Vol. 9, No. 4, March 2009
From the Desk of the Executive Director
María Alicia López-Freeman, Executive Director
What does it really mean to “honor teachers’ knowledge”? What does it mean to work with and alongside
teachers to develop a rigorous and profound understanding
of science? There are many ways to approach the challenge
posed, and one way is through Model-Based Reasoning.
Teachers, in collaboration with faculty and directors at the
Sacramento Area Science Project, have been using ModelBased Reasoning to develop their understanding of science,
teaching, and student learning and reasoning that enable all to develop the habits of mind
that characterize science and are part of the practice of inquiry. This model has generated deeper thinking about how students are not only making sense, but also how they are
developing a firm grasp of a model which explains the phenomena they are observing. Open
reasoning by students enables teachers to better “see” how a logic based on evidence is
emerging in learners and also teachers.
•
Innovations in Science Instruction through Modeling
Cynthia Passmore, Ph.D., Assistant
Professor, School of Education,
University of California, Davis, and
Principal Investigator, Sacramento
Area Science Project
Overview
Members of the Sacramento Area Science Project (SASP)
and twenty-four local teachers have begun a bold experiment with the aim of improving science instruction in 6-12
classrooms. The program, funded by the National Science
Foundation (NSF), is called Innovations in Science Instruction
through Modeling (ISIM). It is a two-year sequence of activities
that first introduces teachers to a new approach to thinking
about science and science instruction, and then asks them to
undertake reflective experimentation in their own classrooms
as they first design and then implement curricular units based
on the approach. The program has re-invigorated teachers by
providing a new way to approach the science they teach and
has provided strong support for classroom implementation by
building grade-level/content area teams.
The model-based reasoning (MBR) approach
Our approach to science education takes two things as
given. First, we believe that to be educated in science one
must learn both the content and process of science. Students
must learn about the major ideas in various science disciplines
and how those ideas were generated and justified through
inquiry. Second, we believe that science instruction should
be developed around a set of principles about how people
learn. The model-based reasoning approach taken in the ISIM
program achieves both aims.
Although different science disciplines “do science” in
distinct ways, a core activity across disciplines is developing,
testing, and revising models that account for a set of natural
phenomena. Scientists use models to formulate questions
about the natural world and attempt to make sense of their
data in terms of those models. The process is iterative; models
are constructed, tested, modified, or discarded, and their
relationships to other models within a discipline are continually assessed.
If we accept that a key activity in science is the development and use of models, then courses that are intended to
promote scientific understanding should also involve students
in the processes of constructing and using models for the purpose of making sense of a wide variety of phenomena. To this
aim we have developed a framework that represents a view of
in this issue:
Innovations in Science
Instruction through
Modeling
front page
science as a way to make sense of the world by constructing,
revising, and applying models that account for natural phenomena. We seek to highlight the commonalities across science
disciplines, while simultaneously recognizing that different
disciplines inquire in unique ways. This framework is described
in detail in the most recent CSP Connection (Passmore, 2009).
This perspective on science as a modeling activity has
been demonstrated to be a powerful way to develop deep
understanding of scientific ideas and serves as a useful entry
point into designing challenging learning experiences for
students (Cartier & Stewart, 1999; Passmore & Stewart, 2002).
Other researchers have also found that centering instruction
around model-based reasoning has strong benefits in terms of
students’ content understanding, as well as how they view the
work of science as a modeling enterprise (see for example,
Schwartz & White, 2005).
teacher develops as he or she masters the craft. And third,
teachers develop a construct they call “knowledge of” practice. The authors state that,
Unlike the first two, this third conception cannot be understood in terms of a universe of knowledge that can
be divided into formal knowledge, on the one hand, and
practical knowledge on the other. Rather, it is assumed
that the knowledge teachers need to teach well is generated when teachers treat their own classrooms and
schools as sites for intentional investigation at the same
time as they treat the knowledge and theory produced
by others as generative material for interrogation and
interpretation. (p. 250)
It is this third conception of knowledge that guides
our work with teachers in the ISIM program. We do not
approach professional development as though SASP personnel have the only knowledge worth sharing and it is the
teachers’ job to learn it. Instead, we approach the work with
teachers by cultivating professional learning communities
that include teachers, scientists, and educational researchers investigating ideas about science teaching and how
those ideas might come to fruition in science classrooms.
continued on page three
ISIM teachers use a black box device as a method of
Statewide Office
Contact Information
thinking about constructing models.
