Trajectories of Development for Ambitious Elementary Science Teaching

• In Event: 41.046 - How Can a Teacher Preparation System Be Improved? Lessons Learned From Purposeful Intervention and Research

Abstract

Objectives. We describe trajectories of the development of content knowledge for teaching science (CKT-S; cf. Ball et al., 2008) and high-leverage science teaching practices, connecting those trajectories to characteristics of an elementary teacher education program.

Theoretical Framework. Practice-based teacher education (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al., 2009) supports the development of knowledge about and for teaching and skill in the work of teaching. We strive to better understand teacher development and how practice-based teacher education supports it. Consistent with the design of our program and our assumptions about how the learning of teaching occurs, we use sociocultural (Wertsch, 1998) and sociocognitive (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) lenses.

Methods. We redesigned our undergraduate elementary teacher education program, focusing on teaching practice, content knowledge for teaching, and ethical obligations (Authors, 2014). The resulting program is highly coherent in philosophy and language. Our longitudinal, multi-level study design (Table 1) was guided by the following questions: (a) What are PTs’ beliefs about and knowledge of supporting elementary students to learn science? (b) Over time, how do PTs use CKT-S and engage in high-leverage science teaching practices?

Data sources. We studied 20 focal PTs’ knowledge and practice using videorecords, lesson plans, written reflections, interviews, and performance assessments. We examined knowledge and beliefs using content analysis of interviews. We coded videorecords to characterize the dimensions of CKT-S PTs reflected in lessons and to determine if PTs approached, met, or exceeded standards related to each high-leverage practice.

Results. PTs drew extensively on their common content knowledge related to disciplinary core ideas and science practices and, over time, reflected other dimensions of CKT-S, such as horizon content knowledge (connecting topics across time). We found variability across PTs’ engagement in high-leverage practices with greater proficiency with eliciting student thinking and less proficiency with establishing norms for discourse and work in the discipline.

Two focal PTs are exemplars. Ginny demonstrated extensive CKT-S during elementary science methods and student teaching. Over 90% of each lesson reflected common content knowledge of disciplinary core ideas. Her lessons also showed use of common content knowledge related to science practices, knowledge of content and students, and horizon content knowledge. Ginny met expectations for how she facilitated discussion and managed small groups, and exceeded expectations for eliciting ideas (for example, checking alternative interpretations of student contributions). Claudia met or exceeded expectations on all high-leverage practices visible in her lessons. Claudia connected what students were doing in their investigation to what scientists do—thus, she effectively established norms for discourse and work in the discipline. Yet, in student teaching, Claudia demonstrated less CKT-S than Ginny. These results reflect the variability across PTs and contexts and the complexity of analyzing instruction to characterize both knowledge and practice.


Scholarly significance. We untangle knowledge and beliefs about teaching, CKT-S, and practices of teaching, while documenting the interplay among these (Ball & Forzani, 2009). We characterize how teachers develop over the initial years of preparation and classroom practice, contributing to understanding of novice teachers' development (e.g., Windschitl et al., 2008).

Authors

• Elizabeth A. Davis, University of Michigan

• Annemarie S. Palincsar, University of Michigan

• Amber Schultz Bismack, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Benjamin Loran Tupper, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor