View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evidence of Science and Engineering Practices in Preservice Secondary Science Teachers' Instructional Planning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evidence of Science and Engineering Practices in Preservice Secondary Science Teachers' Instructional Planning
Language: English
Authors: French, Debbie A. (ORCID 0000-0002-1887-1205), Burrows, Andrea C.
Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology. Dec 2018 27(6):536-549.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2018
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: DUE1700531
DUE1304405
DUE0903336
1335893
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Science Instruction, Engineering Education, Preservice Teachers, STEM Education, Standards, Methods Courses, Lesson Plans, Intervention, Secondary School Teachers, Science Teachers, Inquiry, Teaching Methods, Scientific Research, Learning Processes, Programming, Scoring Rubrics, Writing Skills
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-018-9742-4
ISSN: 1059-0145
Abstract: There is a current national emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Additionally, many states are transitioning to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which encourage teachers to incorporate engineering in science classrooms as well as have their students learn science by doing science. Methods courses are also shifting to adequately prepare preservice science teachers in these areas. This study examines preservice science teachers' pre- and post-ideal inquiry-based lesson plan scenarios before and after intervention in their Secondary Science Methods I and II courses. These preservice science teachers participated in a variety of opportunities to practice authentic science inquiry (ASI) pedagogical techniques as well as integrated STEM topics, with a particular emphasis on computer programming throughout their 80 h of Methods instruction. ASI is a type of inquiry where students learn science by conducting science research in a grade-appropriate manner. Thirty-eight preservice teachers' scenarios were analyzed using a rubric from Spuck (2014) to determine the degree to which the ten components of ASI were included in scenarios pre- to post-instruction. Trends in ASI component inclusion are discussed. These findings indicate that preservice science teachers are proficient at writing inquiry-based lessons where they planned opportunities for their future students to collaborate, use scientific instrumentation, and collect and analyze data, but need additional support with developing student activities where students create testable questions, revise their question and methods, participate in peer review, and disseminate their results to their peers or the larger scientific community. Overall, the results suggest Methods instruction should reinforce preservice teachers' focus on planning lessons which include opportunities for all ASI components. Interventions in the aforementioned areas of weak inclusion may be beneficial to preservice teachers.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 33
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1195756
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFyiO2Y_dJ9ZZmL5zsnixjQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFNeeYomkjJT7nlO1wIBEICBmx3GghrB-mvt97HXZvfbHM_7Wt35AF-o-dJ5dek7QSk6vE15qlGr1qFNCkLYR0WA0DESXWJ7wq_Vyy11_ufZ_Ab3aEoWZCoE1Lf-75w_aMMHalgkKufjXrpBVIqTYj_vjuzm5RYB0p3gpkWdZ-5C7vmNmvtObtBj-OQ1A9Xg6t6hhehfeAoDqTXU78ulcScR8Uyo90G0wHFX3_GE
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0132835051;4n601dec.18;2018Nov06.09:25;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0132835051-1">Evidence of Science and Engineering Practices in Preservice Secondary Science Teachers’ Instructional Planning </title> <p>There is a current national emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Additionally, many states are transitioning to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which encourage teachers to incorporate engineering in science classrooms as well as have their students learn science by doing science. Methods courses are also shifting to adequately prepare preservice science teachers in these areas. This study examines preservice science teachers’ pre- and post-ideal inquiry-based lesson plan scenarios before and after intervention in their Secondary Science Methods I and II courses. These preservice science teachers participated in a variety of opportunities to practice authentic science inquiry (ASI) pedagogical techniques as well as integrated STEM topics, with a particular emphasis on computer programming throughout their 80 h of Methods instruction. ASI is a type of inquiry where students learn science by conducting science research in a grade-appropriate manner. Thirty-eight preservice teachers’ scenarios were analyzed using a rubric from Spuck (2014) to determine the degree to which the ten components of ASI were included in scenarios pre- to post-instruction. Trends in ASI component inclusion are discussed. These findings indicate that preservice science teachers are proficient at writing inquiry-based lessons where they planned opportunities for their future students to collaborate, use scientific instrumentation, and collect and analyze data, but need additional support with developing student activities where students create testable questions, revise their question and methods, participate in peer review, and disseminate their results to their peers or the larger scientific community. Overall, the results suggest Methods instruction should reinforce preservice teachers’ focus on planning lessons which include opportunities for all ASI components. Interventions in the aforementioned areas of weak inclusion may be beneficial to preservice teachers.</p> <p>Keywords: Inquiry; Authentic scientific inquiry; STEM; Next Generation Science Standards; Engineering education; Preservice teachers; Pedagogy; Perceptions</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-2">Introduction</hd> <p>With the national (US) emphasis on the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), combined with the gradual transition to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), today's middle or high school science teacher may be required to plan instructional <emph>methods</emph> to position students to meet student performance expectations (PEs) such as, "analyze a major global challenge to specify qualitative and quantitative criteria and constraints for solutions that account for societal needs and wants" (NGSS Lead States 2013, p. 103). The PEs represent the integration of crosscutting concepts (CCCs), disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), and science and engineering practices (SEPs) to form a 3-D model of student learning (NGSS Lead States 2013). These PEs are a departure from previous content- and process-based standards and are more closely aligned with how scientific inquiry is conducted (National Research Council 2012). The NGSS present an opportunity for science teachers to incorporate authentic scientific practices in their classrooms. In response, secondary science education Methods courses, which prepare future science teachers, must facilitate the incorporation of improved pedagogies that are more closely aligned with how scientists do science (NRC 2012).