Different Ways of Coping with Scientific Knowledge in
Elementary Science Classrooms
Shinho Jang and Charles W. Anderson
Michigan State University
Presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, April 2004
Introduction
For decades, there has been a common belief that scientific knowledge is
essential for good science teaching (Carlsen, 1991; Hashweh, 1987; Schwab, 1964;
Putnam & Borko, 2000; Wilson & Berne, 1999), implying that with better science
knowledge, science teachers engage in effective teaching performance to make good
curricular and instructional decisions.
It is also noticeable that there are a variety of scientific concepts and propositions
around various science subjects of which science teachers need to have command for
effective teaching practice. K-12 state and national science education standards
particularly provide available lists of a variety of science concepts for science teachers
(e.g., see American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993;
National Research Council [NRC], 1996, 2000). However, mastery of a list of the
scientific knowledge has been considered problematic (Barba, 1998). On the one hand,
scientific concepts are so complex and abstract that science teachers find enormous
difficulty attaining scientific understanding for all of the various science topics through
gaining a list of concepts and propositions (Brockmeier & Harre, 1997; Collins &
Ferguson, 1993). On the other hand, teachers’ acquisition of the listed science concepts
does not necessarily guarantee their effective teaching practice that accompanies
students’ scientific sense making (Van Driel & Verloop, 2002; Wiske, 1998). Given the
primary difficulties to develop good scientific knowledge for teaching science effectively,
we need to understand what aspects of scientific knowledge would be fundamental that
science teachers should look for in helping students make sense of the scientific world.
In this study, therefore, we address the question: What does it mean for science
teachers to have a profound understanding of fundamental science? In trying to
understand what kinds of scientific knowledge would be crucial for teaching science
effectively, we need to define what it means to understand science. In math education,
Liping Ma (1999) has studied what she describes as “profound understanding of
fundamental mathematics.” Ma suggests fundamental ways in which teachers teach
mathematics for understanding. In this study, we also hope to address a substantial
question about science teachers’ scientific knowledge and practice.
We describe three elementary teacher candidates’ cases to investigate what
approaches to sense-making strategies the teachers exhibited in three different
contexts: interview, teaching practice, and students’ classroom practice. In discussing
their ways of making sense of science, we also examine what types of scientific
1
knowledge and practice they used for their teaching practice to help students make
sense of science. We then discuss what kinds of science knowledge and practice are
fundamental in elementary science.
Background
To understand how students make sense of a complex science topic, Hogan and
Fisherkeller (1996) particularly discussed the ways in which middle students are
engaged in learning science of a particular topic of ecological matter. They suggested
that middle school students’ understanding could be distinguished along two
dimensions: Compatibility with expert propositions and elaboration of ideas. They were
able to distinguish between students who stated scientific ideas correctly but failed to
connect those ideas with examples from their own personal experience or other sources
(compatible-sketchy) and students who made those connections (compatibleelaborate). They suggested that elaboration dimension indicates students’ possession
of valuable scientific habits of mind and personal experiences that are crucial for active
sense making in science.
Hogan and Fisherkeller’s findings are also related to science teachers’ ways of
making sense of science in their teaching practice. Considering the various types and
ways in which science teachers develop essential scientific knowledge for their teaching
practice, we often encounter many teachers who are able to correctly come up with a
variety of lists of science topics and propositions without elaborating on what it means to
understand a scientific idea, exhibiting compatible-sketchy understanding (Anderson,
2004; Hogan & Fisherkeller, 1996). Especially in elementary science teaching, though,
we find many teachers who even display incompatible-sketchy or – elaborate
understanding, demonstrating the significant differences between their understanding
and expert’s ideas and propositions. However, the reality in science teaching is that
there are few teachers who are able to connect those scientific ideas with specific
examples, exhibiting compatible-elaborate understanding, going beyond mastery of lists
of scientific topics and propositions.
Given the fact that there are a lot of science topics and knowledge that science
teachers have to master and which present various difficulties, it is necessary for us to
define what it means to understand any science topic well enough to teach it effectively.
There has been a common consensus that teachers with more science knowledge are
better prepared to engage in effective teaching practice (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko,
1999; National Research Council, 1996, 2000; Kennedy, 1998). Supovitz and Turner
(2000) found that teachers’ content preparation has a powerful influence on teaching
practice. Their empirical study employed hierarchical linear modeling to examine the
relationship between professional development focusing on enhancing teacher’s subject
matter knowledge and teachers’ teaching practice. Monk (1994) found that there are
positive relationships between teachers’ subject matter preparation and teaching
practice that ultimately increases improvement in students’ performance. Van Driel,
Beijaard, & Verloop (2001) also suggested that science teachers’ practical knowledge
and content knowledge contribute to the improvement of their teaching practice.
Individual teacher efforts to develop their science knowledge make a significant
difference in ensuring the quality of their teaching practice.
2
Despite the findings about the effects of teacher’s scientific knowledge, we still
have little information of what kinds of science knowledge would influence which
aspects of science teaching practice for effective students learning. To help students
make sense of science, we need to be aware of what types of science knowledge we
should look for (Anderson, 2003). With respect to scientific practice, aside from some
who believe scientific inquiry is the essential scientific practice, the meaning of and the
kinds of scientific inquiry has tended to be vaguely defined by different people (Roth,
McGinn, & Bowen, 1998). To engage the students in scientific understanding, therefore,
we need to better understand what aspects of scientific practice would be fundamental
for making sense of science.
Schwab (1978) put the emphasis on scientific inquiry as essential teacher
knowledge. Schwab suggested that the teaching of scientific inquiry be a priority in
science education, and that teachers teach students both to conduct investigations in
inquiry and to view science itself as a process of inquiry. Schwab stresses syntactical
structure as important teacher knowledge in science teaching, meaning rules of
evidence and proof that guide inquiry in a discipline – the ways of establishing new
knowledge and determining the validity of claims (Kennedy, 1990; Schwab, 1978;
Shulman, 1986).
