investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media...

20
q 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/98/040491-20 Investigating Preservice Elementary Science Teacher Reflective Thinking Using Integrated Media Case-Based Instruction in Elementary Science Teacher Preparation SANDRA K. ABELL 1442 Liberal Arts and Education Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442, USA LYNN A. BRYAN University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA MARIA A. ANDERSON North Judson – San Pierre School Corporation, North Judson, IN, USA Received 1 October 1996; revised 10 November 1997; accepted 5 December 1997 ABSTRACT: To improve the preparation of future teachers, we must come to understand their personal theories about teaching and learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate preservice elementary teachers’ theories about science teaching and learning through their reflections on inte- grated media case-based instruction, and subsequently to reflect upon and reform our own practice. Students in an elementary science methods course participated in a series of written and oral reflec- tion tasks in response to integrated media instruction. Specifically, they responded to a videodisc case of a first grade teacher teaching a conceptual change unit about seeds and eggs. Considering their responses to the reflection tasks, we constructed a profile of these elementary preservice teach- ers. This profile consists of their images of themselves as future science teachers, the characteristics of their personal theories of teaching and learning, and the ways in which they frame classroom Correspondence to: S. K. Abell; e-mail: [email protected] Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract grant number: 9250045-DUE SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION Thomas Dana and Julie Gess-Newsome, Section Editors

Upload: sandra-k-abell

Post on 06-Jun-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

q 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/98/040491-20

Investigating Preservice ElementaryScience Teacher Reflective ThinkingUsing Integrated Media Case-BasedInstruction in Elementary ScienceTeacher Preparation

SANDRA K. ABELL1442 Liberal Arts and Education Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442,USA

LYNN A. BRYANUniversity of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

MARIA A. ANDERSONNorth Judson–San Pierre School Corporation, North Judson, IN, USA

Received 1 October 1996; revised 10 November 1997; accepted 5 December 1997

ABSTRACT: To improve the preparation of future teachers, we must come to understand theirpersonal theories about teaching and learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate preserviceelementary teachers’ theories about science teaching and learning through their reflections on inte-grated media case-based instruction, and subsequently to reflect upon and reform our own practice.Students in an elementary science methods course participated in a series of written and oral reflec-tion tasks in response to integrated media instruction. Specifically, they responded to a videodisccase of a first grade teacher teaching a conceptual change unit about seeds and eggs. Consideringtheir responses to the reflection tasks, we constructed a profile of these elementary preservice teach-ers. This profile consists of their images of themselves as future science teachers, the characteristicsof their personal theories of teaching and learning, and the ways in which they frame classroom

Correspondence to: S. K. Abell; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract grant number: 9250045-DUE

SCIENCE TEACHEREDUCATION

Thomas Dana and Julie Gess-Newsome, Section Editors

Page 2: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

492 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

problems. Our findings led to reforms in our methods course instruction and have implications forthe preparation and continuing education of elementary science teachers. q 1998 John Wiley & Sons,Inc. Sci Ed 82:491–509, 1998.

INTRODUCTION

The process of developing thinking about teaching and learning can be likened to the process ofconceptual change in learning science. Learners come to school science with strongly held theoriesabout natural phenomena, many of which are not consistent with the accepted scientific view(Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Learning science, in part, in-volves a reevaluation of one’s theories in light of perturbing evidence. However, because learners’theories are strongly held, they may be uninfluenced by the perturbation (Osborne & Wittrock,1983). Likewise, prospective and practicing teachers hold ideas, beliefs, and values that form theirpersonal theories about teaching and learning (Lanier & Little, 1986; Pajares, 1992). These personaltheories may be influenced or uninfluenced by learning experiences, including university classes,in-service workshops, classroom teaching, and journal reading. The science teacher educator’s roleincludes finding ways to perturb teachers’ personal theories so that learning through accommodationof new ideas can occur (von Glasersfeld, 1987). Reflection as an instructional strategy in teacherpreparation may be one vehicle for science teacher educators to uncover and confront preserviceteachers’ personal theories.

The concept of reflection derives from Schon’s (1983) distinction between teaching as technicalrationality and teaching as problem solving. Reflection, in the problem solving context, refers to apurposeful, systematic inquiry into one’s personal theories about teaching and learning and thepractices guided by those theories. LaBoskey (1993) defined reflection as involving certain contexts,processes, attitudes, and contents that lead to the development of new understandings about teachingand learning and to the solving of problems of practice. Reflective teachers are able to think abouttheir own or someone else’s teaching, reframe problems, compare practice with personal theories,and take new actions (Munby & Russell, 1992a). The emphasis of reflection in teacher educationis on “teachers’ ability to inquire into teaching and think critically about their work using their craftand personal knowledge as well as the knowledge derived from studies of learning, development,and society” (Carter & Anders, 1996, p. 562) so that they can improve their practice.

The ultimate intent of reflection in teacher education is for teachers to gain a deeper understandingof their practice in order to improve it. Veteran teachers have a large repertoire of experiences, tacitknowledge, and intuitive understandings on which they can draw to make sense of classroom events.They are able to use old frames to construct new ways to look at situations; they can draw on pastexperience to illuminate current problematic teaching situations. However, beginning teachers donot possess such an extensive repertoire. In preservice teacher education, guided practice in reflec-tion can help students of teaching construct their personal theories (McIntyre, 1993; Wildman,Niles, Magliaro, & McLaughlin, 1990).

Catalyzed by Schon’s work, many teacher preparation programs have begun to incorporate re-flection. To be meaningful, however, reflection programs must be grounded in a conceptual frame-work that provides clearly reasoned priorities for the reflection they encourage. Grimmett (1988)delineated three purposes of reflection in teacher education: (1) to direct or control practice; (2) toinform practice by choosing among versions of “good teaching”; and (3) to appreciate practice byreconstructing experience and developing new possibilities for action. Gore and Zeichner (1991)discussed four varieties of reflective teacher education. The academic version focuses on the trans-lation of subject matter, the social efficiency version emphasizes teaching strategies suggested byresearch, the developmentalist version prioritizes student thinking and understanding, and the socialreconstructionist version stresses the social contexts of teaching. According to Gore and Zeichner,good teacher education attends to all of these elements. Current initiatives to promote reflectionamong preservice teachers have displayed a variety of these elements. In general, these initiatives

Page 3: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 493

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

have aimed to help teachers develop new ways of looking at and talking about teaching and learning(e.g., Gore & Zeichner, 1991; LaBoskey, 1994; Valli, 1992; Wildman et al., 1990). The reflectionprogram we developed for the elementary science methods course fuses Gore and Zeichner’s fourvarieties to achieve Grimmett’s third purpose of helping preservice teachers appreciate practicethrough a restructuring of experience.