</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-3">Literature Review</hd> <p>Science education has been in a state of continuous evaluation and reform since the 1890s (DeBoer 2014). Wallace and Loughran (2012) describe, "the evolution of teacher development from being seen as a curriculum problem (1920s-1950s) to a training problem (1960s-1980s) to a learning problem (1980s-2000s) to a policy problem (1990s-present)" (p. 295). One common theme throughout these reforms is a call for educational experiences that mirror scientific practices for all students and illustrate the nature of science (e.g., DeBoer 2014; Lederman and Lederman 2014). Most recently, there is an emphasis on the shift from inquiry-based teaching Methods to incorporating authentic scientific practices, and integrating STEM, particularly through the NGSS (Crawford 2014; National Research Council 2012).</p> <p>Authentic scientific inquiry (ASI) is defined as, "a variation of inquiry teaching that aligns closely with the work of scientists, as contrasted with traditional school science laboratory exercises (commonly called labs)" (Crawford 2014, p. 518). Spuck (2014) further describes ASI using the following criteria:</p> <p>(a) asking question(s) relevant to real-world issues, (b) using the tools of scientists and engineers, (c) seeing out and evaluating evidence, (d) using that evidence to make a claim, (e) sharing that claim with others in a way that it can be verified, critiqued, and used, and (f) engaging in activities in a constant dialogue with colleagues and within a real-world setting. (p. 123)</p> <p>Spuck provides a ten-item Individual Activity Authentic Science Rating (IAASR) instrument any instructor can use to assess the level of authentic science incorporated in individual lessons or entire courses. These items are listed in Table 1.</p> <p>The positive effects of implementing ASI are well-documented in the literature. For example, by participating in ASI, K-12 students (ages 5-18 years) increased science content knowledge (Abraham 2002; Aydeniz et al. 2011) and increased their understanding of the nature of science (Abraham 2002; Sadler et al. 2010). Students participating in ASI also had a better understanding of the collaborative nature of science (Abraham 2002; Barab and Hay 2001; Bleicher 1996) and the iterative process of science (Aydeniz et al. 2011; Barab and Hay 2001).</p> <p>The results of implementing ASI in K-12 classrooms have implications for the leaky STEM pipeline and getting students interested in underrepresented STEM fields such as the physical sciences. Research shows K-12 students participating in authentic scientific experiences increased their interest in pursuing a scientific major or career, thus keeping these students in the STEM pipeline (Abraham 2002; Laursen et al. 2007). The biological sciences represent the majority of STEM degrees granted; disciplines such as physics, computer science, and engineering represent the lowest number of degrees awarded, particularly for women (Hill et al. 2010). Many students participating in ASI experiences also shifted their career choice from the medical/biological field to the physical sciences (Davis 1999; McNees 2004). While students who shift from biology to physical science are still in the same STEM pipeline, fewer students major in the physical sciences, especially minority students and students from a low socioeconomic background. Because K-12 students are shifting their career choice from the biological to physical sciences due to their experiences with ASI, implementing ASI may be one strategy to increase the number of physical science STEM majors (Davis 1999).</p> <p>While the positive outcomes of implementing ASI in the secondary science classroom are well-researched, one may question why all secondary teachers are not implementing ASI. One reason may be that preservice teachers are likely to experience science being taught by college science faculty using traditional instructional methods such as lecture (Crawford 2014). The preservice science teachers in these environments see science being taught as a collection of facts, or "final form science" (Duschl 1990). Because many college science faculty still implement traditional teaching methods such as lecture and view inquiry as appropriate only for advanced science classes and science majors, many teachers have limited experience with ASI and, therefore, have incomplete perceptions of scientific inquiry (Brown and Melear 2005; Windschitl 2004). Laboratory components, which accompany many lecture-based courses, also may not provide opportunities for students to work through the scientific research process. Research has shown that often, students are more concerned with completing the lab, than learning information from the laboratory experience (Berry et al. 1999). Developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), or the ability for teachers to merge content knowledge with the knowledge of best teaching practices in that particular discipline, is the primary focus of most Methods courses (Shulman 2016). In these Methods courses, preservice science teachers experience a disconnect between how science is taught in their college courses and how they are instructed to teach science in their Methods courses and expected to teach science (Crawford 2014). By providing opportunities for preservice secondary science teachers to engage in authentic scientific inquiry, and, thus, a different way to teach science, the intent is for these preservice science teachers to incorporate ASI in their future classrooms. If preservice teachers can conceptualize classroom ASI, then their future K-12 students could benefit from these experiences. The purpose of this study is to document how three groups of preservice science teachers' instructional planning have changed because of their ASI experiences in their Methods I and II courses.</p> <p>Research studies on the components of the scientific process, that both preservice and beginning inservice science teachers highlight in the development of lesson plans, have yielded differing results. One study showed preservice science teachers too often place an emphasis on science process skills but not data analysis and developing conclusions (Talanquer et al. 2013). Another study found that while teachers are able to identify flaws in others' experimental designs, these teachers had difficulties creating their own experimental designs (Taylor and Dana 2003). Many teachers also receive training on the scientific method (often presented as a series of linear steps) and have limited experience with actually facilitating scientific research; these teachers often pass this perception onto their students (Windschitl et al. 2008). This research study adds additional data to this body of work.