If we try to engage in scientific inquiry to learn and teach science, though, we
need more information and further explanation of what particular scientific knowledge is
fundamental for enacting scientific practice. For instance, we think that Schwab’s notion
of inquiry needs to be clarified. In spite of his framework on inquiry, his notion of inquiry
did not seem to be clearly addressed, since he did not provide us with further detailed
explanation of what particular knowledge is necessary for scientific practice in
implementing the scientific inquiry. Further, there is little research addressing what
specific aspects of scientific inquiry are important for successfully implementing
scientific practice based upon various aspects of science knowledge.
Without an awareness of the fundamental nature of science knowledge and
practice, we believe that teachers frequently end up encountering the difficulties that
inhibit successful teaching practice for students’ scientific understanding. Thus, we need
more information of what kinds of scientific knowledge and practice we need look for in
effective science teaching. Our definition includes three dimensions, which form the
basis for our research questions. They are described in the Theoretical Framework,
below.
Theoretical Framework
To discuss what constitutes important science knowledge and practice, it is
important to understand the nature of scientists’ science first. Whereas school science
frequently focuses on book knowledge, such as discrete facts, definitions, diagrams and
sequences of events, and problem-solving skills, scientists’ science has different
qualities and features of knowledge and practice in the sense that they work on making
sense of the material world (Sharma & Anderson, 2003). Paying attention to the
features of scientists’ science is valuable and important to school science because it
helps us understand how scientific knowledge and practice are actually constructed and
developed.
3
Anderson (2003) suggests the substantial features of effective scientific practice,
which entails three major parts: science knowledge and practice, sense-making
strategies, and scientific habits of mind.
1. Science Knowledge and Scientific Practice. Science knowledge consists of a
substantial number of three types of knowledge claims: experiences, patterns,
and models. It is essential to distinguish these types of knowledge. Experiences
refer to observations created through interactions with the objects, systems, and
phenomena of the material world. Scientific data are recorded experiences that
meet criteria for accuracy and reproducibility. Patterns in experience refer to data
displays such as charts and graphs; also verbal or mathematical expressions of
patterns in experience such as generalizations and scientific laws. Theories and
models refer to systematic explanations of patterns in experience or data that
apply to all data in a domain and can be tested against new data.
Scientific practices consist of application and inquiry. Application means using
scientific models to describe, explain, and predict experiences in their domains,
and to design systems or strategies for controlling objects, systems, and
phenomena in the material world. Inquiry means using arguments from evidence
to find patterns in experience and create explanatory models.
2. Sense-making strategies. Different sense-making strategies are used when we
attempt to understand scientific world. Procedural display refers to producing
correct answers by following memorized procedures. Practical reasoning (craft
knowledge) refers to achieving practical results by reasoning that is actionoriented, person- and context-bound, tacit, integrated, and based on beliefs.
Narrative reasoning is used to make sense of the world in terms of linked, linear
sequences of events. This strategy is used to engage narrative explanations of
systems and phenomena in the material world. Model-based reasoning refers to
developing and using explicit models or theories that account for phenomena
within a domain of applicability. This strategy is used to make sense of the
scientific world.
3. Scientific habits of mind: curiosity and rigor. Engagement in scientific practice
involves curiosity about their natural environments and rigor in their reasoning to
make sense of the material world.
Methods
Context of the study
The data presented in this paper come from the experiences of three elementary
teacher candidates in their internship year in Michigan State University’s 5-year teacher
preparation program. They took part in the full-year internship after completing their
bachelor’s degrees. During the internship, they worked in a mentor teacher’s classroom
4 days a week and took a sequence of four MSU master’s-level courses focused on
teaching subject matter and professional issues. They volunteered to participate in our
study exploring their knowledge and practice.
4
Data Collection
For the study, we collected data on six elementary teacher candidates in the final
two years of a five-year teacher preparation program (their senior and intern years). The
candidates had a range of backgrounds and science knowledge. The data include
content knowledge interviews focusing on topics that they were teaching during their
internships. The six content topics covered in the interviews were simple machines,
sounds, electricity and magnetism, condensation/evaporation, land pollution, and
contraction/expansion. For this paper, we report data on only three teacher candidates,
since the three represent other candidates fairly well. The data was collected during the
spring of 2003, as we observed and interviewed the three candidates. To investigate
their practice, we observed their teaching and made field notes about the candidates’
science classroom teaching. We also collected assignments completed by all of the
candidates, including their journals, lesson plans/reports, autobiographies, portfolios,
and activity worksheets. We interviewed them before and after their teaching practice
regarding their planning, teaching, assessment, and reflection, and collected artifacts
such as their lesson plans/reports and examples of student work. We videotaped their
teaching and had stimulated-recall interviews after their teaching to discuss what and
how the candidates taught in the class. This combination of data allowed us to
investigate the elementary teacher candidates’ ways of dealing with science subject
matter knowledge and developing their teaching practice.
Informants
Among the initial data we collected from the six candidates, we chose three
candidates who represented a range of backgrounds and approaches to science
teaching. Steve entered college as pre-medicine major and took many courses in
general chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. He also had two years
of laboratory experience in the Medical Center at the University of Michigan. He taught
fourth grade a Simple Machine unit. Steve wanted to help students engage in modelbased reasoning, but ended up exhibiting procedural display.
Leigh had an undergraduate degree in Botany and Plant Pathology. She worked
at the Plant Research Lab helping with a research project for more than 12 years. Her
reason for becoming a teacher was “because I want to learn more.” She was very
confident about her science knowledge in most subject areas, like biology, physics, and
chemistry. She taught Expansion and Contraction unit in sixth grade in her internship
year. Leigh exhibited successful practice for model-based reasoning for both herself
and her students.