Recent research efforts in science education have used the framework of reflection to understandscience teacher professional development (Erickson & MacKinnon, 1991; MacKinnon, 1987;Munby & Russell, 1992a, 1994; Russell, 1993). For example, Munby and Russell (1992b) examinedthe frames used by Debra, a beginning chemistry teacher and former laboratory technician. Theyfound that, for Debra, adopting new frames for teaching was not easy, even in the context ofextensive reflection-on-action over time. Borko, Bellamy, and Saunders (1992) studied the planning,teaching, and postlesson reflections of two veteran junior high school science teachers and twostudent teachers. The expert teachers, having “well-developed and easily accessible schemata forsuch aspects of teaching as content, students, and instructional activities” (p. 66), were able to planmore quickly and efficiently than the beginners. Richert (1992) analyzed the content of 12 studentteachers’ reflections on their teaching. The study employed four conditions for reflection createdby crossing two factors—reflecting with/without a partner and with/without a portfolio. Richertfound that the content of the reflections varied according to the condition, “. . . beginning teachersfocus on different aspects of their work when they reflect within different structures” (p. 187).

These studies illustrate the usefulness of reflection as a tool for understanding science teacherthinking and development. The present study adds to the literature on science teacher reflection byinvestigating the reflective thinking of preservice elementary science teachers, a group receivinglittle attention in the reflection literature. Furthermore, the present study takes place in the con-text of integrated media case-based instruction, a unique medium for catalyzing reflection. The find-ings from this study will thus expand our understanding of science teacher professional develop-ment.

During the past several years, we have developed a set of integrated media cases (videodiscscontrolled by hypermedia) of conceptual change science classrooms (Abell, Cennamo, & Campbell,1996; Cennamo, Abell, & Chung, 1996; Cennamo, Abell, George, & Chung, 1996). The casescreate classroom virtual worlds (Schon, 1987) within which a teacher can practice reflection. Wehave used the integrated media cases in conjunction with a series of reflection tasks (Abell, 1995;Bryan & Abell, 1996) in our preservice elementary science methods course to systematically de-velop thinking about science teaching and learning. Our ultimate goal is to help elementary scienceteachers, throughout their careers, to reflect upon and thereby improve their science teaching.

PURPOSE

The purpose of our research was to investigate the reflective thinking of preservice elementaryteachers about teaching and learning science, and concomitantly to reform our methods courseinstruction. The participants, elementary education majors enrolled in a science methods course,watched a set of integrated media cases of elementary science classrooms engaged in conceptualchange science lessons. Concurrently, they reflected upon the cases through writing tasks, andthrough small group and class discussions. Our research aimed to uncover what these studentsreflected upon and to interpret their reflections over the course of a semester. More specifically, thefollowing research questions guided the study: How do prospective elementary teachers constructimages of themselves as teachers of science? What do their reflections on the integrated mediaclassroom science cases reveal about their personal theories of science teaching and learning? Inreaction to the video cases, how do they frame problems and responses? How do the video casesinfluence their thinking about science teaching and learning? How should our teaching of elementaryscience methods be reformed to take their personal theories into account?

Page 4: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

494 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Research Perspective

The research tradition that guides this study is action research. Action research is undergirdedby the belief that research is a reflexive endeavor, not the application of prespecified methods. Itprovides a framework to change and enhance practice. “Action research aims to help those peopledirectly concerned with a situation under research . . . to articulate, validate, and develop theirviews and to design action in order to improve the situation they live in” (Altrichter, 1993, p. 40).An iterative cycle of planning, action, observation, and reflection is a distinguishing characteristicof the action research framework (Hopkins, 1985). In this study, we used an action research frame-work to first make sense of our students’ thinking and then to reform our practice of elementaryscience methods instruction accordingly. We achieved these purposes through repeated encounterswith our students, with each other, and with the data.

Research Participants

Data collection took place during the fall semester of 1994. Forty-nine students, in two sectionsof an elementary science methods course at a major research university, participated—46 femalesand 3 males. All of the students were white, and all but one between 20 and 23 years of age. Weinformed the students that the purpose of the study was for us to better understand how theydeveloped their ideas about science teaching and learning, and assured them that their grade in thecourse would not be affected by their responses to the reflection tasks. All students in these twosections gave their consent to participate.

The three researchers played different roles during the data collection phase of the project. Abellcoordinated all sections of the methods course (four in all), and was the instructor for one of theproject sections of the course. Anderson served as instructor for another project section of themethods course. Bryan acted as partial participant observer (Patton, 1990) in both class sections.She closely observed and audiotaped small and large group discussions and took field notes, withoutactually engaging in course activities with the students.

Research Setting

“Teaching Science in the Elementary School” is a 3-semester-credit-hour, 16-week course thattakes place on campus with limited field experiences in a partner elementary school. We havedesigned the course guided by a reflection orientation to teaching teachers (Abell & Bryan, 1997).In the course, preservice teachers engage in reflection within four unique but interrelated coursecontexts. They reflect on others’ teaching via the interactive videodisc cases of science teaching(Abell, Cennamo, Anderson, Bryan, Campbell, and Hug, 1996); they reflect on their own teachingvia the field experiences; they reflect on expert opinions via course readings; and they reflect onthemselves as science learners via participation in science learning activities.

Data Collection

We designed a number of reflection tasks for use with the integrated media cases (Abell, 1995).These tasks were meant to stimulate methods student reflection upon science teaching and learning.Through writing and discussion tasks, completed during and outside class, students critically ana-lyzed various videodisc episodes. In this article, we focused our analysis on a series of reflectiontasks that took place in the first part of the semester over seven class periods, during which theparticipants viewed one of the videodisc cases—first grade students and their teacher exploring the

Page 5: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 495

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

topic of seeds and eggs (see Appendix). All written responses were transcribed; in total, we analyzed1506 responses. In addition, select small group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed foranalysis. We describe the reflection tasks below.

Task 1. Focus on Personal Theories and Teacher Theories-in-Use. The main purpose of thistask was to help methods students analyze their own beliefs, values, and knowledge as well as thetheories-in-use evident in a classroom. Before watching a first grade lesson from the videodisc,students predicted what they would see. After viewing, they wrote their responses to three questions:What do you remember most vividly from the lesson? Why do you think the teacher decided toteach the lesson as she did? What do the teacher’s practices tell you about her assumptions, values,and beliefs about teaching and learning?

Task 2. Focus on Personal Histories and Visions of Science Teaching. The main purpose ofthis task was to help methods students uncover their personal science histories and visions ofthemselves as science teachers so that they could situate their theories of science teaching andlearning within a broader context. Students wrote their personal science histories, including bothschool and informal science experiences. They also wrote about their visions of themselves asscience teachers. Next they watched two more lessons from the first grade classroom and wrotetheir responses to these questions: What do you remember most vividly from the lesson? Whatconnections do you see between your own science experiences and what you focused on in thevideo?