Clearly, the research literature demonstrates that taking
a modeling approach to science instruction shows a great
deal of promise for engaging students in constructing deep
understandings of both the content and process of science.
Given this perspective, the main goal of the ISIM program is
to understand how teachers first adopt and then promote
pedagogical practices that engage students in model-based
reasoning.
Professional Development Philosophy
At the Sacramento Area Science Project, we believe
that professional development is about generating teacher
knowledge. In their 1999 review, Cochran-Smith & Lytle
differentiate between three ways one might conceive of
knowledge with regard to teacher learning. The first is what
they termed “knowledge for” practice. This is the set of
codified ideas that are generated as formal knowledge that
is intended to inform teachers. The second is “knowledge
in” practice, the set of practical skills and dispositions that a
The Evolution of a
Conceptual model
page two
María Alicia López-Freeman
Executive Director
(310) 794-4861
email: [email protected]
Michelle Gamboa-Huitrón
Program Manager
(310) 794-4862
email: [email protected]
Shan Boggs
Senior Editor
(818) 343-1549
email: [email protected]
MBR Instruction
vs. Traditional
Science Teaching
page three
Mailing Address:
California Science Project
3806 geology bldg., ucla
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567
(310) 794-6359 FAX
http://csmp.ucop.edu/csp/
Generating Tools to
Support Students’
Scientific Reasoning
page four
The Evolution of a Conceptual Model
Rich Hedman, Co-Director,
Sacramento Area Science Project;
Ingrid Salim, Teacher, Harper
Junior High; and Aaron Stephens,
Teacher, Will C. Wood High School
Scientific models are sets of ideas, which can be used to
explain the phenomena and data patterns found in the world
around us. As members of the Innovations in Science Instruction through Modeling (ISIM) program, we have strived to
engage our students in reasoning with scientific models. Since
science is not traditionally taught from a modeling-perspective, we had no handbooks or websites available that clearly
defined the scientific models relevant to our specific content
area and grade level. Instead, we had to develop our own
models through intensive professional development, interaction with data, assistance from university faculty, and facilitated
collaboration. Over the course of a year, our ideas changed as
we worked to craft a model that could serve as a design guide
for our unit on deep ocean currents.
During the 2007-08 school year, our team consisted
of a facilitator and three 9th grade Earth science teachers.
After thoughtfully reviewing the Earth science curriculum
and content standards, we focused on developing a model of
deep ocean currents. Understanding ocean currents is both
important in the study of oceanography and is highly relevant
for our students in understanding the ramifications of global
warming. Throughout the school year, we met regularly to
create and refine a model of deep ocean currents and to
develop lessons centered in the model. We had to develop a
model we thought the students should learn, before we could
begin to think about the actual curriculum we would use to
teach this content area. Developing a coherent model of deep
ocean currents proved to be a challenging endeavor—an
amalgam of frustration, hard work, and (eventually) enlightenment and joy. Our particular model, our understanding of
models in general, and our knowledge of Earth’s deep ocean
currents evolved extensively throughout the year.
In the initial phase of model development, we shared our
prior knowledge of deep ocean currents through brainstorming and discussion. All of us had some knowledge of the
subject, through reading texts, hearing lectures, and watching
popular media. Not long into this process, it became increasingly apparent that we had fairly broad, but simplistic ideas
about the causes underlying deep ocean currents. We each
arrived with a competent understanding of density, gravity,
temperature, salinity, and phase changes, but we had difficulty
organizing these ideas into a cohesive model.
Our early steps in refining the model were messy and
sometimes frustrating. We considered all possible ideas in
order to identify the most important factors related to deep
ocean currents. We questioned everything. The process of
carefully identifying the parts of the model, and the articulation and presentation of how the parts were related, was
absolutely crucial in our model development. It prompted
us to ask deeper questions and to seek outside help. We
consulted with an oceanographer from the University of
California, Davis, researched on the Internet, read and re-read
our textbooks, and engaged in rich discussions in a quest for
answers.
As the year progressed, we began to carefully define
our model of deep ocean currents and decide how broad or
narrow we wanted to make it. We decided to eliminate the
less essential factors from our model (such as the Coriolis
effect and gyres). Instead of asking ourselves, “What causes
the deep ocean currents?” we began to ask ourselves, “What
causes the differences in densities in Earth’s oceans?” Then,
we had to sort through the variety of factors causing the
density differences, searching for the most important effects.
