The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science 2008, 319 (5865), 966−968. ■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (19) Toulmin, S. E. The Uses of Argument; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2003. The author would like to thank Mike Klymkowsky and Sonia (20) Kang, H.; Thompson, J.; Windschitl, M. Creating Opportunities Underwood for helpful suggestions and edits. This work is for Students To Show What They Know: The Role of Scaffolding in supported by the National Science Foundation under DUE Assessment Tasks. Sci. Educ. 2014, 98 (4), 674−704. 0816692, DUE 1043707 (1420005), and DUE 1122472 (21) Chi, M. T.; Wylie, R. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive (1341987). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommen- Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 49 dations expressed here are those of the authors and do not (4), 219−243. necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. (22) Linn, M. C. The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning ■ REFERENCES Sciences; Sawyer, R. K., Ed.; Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 2005; pp 243−264. (1) Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; (23) Lee, H.-S.; Liu, O. L.; Linn, M. C. Validating Measurement of Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active Learning Increases Knowledge Integration in Science Using Multiple-Choice and Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Explanation Items. Appl. Meas. Educ. 2011, 24 (2), 115−136. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111, 8410−8415. (24) Strevens, M. No Understanding without Explanation. Stud. Hist. (2) Cooper, M. M.; Corley, L. M.; Underwood, S. M. An Philos. Sci., Part A 2013, 44 (3), 510−515. Investigation of College Chemistry Students’ Understanding of (25) Gopnik, A. Explanation as Orgasm and the Drive for Causal Structure−Property Relationships. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 699− Knowledge: The Function, Evolution, and Phenomenology of the 721. F DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Commentary Theory Formation System. In Explanation and Cognition; Keil, F. C., (45) Corcoran, T.; Mosher, F. A.; Rogat, A. Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence Based Approach to Reform; RR-63; Consortium for Wilson, R. A., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2000. Policy Research in Education: Philadelphia, PA, 2009. (26) Gopnik, A. Explanation as Orgasm*. Minds Mach. 1998, 8 (1), (46) Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. Chemistry, Life, the 101−118. Universe and Everything: A New Approach to General Chemistry, and (27) Cooper, M. M.; Grove, N.; Underwood, S. M.; Klymkowsky, M. a Model for Curriculum Reform. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1116−1122. (47) Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Hilley, C. Z.; Klymkowsky, W. Lost in Lewis Structures: An Investigation of Student Difficulties in M. W. Development and Assessment of a Molecular Structure and Developing Representational Competence. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87, Properties Learning Progression. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1351−1357. 869−874. (48) Cooper, M. M.; Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M.; (28) Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Hilley, C. Z. Development Klymkowsky, M. W. Are Non-Covalent Interactions an Achilles and Validation of the Implicit Information from Lewis Structures Heel in Chemistry Education? A Comparison of Instructional Approaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Instrument (IILSI): Do Students Connect Structures with Properties? submitted for publication. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 195−200. (29) Underwood, S. M.; Reyes-Gastelum, D.; Cooper, M. M. Answering the Questions of Whether and When Student Learning Occurs: Using Discrete-Time Survival Analysis To Investigate How College Chemistry Students’ Understanding of Structure-Property Relationships Evolves. Sci. Educ., in press. (30) Cooper, M. M.; Williams, L. C.; Underwood, S. M. Student Understanding of Intermolecular Forces: A Multimodal Study. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00169. (31) Novak, J. D. A Theory of Education; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, 1977. (32) Bretz, S. L. Novak’s Theory of Education: Human Constructivism and Meaningful Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1107−1117. (33) Smith, C. L.; Wiser, M.; Anderson, C. W.; Krajcik, J. S. Implications of Research on Children’s Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 2006, 4, 1− 98. (34) Stern, L.; Ahlgren, A. Analysis of Students’ Assessments in Middle School Curriculum Materials: Aiming Precisely at Benchmarks and Standards. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (9), 889−910. (35) Maeyer, J.; Talanquer, V. The Role of Intuitive Heuristics in Students’ Thinking: Ranking Chemical Substances. Sci. Educ. 2010, 94, 963−984. (36) McClary, L.; Talanquer, V. Heuristic Reasoning in Chemistry: Making Decisions about Acid Strength. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33 (10), 1433−1454. (37) National Research Council. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment; Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., Glaser, R., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2001. (38) National Research Council. Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2014. (39) Wilson, M. Constructing Measures: An Item-Response Modeling Approach; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 2005. (40) Claesgens, J.; Scalise, K.; Wilson, M.; Stacy, A. Mapping Student Understanding in Chemistry: The Perspectives of Chemists. Sci. Educ. 2009, 93, 56−85. (41) Mislevy, R. J.; Almond, R. G.; Lukas, J. F. A Brief Introduction to Evidence-Centered Design; The National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards, Student Testing (CRESST), Center for Studies in Education, UCLA: Los Angeles, CA, 2003. (42) Towns, M. H. Guide To Developing High-Quality, Reliable, and Valid Multiple-Choice Assessments. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (9), 1426−1431. (43) Bryfczynski, S. P. BeSocratic: An Intelligent Tutoring System for the Recognition, Evaluation, and Analysis of Free-Form Student Input. Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson University, 2012. (44) Cooper, M. M.; Underwood, S. M.; Bryfczynski, S. P.; Klymkowsky, M. W. A Short History of the Use of Technology to Model and Analyze Student Data for Teaching and Research. In Tools of Chemistry Education Research; Cole, R., Bunce, D., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society, 2014; Vol. 1166, pp 219−239. G DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00203 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