Task 3. Focus on Collaborative Reflection in Framing Classroom Problems. The main purposeof this task was to help methods students develop the idea that no one teacher can attend to allfacets of a classroom; which problem one chooses to frame is influenced by one’s personal theories.After watching two more lessons from the first grade classroom, small groups of students helddiscussions guided by the following questions: What are some issues about science teaching thathave come up while you have been watching these first grade science lessons? What are the sim-ilarities and differences among your responses? Why do you think there are similarities and dif-ferences?

Task 4. Framing Classroom Problems. The main purpose of this task was to help methodsstudents view classroom situations as problematic, complex, and constructed by the participants,rather than as certain and incontestable. After watching two first grade lessons, students wrote anddiscussed the following: Note each place where you think the teacher is making a teaching decision.Choose one situation and design alternative possibilities for decisionmaking. After class each stu-dent constructed a list of questions about science teaching and learning that they would like to askthe teacher in the videotape.

Task 5. Reexamining Personal Theories. The main purpose of this task was to help methodsstudents confront their personal theories of teaching and learning, and begin reconstructing andreframing these theories. After watching the final lesson of the Seeds and Eggs unit, students wrotetheir responses to the following questions: How have your expectations for a first grade sciencelesson changed or been enhanced after viewing the Seeds and Eggs lessons? Which of the teachingpractices you viewed in these lessons would you feel comfortable using and which would you feeluncomfortable using in your own science teaching? Why do you feel this way?

Page 6: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

496 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Data Analysis

We began our analysis by repeatedly reading the data set, looking for patterns and developingcategories to help organize the written and oral reflections. We continuously generated assertionsgrounded in these data and reexamined the original texts for instances that supported or disconfirmedthe assertions (Erickson, 1986). We also performed within- and across-case analyses (Patton, 1990)of the data by selecting a few participants and reanalyzing their responses, constructing case de-scriptions of them, and comparing the descriptions across participants and with earlier analyses.These case descriptions helped affirm and focus our assertions. We carried out data analysis bothindividually and collaboratively among research team members. The various perspectives based onour different roles enriched the data analysis. We negotiated our views to generate the followingfindings, which represent our collective understanding of preservice teacher reflection.

INTERPRETATIONS

Through our interpretations of elementary preservice teacher responses to the videodisc cases viathe reflection tasks, we have constructed a profile of preservice teachers. This profile consists oftheir images of themselves as future science teachers, the characteristics of their theories of teachingand learning, and the ways in which they frame classroom problems. As we describe each part ofthe profile, we present our assertions, supported by evidence in the form of data excerpts and ourinterpretations of these excerpts.

Preservice Teachers’ Images of Themselves as Science Teachers

Assertion 1: Elementary education majors’ personal science histories, whether negative, or pos-itive, influenced their visions of themselves as fun and effective teachers of science. Most studentsreported that their school science experiences were inadequate in helping them enjoy and learnscience. They remembered didactic, textbook-driven courses, and traditional high school labs. Theyremembered little from elementary science. Their visions of themselves as science teachers wereoften in reaction to what they perceived as the inadequacies of their own science education. Yetthey saw themselves as breaking away from those models:

I envision myself as being a little timid as a science teacher. I want to be a good and fun scienceteacher, but I am afraid because when I was in elementary school, science wasn’t very much funand to be honest, I don’t remember very much about it. But hopefully after I learn more aboutteaching science I will be more confident. (Lori, 8/30)

As I look back into my past science experiences, I have a hard time remembering them, which scaresme. That is why I have a difficult time visualizing myself as an elementary science teacher. I’m notvery strong in the area of science, but I soon hope to change that. My goal is to familiarize myselfwith science and include it in the classroom as much as possible. I want children to think science isfun and that it is interesting and can be learned through experience. (Laura, 8/30)

As a teacher of elementary science, I am not very confident. I feel as if I do not have the scien-tific background knowledge I may need to serve as an effective instructor in this area. However,I do feel I am sympathetic to student exploration and will encourage them to pursue their in-terests. Because I do not even remember science in elementary school, I feel the scientific pro-cess being learned will help students more than cold facts, which will most likely be forgotten.(Alan, 8/30)

Page 7: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 497

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

These visions portray a lack of confidence with science teaching, based on negative experienceswith science learning. Nevertheless, the students expressed a desire to do their best to help childrenenjoy and learn science.

Conversely, some of these future teachers remembered positive experiences with science, eitherinside or outside of school. These were the kinds of experiences they wanted to promote in theirown science teaching:

I have many visions of myself as a science teacher, but the underlying goal that I will strive for willto be a teacher that makes science interesting, enjoyable, and fun. . . . Throughout all of my school-ing, the learning experiences that stick in my mind have all been hands-on, fun activities that Ilearned interesting things from. . . . All of these experiences have made me want to be a hands-on, student-oriented science teacher. (Abby, 8/30)

Many students, like Abby, mentioned science experiences in which they were active participants.These experiences were fun and memorable, yet students did not mention what science was learned.Instead, they focused on the enjoyable learning atmosphere, and wanted to recreate such an at-mosphere in their teaching.

In addition to the students who focused on their positive and negative classroom science expe-riences, a few methods students discussed their own learning styles as they constructed a personalvision of science teaching:

My vision of myself as a teacher of elementary science is one who allows my students to exploreon their own. I know that I learn best by working things through on my own which often timesinvolves experimenting. I will try my hardest to make my classroom’s environment comfortable forall students to learn. (Julie, 8/30)

Julie’s response juxtaposed her own preferences as a science learner with her vision for scienceteaching. She, like many of her classmates, focused on the comfort aspect of the science classroomas a prerequisite for learning.

Each of these examples illustrates the interplay between the students’ images of themselves asscience teachers and their personal science histories. Their long-term apprenticeship of observation(Lortie, 1975) has helped them build images of themselves as teachers who help students like andlearn science. We will revisit this theme in the following sections, as we further analyze howexperiences influenced prospective teachers’ theories and their reflective frames.

Preservice Teachers’ Personal Theories of Teaching and Learning

The following three assertions characterize preservice elementary teachers’ reflections on theSeeds and Eggs videodisc and describe their personal theories of science teaching and learning.

Assertion 2A: Preservice teachers’ written observations of science teaching and learning dis-played a variety of foci, were often embedded in a judgmental framework, and often lacked detailsor evidence to support the observations. When analyzed as a class set, student responses revealeda great deal of diversity. That is, students focused on many different aspects of each videodisclesson. For example, in Task 1, when asked to describe what they remembered from the lessonimmediately after viewing, students mentioned many things. Their response were divided nearlyequally between observations that focused on students (34 responses) and observations that focusedon the teacher (39 responses). Within those broad categories, we found 31 different facets of thelesson that were mentioned. Thus the students viewed the virtual classroom much like a real class-room, as a complex place with many parts to attend to.

Another characteristic of students’ observations was that they were often embedded in a judg-

Page 8: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

498 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

mental framework. When asked to describe what they most vividly remembered from a case lesson,many students framed their responses with opinions such as: “I like the way she . . .” or “It wasgood when she . . .” Others included personal reactions such as “It was impressive . . .” or “Itwas interesting . . .” in their observations:

It was good that the students were in groups so that they could get input from the others and sortof pool their knowledge. (Sandra, 8/30)

I liked how the teacher asked the students questions to get them thinking. (Rachel, 8/30)

The interaction among and engagement of the students was impressive. (Jenny 8/25)

I liked the idea that every student had their own plant and journal. (Kari, 8/30)

I still saw a lot of interaction which was good. It was interesting to hear their predictions. (Lonni,8/30)

In each of these examples, although classroom descriptions were embedded in the response, theobservations were prefaced with a judgment. Perhaps the students mistook the task as calling foran observation and an evaluation of what they saw. On the other hand, perhaps the judgmentsindicated their need to make a personal connection with the classroom. Conversely, the use ofjudgments could be influenced by students’ lack of experience in viewing science classrooms. Inplace of in-depth descriptions, students may have relied upon quick judgments to represent class-room complexity. This explanation is related, in part, to the third characterization of students’responses, which follows.

Students’ written observations were characterized by a lack of detail and depth. Some studentsmade inferences about the classroom without any supporting evidence. For example, when asked“What do you remember most vividly from the lesson” one student responded: “The teacher hadthe students enjoying learning about science” (Lisa, 8/25). Furthermore, many used what we callbuzz words in their reflections. In the following excerpts, we present student predictions about whatthe first grade lessons might look like. We have highlighted the buzz words to demonstrate theirpervasiveness:

I truly believe that this first grade class will use a more innovative type of science instruction.Hopefully, there will be hands-on experiments for students to participate in, and their (sic) will bechances for cooperative learning with peer conferencing. (Kelly, 8/24)

I expect to see the first grade teacher interacting with the kids. I also expect some group work andhands-on activities for discovery . . . I would expect the teacher to be a guide rather than a dictatoror lecturer . . . I expect the children to have ownership of their learning and the classroom to bechild-centered. (Kathy, 8/24)

I expect to see hands-on participation and cooperative learning. I expect that the students will enjoythe project, because it involves active involvement. I expect that the students will be required tothink like a scientist would think. (Sherry, 8/24)

In this lesson I expect to see a lot of hands-on activities. I also expect to see students working ingroups. Maybe students will plant seeds and watch them grow. Personally, I really don’t know whatto expect! (Lana, 8/24)

Page 9: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 499

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Terms such as “hands-on,” “discovery,” “cooperative learning,” and “teacher as guide,” appearedthroughout all students’ reflections on the Seeds and Eggs lesson. It could be that students usedthese terms as jargon with a taken-as-shared (Cobb, 1991) meaning, terms that might have beenused in previous education courses and then applied to the science methods course. However, itcould also be that the use of such words indicated that the student’s theories of science teachingand learning might not always have been well-defined. For example, students held an image of“hands-on” science, but lacked details that could have demonstrated a clearer vision of their meaningfor the term. Lana’s response in particular demonstrated this limited vision. Thus, we believe thatstudents used buzz words in much the same sense that Bell and Freyberg (1985) discussed sciencelearners’ use of “noises which sound scientific” (p. 33). That is, the buzz words were substitutesfor understanding. Duckworth (1987) explained this phenomenon elegantly:

Notice that if we really understand what we have been told, we make new connections for ourselves.We are now the master of these new connections and can express them our own way. If we cannotmake these new connections for ourselves, we do not really grasp what we have been told. In factthis is where we are most likely to hold on to the exact words! (p. 18)

We also found students with varying degrees of detail in their reflections. The following excerptsillustrate the differences in detail between two observations about student– teacher verbal interac-tions.

I remember their discussion of how the seeds grew. (Rachel, 8/30)

The teacher frequently asked what students observed and thought. She probed to elicit why theythought the way they did. She tried not to place personal judgments on student ideas. She tried toelicit responses from many students to get all involved. (Alan, 8/30)

These reflections illustrate how differently Rachel and Alan observed the first grade class discussion.Based on our observations of Alan’s participation in methods class discussion and his other writtenreflections, this type of response was typical. He seemed to have more extensive background inclassroom interactions and used his knowledge to make sense of the videocase. Rachel, on the otherhand, liked what she saw, but did not have the details to describe it. This lack of detail was typicalof Rachel’s written reflections.

The data excerpts presented above also provide a window into the beliefs, values, and knowledgeabout science teaching and learning that comprised the methods students, personal theories. Theirbeliefs, values, and knowledge are examined in the next section.

Assertion 2B: Preservice teachers’ personal theories included valuing: (a) activity-based (orhands-on) science, claiming that it motivates and interests students; and (b) group work, claimingthat students learn more from each other. However, these theories lacked detailed knowledge ofscience instruction and student abilities. Preservice teachers mentioned student interest and moti-vation about science frequently in their responses; few students stated that student understandingof science concepts was a goal for their teaching. This mirrors Assertion 1 in which studentsremembered what they enjoyed more than what they learned in their own science histories. Fur-thermore, the methods students believed that classrooms should be child-centered and that theteacher’s role was to be a guide. Because they often held vague notions of science instruction(Assertion 2A) and were uncomfortable with their own science backgrounds (Assertion 1), theimage of teacher as guide in an activity-centered classroom may have been more comfortable thanother images of science teacher they had experienced.

In addition to holding vague notions of science instruction, the prospective teachers also lacked

Page 10: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

500 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

a clear picture of the first graders themselves. For example, many believed that first graders wouldlack the cognitive ability to understand science.

It is hard for first graders to understand science at times because it is always exact. (Brandon, 9/1)

Since first graders typically have a short attention span, I think the teacher will probably provideshort periods of instruction and then allow the students to participate in some type of hands-onactivity. The materials will probably be presented in a simple straightforward manner so that thestudents will stay focused. (Renee, 8/24)

In first grade I expect to see simple science lessons. I expect to see the children doing hands-onactivities to keep them motivated and interested in the activity or lesson . . . I expect the lessonto be simple, but interesting and motivating for the child. (Jocelyn, 8/24)

I expect this first grade teacher may present this lesson by talking about how things start out andeventually grow and change. I expect the teacher to have hands-on activity, but it may be dominatedby the teacher because of the students’ young age. (Monica, 8/24)

The methods students expected first grade science to be simple, teacher-dominated, and fun if firstgraders were to be attentive and learn. For these students, their personal theories about first gradescience teaching and learning were strongly and unquestioningly held. Brandon, for example, com-mented throughout his reflections that first graders have trouble understanding science. On oneoccasion he was “astounded” at the intelligence of one first grader. He saw this child as an anomalyto his image of first graders, not as evidence for changing his mind about their abilities. We inter-preted this as an example of how personal theories can be resistant to change. We discuss influenceson the development of these personal theories in the next assertion.