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-4">Gap in the Literature</hd> <p>The secondary preservice teachers in this study participated in a variety of constructivist-based lessons and activities on inquiry pedagogical techniques, integrated STEM, and ASI. During their secondary science Methods I and II courses, they were adequately prepared to teach integrated STEM and ASI in their future classrooms. Integrated STEM in this study is defined as utilizing topics already embedded in traditional content and expanding those topics with ASI (Burrows and Slater 2015). This is aligned with the following gap in the literature, "To better prepare preservice and inservice teachers to design and implement integrated units, they must be familiar with the state and national reform recommendations, receive instruction in the integration of science and mathematics, and learn about integrated curriculum resources" (Czerniak and Johnson 2014, p. 407). More recently, Jones and Leagon (2014) also identified a gap, requesting more research be done, "to know more about how epistemological beliefs are related to science teachers' planning and teaching" (p. 842). Additionally, Burrows and Slater (2015) recommend preservice teachers understand how "transdisciplinary principles appear across disciplines" (p. 328).</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-5">Purpose</hd> <p>The purpose of this study is to begin to address the aforementioned gaps through the changes in preservice teachers' ASI lesson planning, as evidenced by their responses on the ideal lesson plan scenarios before and after their science Methods courses. The results from this study are used to inform and improve preservice secondary science teacher Methods instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-6">Research Question</hd> <p>This study expands upon whether the interventions in the secondary science Methods courses changed preservice teachers' frequency of ASI components in their ideal lesson plans written before and after the Methods course. The following research question guided this study:</p> <p>Did the interventions in the secondary science Methods courses change the preservice teachers' ASI focus for their future K-12 students?</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0132835051-8">Participants</hd> <p>The study was conducted at a large, public, PhD-granting university located in the Western USA. Preservice teachers enrolled in Methods I and II concurrently for a total of 80 h of instruction in the fall semester, and they completed their 16-week residency teaching experience during the spring semester. Over a 4-year period (2013-2015; three separate groups), 41 preservice teachers enrolled in the secondary science Methods I and II courses and participated in this study. Three students had incomplete pre- or post-scenarios and were thus excluded from this study, leaving a final sample size of 38 participants.</p> <p>The majority of the participants were undergraduates, while the others were post-baccalaureate and graduate students. Post-baccalaureate students had previously obtained a bachelor's degree, typically in a STEM content area, and were returning to college to take requisite education coursework to obtain a teaching licensure. For post-baccalaureate students, no additional degree was awarded, but teaching certification was granted upon three semesters of completed coursework including student teaching residency. Graduate students from a science content area also had the option of taking Methods to determine if they were interested in pursuing a career in science education. Table 2 contains participants' demographic data as well as participants' level of education.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-9">Scenarios</hd> <p>To determine which ASI components that the preservice science teachers included in their ideal lesson plans, due to the interventions in the Methods courses, the preservice teachers completed the <emph>Ideal Lesson Plan Scenario</emph> questionnaire (see Table 5 for the questionnaire) at the beginning and end of their Methods courses. The pre- and post-scenarios were read through each semester and the instructors reflected on emergent themes to better inform the Methods instruction.</p> <p>The qualitative data from the scenario responses were scored using a rubric with the IAASR components according to a modified model presented by Spuck (2014) (see Table 1) following a method similar to Goldston et al. (2012). If an ASI component was described in the scenario, a score of <emph>yes</emph> was assigned. If the component was only partially described, a score of <emph>in part</emph> was assigned. If the ASI component was not described in the scenario, a score of <emph>no</emph> was assigned.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-10">Description of Interventions</hd> <p>One of the primary goals of the Methods courses is to develop preservice science teachers' PCK in science. Preservice teachers' content knowledge was enhanced through general lesson plan development and researching misconceptions commonly held by K-12 students, while pedagogical content knowledge was increased through the students creating sample teaching videos followed with analysis of the created videos and lessons. The Methods courses were designed according to the National Science Teachers' Association's (NSTA) Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, and the Methods courses emphasize the following: (a) content knowledge, (b) content pedagogy, (c) learning environments, (d) safety, (e) impact on student learning, and (f) professional knowledge and skills (NSTA 2012). The preservice teachers participated in a variety of interventions discussed later in this section and received 80 h of instruction over the semester; this is above the minimum of 50 h needed for teacher change (Wei et al. 2009).</p> <p>The Methods courses focused on traditional science teacher preparation topics such as instructional strategies, inclusion of diverse learners and differentiated instruction, developmental theories, and discipline knowledge. These courses featured many activities for the preservice teachers including: reading and critiquing science education research articles, interviewing their mentor teacher, researching curriculum at residency school/grade level, developing and presenting demonstrations, and creating a 10-20-min microteach lesson. The microteach was video recorded so the preservice teachers could peer-review other classmate's microteaches (and receive feedback from their peers), as well as receive feedback from the instructors. The preservice teachers received instruction on how to create rubrics, effective science lessons, classroom management, incorporating technology and science writing into their curriculum, and creating a successful edTPA—a subject specific portfolio assessment for preservice teachers. They also used resources (e.g., <ulink href="http://assessment.aaas.org/">http://assessment.aaas.org/</ulink>)) to identify student misconceptions by grade and subject level and used discrepant events and other best practices to confront future students' misconceptions. Science safety and assessment techniques were also incorporated throughout the Methods classes.