By midyear, the written representation of our model reflected
Page Two
our enhanced understanding and focus. This iteration of our
model reflected both a deeper understanding of ocean currents and an increasingly sophisticated method for representing the model. As our model became clearer, our representation became clearer as well and so we were ready to design
the instructional sequence.
In the spring, we taught a series of lessons to engage our
students in developing and reasoning with the model explaining Earth’s deep ocean currents. Our goal was to provide the
students with the appropriate data and lab experiences in the
proper sequence, so that they could construct a model similar
to our own. We were able to observe each other teach several of the lessons we had collaboratively designed. Through
the lessons, students developed a nuanced and complex
understanding of the nature of density currents, particularly
related to temperature and salinity differences. However, as
we carefully examined what happened in our classrooms, it
became clear that our model lacked an explicit description
of the phenomena it explained in Earth’s oceans. The lessons
only weakly linked the density currents the students experienced in the labs to real world oceanographic data.
By this point, we understood the fundamental relationship between density currents in fluids and Earth’s deep ocean
circulation. However, that understanding did not translate
completely into the lessons we had designed for our students.
It was difficult to turn our model into an appropriate sequence of experiences for students, yet we were determined
to find a solution.
As we reflected upon our experiences during the summer of 2008, many of our ideas took root and blossomed.
Our focus shifted, from conceiving of our model as one about
deep ocean currents, to thinking of it more broadly as a
model of density currents related to the phenomenon of deep
ocean currents or layer formation. We realized that the entire
Earth science curriculum could be grounded in our model of
density currents. While acknowledging other models could
unify Earth science, we were excited that we could apply our
model throughout the curriculum; that convection in Earth’s
mantle (driving plate tectonics), convection in the atmosphere
(driving wind and weather), the formation of solar systems
and stars, and deep ocean currents could all be explained
through our model of density currents in fluids. Additionally,
we thought that if our students developed a model of density
currents near the start of the school year, the model could
be specifically tied to real world data during each major unit
in Earth science. For our oceanography unit, we could now
effectively introduce real month-by-month global temperature
and salinity data for the students to consider. Students could
analyze the data in light of their existing understanding of
density currents, and develop a much richer model directly
connected to Earth’s oceans.
The final version of our model of deep ocean currents is
shown in Figure 1. The left side of the diagram is the general
model of density currents, while the text on the right highlights the most important features related specifically to deep
ocean currents.
Overall, the process of developing our model and observing our lessons unfold in the classroom was very rewarding for both teachers and students. We noticed that during
our lessons, the students were engaged in the subject matter
at a deeper conceptual level than we had ever experienced
in the past. It also seemed to be much easier for students to
grasp new science concepts related to density currents once
they had gone through the process of developing their own
models. For example, when we moved into the weather unit,
students often invoked their density current models appropriately to explain meteorological phenomena. It was a joy to
see our work in model-based reasoning positively impacting
our students. It was also a pleasure to work together in a
study group with intelligent, dedicated and curious colleagues.
Through this professional collaborative experience our model
evolved over time, but we have evolved as teachers at least as
much.
OUR FINAL MODEL OF DEEP OCEAN
CIRCULATION (thermohaline circulation).
In Earth’s oceans:
Critical Elements of our Model
(to bound the model):
•
The primary driving force is the seasonal ice formation at
the poles, creating pulses of salinity.
•
Thus the critical temperature factor is the seasons.
•
The critical phase change factor is the slow freezing of
ocean water.
•
The critical salinity factor is that in the oceans salinity differences effect density much more than water temperature differences.
•
The critical density factor is that density differences in a
fluid lead to currents or layer formation.
•
The natural phenomena explained by this model are the
deep ocean currents (thermohaline circulation).
Learning this model is greatly facilitated if participants
have already developed and tested a model of how temperature differences can create density currents in a fluid, and
how adding more matter to the same volume (i.e. salt to
water) effects density (and why). Once understanding of this
basic model has been achieved, one can reason that seasonal
temperature differences (and the corresponding cyclical freezing and thawing of polar ice) are a critical factor in the deep
ocean circulation pattern. As sea ice forms near a pole from
freezing ocean water, the water beneath the ice becomes
highly saline (salt is excluded from the crystal matrix as liquid
water solidifies into ice). Each winter, at alternating poles,
these pulses of cold saline (i.e. dense) water act as one of the
“pumps” for the global deep ocean circulation system.