Assertion 2C: Elementary science methods students identified two primary sources of influenceon the development of their teaching and learning theories: “higher sources” of knowledge andexperience. First, many methods students attributed their ideas, beliefs, and values about scienceteaching and learning to “higher sources” of knowledge such as instructors, courses, and readingmaterial. Because they may not have had direct classroom experiences to affirm their beliefs, thesesources of knowledge were taken to have authority. For example, when asked to make predictionsabout what would happen in a first grade lesson on Seeds and Eggs and tell how these expectationsoccurred to them, several students resorted to the authority of books and courses:

I base these expectations on how I’ve been taught to teach here . . . as well as studies that showthis method works better than strictly reading straight from textbooks. . . . It says test scores areslightly higher. (Julie, 8/24)

I also base [my expectations for the first grade lesson] on what I’ve learned in classes about howchildren learn best. (Abby, 8/24)

I base my expectations [for the first grade lesson] from my readings for this class and my othermethods courses. We have also learned that hands-on experiences are very beneficial for the students.So I believe hands on activities should play a big part in the lesson. (Tabitha, 8/24)

We requested these responses during the first week of the methods course, before formal readingor writing activities had been assigned. We communicated that the writing would not be gradedand that we were looking for students’ current thoughts. Yet even within this unthreatening context,students had already begun to cite course readings as a source of authority. We believe this rep-resents the degree of influence these “higher sources” of knowledge have on the development of

Page 11: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 501

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

preservice teachers’ personal theories. We also believe that students were often acting as theybelieved “good students” act in carrying out course assignments (see Assertion #3A in what fol-lows). Because these responses were written early in the course, students had little chance to ex-perience the value that course instructors would place on students’ own experiences as sources ofauthority.

However, many preservice teachers did realize that their personal and professional experienceshad a tremendous influence on the development of their theories. These future teachers drew upontheir interactions with children, classroom practical experiences, and their many years in the ap-prenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) as science learners when thinking about the videodisccases:

I base my expectations on my step-brother’s experiences in the first grade. He just finished the firstgrade, and he always shares his experiences with me. He was always excited about his scienceactivities because he loved science and hands-on activities. (Jocelyn, 8/24)

I’m basing these expectations on my past experience with children. I’ve found that students learnso much more by doing hands on science. (Lisa, 8/24)

I have seen this strategy used in [reading] and it seems effective in providing a framework forlearning about new topics by linking background knowledge to new knowledge. (Helen, 8/24)

These examples illustrate how preservice teachers based their acceptance of teaching ideas onpositive experiences in their past. Again we found that personal science histories influenced teacherthinking (see Assertion 1).

Framing Classroom Problems

The following two assertions discuss the ways in which elementary science methods studentsviewed the videodisc cases through various frames, and how the use of multiple frames sometimesled to inconsistencies in their theories of science teaching and learning. Our use of the term “frame”is based on Schon (1987) who described framing as a way of constructing a problematic situationin order to make sense of it. According to Schon, teachers cannot treat complex and unique class-room cases as instrumental problems to be solved by applying a rule from the rule book of practice.Instead teachers’ framing of problems guides their actions. In this study, we used the notion offrames to describe the perspectives from which the students viewed the teaching practices andclassroom dynamics within the videocase classroom.

Assertion 3A: Methods students employed three different frames when viewing the videodisccase: science learner, science methods student, and science teacher. These frames influenced theirreactions to the Seeds and Eggs lessons. At times, methods students viewed videodisc incidentsfrom the frame of science learner. That is, they put themselves in the place of learner, and reactedto classroom events from that perspective. For example, in predicting what might happen in thefirst grade lesson, one student remarked: “I don’t believe the lesson will be very interactive becauseI never had interactive science lessons while I was in elementary school” (Verna, 8/24). Anotherstudent concurred:

When I think of a first grade science lesson, I think mainly of the teacher showing and explainingsimple science related topics. . . . It will be the teacher talking the most. I think my expectationscome from remembering my own early years of science. I mainly just listened to the teacher andbelieved what she said. (Kari, 8/24)

Page 12: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

502 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Furthermore, using their science learner frames, prospective teachers focused their observationson classroom aspects that were personally relevant to their learning experiences. For example, Lisarecalled the classroom climate:

I remember how the teacher kept praising the students and how she kept encouraging the class towork together with their partners. Also, I remember seeing the children enjoying being able to pickup the seeds and look at them. The teacher had the students enjoying learning about science. (Lisa,8/25)

Lisa seemed very interested in the comfort aspect in the classroom. She did not state her interestin terms of what a teacher should do, but how students feel. Using her science learner frame, sheresponded positively to what the teacher did that made science enjoyable. Kari, on the other hand,used her science learner frame to react to teacher questioning in the classroom:

What I remember most vividly from the lesson is that the teacher did a lot of talking with the studentsin the large group as well as the small group. She asked questions that made the students think.. . . When I was in science classes, the teacher basically talked at us, not with us. She told us whatshould happen. I think this is why I really liked the teacher’s ways of questioning. (Kari, 8/30)

Kari was struck by the teacher/student interactions because they were so different from her expe-riences. Thus she responded very positively to this teacher from her science learner frame. Anotherexample demonstrates the science learner frame in the context of student– teacher interaction:

I most vividly remember how the teacher facilitated the conversation between herself and the studentsand among the students themselves. Many of my science experiences were with teachers who didn’twant conversation on a topic or students’ opinions about the topic. The teachers just wanted correctanswers. I see that I focused on something that I wished would have happened in my past scienceexperiences. (Sara, 8/30)

Framing her response as a science learner, Sara related to an aspect of the first grade classroominteractions that she wished she could have experienced as a science student. Sara’s response isalso striking in that she was able to analyze her own response (“I see that I focused . . .”). Instruc-tors encouraged this sort of analysis through class questions, such as “What connections do yousee between your own science experiences and what you focused on in the lesson?”

Another frame we uncovered our students using as they responded to the videodiscs was theframe of science methods student. Using this frame, students responded as good university students,providing the “answers” they believed that we, as instructors, wished to hear:

After viewing the video, I know that [the teacher] used creative and innovative methods for teachingabout science. I feel that, now, the more innovative methods help children more readily understandconcepts because they are involved in the science processes. (Kelly, 9/8)

I really enjoyed watching the lesson. Before I had only a dry concept of what a Seeds and Eggslesson would be. I now see that there are other options for this lesson. I now look at it as a lessonthat can be fun and progressive, not just a strict read-about lesson. (Missy, 9/8)

These students, and many of their peers, continued to use buzz words (see Assertion 2A) throughouttheir reflections to describe the teaching and learning they witnessed. They seemed unable to de-scribe the teaching and learning situation with detail, and instead used the words/answers theythought would please us. They were using what we call “noises that sound pedagogical” (after Belland Freyberg, 1985). These types of responses indicated a very different frame from that of science

Page 13: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 503

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

learner, a frame in which “higher sources” of knowledge appeared more valid to the prospectiveteachers than the knowledge of experience.