</p> <p>Two possible distinguishing features of these secondary science Methods courses were the inclusion of computer programming, connecting standards to engineering jobs, and opportunities to work through the scientific research and engineering design processes. These topics were emphasized throughout both Methods course offerings. The preservice teachers received instruction on types of engineering design problems and developed additional engineering design problems to focus on in their future K-12 classrooms. They worked through the engineering design process by building and programming Lego Mindstorms© robots to complete a specific task. They also developed integrated STEM lessons using programming in NetLogo and robotics. Instruction on how to include computer programming and logic in all science disciplines was included in these Methods courses. Because only 5% of high schools nationally offer computer science courses and almost 500,000 new computer and information technology jobs will be available in the next decade, computer science was integrated into the Methods curriculum to show these preservice science teachers how programming could be incorporated into all of the sciences at a variety of levels (Bureau of Labor and Statistics 2016; Exploring Computer Science 2016; Sengupta et al. 2018). Integrating engineering and computer science into STEM K-12 classrooms mirrors the recommendations made by Burrows and Slater to teach STEM in a fully integrated manner as opposed to separate classes (2015).</p> <p>Starting in 2013, the preservice teachers received instruction on collecting and analyzing data using analytic probeware. The preservice teachers showcased their experiences with the probeware in their culminating course project, as the development of a 3-week unit plan as incorporating an activity utilizing probeware was required. Preservice teachers included real-world experiences in lesson plans developed in class. They also developed a research project connecting their content area to health sciences (2013). These preservice teachers developed their own testable question, planned an investigation, collected and analyzed data, developed conclusions based on evidence, and presented their work at a regional conference.</p> <p>In 2014 and 2015, the preservice teachers conducted these same activities as in previous years, except instead of presenting at the health science conference, they created a research project using the Citizen Science platform Zooniverse (https://<ulink href="http://www.zooniverse.org/">www.zooniverse.org/</ulink>). The preservice teachers then created and presented a poster for their research project. They also included applicable standards and discussed how they would use this research in their future K-12 STEM classrooms.</p> <p>Each year, the preservice teachers also created an inquiry-based learning (activity) center for middle-school students at the university's school centered around state and national standards. The middle-school students came to the Methods class, experienced the learning centers, and provided feedback for the emerging teachers, while the preservice teachers watched, interacted, and learned what they could to improve their learning centers. For more information about these activities, please see (http://<ulink href="http://www.uwyo.edu/education/deans-office/college-news/2014/science%20misconceptions.html;">www.uwyo.edu/education/deans-office/college-news/2014/science%20misconceptions.html;</ulink><ulink href="http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2017/11/future-science-teachers-gain-hands-on-experience-at-uw.html">http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2017/11/future-science-teachers-gain-hands-on-experience-at-uw.html</ulink>). Table 4 lists the major projects from the Methods I and II courses as well as a sample timeframe indicating the project's duration and location during the fall semesters.</p> <p>The preservice teachers also had ample opportunities to provide and receive feedback from their peers. Peer review was emphasized for the following: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) resume and teaching philosophy, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) Health or Citizen Science research presentation, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) Demo Presentations (recorded), (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) microteach I (recorded), and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) microteach II (live). For recorded events, the preservice teachers watched and rated the teaching on an educational website and provided feedback based on criteria set by the instructor and the person who uploaded the video (<ulink href="http://www.youdemo.info">http://www.youdemo.info</ulink>).</p> <p>Table 5 lists the scenario questions.</p> <p>The ASI components within the interventions mentioned in Table 4 were taught explicitly and highlighted in lesson extensions for the preservice teachers to consider implementing in their future K-12 classrooms. For example, in both the Health and Citizen Science research projects and poster sessions, these teachers presented their own research project and were required to discuss how they would implement a similar assignment in their classrooms and connect their research to appropriate state and NGSS standards. Some components, such as collaboration, were implicitly used throughout the majority of activities in the Methods classes. Additionally, the preservice teachers did receive explicit instruction on the benefits of incorporating collaborative activities in their future science classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-11">Analysis</hd> <p>To determine whether there was a change in the ASI components preservice teachers included in their responses in their ideal lesson plan scenarios, due to the abovementioned interventions in the two Methods courses, the preservice teachers' responses to their ideal lesson scenarios were scored using the ASI Rubric (Spuck 2014). Preservice teachers' responses were scored according to whether the component was fully (<emph>yes</emph>), partially (<emph>in part</emph>), or not included in the scenario (<emph>no</emph>). Table 6 aligns the ASRI components with the activities in the two Methods courses.</p> <p>The Methods I and II classes were taught concurrently in the fall semester—the last semester before the preservice teachers did their student teaching residency experience in the spring semester. The Methods classes met Tuesdays and Thursdays for 75 min each. This generous block of time allowed the instructors to incorporate the activities listed in Table 6.