•
March, 2009 CSP Connection
MBR Instruction vs. Traditional Science Teaching
Arthur Beauchamp, Director,
Sacramento Area Science Project;
Mike Hotell, Teacher, Hiram
Johnson High School; Sarah Sneed,
Teacher, Delta High School; and
Mike Shea, Physics Department,
Sacramento State University
There is good science instruction taking place in our
schools and we can do better. In another article in this
issue, Passmore described a professional development
program called Innovations in Science Instruction through
Modeling (ISIM) that is intended to help teachers develop
a perspective on science and then translate that perspective into changed classroom practice. This article identifies
some of the ways science instruction designed to incorporate model-based reasoning (MBR) improves on a more
traditional approach to science teaching.
Our team of high school physics teachers asked themselves what shifts in practice have we observed in response
to anchoring instruction in an MBR approach?
In discussing and writing about this question, we came
up with three crucial things that distinguish MBR instruction from more traditional approaches.
•
A greater focus on students and their learning, where
students construct explanations rather than having
things explained to them.
•
A change in the sequencing of instruction.
•
A greater focus on engaging in the content in much
the same way that scientists explore new frontiers of
science.
The focus in the first year of this team’s involvement
with the ISIM program was to redesign the unit on waves
for their high school physics classes. The first task was to
formulate a conceptual model to explain and define wave
phenomena. Working with university physics professors
and background knowledge, the team came up with this
simple model:
•
A medium must exist to carry a wave.
•
There must be a disturbance (or input of energy) in
the medium to make that wave.
•
There must be a transfer of energy from one
place to another.
•
The medium must restore itself.
•
There must not be net displacement of the medium.
We designed a deliberate sequence of activities as a
guide that would help our high school students come to
understand this model. Along the way, we noticed some
major changes in instructional approach.
A Focus on Student Thinking
Often, secondary science instruction ends up concentrating more on covering the content than paying close
attention to developing deep conceptual understanding in
students. Before we began our ISIM journey, we typically
asked students to read, listen, participate in lecture and
discussion, and then engage in mathematical problem solving. Students would read the chapter, take notes, and do
a vocabulary exercise. Next, there would often be some
direct instruction about what waves are and their features.
Our instruction then focused on identifying types of waves
(transverse v. longitudinal), and the components and/or
properties of each form of wave. We would use slinkies,
springs, and ropes in demonstrations and as visual aides, as
well as labeled drawings of each type of wave. Finally, students were tasked with solving textbook problems involving amplitude, period, frequency, wavelength, and velocity.
These activities might be considered as constituting
solid coverage of waves, however, they differ significantly
from the approach we took after experience with MBR
in the ISIM program. The unit we designed began with
a two-day lab in which students explored various wave
phenomena and non-wave phenomena. Students were
asked to answer open-ended questions and compare the
phenomena they observed with the aim of developing a set
of ideas (a model) about what constitutes a wave and what
does not. They looked for patterns and engaged in figuring
out how waves work.
Using the MBR approach, students were consistently
engaged in evaluative thinking about the various phenomena they observed. The cognitive load was squarely on the
students and minimally on us as teachers. Students thought
hard about how to make sense of what they were seeing
rather than being told how it all works. Previously, the
activities our students performed required lower levels of
thinking. However, using MBR is not about memorizing and
reciting facts. It’s about deeply examining a phenomenon
(or set of phenomena) and attempting to make sense of
it. The explanations require much deeper thinking and engagement with the science. The modeling approach helped
focus student thinking on the task at hand.
A Different Starting Point for Instruction
We began our unit by engaging student thinking and,
consequently, we noticed a much greater willingness on the
part of students to invest in their own learning and ideas
in contrast to when we began the unit with more rote, or
drill, and skill tasks. One key to sustaining this involvement
was being attentive to the manner in which questions were
posed. Questions that tended to keep students engaged in
the science, asked them to evaluate and provide supporting
explanations. Even though there was a level of frustration
in grappling to understand and figure things out, students
were not merely trying to get to the “correct” answer
more quickly.