In contrast to the science learner and the science methods student frames, prospective teachersalso responded from the frame of science teacher. That is, they put themselves in the place of theteacher and viewed classroom events from that perspective. When asked to predict what wouldhappen in the lessons, several students assumed this frame:

In this first grade science lesson, I expect the teacher to first ask her students if they can identifythese two objects. Secondly, the teacher will ask the students what a seed does (grow into somekind of plant) and what an egg forms into (some kind of small animal—chicken). Thirdly, thestudents will bury the seeds in the dirt and place the eggs gently in a heated cage. Fourthly, thestudents will make daily observations of the changes these objects experience (with the teacher’shelp). Lastly, the students will see the ending result to their experiments. (Susan, 8/24)

I might expect to see the teacher introducing the Seeds and Eggs unit through an initial discussionwith the students. Questions and answers will help the teacher assess how much the students alreadyknow. I would also expect the teacher to show the kids a plant and its seed as well as, for example,an egg and a picture (or real!) of a chicken. I predict the class will plant lima beans in white cupsand take them home or put on windowsill. Maybe a book will have been read, also. (Kayla, 8/24)

Both Susan and Kayla approached their predictions as if they were planning the lesson themselves.They considered the concepts they would address, the stages of the lesson, and even some of theactivities they would use. Nevertheless such detailed and focused responses were rare. We inter-preted this to mean that most of our students were not ready to assume the teacher frame in viewingthe videodisc cases. This was not surprising, as our students had few classroom science teachingexperiences. After students watched the entire sequence of first grade lessons, we found more useof the frame of science teacher. They began to think, not only in terms of how the teaching in thevideo was different from their own science learning experiences, but how they would adopt andadapt the strategies they witnessed to their own teaching. We view this shift in frames as a necessarystep in learning from experience.

Assertion 3B: The students’ reflections revealed inconsistencies in their thinking about scienceteaching and learning that could be accounted for by the frames they employed. That is, whenstudents employed more than one frame at the same time in responding to the videodisc cases, theresult was a discrepancy in their personal theories. For example, our students placed a high valueon hands-on science, and what they often called “students discovering on their own.” Yet, afterwatching the series of first grade lessons, many students reflected on how much a teacher should“guide” students in science. They presented alternative instructional strategies to what they wit-nessed, suggesting that the teacher should have introduced “what she wanted them to learn” at thebeginning so the first graders would know what to look for. “Some kind of introduction about plantsand animals” is what they expected and, in some cases, preferred. We believe that, when using theframe of science learner, the methods students felt comfortable with the open-ended nature of thelesson. This was nonthreatening to them and they wished their science learning experiences hadbeen more this way. However, when they used the frame of science teacher, they constructed adifferent response. Their experience told them that the teacher’s job was to be the classroom con-ductor, directing the order of events. The different frames thus revealed a discrepancy in their ideas.In some cases the discrepancies were not noticed by the students themselves, but were used by theinstructors to assist students in making sense of science teaching. In other cases students were ableto recognize challenges to their personal theories suggested by these discrepancies. The followingexamples illustrate two other common discrepancies in student thinking about science teaching.

After seeing the first Seeds and Eggs lesson, the preservice teachers noticed that “all ideas were

Page 14: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

504 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

welcomed” (Deborah, 8/25). After viewing two more lessons, students continued to remark on therisk-free aspect of the classroom: “The children all got to voice their opinion and ideas without thefear of being told they are wrong” (Barb, 8/30). Many of these future teachers believed that it wasimportant to allow children’s ideas to be heard and respected to maintain their interest and self-confidence in science. However, by the end of the seven first grade lessons, the methods studentsfelt uncomfortable with what they perceived as a lack of closure to the unit:

I didn’t like the end—[the teacher] didn’t tell the students if they were right or wrong. (Sandra,9/8)

I would feel comfortable using the hands-on experiences as she did. However, I would not feelcomfortable not ever giving the students the right answers. (Julie, 9/8)

I would feel uncomfortable not correcting incorrect conclusions. I would want students leaving theunit knowing some correct generalizations. (Deidra, 9/8)

One thing that I didn’t expect to happen was the way the lesson ended. I felt that she didn’t “cover”eggs very well. (Laura, 9/8)

The inconsistency in thinking about science teaching and learning can again be traced back tohow methods students framed their response to the first grade classroom. From the science learnerframe, they enjoyed the level of comfort that existed in a classroom where all ideas were welcomed.Yet from the science teacher frame, the future teachers felt it was their responsibility to bring everystudent to the right answer.

A third discrepancy we observed in student theories about science teaching and learning involvedideas about teacher knowledge. The preservice teachers were concerned with their lack of sciencecontent knowledge and they vacillated about how to address this concern. At times they felt thatthe only recourse was to understand everything about a science topic before beginning to teach it.Other times they indicated that a teacher must be prepared to say “I don’t know.” The followingexcerpt from a class discussion illustrates the dilemma these students faced. The students weretrying to sort out their conflicting images of science teachers. One image was based on past expe-riences as science learners: the teacher is someone who has all of the answers. The other was theimage they held of themselves as future teachers of science—the teacher can learn with the students:

Helen: Something that I learned from it was that the teacher didn’t feel like she had to have all ofthe answers. That’s one of my fears about science is that if someone asks you something, her ideawas that, “I’m learning along with them, and so it’s okay [not to know].”

Missy: I’m not necessarily insecure. about teaching science, I’m insecure about it going wrong.

Cami: And if they ask you a question and you don’t know, it’s your fault because you don’t know.

Missy: Exactly.

Helen: And maybe you’re worried about influencing kids for science the wrong way just like youwere influenced, I don’t know.

Researcher: What does that say about your image of a science teacher?

Missy: I guess it says that they’re someone who has all of the answers. It should be someone whohas studied science forever.

Helen: Forever, uh huh.

Missy: I think in the elementary school you don’t need to be. You need to have studied it obviously.

Page 15: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 505

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Cami: Just like that lady said, though, she’s learning with the kids and she thought that was okay.(class discussion, 9/8)

In this discussion, as the students were examining their ideal of science teacher, they wereconfronted by their science learner reality of lack of knowledge and confidence about science. Thusthe frames of teacher and learner were linked together in the process of making sense of teachingand learning.

In the previous examples, prospective teachers struggled to define their roles as science teachers.Most, using their science learner frame, said “yes” to hands-on science instruction. However, afterwatching the first grade lessons, many, using their science teacher frame, felt discomfort with theteacher’s role in a student-centered classroom. They were uncomfortable with “letting studentsdiscover on their own,” with not telling them what to look for, and with not telling the correctanswers in the end. We believe these kinds of conflicts are necessary in learning to be a teacher ofscience.