</p> <p>The two instructors (authors) independently coded the scenarios with an inter-rater reliability of 85%. For responses without an initial consensus, the authors discussed the response and then collaboratively scored that response. These codes were then entered into a matrix to display the changes pre- to post-intervention (see Fig. 1). Light gray areas represent improvement (<emph>no</emph> pre to <emph>in part</emph> post, <emph>in part</emph> pre to <emph>yes</emph> post, or <emph>no</emph> pre to <emph>yes</emph> post). White areas represent areas of no change. Dark gray areas with white text represent areas of decreased inclusion (<emph>yes</emph> pre to <emph>no</emph> post, <emph>yes</emph> pre to <emph>in part</emph> post, or <emph>in part</emph> pre to <emph>no</emph> post).How scenario responses were coded to assess change in participants' responses pre- to post-intervention is shown</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-12">Matrix Description</hd> <p>Figure 2 is a sample matrix which depicts ASI no. 1 (students having an opportunity to work toward a solution to a real-world problem). Displaying these data in this matrix shows shifts in participants' responses pre to post. The upward vertical numbers in <emph>white cells</emph> represent no change from pre to post. For example, the two authors/raters coded 13 participants' answers "no" pre and post, two answers "in part" pre and post, and one answer "yes" pre and post. Four participants were coded "yes" pre and "no" post. Zero participants were coded "yes" pre and "in part" post. Two participants wrote scenarios that were coded "in part" pre and "no" post. The lower right-hand side of the chart (or three cells below the positive diagonal) represents the area of positive change; these cells are shaded in gray. One participant responded <emph>in part</emph> pre and <emph>yes</emph> post. Ten participants moved from <emph>no</emph> pre to <emph>in part</emph> post. Five participants moved from <emph>no</emph> pre to <emph>yes</emph> post. Forty-two percent of participants (16/38) showed increased evidence post-instruction of having their students work toward a solution to a problem.The shift in preservice teachers' responses of for ASI component no. 1 pre- to post-instruction is depicted</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>Table 7 provides an example statement from a student-submitted scenario along with the reason why the item was coded as such.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-13">Findings</hd> <p>Figure 3 features an overall snapshot of the preservice science teachers' inclusion of ASI components. Responses were grouped into three categories: <emph>decreased implementation</emph> where the rubric pre- to post-score went from <emph>yes</emph> to <emph>in part</emph>, <emph>yes</emph> to <emph>no</emph>, or <emph>in part</emph> to <emph>no</emph> (the dark gray cells with white font in Fig. 1); <emph>no change</emph> where a participants' score—good or bad—did not change (the gray cells in Fig. 1); and <emph>increased implementation</emph> where the pre- to post-score went from <emph>no</emph> to <emph>in part</emph> or <emph>yes</emph>, or <emph>in part</emph> to <emph>yes</emph> (the light gray cells in Fig. 1)<emph>.</emph> The components with the highest increased implementation were as follows: (A) analyze and interpret data (<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>), (B) conduct explanations science (<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>), and (C) communicate results (<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>). Defining engineering problems (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>) and designing engineering solutions (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>) ranked the lowest for increased implementation.The overall trend of ASI inclusion in the lesson scenarios is depicted here</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>The initial snapshot of data showcases the amount of ASI component change included in the scenarios pre- to post-instruction. The results were then grouped into four categories—(A) limited change (high inclusion), (B) limited change (low inclusion), (C) moderate change, and (D) emerging change. <emph>Limited change (high inclusion)</emph> meant that preservice teachers frequently included that component pre- and post-instruction. <emph>Limited change (low inclusion)</emph> meant that preservice teachers rarely included that component pre- and post-instruction. <emph>Moderate change</emph> was used to describe reasonable gains in inclusion pre- to post-instruction. Finally, <emph>emerging change</emph> was used to describe areas where small growth occurred. For the limited change (high inclusion) group, 27 preservice science teachers planned for their students to use scientific instruments to collect and analyze data (ASI no. 3) and 15 of them described opportunities for their K-12 students to collaborate with other students during their investigations (ASI no. 9) before and after Methods instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-14">Limited Change, High Inclusion</hd> <p>The areas of limited change (high inclusion) pre- to post-instruction include preservice teachers providing the K-12 students with opportunities to use scientific instruments to collect and analyze data (no. 3) and to work in collaborative groups (no. 9). This may indicate students have previous experience with these two components and felt comfortable including these pieces in their scenarios before and after their Methods instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-15">Areas Most Improved by Methods Interventions</hd> <p>The areas most improved after the Methods instruction included preservice teacher planning for the students to (no. 1) work toward a solution to a real-world problem (16 students, or 42%, showed improvement), (no. 2) explore and summarize current information (11 students, or 29%, showed improvement), and (no. 5) analyze evidence to draw conclusions (10 students, or 26% showed improvement).</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-16">Areas of Moderate Change</hd> <p>Encouraging reasonable gains were made in the following areas: using "grade-appropriate" mathematics (no. 4), developing or refining procedures (no. 7), and communicating the Methods used and the results of their experiment to their peers for review and feedback (no. 8). While the moderate change is encouraging, this showcases a need for additional interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-17">Emerging Change</hd> <p>Two areas showed low inclusion with limited change: dissemination of their results to the broader [scientific] community and providing opportunities for students to develop or refine their procedures—the iterative nature of the scientific process. Two preservice teachers incorporated opportunities for their students pre-instruction (one full and one partial) and two preservice teachers incorporated chances post-instruction (again, one full and one partial) to no. 10 ("Record the results of their work where it is accessible to the broader scientific community") (Spuck 2014, p. 157). This leaves 34 preservice teachers that did not include an opportunity in their scenarios for students to disseminate the results of the inquiry to the broader community. Similarly, 33 students did not include opportunities for their students to further develop or refine the procedures throughout the inquiry scenario (ASI no. 6). Without opportunities for the future K-12 STEM students to develop and refine procedures, these same students may see science as a linear process.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-18">Discussion</hd> <p>The preservice teachers participating in this study were immersed in a variety of STEM and ASI interventions in their two Methods courses. For example, the participating preservice teachers created 3-week unit plans showcasing integrated STEM pedagogical techniques; use of technology through data acquisition and analysis probeware, robotics, and programming; and use of archival data. They also conducted a small research project and made connections as to how they could incorporate it in their future classrooms. The preservice teachers mapped the NGSS to their unit plan lesson. The preservice science teachers received explicit instruction on how to read and implement the NGSS, as well as locate aligned Common Core State Standards in mathematics and English/Language Arts through the NGSS.</p> <p>The data reveals which components of ASI these preservice science teachers included in their ideal lesson plan scenarios. Initially, the preservice science teachers provided many opportunities in their plans for their students to use scientific instrumentation to collect and analyze data as well as for the students to work collaboratively. These preservice teachers continued to incorporate these activities in their post-scenarios. Because these preservice teachers included the two components pre and post, this suggests preservice teachers have a strong background in using science instrumentation and technology and value working in groups from their previous coursework. The teachers initially scored low on all the other categories. This may indicate that the preservice teachers have little experience with other parts of ASI, or the experience did not transfer to this particular assessment. The results of this study highlight possible gaps in preservice science teachers' backgrounds and show a need for opportunities for preservice science teachers to participate in research projects during their undergraduate careers.</p> <p>Interestingly, almost all participants included some type of hands-on activity. However, ASI is more than hands-on activities. From prior research studies, the educational community understands that K-12 students need to develop testable questions or identify a problem, develop experimental methods, refine those methods, and communicate their results to peers. Because these components were not seen in the preservice teachers' ideal lesson scenarios, more emphasis should be placed on these components in Methods courses.</p> <p>As mentioned previously, these undergraduate preservice teachers have a concurrent major in a STEM content area but have had limited (or no) opportunities to conduct science research. Typically, college science classes feature lecture-based instruction and do not provide students an opportunity to develop their own scientific questions or identify problems in engineering. Also, few students would have had the opportunity to present their work at (or even attend) a scientific conference or write up the results of their experiment to disseminate their work to a broader audience.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-19">Conclusions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0132835051-20">Limitations</hd> <p>The ideal lesson plan scenario was originally developed to assess preservice science teachers' instructional planning and included the words <emph>inquiry lab</emph>. The scenarios are broad overviews of the preservice teachers' ideas of inquiry lessons taken in 30-min time frames on two separate days (beginning and ending of the fall semester). It was not initially developed to be a measurement of ASI. However, the authors noted incidences of ASI inclusion in the pre- and post-scenarios and wanted to classify these responses accordingly to address the gap in the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-21">Implications</hd> <p>Even though the preservice science teachers had multiple opportunities to gain experience with ASI components in a variety of ways in these two Methods courses, there is room for improvement in both teaching the courses and in the preservice teachers' final lesson scenarios. Thus, the results yield implications for similar Methods courses. While the preservice teachers were required to take a concurrent science major, few had opportunities to conduct scientific research experiences from start to finish. Many students only had opportunities to collect and analyze data within their laboratory courses. Because the future teachers had previous opportunities to collect and analyze data, this was a skill that the preservice teachers understood, and consequently, incorporated in their ideal inquiry lesson scenarios. Additionally, the preservice teachers worked in collaborative groups in their science laboratories, so this was also a skill that many preservice teachers incorporated. However, while the preservice science teachers had experienced all aspects of ASI in the two Methods courses, some components did not transfer over to the inquiry scenarios. The authors argue that ASI, or modeling the science research process from question through dissemination, needs to take a more prominent role in college science courses and science Methods instruction along with explicit instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-22">Conclusions</hd> <p>Analyzing preservice science teachers' scenario lesson planning ideas revealed the teachers' perceptions of an ideal inquiry lesson. It also provided insight to the ASI process and that the preservice teachers felt comfortable with including certain aspects into their ideal inquiry lesson plan scenarios—components such as having their students use scientific instruments and technology, collect and analyze data, work collaboratively, and have students develop their own scientific explanations. The study revealed areas for Methods course improvement including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>) focusing on incorporating STEM concepts, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>) prompting students to ask their own questions, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>) developing and refining their questions and experimental design, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>) disseminating their results to their peers and the larger scientific community. Additionally, all levels of science courses should incorporate more ASI.</p> <p>By analyzing preservice teachers' lesson planning decisions, Methods instructors of all content areas can gain a better picture of what preservice teachers value, feel comfortable including in their lessons, and highlight areas where additional support is needed based on the lesson artifacts. Recently, the authors asked their preservice teachers to evaluate pre-existing lesson plans according to the level of inclusion of ASI components. Mid-semester, the preservice teachers ranked their pre-ideal lesson scenarios according to the level of ASI components. While this was an informative activity for the preservice teachers, it is not yet clear if this had any lasting impact on these preservice science teachers' instructional planning. With the aspiration of improving K-12 classroom activities, ASI could be a critical component in both stopping the leaky STEM pipeline and identifying areas that preservice teachers can investigate and engage in further. Consequently, Methods instructors can model the ASI process in class and allow preservice teachers to experience ASI first hand while the preservice teachers hear explicit instruction on the importance of ASI for their K-12 students.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-23">Funding</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge partial to full funding, as well as activity trials, for this study from the following grants: (A) Sustaining Wyoming's Advancing Reach in Mathematics and Science - SWARMS (NSF DUE Noyce #1339853) and (B) Faculty PD of Solid Body Guitar Design (NSF ATE DUE #0903336).</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-24">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0132835051-25">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>Dr. Debbie French has received the following NSF Grants: ATE DUE #1700531, #1304405, and #0903336. She is an active member of the American Association of Physics Teachers and is on their committee for Physics Teacher Preparation. Dr. French is also a member of NSTA, PAC-TE, ASTE, ASCD, and PASCD. Dr. French has not received any honoraria and does not own stock in a company.</p> <p>Dr. Andrea Burrows has received funding from the NSF Noyce Grant (ends in 2019) (#1335893) and Wyoming Department of Education MSP grant (ending 2018) (#1003857). Dr. Burrows is on the following committees: AERA AR SIG Chair, AERA STL SIG Program Chair, AERA CIAE Chair-Elect, ASEE PCEE Division Program Chair, and the ASTE Membership committee. She has not received honoraria and does not own company stocks.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-26">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-27">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0132835051-28">References</hd> <ref id="AN0132835051-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abraham LM, What do high school science students gain from field based research apprenticeship programs?, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 2002, 75, 5, 229, 223, 10.1080/00098650209603945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aydeniz M, Baksa K, Skinner J, Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school students' understanding of scientific inquiry, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2011, 20, 4, 403, 421, 10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barab SA, Hay KE, Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp, Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 2001, 38, 1, 70, 102, 10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<70::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berry A, Mulhall P, Loughran JJ, Gunston RF, Helping students learn from laboratory work, Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 1999, 45, 1, 27, 31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bleicher RE, High school students learning science in university research laboratories, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1996, 33, 10, 1115, 1133, 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199612)33:10<1115::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-V</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brown SL, Melear CT, Investigation of secondary science teachers' beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2005, 43, 9, 938, 962, 10.1002/tea.20110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2016). U.S. Development of Labor, Occupational employment statistics, Accessed 27 Feb 2016., <ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/oes">www.bls.gov/oes</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2015). A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary teacher preparation., Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2-3), 318-330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Crawford B, Lederman NG, Abell SK, From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom, Handbook of research on science education, 2014, New York, Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Czerniak CM, Johnson CC, Lederman NG, Abel SK, Interdisciplinary science teaching, Handbook of research on science education, 2014, New York, Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, D. D. (1999). The research apprenticeship program: promoting careers in biomedical science and the health professions for minority populations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Ontario.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeBoer GE, Lederman NG, Abell SK, The history of science curriculum reform in the United States, Handbook of research on science education, 2014, New York, Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duschl RA, Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development, 1990, New York, Teachers College Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Exploring Computer Science. (2016). Accessed 27 Feb 2016., <ulink href="http://www.exploringcs.org/about/mission,">http://www.exploringcs.org/about/mission,</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldston JM, Dantzler J, Day J, Webb B, A psychometric approach to the development of a 5E lesson plan scoring instrument for inquiry-based teaching, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2012, 24, 3, 527, 551, 10.1007/s10972-012-9327-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill C, Corbett C, St. Rose A, Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, 2010, Washington, DC, AAUW</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones GM, Leagon M, Lederman NG, Abell SK, Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: reforming practice, Handbook of research on science education, 2014, New York, Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laursen S, Liston C, Thiry H, Graf J, What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms, CBE Life Sciences Education, 2007, 6, 1, 49, 64, 10.1187/cbe.06-05-0165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman NG, Lederman JS, Lederman NG, Abell SK, Research on teaching and learning the nature of science, Handbook of research on science education, 2014, New York, Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNees, P. (2004)., Why Janie can't engineer: raising girls to succeed (pp. C09). The Washington Post.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, 2012, Washington, D. C., The National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Next generation science standards: for states, by states, 2013, Washington, D. C, The National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NSTA (2012). Standards for science teacher preparation. Accessed 7 Apr 16., <ulink href="http://www.nsta.org/preservice/docs/2012NSTAPreserviceScienceStandards.pdf">http://www.nsta.org/preservice/docs/2012NSTAPreserviceScienceStandards.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler TD, Burgin S, McKinney L, Ponjuan L, Learning science through research apprenticeships: a critical review of the literature, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2010, 47, 3, 235, 256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM education., arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman LS, Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 2016, 15, 2, 4, 14, 10.3102/0013189X015002004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spuck T, Spuck T, Jenkins L, Dou R, Putting the "authenticity" in science learning, Einstein fellows: best practices in STEM education, 2014, New York, Peter Lang, 118, 156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talanquer V, Tomanek D, Novodvorsky I, Assessing students' understanding of inquiry: what do prospective science teachers notice?, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2013, 50, 2, 189, 208, 10.1002/tea.21074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor JA, Dana TM, Secondary school physics teachers' conceptions of scientific evidence: an exploratory case study, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2003, 40, 8, 721, 736, 10.1002/tea.10108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace J, Loughran J, Fraser BJ, Tobin K, McRobbie CJ, Science teacher learning, Second international handbook of science education, 2012, 295, 306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei RC, Darling-Hammond L, Andrew A, Richardson N, Orphanos S, Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad, 2009, Oxford, National Staff Development Council</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windschitl M, Folk theories of "inquiry:" how preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004, 41, 5, 481, 512, 10.1002/tea.20010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M, Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations, Science Education, 2008, 92, 5, 941, 967, 10.1002/sce.20259</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Debbie A. French and Andrea C. Burrows</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1195756
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evidence of Science and Engineering Practices in Preservice Secondary Science Teachers' Instructional Planning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22French%2C+Debbie+A%2E%22">French, Debbie A.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1887-1205">0000-0002-1887-1205</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrows%2C+Andrea+C%2E%22">Burrows, Andrea C.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Science+Education+and+Technology%22"><i>Journal of Science Education and Technology</i></searchLink>. Dec 2018 27(6):536-549.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: DUE1700531<br />DUE1304405<br />DUE0903336<br />1335893
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Methods+Courses%22">Methods Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lesson+Plans%22">Lesson Plans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Programming%22">Programming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scoring+Rubrics%22">Scoring Rubrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10956-018-9742-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1059-0145
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: There is a current national emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Additionally, many states are transitioning to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which encourage teachers to incorporate engineering in science classrooms as well as have their students learn science by doing science. Methods courses are also shifting to adequately prepare preservice science teachers in these areas. This study examines preservice science teachers' pre- and post-ideal inquiry-based lesson plan scenarios before and after intervention in their Secondary Science Methods I and II courses. These preservice science teachers participated in a variety of opportunities to practice authentic science inquiry (ASI) pedagogical techniques as well as integrated STEM topics, with a particular emphasis on computer programming throughout their 80 h of Methods instruction. ASI is a type of inquiry where students learn science by conducting science research in a grade-appropriate manner. Thirty-eight preservice teachers' scenarios were analyzed using a rubric from Spuck (2014) to determine the degree to which the ten components of ASI were included in scenarios pre- to post-instruction. Trends in ASI component inclusion are discussed. These findings indicate that preservice science teachers are proficient at writing inquiry-based lessons where they planned opportunities for their future students to collaborate, use scientific instrumentation, and collect and analyze data, but need additional support with developing student activities where students create testable questions, revise their question and methods, participate in peer review, and disseminate their results to their peers or the larger scientific community. Overall, the results suggest Methods instruction should reinforce preservice teachers' focus on planning lessons which include opportunities for all ASI components. Interventions in the aforementioned areas of weak inclusion may be beneficial to preservice teachers.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 33
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1195756
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1195756
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10956-018-9742-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 536
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Methods Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lesson Plans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Programming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scoring Rubrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evidence of Science and Engineering Practices in Preservice Secondary Science Teachers' Instructional Planning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: French, Debbie A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burrows, Andrea C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1059-0145
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Science Education and Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1