Innovations in Science Instruction through Modeling
continued from front page
Specifically in the case of ISIM, this means that we explore
a view of science as a modeling activity, illustrate that view
with science curricula that are appropriate for our teachers
as learners, and then ask grade/content specific teams to
engage in lesson design and development that bring these
ideas to life for their students. In the process, we believe
that university scientists and educational researchers gain
as much as the teachers do. The exchange of knowledge is
reciprocal. We bring a perspective about science education
and the teachers bring their wealth of knowledge about
classrooms and students.
The ISIM professional development program is designed
to engage teachers in a coherent, purposeful and, intellectually rich, sequence of activities intended to create a new
vision for science curriculum and instruction that engages
students in the core cognitive work of science, model-based
reasoning. We often tell the teachers with whom we work
that although this approach is based on a sound theoretical
and empirical foundation, there is still much to do. That is
to say, that we’ve got the core commitments about modelbased reasoning figured out, we’ve demonstrated in a myriad
of classrooms that it is possible to engage students in
model-based inquiry, and help them develop rich and robust
understandings of the content and process of science. Now,
March, 2009 CSP Connection
we have to expand it teacher-by-teacher and classroomby- classroom. None of what has come before can tell us
exactly what model-based reasoning is going to look like in a
new content area, or in a different instructional context, and
we know that complex practices like this are not incorporated by teachers after a single, short-term professional
development activity. What we do know is that when we get
it right, great things happen for students and their understanding of science. As more and more teachers in the ISIM
program develop “knowledge of” this practice, and continue
to interrogate their own and our understanding of it as they
implement it, the community creates a deep knowledge base
that has the potential to profoundly influence the teaching
of science.
The ISIM program
The funding that SASP has received for this project is
explicitly tied to a research effort on professional development. The NSF is asking that we use the opportunity to
advance knowledge about science teacher professional
development. Therefore, the program itself is designed to be
studied and modified as we work with successive cohorts of
teachers in a form called design research. The ISIM program
described here is the first iteration of our professional
When instruction is intentionally organized to promote MBR, students work in small groups to deliberate
over ideas and come to consensus about the model. The
content we formerly covered, by using vocabulary exercises
or question sets, often bubbled naturally to the surface
in the course of trying to deeply understand what makes
a wave and why it behaves the way it does in the various media. Students found themselves seeking facts and
terminology, as they needed them, instead of having them
introduced in a disconnected fashion. We also noticed that
students were more likely to remember material and draw
on their knowledge of that material in future lessons. In
addition to knowing facts, it seemed the students more
often understood underlying mechanisms. Overall, we feel
that this approach gave students a much more cohesive scientific understanding compared to the frequently fragmented information they acquired through other methods. We
still made use of some traditional vocabulary and practice
with algorithms, but this practice was shorter and placed
differently in the sequencing of the unit.
Students Think and Act Like Scientists
One of the intellectually challenging elements of the
ISIM program for us as teachers was struggling to develop
our precise statement of ideas. We worked hard at conceptualizing our model of waves and realized that our students
Professor Wendell Potter works with ISIM teachers
as they construct a model.
would benefit from a similar, carefully scaffolded struggle
to develop understanding. Thus our work, and that of the
students, was more in line with the ways in which scientists
grapple with patterns, develop, apply, revise, or extend a
model, and create explanations. In the end, the ideas that
made up the model gave us reasons to do activities or
lessons because these had a specific purpose in a larger
well-articulated scheme.
Much of science occurs in an informal environment
where ideas are discussed among peers. Such conversations require use of consistent reasoning, precise language,
clarifying and articulating ideas, and then testing understanding. In the MBR lessons, we saw our students performing many of these scientific skills and we intentionally
built in frequent opportunities for them to exchange and
challenge their unfolding ideas in peer groups.
Scientists apply their knowledge in new contexts,
combine ideas in new and unique ways, apply ideas to account for new phenomena and seek to understand causes
and mechanisms. During our wave unit, students engaged
in these types of activities. Their application of knowledge
to novel situations was supported by our instruction,
and supplying students with the tools to analyze, reason,
and deduce. Many times we have heard the lament that
students aren’t thinking, however, in MBR classrooms many
more of them are and they are questioning the material
at a deeper level, making more frequent inferences, and
coming to conclusions without us directing them to the
answers.
Overall, working with the ISIM team on MBR lessons has emphasized that a scientific body of knowledge
is created by detailed observations of scientists working
together over a long period of time. If it is possible to recreate this experience for students, we can give them many
gifts and abilities including: a true-to-life understanding of
what it means to think scientifically, draw conclusions from
data, work with other people productively, think critically,
and develop a cohesive knowledge-base about how the
world works.
•
continued on page four
Page Three
Generating Tools to Support Students’ Scientific Reasoning
Connie Hvidsten, Specialist,
Sacramento Area Science Project;
Maureen Wilson, Teacher, Weimar
Hills School; and Jean Schumpelt,
Teacher, Folsom Middle School
Are 6th grade students ready for model-based reasoning?
That’s the question we asked ourselves, as we began the twoyear Innovations in Science Instruction through Modeling (ISIM)
journey. As 6th grade teachers, our students were younger than
those of any other teachers in the ISIM program, so we had
questions – and doubts. Do 6th graders have enough science
background? Are they developmentally ready for authentic
scientific reasoning? Will adding a modeling perspective to our
instruction increase student learning and help us reach our
goals for both content knowledge and developing students
prepared for the demands of middle and high school?
After attending the first ISIM summer institute, we began
to understand the 6th grade standards much more deeply ourselves. We saw that most topics covered in 6th grade science
center around the central theme of energy. We thought that
by beginning the year having students really understand a model
of energy flow and convection, we could help them make
connections between fundamental scientific concepts rather
than move from one to another, as discrete topics. This model
would provide a foundation for understanding plate tectonics,
weather, ecology, and the nature of renewable and non-renewable resources. Our larger goal was for our students to connect their science classroom experiences with their lives; to
see that everyday phenomena like wind, weather, and the geographic location of mountains and plains - and more exceptional
phenomena like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - can be
explained by understanding where the energy comes from that
drives these processes. We wanted them to experience more
inquiry, more student-centered learning and to provide more
opportunities for them to take risks, venture their own ideas,
collaborate to develop explanations, and learn that scientific
reasoning entails supporting conclusions with evidence—lofty
goals for ourselves and for our students.
Map of California
Science Project Sites
1. Bay Area
(510) 643-3478
2. CSP at Irvine
(949) 824-6390
3. Central Coast
(805) 756-0292
4. Central Valley
(559) 278-0239
5. Delta Sierra
(209) 468-4880
6. East Bay
(510) 885-3438
7. Imperial Valley
(760) 768-5538
10. Monterey Bay
(831) 459-2001
11. Redwood
(707) 826-5551
12. Sacramento Area
(530) 752-8467
14. San Gabriel Valley
(909) 869-4743
15. South Coast
(805) 893-5663
16. UCLA
(310) 825-1109
or (530) 752-5876
17. UCSD
(619) 849-2204
13. San Fernando Valley
(818) 677-3543
18. UCSF
(415) 476-0337
PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
http://csm p. u c o p. e d u / c s p /
Page Four
or refute it using the model and their observations. Earlier,
they had constructed a conceptual model describing how heat
causes changes in density, and differences in density in a fluid
caused convection. As a class, we looked at this model and
filled in the lower left hand leg of the Explanation Framework
with the concepts that would help explain what happened in
the lava lamp. In small groups, students completed the lower
right hand leg of the Explanation Framework by writing down
specific observations about the phenomenon and then made
supporting statements that connected something from the
right leg (observations) with something from the left leg (model
statements). They needed to be sure each of these statements
logically supported their claim about
the lava lamp. With the Framework
our students had a clear way to
“see” their argument, their evidence,
and their reasoning. We found that
it was not only good for organizing
their thinking, but provided a wonderful way to structure their writing
as well.
Now in our second academic
year using a modeling approach
in our classrooms, our students
continue to practice explaining,
arguing, and writing with the Explanation Framework. We are currently
designing a lesson to culminate the
plate tectonic unit in which teams
of students make claims about the
causes of some of Earth’s most
notable geologic features with strong
support from the data we’ve collected about earthquakes and
volcanoes and our model of plate movement. Our contention
is that by engaging in scientific explanation and argumentation
numerous times throughout the year, our students will develop
a scientific “way of thinking,” as well as demonstrate a deep
understanding of the science content, connecting scientific ideas
to real world phenomena.