Sandy got her undergraduate degree in literacy education. She took few science
content classes in college. However, she loves teaching science and doing hands-on
activities with her kids. Nevertheless, she was confident about her science content
knowledge and believed that teaching elementary science had been always an easy
subject for her. Sandy taught a fifth grade “Makeup of the Earth and Land Pollution”
unit. She exhibited typical procedural display in her knowledge and teaching practice.
5
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study focused on answering a research question of what
approaches to sense-making strategies three elementary candidates exhibited. The
elementary candidates’ scientific reasoning was analyzed in three different contexts: (a)
interviews, (b) their teaching practices, and (c) their students’ classroom practices (See
Table 1). This made it possible for us not only to trace the relationship between their
science knowledge and their teaching practices and students’ classroom learning
activities, but also to clarify which characteristics of their knowledge influence which
aspects of their teaching practice.
 First, from interviews, patterns in participants’ science knowledge and practice
were examined, focusing on their scientific understanding and sense making.
 Second, we analyzed their classroom videos and students’ work, looking for
evidence of their science knowledge and practice, sense-making strategies, and
habits of mind. We also identified relationships between features of science
knowledge and features of classroom practices. We looked for patterns of cause
and effect between their science knowledge and teaching practice, since it is
clear that some features of knowledge have a direct effect on practice.
 Finally, given the teachers’ content knowledge and practice, the ways that
elementary students were engaged in scientific reasoning were analyzed.
Our framework that includes three characteristics of understanding of
fundamental science: (a) science knowledge and scientific practice, (b) sense-making
strategies, and (c) habits of mind. However, in this paper we focus on findings about
the sense-making strategies that the candidates or their employed in these contexts.
Table 1. Data Analysis by three occasions of data collection: Interviews, teachers’
teaching practices, and students’ classroom practices
Interview
Teachers’ Teaching
Students’
practice
classroom practice
 Sorted the teachers’ statements
 <All of the data analysis on the
 <All of the data analysis on the
Senseinto different categories, and
left columns included>
left columns included>
making
looked for qualitative patterns in
 While teachers responded to
 Looked for students’ reactions
the lists of their sense-making
students’ ideas and concepts in
and responses to teacher’s
strategies
strategies.
 Examined whether they rely on
procedural display by repeating
factual definitions of the science
facts, showing superficial
understanding of the topics, and
telling the simple story of that.
 Examined whether they had
practical knowledge by
accounting for scientific
phenomena of the topics based
on their personal experience in
non-scientific life.
 Examined whether they used
narrative/metaphorical reasoning
by explaining the scientific
phenomena as a form of story
that contains the story of the
general facts, telling a sequence
of event without rigorous
causation, and frequently using
the classroom, we examined the
types of their scientific
reasoning when correcting the
students’ ideas, suggesting
ways to teach the students for
scientific understanding.
6
teaching practice of the
particular topics.
analogies or metaphors that take
a familiar and experientially real
form to the teachers.
 Examined whether they
performed model-based
reasoning by developing an
account that systematically
relates observed characteristics
of the scientific phenomena to a
theoretical model.
Findings
In this section, we tell the stories of three prospective elementary teachers to
describe what approaches to sense-making strategies the teachers exhibited in three
different occasions: interview, teaching practice, and students’ classroom practice. What
specific science knowledge and scientific practice they exhibited is also discussed.
1. The Case of Steve: Limited Practice for Model-Based Reasoning
Steve exhibited a good understanding of the topic he taught, simple machines.
His ideas about simple machines and force and motion were thorough and well
organized. In the content interview, for instance, he was asked to draw a picture of how
he would set up a lever with a block of wood and a long board to lift the researcher with
one hand, and to explain how the system works. Steve made a picture of a lever out of
the given materials and added several arrows indicating gravity and exerting force on
the paper.
Interviewer: Why did you set up like this?
Steve: Oh, I set the fulcrum close to the person because it would make the work easier.
Interviewer: Why are you including some forces in the picture?
Steve: Uh, yes, because the force that I’m going to use to lift you, actually the direction of the
force is being changed because of the lever. The downward force is being changed into
an upward force, but the force that’s being applied over here, uh, goes over a much
bigger distance than how much you are actually going to be lifted off the ground. So
that’s why it makes the work easier. It’s like cutting the work into a bunch of smaller
pieces and doing it over time. … Yeah, there’s gravity too. There’s gravity, but I didn’t
include gravity because the amount of gravity that’s pulling downwards, it’s also pulling
you down too, so it’s neutralized. (Content Interview)
Steve was engaged in model-based reasoning for sense-making strategies in his
personal scientific practice. When he attempted to make sense of simple machines, he
developed and used a model of force and motion, and balanced force between gravity
and exerting force as a key model of force and motion so as to account for scientific
phenomena.
Steve considered collecting and recording data to find patterns in examples and
personal observations as the most important aspect of scientific practice. Steve worked
back and forth flexibly between experiences, patterns, and explanations, differentiating
the different types of science knowledge.
I’m teaching about levers, and we’ve already done one experiment with levers, and this
one, this experiment we’re actually going to record some data, do some measurements
and so some recording, and what I hope that they get out of this is that they’ll learn that
work is, levers make work easier because the force is being applied to a greater distance
than the object is actually being moved.
7
I would say my lesson included all of those. We had an experience, and from the
experience they were supposed to figure out the pattern, and then we were going to
apply the pattern to a theory. … Working with the levers and measuring… Measuring the
distances. The patterns, they were going to see, hopefully, ideally, they were going to see
the patterns among the numbers. (Lesson Interview)
Steve wanted to have students gather data to find patterns in multiple
observations of the lever system. Steve’s aspiration was to help students experience a
variety of examples and observations to make connections between different science
knowledge--experience, patterns, and theories of the simple machine and lever system.