INFLUENCE OF THE VIDEODISC CASES ON TEACHER THINKING

Videodisc case-based instruction provided a virtual world in which students of teaching couldthink about science teaching and learning. The videocases strengthened student perceptions of thelegitimacy of experience (albeit a virtual experience) as a source of knowledge. The cases alsoprovided challenges or perturbations to student theories about science teaching and learning.Through watching the Seeds and Eggs videodisc case, many of the students began to question theirtheories. After viewing all seven first grade lessons, we asked students to compare their initialexpectations for the lessons with what they observed from the videodisc. Their responses revealedways in which the first grade case helped them reflect upon and question their ideas, beliefs, andvalues:

My expectations for a first grade science lesson have really changed after viewing the Seeds andEggs lesson. The first graders are able to handle hands-on a lot better than I thought they would. Ithought the teacher would mainly do all of the talking and experimenting. I saw these students, eventhough they are young, being able to conduct and observe experiments on their own. I thought theywould misbehave if there was not a lot of supervision. This class really surprised me at how wellbehaved and under control they were. (Kari, 9/8)

Kari’s ideas about first graders’ abilities were directly confronted through watching the videodisccase. This happened with many of the methods students. They were surprised by the first graders’intellectual capabilities and their social skills. Another student mentioned first graders’ abilities aswell as other classroom aspects that caused her to rethink her ideas:

I was surprised that the teacher used journal writing, small group interactions, and large groupdiscussions in a first grade class. She also used challenging vocabulary and experiments whichinvolved some critical thinking. This lesson showed me the importance of not underestimating theabilities of young children . . . although many of the teaching practices shown in the video are notlike my elementary school science experiences, they seemed to be relatively easy changes that Icould make to help my students learn to like science. For the most part, I feel comfortable withusing many of these things, however, I must admit, there are some things I do not yet feel comfortablewith. I guess part of the reason for this is my need for structure and discipline. I don’t feel that I’dbe able to handle the students appropriately when they were seated on the floor because I might betoo focused on their behavior rather than the lesson. Also, because my science teaching in the pastwas focused on outcome rather than progress, I don’t know how comfortable I’d be with lettingthem discover things on their own. (Helen, 9/8).

Page 16: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

506 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Helen used the final reflection on the videodisc case to revisit her image of science teaching andher science learning experiences. The first grade case enhanced her understanding of first gradersand her vision of the technical aspects of science teaching (e.g., student record keeping and class-room interactions). However, on a more philosophical level, she began to question the purposes ofscience teaching. She linked a process-oriented purpose (what she calls progress vs. outcome) witha “discovery” approach to teaching. She recognized that, although she may have felt comfortablewith some technical features of science teaching, she was still unsure about her foundational beliefs.This, we believe, could be a first step in changing her personal theory. Of course, the videodisccase did not provide a perturbation for every methods student, but it did supply a virtual experienceto add to their reflection repertoire.

EMERGENT ACTIONS ON THE METHODS COURSE

What we have learned about our students led us to take action on the elementary science methodscourse. Since the time of the study, our actions on the course have continued. We report here onthree changes that were influenced by the findings of this study.

First, we recognized the wide variety of responses that students made to the videodisc. That is,they focused on many different aspects of the classroom. We began to capitalize on this diversityby having students share their responses in small groups and by making whole class lists of obser-vations. We have used the lists to illustrate that observers come to the methods course with differentexperiences that influence their videodisc case observations, that classrooms are complex places,and that one teacher can never see all aspects of a classroom while teaching. We have used the liststo generate a set of characteristics of effective science teachers that are later applied to the analysisof other videodisc cases and of students’ field experience teaching.

Another characteristic of student reflections uncovered through this research was the judgmentalframes of many observations. We believe that this judgmental frame may actually block studentsfrom seeing the complexity of the classroom. Thus we believe it is our responsibility to help studentsrecognize their use of the judgmental frame. To address this issue, we have reworded some of thereflections tasks, encouraging students to first describe a situation without judging. We have alsoplaced an emphasis on providing evidence for assertions. That is, when students make judgmentsabout a classroom event, we probe for evidence and send students back to the videodisc case tosupport their claims. (This respect for evidence parallels what we encourage in the science lessonsthat are simultaneously playing out in the methods course.)

We also learned in this study how little understanding the methods students had of the devel-opmental characteristics of children, in this case first graders. This realization led us to consider amajor restructuring of the methods course. We planned how to organize the science methods coursearound ideas about the development of the child, rather than around a series of science educationconcepts. In other words, instead of progressing from topics such as the goals of science teachingthrough problem solving and conceptual change instruction to assessment, a methods course couldexamine the features of the thinking of three groups of children, 5–7-year-olds, 7–9-year-olds,and 9–11-year-olds, and the concomitant implications for science teaching and learning (cf. Harlen,1985). Furthermore, we have begun to pilot an extensive field experience in a professional devel-opment school (Darling-Hammond, 1994) that would complement this restructuring. Throughout agiven semester, teams of methods students are paired with a teacher and students from one classroom(grades K–6) in a partner school to interact on various activities associated with the methods course.This enables us to have discussions related to the developmental characteristics of the children invarious grades and the relationship between the teacher’s actions and the children’s abilities.

Interestingly, our finding that methods students lack an understanding of first graders’ abilitiesmirrors our lack of understanding of the preservice teachers. While our students were observing,writing about, and discussing the actions of first graders and their teacher, we were learning aboutthem. The methods student profile we have constructed has helped us to rethink the methods course

Page 17: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 507

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

in several ways, some minor and some major. Our ultimate goal is to help students think moreclearly about science teaching and learning as they reflect upon their own and someone else’steaching.

CONCLUSION

Our aim in this article has been to present an emerging profile of the nature of elementary pre-service teachers’ reflective thinking about teaching and learning science. This profile incorporates:(a) the image these teachers hold of themselves as elementary science teachers; (b) characteristicsof their videodisc case reflections and their theories about science teaching and learning; and (c)ways in which these students frame classroom problems. Furthermore, we have shown how thevideodisc cases can perturb student thinking, and we have explicated how our new understandingsof preservice teachers’ reflective thinking have influenced an action research cycle in which we areimplementing changes in the elementary science methods course.

In doing so, we have come full circle. We have learned from the preservice teachers’ initialreflections that we, as science teacher educators, should help students unpeel their thinking. Weneed to find ways to get beyond the smooth, slick surface of their buzz words and textbook phrasingand begin to untangle the underlying web of implicit, and often inconsistent, beliefs about scienceteaching and learning. The videodisc cases present problematic situations that help methods studentsbegin to question and challenge the origins and legitimacy of their theories about science teachingand learning.

Furthermore, we believe that it is the responsibility of science teacher educators to help preserviceteachers recognize the validity of experience in shaping their theories. We want them to be able tolearn from their experiences in the virtual world and in the real world of the classroom, and regardtheir experience as a source of authority (Munby & Russell, 1994). We believe that the authorityof experience, derived through reflection in and on practice, will be meaningful and useful to themas teachers.