Through this process, we have come to see that 6th graders, when given appropriate support, do have the capacity to
think critically and reason scientifically. Classroom discussions
amaze us. It’s gratifying to hear students grapple with explanations, especially when these are logical and reasonable – even if
not totally correct. Students are questioning both the teacher
and each other, as they discuss new topics. They are beginning
to see the science they learn in the 6th grade as a cohesive
group of phenomena that can all be understood through
fundamental science principles. As instructors, we still have a lot
to learn to draw out all that we know our students are capable
of, but rather than being discouraged or disappointed, we are
excited and motivated to continue to help students make connections – both with classroom learning and real life.
References
McNeill, K. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Inquiry and scientific explana tions: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In:
Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Luft, J., Bell, R. &
Gess-Newsom, J. (Eds.). Arlington,VA: NSTA Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education
standards.Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
•
Innovations in Science Instruction through Modeling
continued from page three
8. Inland Area
(951) 827-1663
9. Inland Northern
(530) 898-5539
In our first year of trying out the newly organized curriculum and lessons, we were disappointed. Students were engaged
and seemed to be enjoying the new teaching strategies, but as
teachers, we were frustrated. They could understand “the model” and recite back the model’s components, but didn’t seem to
be constructing that deeper level of understanding we sought.
Students could make a statement such as “subduction is the
cause of most volcanoes,” but they could not tie the concept of
subduction to the model of energy flow and convection, or to
their understanding of the relative density of colliding plates.
This did not mean our students weren’t capable of this
kind of reasoning, only that we hadn’t provided the right kind
of supports to get the results we
wanted. They had rarely been asked
to think or act this way in their first
six years of schooling, so we realized
it would take some training and
practice to develop strong scientific
argumentation skills. Going into our
second summer institute, we were
certain we needed a tool – some
way for students to organize their
thinking to let them know what goes
into a good scientific explanation.
We did our research, and read several articles on scientific reasoning
and explanation (see particularly McNeill & Krajcik, 2007), so when the
three of us sat down with program
organizer Cindy Passmore, our ideas
began to gel.
According to the National
Science Education Standards (NSES), “scientific explanations incorporate existing scientific knowledge and new evidence from
observations, experiments, or models into internally consistent,
logical statements.” To help our students build good scientific
arguments and to support their conclusions, or argue for their
claim, they needed to “see” how their claims were supported.
We needed some sort of graphic organizer that students could
use to record all the pieces necessary to build a solid explanation for phenomena we were exploring, and see when they had
holes which would cause their argument to “crumble and fall.”
We wanted to make the entire process explicit, so our students
would know for themselves when they had completed a strong
explanation.
A scientific claim is built on evidence and reasoning. Evidence is the real world data, observations, or phenomena the
students have collected. But the evidence alone is not sufficient.
Students must be able to say why the evidence supports their
claim, which means they must tie their evidence to elements of
a scientific model – that’s the reasoning part. As we talked, we
began to see the process of building a strong scientific argument, as having two legs – a conceptual model for understanding natural processes (energy flow, convection, and density),
and data or observations from the natural world. These two
elements must be connected into statements or arguments that
support a claim. We saw it as a two-legged tower that would
tip over unless both legs were solid, meaning there were no
empty spaces to create weakness in the structure.
To guide our students in understanding how to frame an
argument, we started by having them explain what happened
in a lava lamp. The students were given a claim, “convection
occurs in a lava lamp,” and they were asked to either support
development program. Based on our findings from this first
cohort, we will undertake revisions for a second cohort of
ISIM that will begin in spring 2009.
The ISIM program is an intensive, two-year sequence of
professional development. It begins with a two-day retreat
in the spring, a three-week summer institute in the first
summer followed by academic year work that is organized
as lesson study. That is, the teachers are broken up into
teams during the summer and they spend time developing
curriculum based on the MBR approach. They then observe
those lessons as they are taught in each of the teacher’s
classrooms, reflecting on how students took up the challenge of reasoning and the learning that occurred. They
come to a second whole-group summer institute lasting two
weeks in which they share what they’ve learned and where
they’ve struggled in their first attempts at incorporating the
MBR approach. During the second academic year the lesson
study work continues by further refining their first lessons
and most teams taking on a new content area. The program
ends with a final two-day retreat where the teachers share
their work and celebrate what they have learned over the
course of the program. Included in this issue of the CSP
Connection are three additional articles written by a subset
of the teacher teams that describe different aspects of their
work in ISIM.
•
March, 2009 CSP Connection