I guess I would probably go from group to group and see if they notice any patterns that
are happening as they record their data. (Pre-observation Interview)
Thus, Steve designed lesson plans to help students engage in scientific inquiry.
He wanted students to have experience with data and observations, find patterns in the
examples, and provide reasonable scientific explanations of the simple machine. The
lesson objectives specified in the lesson plan were:
Our task today is to measure the distance that the load was raised and the distance that
the force traveled; Students will learn that levers make work easier by applying force over
a greater distance; Students will apply knowledge gained to explain why an inclined plane
makes work easier (Lesson Plan)
To help his class successfully accomplish the specified lesson goal, Steve
designed a worksheet himself. On the worksheet, he made a blank data table in which
students were to fill out the columns: Force used, distance force traveled, and distance
load was raised. In particular, the task for students in the class was to measure the
relative position of the load, fulcrum, and force and then to find patterns in the data on
the lever system. Steve included more questions on the worksheet:
 When was the least amount of force used and what were the distances?
 When was the most amount of force used and what were the distances?
 Is there a pattern? (Student worksheet)
In actual teaching practice, however, he had difficulty helping students learn
science through inquiry. The difficulties that Steve had in carrying out his ideas and
lesson plan had to do with his lack of pedagogical skills and organization of classroom
activity that are also critical for effectively implementing his well-planned classroom
activity and managing students.
In his classroom teaching, after he passed out the equipment (such as washers,
rulers, and fulcrums), he asked the students to measure the distance that the load was
raised and the distance that the force traveled. Students were asked to work on the task
individually. During the class, however, students kept asking questions about what they
were supposed to do with the data table (Videotape). To the students, the directions on
the worksheet were so unclear that they could not engage in the activity successfully.
The students frequently asked Steve to help them understand the procedures of the
activity itself, interpret the directions in the worksheet, and record the data collected
correctly.
Another difficulty had to do with Steve’s classroom management skills. Students
were frequently off-task and moving around the classroom without completing the lever
experiment. Many students were waiting for Steve’s help to ask questions about what
they were supposed to do with the data table, and how to build the lever with the
washers and ruler. While many students were waiting their turn to get Steve’s help, they
did not focus on the assigned task. Instead, some students were building a tower with
washers, while other students threw the washers in the air and caught them. Although
8
Steve kept soliciting students to work hard to complete the worksheet, many students
left their worksheets blank.
At the end of the class, instead of helping students find patterns in data, Steve
ended up telling the students what kinds of rules and patterns they were supposed to
find and learn. Interestingly, none of the students could answer or come up with any
reasonable patterns or answer to the questions either on the worksheet or on Steve’s
probe.
Steve: Is there anyone who notices a pattern? I know that this is actually really
complicated experiment. You had to do tons of measuring, and then we have so
many variables… it is hard to notice any patterns.
Steve: Any other patterns you are noticing?
Students: …
Steve: Did you notice any at all? No…
Steve: OK. I am gonna tell you, because this is too confusing.
Steve: (Drawing a lever on the board) OK. Here is a lever…and a ground. Here is a
fulcrum… There are three washers on this side. How many would you think to life
this lever?
Students: …
Steve: Three? Ten? Maybe even thirty? Forty eight?
Steve: It would take a lot. Do you see how highest going up? So it takes a lot of force to
lift things up high. And look at how far this side travels… (Showing the diagram
and comparing both sides of the distances on the lever) (Videotape)
Steve was not successful in engaging students in the model-based reasoning
that he aspired to in his lesson plan. Although he planned to help the students find
patterns and to explain which inclined plane would make the work easiest, he did not
carry out his initial plan. Since Steve thought that his students did not complete the data
table and understand the experimentation, he decided instead to give a small lecture
about a lever system and simple machine at the end of class. He drew a lever on the
board and explained what patterns could be seen in the experimentation and data table
on the worksheet. Therefore, procedural display was the actual sense-making strategy
most likely used by students in his class.
After the class, Steve reflected that his classroom management skills were not
effective and the worksheet was not well designed to help students understand the
simple machine.
I think the logistics too, the distribution of materials was distracting. … I don’t think I met
the objectives that I was trying to reach. Um, I thought that the lesson was a little too
difficult for the students … There were too many steps involved. In order to meet the
objectives properly, the students had to take some pretty precise measurements, and
then they had to be able to critically analyze the measurements, but the problem, I think,
was the layout of the chart, and there was some confusion too about what uh, they were
actually supposed to be doing. There were so many steps involved. For example, like
many of the students didn’t know what measurement they were putting here, distance
force traveled. They didn’t really understand what force used meant, even though I had it
in parentheses, number of washers. … The questions at the end they didn’t quite
understand either. It might have been the phrasing. It might have been that they just
didn’t understand the words well enough, like maybe they didn’t have a strong enough
concept of force before the lesson. (Post-lesson interview)
Although Steve had a good idea and intention to help students understand
science well, his loose preparation for the class and actual organization ability did not
allow him to successfully accomplish the lesson objectives. As a result, the students
were not able to successfully engage in the classroom activity as planned.
9
In the students’ classroom performance, students did not understand what
to do with the lever experiment and how to collect data to appropriately fill out the
data table on the worksheet. Due to these difficulties, Steve could not manage
the class effectively to engage students in the task to find patterns in examples.
As a consequence, the students were unable to achieve the lesson objectives of
inquiry and application. Rather, they were simply told the factual definition of a
lever system at the end of class.
The students concentrated less on making sense of the lever system and finding
patterns in the various data, and more on mechanical, logistical procedures of the
classroom activity. The students were mostly concerned with getting the right materials,
and filling out the blanks in their worksheets. They frequently asked questions about
how to understand the data table itself, where to put the washers on the lever, how to
use the ruler to measure the distance, etc. However, there were very few student
questions related to understanding the lever system or simple machine. Many students
were not thorough and rigorous in engaging in the activity. Many of them could not
correctly build the lever to collect the data even with Steve’s help and fill the worksheet
appropriately based on the data they collected. Many of the students could not answer
Steve’s question about what patterns they found and how the lever system could work.
2. The Case of Leigh: Accomplished Model-Based Reasoning
Leigh demonstrated a thorough understanding of the content she was teaching,
expansion and contraction. More evidence about the nature and depth of her content
understanding is available in the description of her teaching below.
Leigh showed substantial understanding about experience, patterns, and
explanations in the interview about the topic of expansion and contraction. She was also
able to distinguish between the different types of science knowledge. When she had a
conversation about whether a certain phenomenon could be a particular experience or
pattern, she expressed her idea of how those knowledge claims could be distinguished
from each other.
Interviewer: What do you think about this phenomenon? “As we heat a gas, its volume
becomes greater.”
Leigh: Well, that’s a pattern.
Interviewer: Why do you think that is a pattern?
Leigh: Because it could be many different kinds of gases. If it was a particular gas or
something, that would be an experience, right? A specific experience, but in
general, if you heat a gas, it’s volume becomes greater, but we haven’t explained
why that happens. So, it would be a pattern. (Content Interview)
She was able to come up with personal observations and examples, and to
develop patterns among the various experiences. For example, about the movement of
gas and liquid molecules, Leigh was able to give multiple examples of the particular
characteristics of gases, using a hair dryer and a ping-pong ball, a leaf blower and a
beach ball, and boiling water and bubbles.
I can give you an example of that. Earlier this week we did a demonstration where the
kids saw what happened when you used a hair dryer to blow a ping-pong ball, have you
ever seen this one? The ping-pong ball’s in the stream of air, and it floats in the air. It’s
really cool. The kids love it, right? So, what the kids learn is that well, why does the ball
stay in the air? It’s because the molecules of air are coming up out of the hair dryer, and
hitting it, so yeah, it proves that there’s particles and they’re doing something. Yeah, it’s
really cool. And we also did it with a leaf blower and a beach ball, so you see the leaf
10
blower, the big thing blowing leaves, and the beach ball that’s big, and it really flies up in
the air and it floats. It’s really great. So we saw that, and then the next day we did a
distillation. You saw me reviewing that at the beginning of the lesson. And during that
lesson, the water vapor was coming through, and it was coming down the tube, and it
was actually blowing down into the water, and making it bubble. (Lesson Interview)
Leigh was successful at making connections among the different types of
science knowledge. She was engaged in finding patterns in different examples of solids,
liquids, and gases, and then developed a scientific explanation.
Based on scientific explanation developed, Leigh also attempted to apply the
model to real world examples to explain scientific phenomena. For sense-making
strategies, therefore, Leigh engaged in model-based reasoning about the topic that she
taught. She developed and used scientific models and theories about the states of
matter at the molecular level. When she explained the ways that different states of
matter behave, she heavily made a good use of the pattern and theory of molecular
property and kinetics by presenting extensive and in-depth understanding of the
property of matter. In the content interview, for instance, when she was asked to draw
the air inside of the flask and explain why the balloon inflates, she made a note with the
two different pictures of gas molecules in the flask, saying
Liquid molecules are close together but moving freely. Gas molecules are moving quickly
and farther apart. … Heat energy causes the molecules to move more quickly and farther
away from each other. The gas needs more space and will either building pressure inside
the flask, or escape through an opening (in this case into the balloon). (Content interview)
In her classroom teaching, Leigh was actually carrying out her idea of giving
students rich examples and experiences to find patterns in experiences and to develop
scientific theories and models for accomplishing successful scientific practice. For
instance, Leigh began the class with two demonstrations. The first demonstration was a
balloon placed over the opening of a flask. The flask was heated and students observed
what happened to the gas inside the balloon. The second demonstration was to see
when a metal ball could fit through a metal ring at different temperatures. The purpose
of the demonstration was to scaffold students’ learning with various examples to find the
particular scientific pattern of expansion and contraction.
They have begun to investigate what the particles, or molecules, of a substance do
differently during the different states of matter: solid, liquid, or gas. Yesterday they
explored what the molecules of liquid water do during the process of distillation and
condensation. Today, students will predict the outcomes of investigations and gather
evidence about expansion and contraction of a solid and a gas. (Lesson Plan)
Based on these specific examples, Leigh wanted students to find patterns,
aiming for connections between the various types of science knowledge. For instance,
Leigh: (showing a balloon on the flask in a hot pot) This is still very hot.
Leigh: (and also pointing a metal ball and a ring) Do you think that this demonstration
(metal ball and ring) is just more example of the same thing using solid instead of
just the liquid?
Students: Yeah…
Leigh: How come?
A student: … because the molecules expand…
Leigh: molecules are expanding?
Students: … molecules’ particles move farther apart…
Leigh: That is what we need for expansion. (Videotape)
She led classroom discussions to help students make connections between
those examples and patterns, and molecular kinetic theory that explicate the
11
relationship between heat energy and molecular movement. Leigh designed a
worksheet for students to explain the real world examples based on the pattern and
theory they developed.
Leigh worked hard to help students engage in model-based reasoning. She
brought up multiple real world examples that the students could use to develop scientific
reasoning based on theory and models they attained. She encouraged the students to
come up with other examples, so that they could pull together all of the different
examples to think about the applicability of the theory to the multiple situations.
I think that every day, we try to have a real life example that applies to what we’re talking
about. Well, one of the questions that they had to answer had to do with wind chimes
that are hanging, and we know that the air molecules are moving all the time, right? But
when they’re moving with enough force, it makes the wind chimes move and ring. So
that would be one. And we were talking about distillation yesterday, I gave them the
example of when they’re cooking on the stove, and they lift the pot lid up, and there’s a
bunch of water there, and it splatters all over... that water comes from the same process
as distillation, things like that. So, we always try to, you know, and I always ask the kids,
can you think of an example. Sometimes the kids come up with better examples than I
think of, you know? They do. (Lesson Interview)
In reaction to Leigh’s teaching performance, students were able to effectively
engage in scientific practice, developing deep science knowledge through classroom
activities. The students engaged in observing various examples and simultaneously
worked on experiment reports while making observations of the demonstrations. After
the observations, they shared their ideas in a whole group discussion. Leigh guided
them to see how the balloon over the opened flask made a change in shape and how
the metal ball got through the ring. And then the students had several chances to talk
about how the two situations could be similar, particularly at the molecular level. Leigh
led the discussion to see what common pattern/feature of the phenomena could be
seen the different demonstrations. Through the discussion, the students made a
connection between the two demonstrations back and forth to find that the behavior of
molecules differs because of the different states of matter such as a solid and a gas
(Videotape).
Students were trying to explain the real world examples based on what they
learned from the class. They worked on applying the pattern of expansion and
contraction and the theory of molecular property to several examples around them. For
instance, the students were working on answering the questions on the worksheet
prepared by Leigh, including:


My friend taught me a way to open stuck jar lids. If you run hot water over the lid, it
gets a little looser and some times you can open it. Try to explain why this works.
Most sidewalks have cracks filled with tar every few yards. These are called
expansion joints. During the summer these cracks are very narrow. During the winter
they are wider. Explain why this happens.
At the end of the class, students were able to make scientific application to real
world examples, using molecular motion to explain the expansion and contraction on
those examples.
3. The Case of Sandy: Inquiry as Finding Facts in Books
Sandy demonstrated difficulty developing a good content understanding of the
topics she was teaching, environmental science in relation with the makeup of earth and
12
pollution. For instance, about greenhouse effect and its relationship to pollution, she
mentioned the following in the content interview:
I think of how they say the earth is getting warmer because we’re damaging the ozone
layer, and when you think of the glaciers melting and the depletion of our water supply
and then you don’t think anything positive, just one problem after another. … I keep
thinking about the study that the cows are causing the greenhouse effect. Do you
remember that study? That’s every time I hear the greenhouse effect, that’s what I think
of is cows, but it’s um, isn’t it the damage in the ozone layer is gradually causing the
earth to heat up because more of the heat from the sun is coming in or something like
that. … (About a question of how it can be caused) I don’t know, because obviously you
could say, I mean, you could go back to saying well, people are eating cows, and
therefore we have more cows, but um, I mean, you know, I don’t know, could we say that
it’s all due to us and not just a general shift in you know, the way the earth is made up?
(Content Interview)
Sandy thought that depletion of the ozone layer is the main cause of the
greenhouse effect, which is one of the common confusions that K-12 students
frequently hold in environmental science (e.g., Driver et al, 1994). She was confused
about ozone layer depletion and the greenhouse effect.
Sandy did not distinguish among data, patterns, and models as types of science
knowledge. For instance, she was able to state definitions of greenhouse effect, plate
tectonics and mantle in her own words. But, she could not suggest particular real world
examples or patterns regarding those theories. Further, Sandy did not engage in the
scientific practices of finding pattern in examples or explaining real world examples
based on patterns or theories. Instead, she organized the facts that she knew along
thematic or narrative lines.
Sandy considered science one of the most difficult subjects, one in which she
could not overcome her lack of knowledge and experience, exhibiting her fair amount of
anxiety to deal with science content. During her content interview about the topic she
taught, she often repeated, “I don’t remember”, “I don’t know”, or “I could be wrong.”
In spite of her doubts and the gaps in her scientific knowledge, Sandy was able
to develop a strategy for teaching science. Sandy’s aspiration for teaching science was
to help students engage in scientific activity through “inquiry.” She wanted to be the kind
of the teacher who teach students how to do inquiry, saying:
I expect to be one that I guess can get the kids thinking about science … um … kind of in
an inquiry type of way … um … not one that just gives them the answers and says know
this, and have them sit there and do it. Let’s do this thing and then you tell me why this is
happening. … The class (elementary science methods class) I had was great. I go back
to the inquiry thing, because always before it was okay, this is what we’re going to learn,
here’s how we’re going to do it, and the way I (in the class) did it was okay, let’s try this,
and what have you learned kind of thing, which to me was new, because all my science
had been this is what we’re going to learn, here’s how we’re going to do it, versus let’s try
this and tell me what you learned. It was kind of a reverse (Interview).
Sandy seemed to value “inquiry” as the important way of teaching science to
students. To her, however, scientific inquiry meant mainly to find answers in books or
other authoritative sources.
Scientific inquiry would mean the process of trying to find an answer to a question, um,
whether it is an actual hands-on experience or it might have to be looking at a book for an
answer. Um, but you know, to me, I guess inquiry just means the search process of
finding the answer. … (Interview).
For her classroom teaching practice, Sandy relied heavily on textbook reading
and a review test on the topic of pollution. She provided her own reason why she would
13
emphasize the textbook reading in her teaching, showing how she would make use of
the information offered by the materials.
Oh, I think the text is a good place to start out introducing the terms. Um, you know,
rather than saying okay, what is a sanitary landfill? You know, they might, we might
spend half an hour going in the wrong direction, um, but if they start out reading a
paragraph about it, then we can have a discussion about what they just read, and then
later we can write it down, you know, pull out the important things. So I think the text is
good starting point, but it’s not where I would want to stop. And so that’s why, I think I
after every paragraph, stopped and discussed something with them. (Pre-lesson
Interview)
Thus, she designed her lesson plan to teach the important scientific stories and
facts directly through the textbook.
After we read the text, we’re going to answer the questions, so based on their answers to
the questions, I would expect them to have picked up an idea of what land pollution is.
Um, also when we come back from break, we’ll review the outline, or they’ll review the
outline, and you know, make sure that they, you know, found the main ideas and the
subplots and the things that go along with that, um, but just basically I think of this is
going to be their participation in discussion and then looking at the outline when they
come back. (Pre Lesson Interview)
Well, first thing they’re going to have the quiz on the makeup of the earth, and then we’re
going to start, we’re going to review the outline and complete it and make sure they have
the correct answers for the test, and then we’re going to start talking and reading about
land pollution. (Pre Lesson Interview)
Assess what students know about the makeup of the earth; introduce the ideas of land
pollution – sources, disposal of various types of waste, ways to potentially reduce
pollution. (Lesson Plan)
While reading the textbook with students, Sandy often discussed thematically
associated words, charts and stories rather than discussing particular examples of
concepts. She let several students continue to read the informational text loudly. After
reading the book, she explained about the particular parts of the text and added a few
stories focused on the textbook information. However, she often just repeated the
contents in the book, sometimes re-stated the contents, and at other times explained
vocabulary, such as “biodegradable,” “sanitary landfill,” etc., that appeared in the book.
For instance, the below excerpt from a video clip illustrates how Sandy used the
textbook in the classroom.
(After reading a paragraph about the garbage disposal in the textbook)
Sandy: Ok. How much amount of the garbage produced in Rome, compared to the
amount of the garbage produced in New York?
Students: …
Sandy: Look at the chart!
Sandy: What would you say about New York’s amount per day?
Students: (looking at the chart in the textbook)
Sandy: … One person’s garbage in New York? … Looking at the chart.
A student: … 1.8 kilogram per day
Sandy: It’s a lot of garbage, isn’t it? Then, what’s Rome’s per day? Mike?
Mike: … 0.7 kilogram
Sandy: So what would the difference be?
A student: … 1.1
Sandy: Right. That is a huge difference. That’s a lot… All right. Go ahead to read.
(Videotape)
Furthermore, in order to make sure that students gained the knowledge from the
textbook, Sandy gave the students two pages of the tests before and after class, testing
14
students’ recollection of the textbook knowledge. The test questions included the
following:





Pollutants can be produced by
or by a
.
Major cause of air pollution is
How are fossil fuels formed?
What are three fossil fuels?
Garbage must be
every few days.
very quickly begin breaking down
garbage, producing
. (Students’ Worksheet)
All of the questions consisted of answering using the factual definitions that
appeared in the textbook. Sandy asked students to look terms up in the textbook and
find the right answers. In order for the students to find out the right answer, they had to
go over the textbook for details. After the students filled in the blanks of the questions,
Sandy put transparencies showing the right answers to the test questions. She gave the
students a few minutes to compare, correct and review their answers based on the
transparencies (Videotape).
Overall, Sandy was satisfied with her ways of teaching the lessons. Here are the
reasons why she thought that she was successful in teaching elementary science. First,
She thought that students had a chance to learn important scientific information and
stories about the scientific world. Sandy explained that as a teacher, she did her best to
review all of the important science information by having them closely look at the books
and giving them a review test on factual knowledge. Thus engaging students in gaining
factual knowledge and information was an important aspect of teaching science. Sandy
made an instructional decision to give students many opportunities to improve their
knowledge about the factual story of the scientific world.
In general, I thought the lesson went well. Um, we reviewed their air pollution outline and
went over some. The land pollution part, we did stop when we were reading and go over
certain things so that it wasn’t just reading the book. Um, and you know, I try to
personalize it, for example, when I looked at the video, I specifically said somebody’s
name and how the pesticide would get into him, you know, because he wouldn’t go and
just drink a pesticide or something like that. So overall, I thought the lesson went well.
(Stimulated Recall Interview)
Second, Sandy was satisfied because she thought that most of the students
participated in the class very well. She valued how much the students kept quiet during
the class and stayed on task.
Um, I think the class did pretty well participating here. Um, you know, there were some
people I had to call on just to draw them in, um, so that they would get back to class, but
you know, and just not have the same people talking over and over again, because some
of them really did have an interest in it and had a lot to say, and some people were just
like I saw Shane yawning there, some people were just fading out. Um, but you know,
that’s any topic, you have some people that are interested in it, but hopefully you have
some people that are interested and some that aren’t. (Post Lesson Interview)
Third, Sandy also believed that she accomplished inquiry-based teaching, finding
the answers in the book. According to Sandy’s idea of what “inquiry” meant, she
believed that students actually did engage in inquiry as she defined it.
They’ve done the actual process of finding the answer, and I think it means more to them,
it belongs to them more than me just telling them something, because you know, sure I
could tell them anything I wanted to, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, but if they
go through the process of finding that out for themselves, then they know that either I’m
right or you know, but I think they learn more when they’ve actually taken some steps to
find the answers themselves. (Post Lesson Interview)
15
As a consequence of Sandy’s ways of teaching science as we looked at above,
in students’ classroom activities, students could not have any chance to distinguish and
connect the different types of science knowledge, and engage in scientific practice to
understand the material world. Rather, the students mechanically read the book,
listened to Sandy’s explanation, and worked on filling in the blanks. The students
focused mostly on reading the textbook and spending most time on finding and filling
out the answers using factual definitions about the topic of the makeup of the earth and
pollution. The students looked in the textbook to find the right answers to the fill-in-theblank types of questions, and copied and pasted the words from the book on their
worksheet. After the students answered and filled in the blanks, they compared their
answers with Sandy’s expected answers written on the overhead slides for the students.
Most of them corrected their answers and copied some of the answers from the slides.
The classroom was very quiet and right on task reading and finding the answers to fill in
the blanks on the worksheet. However, there were few discussions or arguments about
the topic they were learning to explore and share important ideas with others.
Similar to Sandy’s sense making strategies, students also worked on showing
procedural display to find the right answer, gain the stories, and learn vocabulary from
the textbook.
Comparing Steve, Leigh, and Sandy
In summary, given three cases of managing scientific knowledge in various ways,
we found compelling contrasts in the comparison among the three cases with respect to
their sense-making strategies (See Table 2).
Table 2. Comparison of the Three Cases: Sense-Making Strategies
Interview
Steve
Teachers’
Teaching Practice
Model-based
reasoning
Students’
Learning Activities
Attempted for modelGained factual
based reasoning, but
definitions based on
ended up with
procedural display
procedural display
from the lecture
Leigh
Model-based
Accomplished
Practiced modelreasoning
teaching for modelbased reasoning
based reasoning
Sandy
Procedural display or
Engaged in "inquiry" in Learning for
narrative -which students were
procedural display
thematically connected supposed to learn facts
facts
from materials
Both Steve and Leigh’s science knowledge and practice seemed to be quite
similar in the sense that they exhibited good science knowledge and scientific practice,
demonstrating model-based reasoning. They were able to distinguish various types of
science knowledge, such as experiences, patterns, and explanations, and find patterns
in experiences to develop scientific explanation. On the other hand, Sandy exhibited
quite a different aspect of science knowledge and scientific practice as opposed to
Steve and Leigh. She was not able to understand and distinguish science knowledge,
and engaged in procedural display thematically connecting facts.
16
Their teaching practice and students’ classroom learning activities turned out to
quite different. In spite of his plan and ideas for model-based reasoning Steve was not
successful in helping students make sense of science. His students could not engage in
the classroom activity for scientific inquiry and application. Rather, the students
displayed gaining factual definitions of scientific phenomena. In contrast, Leigh was
successful in helping students engage in understanding science knowledge and
practicing scientific inquiry and application. The students were actively involved in
model-based reasoning to explain real world situations based on scientific theory and
models that were developed through finding patterns in experience and developing
scientific explanation. Whereas, Sandy focused mainly on delivering factual definitions
and vocabulary from the textbook, believing that she engaged in inquiry-based teaching.
For her, the exhibition of procedural display worked as the indicator of students’ being
successful in learning school science.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study describes the scientific sense-making strategies that three elementary
teacher candidates exhibited in their interviews, teaching practice, and students’
classroom activities. They exhibited markedly different patterns of practice in their
classroom teaching, resulting in different learning for their students. As we consider
possible causes for these different patterns of practice, we pay attention to the different
views of science knowledge and scientific practice that the candidates brought with
them to the program. The individual teacher candidates’ knowledge and practice
reflected their different views of science knowledge and practice. Engaging students in
scientific sense making required a combination of deep subject matter knowledge,
pedagogical skills, personal experience in scientific reasoning, and understanding of
students.
This study particularly highlights the fact that inquiry is a difficult practice that is
deeply embedded in scientific knowledge and world-views. Teachers need a “deep
understanding of fundamental science.” Our framework posits three key characteristics
of fundamental science: science knowledge and scientific practice, sense-making
strategies, and habits of mind. In this paper we focus on one of those characteristics,
sense-making strategies, and show how the strategies that teacher candidates
demonstrate in interviews have profound effects on their teaching practice and their
students’ learning. Thus we conclude that the ability to use model-based reasoning as
a sense-making strategy is one important aspect of a deep understanding of
fundamental science.
We see in this study that successful science teaching practice depends on
intellectual resources that candidates develop over the course of their lives, not just in
science methods courses. Candidates like Leigh can use their personal knowledge and
experience as a basis for effective science teaching. For candidates like Steve and
Sandy, however, the process is much more difficult. These candidates certainly need
our support to understand effective ways of doing and teaching fundamental elementary
science. As teacher educators, we need to help the candidates be aware of and engage
in model-based reasoning to better help students understand the scientific world. At the
same time, we also need to consider both how to help these candidates develop
intellectual resources that they lack and how to help them teach more effectively with
17
limited resources. Our job in teacher education program as well as in field placement is
to help them learn how to incorporate their personal knowledge and experience with
effective pedagogical skills accordingly.
Reference
Anderson, C. W. (2003). Teaching science for motivation and understanding. Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Unpublished paper.
Barba, R. H. (1998). Science in the multicultural classroom (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Brockmeier, J., & Harre, R. (1997). Narrative: Problems and promises of an alternative
paradigm. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(4), 263-284.
Collins A., & Ferguson W. (1993), Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures
and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28, 1, 25-42.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, R. & Scott, P. (1994). Young people's images of science.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hogan, K. & Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing Students' Thinking about Nutrient
Cycling in Ecosystems: Bidimensional Coding of a Complex Topic. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 941-970.
Kennedy, M. M. (1990). A survey of recent literature on teacher's subject matter
knowledge. East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers'
understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G.
Lederman (Eds.) PCK and Science Education, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary methematics and science
teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125-145.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National science education
standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Roth, W., McGinn, M. K. & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How Prepared Are Preservice
Teachers To Teach Scientific Inquiry? Levels of Performance in Scientific
Representation Practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-48.
Sharma, A. & Anderson, C. W. (2003, March 23-6). Transforming scientist's science into
school science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
18
Schwab, J. (1964). The structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significance. In G.W.
Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N.
Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Supovitz, J. A. & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and
reform in science education: The role of teahcers' practical knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching
and learning of models and modeling in science education. International Journal of
Science Education, 24(12), 1255-1272.
Wilson, S. M. & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.
In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education 24 (pp.
173-209). Washington: The American Educational Research Association.
19