Our action research has led to new questions for future study. From students’ reflections on theSeeds and Eggs videocase, we have found that abilities to reflect about science teaching and learningseem to vary. Many students focused on purely technical aspects of teaching or used buzz wordsto describe their observations. This relates to findings by Kagan and Tippins (1992) that preserviceteachers give a “surface reading” to videotaped classroom lessons. We want to investigate the degreeto which students differ from each other in their reflective abilities. We also wonder if the abilityto think deeply about teaching can be developed over time through reflective coaching.

Finally, we will to continue to investigate the dialectical relationship between the virtual worldof the videodisc case and the real world of practice. How do methods students’ experiences in thefield interact with experiences with the videodisc case to help them construct their teaching andlearning theories? The virtual world is “relatively free of the pressures, distractions, and risks ofthe real one, to which, nevertheless, it refers” (Schon, 1987, p. 37). As a consequence, how willbeginning teachers, who have experienced reflection in the virtual world, develop their theories inthe context of the real world of student teaching? According to Bolin (1988), “a shared system ofmeanings about being a teacher . . . is constantly challenged, reinterpreted, negotiated, and shapedby social interactions” (p. 49). Therefore, examining teacher thinking throughout a career—fromteacher preparation into the beginning years of teaching and beyond—will help us understand thenature of reflection and the process of becoming an elementary teacher of science.

APPENDIX: THE FIRST GRADE SEEDS AND EGGS UNIT

Mrs. Schwartz introduces the conceptual change Seeds and Eggs unit by presenting her first gradeclass with the task of sorting a group of objects into “seeds” and “not seeds.” Students workcooperatively in small groups on this task. In a large group discussion, students share and compare

Page 18: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

508 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

answers and find that they do not all agree. Mrs. Schwartz prompts them to think of a way to figureout if certain objects are seeds or not. The students suggest planting them to see if they will grow,and proceed to make baggy gardens for the test. Students examine their gardens, observing growthafter several days. They compare similarities and differences among their gardens and decide if thethings they planted are seeds or not.

Mrs. Schwartz then presents what she expects will be a discrepant event to challenge students’thinking about seeds. She gives them brine shrimp eggs (the little ones) and clover seeds (the bigones). Students predict what will happen when the items are placed in water. They design and carryout a test, observing the little ones and the big ones over time. The clover seeds sprout and confirmtheir predictions that the big ones are seeds. On the other hands, the little ones begin to “wiggleand dance around,” according to student observations. The students decide these must not be seeds.Someone suggests they are “eggs” and the students start guessing what the eggs will become.

The students agree that seeds become plants and that eggs become some kind of animal. Mrs.Schwartz asks the students to help her make a chart comparing plants and animals. To see if studentscan take their ideas about plants and animals and use them to solve a problem, Mrs. Schwartzpresents them with two specimens: a water animal and a water plant. The children apply the criteriathey developed in making the chart to decide if the specimens are plants or animals.

The authors thank the following project staff members for their work in other phases of the project: KatherineCennamo, Mi-Lee Chung, David Eichinger, and Edwin George. The opinions expressed are those of theauthors. An earlier version of this study was presented at the annual meeting of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, April 1995, San Francisco, CA.

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K. (1995). Instructors guide: Reflecting on elementary science. Unpublished manuscript. PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, IN.

Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. S. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflec-tion orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, 153–166.

Abell, S. K., Cennamo, K. S., Anderson, M. A., Bryan, L. A., Campbell, L. M., & Hug, J. W. (1996). Integratedmedia classroom cases in elementary science teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics andScience Teaching, 15, 137–151.

Abell, S. K., Cennamo, K. S., & Campbell, L. M. (1996). Interactive video cases developed for elementaryscience methods courses. Tech Trends, 41, 20–23

Altrichter, H. (1993). The concept of quality in action research: Giving practitioners a voice in educationalresearch. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative voices in educational research (pp. 40–55). London: FalmerPress.

Bell, B., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Language in the science classroom. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.),Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pp. 29–40). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bolin, F. S. (1988). Helping student teachers think about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 48–54.Borko, H., Bellamy, M. L., & Sanders, L. (1992). A cognitive analysis of patterns in science instruction by

expert and novice teachers. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom toreflection (pp. 49–70). New York: Falmer Press.

Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1996, January). Coaching reflective practice among preservice elementary scienceteachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Seattle,WA.

Carter, K., & Anders, D. (1996). Program pedagogy. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook:Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 557–592). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cennamo, K. S., Abell, S. K., & Chung, M. (1996). A “layers of negotiations” model for designing construc-tivist materials. Educational Technology, 36, 39–48.

Cennamo, K. S., Abell, S. K., George, E. J., Chung, M. (1996). The development of integrated media casesfor use in elementary science teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4, 19–36.

Page 19: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

INVESTIGATING REFLECTIVE THINKING 509

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Cobb, P. (1991). Reconstructing elementary school mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,13, 3–22.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.) (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession.New York: Teachers College Press.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.) (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: OpenUniversity Press.

Duckworth, E. (1987). “The having of wonderful ideas” & other essays on teaching & learning. New York:Teachers College Press.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

Erickson, G. L., & MacKinnon, A. M. (1991). Seeing classrooms in new ways: On becoming a science teacher.In D. A. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 15–36). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education:A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 119–136.

Grimmett, P. P. (1988). The nature of reflection and Schon’s conception in perspective. In P. P. Grimmett &G. L. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 5–15). New York: Teachers College Press.

Harlen, W. (1985). Teaching and learning primary science. New York: Teachers College Press.Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Kagan, D. M., & Tippins, D. J. (1992). How U.S. preservice teachers “read” classroom performances. Journal

of Education for Teaching, 18, 149–158.LaBoskey, V. K. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher education. In J.

Calderhead & P. Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 23–38). Washington,DC: Falmer Press.

LaBoskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York:Teachers College Press.

Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 527–569). New York: Macmillan.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.MacKinnon, A. M. (1987). Detecting reflection-in-action among preservice elementary science teachers.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 135–145.McIntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorizing and reflection in initial teacher education. In J. Calderhead & P.

Gates (Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development (pp. 39–52). Washington, DC: FalmerPress.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1992a). Frames of reflection: An introduction. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.),Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 1–8). New York: Falmer Press.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1992b). Transforming chemistry research into chemistry teaching: The complexitiesof adopting new frames for experience. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: Fromclassroom to reflection (pp. 90–108). New York: Falmer Press.

Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physicsmethods course. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 86–95.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67,489–508.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62, 307–332.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Richert, A. E. (1992). The content of student teachers’ reflections within different structures for facilitating

the reflective process. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflec-tion (pp. 171–191). New York: Falmer Press.

Russell, T. (1993). Learning to teach science: Constructivism, reflection, and learning from experience. In K.Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 247–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Page 20: Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learningin the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Valli, L. (Ed.). (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. New York: SUNY Press.von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented

reality (pp. 17–40). New York: Norton.Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1990). Promoting reflective practice

among beginning and experienced teachers. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), En-couraging reflective practice in education (pp. 139–162). New York: Teachers College Press.

510 ABELL ET AL.

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong