The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) call for K-12 science instruction that centers on and substantively takes up students' science ideas. In this paper, we explore the question, “What role might physics faculties play in preparing teachers in the era of NGSS?,” as we also consider our field's adage that “most teachers tend to teach as they were taught.” In particular, we propose the importance of teacher education experiences that take teachers' own physics ideas seriously. We argue that physicists can play a critical role in this work by designing and facilitating teacher preparation and professional development that (1) elevates and maintains a focus on teachers' physics ideas and (2) collaboratively subjects teachers' ideas to the kinds of tests to which we subject our own ideas. We ground these considerations in two illustrative episodes from our local context: Focus on Energy professional development for elementary teachers. We highlight particular professional development instructor moves that take teachers' ideas seriously, and we discuss questions and implications that emerge from our analysis. Although the focus of our analysis is on taking teachers' ideas seriously, we suggest that most of our arguments also apply to taking students' ideas seriously in pre-college and university physics courses.
References
1.
NGSS
Lead States
, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States
(The National Academies Press
, Washington, DC
, 2013
).2.
3.
4.
W. R.
Penuel
and P.
Bell
, “Qualities of a good anchor phenomenon for a coherent sequence of science lessons
,” 2016; accessed 24 January 2018, <http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/28>.5.
W. R.
Penuel
, K.
Van Horne
, and P.
Bell
, “Steps to designing a three dimensional assessment
,” 2016; accessed 24 January 2018, <http://stemteachingtools.org/assets/landscapes/STEM-Teaching-Tool-29-Steps-to-Designing-3D-Assessments.pdf>.6.
E.
Furtak
, M.
Pasquale
, and R.
Aazzerah
, “How teachers can develop formative assessments that fit a three-dimensional view of science learning
,” 2016, accessed 24 January 2018, <http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/18>.7.
“
Next generation science assessment: Developing NGSS-aligned assessments and curricula for the next generation of K-12 students
;” accessed 24 January 2018, <http://nextgenscienceassessment.org/>.8.
M.
Windschitl
, J.
Thompson
, and M.
Braaten
, Ambitious Science Teaching
(Harvard Education Press
, Cambridge, MA
, 2018
).9.
M. E.
Loverude
, B. L.
Gonzalez
, and R.
Nanes
, “Inquiry-based course in physics and chemistry for preservice K-8 teachers
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
7
, 010106-1–
18
(2011
).10.
D. L.
Messina
, L. S.
DeWater
, and M. R.
Stetzer
, “Helping preservice teachers implement and assess research-based instruction in K-12 classrooms
,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Physics Education Research Conference
(2004
).11.
L. C.
McDermott
, “Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
(4
), 301
–315
(1991
).12.
F.
Goldberg
and S.
Bendall
, “Making the invisible visible: A teaching/learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner
,” Am. J. Phys.
63
(11
), 978
–991
(1995
).13.
D.
Hestenes
et al., “A graduate program for high school physics and physical science teachers
,” Am. J. Phys.
79
(9
), 971
–979
(2011
).14.
L. C.
McDermott
, “Teacher education and the implementation of elementary science curricula
,” Am. J. Phys.
44
(5
), 434
–441
(1976
).15.
L. C.
McDermott
, “A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers
,” Am. J. Phys.
58
(8
), 734
–742
(1990
).16.
L. C.
McDermott
et al., “Improving the preparation of K-12 teachers through physics education research
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
(9
), 763
–767
(2006
).17.
L. C.
McDermott
, “Preparing K-12 teachers in physics: Insights from history, experience, and research
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
, 758
–762
(2006
).18.
D. E.
Meltzer
and V. K.
Otero
, “Transforming the preparation of physics teachers
,” Am. J. Phys.
82
, 633
–637
(2014
).19.
E.
Etkina
, “Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
6
, 020110
(2010
).20.
J. R.
Thompson
, W. M.
Christensen
, and M. C.
Wittmann
, “Preparing future teachers to anticipate student difficulties in physics in a graduate-level course in physics, pedagogy, and action research
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
7
, 010108
(2011
).21.
C.
Fracchiolla
and N. S.
Rebello
, “Assessing future elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge in a physics class
,” in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by P.
Engelhardt
, A. D.
Churukian
, and D. L.
Jones
(2015
), pp. 87
–90
.22.
Z.
Hrepic
et al., “Developing an inquiry-based physical science course for preservice elementary teachers
,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by P.
Heron
, L.
McCullough
, and J.
Marx
(AIP Press
, Melville, NY
, 2006
), pp. 121
–124
.23.
N. S.
Rebello
and D. A.
Zollman
, “Assessing pedagogical content knowledge of future elementary teachers
,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by P.
Engelhardt
, A. D.
Churukian
, and D. L.
Jones
(2014
), pp. 297
–300
.24.
M.
Plisch
, “The physics teacher education coalition
,” in Recruiting and Educating Future Physics Teachers: Case Studies and Effective Practices
, edited by C.
Sandifer
and E.
Brewe
(American Physical Society
, College Park, MD
, 2015
), pp. 21
–25
.25.
H.
Sadaghiani
, “Scientific reasoning for pre-service elementary teachers
,” in Proceedings of the 2010 Physics Education Research Conference
(2010
).26.
C.
Fazio
, B.
Di Paola
, and I.
Guastella
, “Prospective elementary teachers' perceptions of the processes of modeling: A case study
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
8
(1
), 010110-1
–18
(2012
).27.
P. G.
Ashcraft
, “Modeling aspects of nature of science to preservice elementary teachers
,” in Proceedings of the 2006 Physics Education Research Conference
(2006
).28.
V. K.
Otero
and M.
Nathan
, “‘After I gave students their prior knowledge.’: Pre-service teachers' conceptions of student prior knowledge
,” in Proceedings of the 2003 Physics Education Research Conference
(2003
).29.
M.
Milner-Bolotin
, D.
Egersdorfer
, and M.
Vinayagam
, “Investigating the effect of physics teacher candidates' pedagogical content knowledge
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
12
(2
), 020128-1
–16
(2016
).30.
R.
Steinberg
and S.
Cormier
, “Understanding and affecting science teacher candidates' scientific reasoning in introductory astrophysics
,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
9
(2
), 020111-1
–10
(2013
).31.
E.
Etkina
, “Millikan award lecture: Students of physics—Listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices?
,” Am. J. Phys.
83
(8
), 669
–679
(2015
).32.
V.
Otero
, S.
Pollock
, and N.
Finkelstein
, “A physics department's role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
(11
), 1218
–1224
(2010
).33.
N.
Papadouris
, S.
Vokos
, and C. P.
Constantinou
, “The pursuit of a ‘better’ explanation as an organizing framework for science teaching and learning
,” Sci. Educ.
102
(2
), 219
–237
(2018
).34.
C.
Sandifer
and E.
Brewe
, Recruiting and Educating Future Physics Teachers: Case Studies and Effective Practices
(American Physical Society
, College Park, MD
, 2015
).35.
D. E.
Meltzer
and P. S.
Shaffer
, Teacher Education in Physics
(American Physical Society
, College Park, MD
, 2011
).36.
D. E.
Meltzer
and V. K.
Otero
, “A brief history of physics education in the United States
,” Am. J. Phys.
83
(5
), 447
–458
(2015
).37.
D. H.
Gitomer
and C. A.
Bell
, “Evaluating teaching and teachers
,” in APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology
, edited by K. F.
Geisinger
(American Psychological Association
: Washington, DC
, 2013
), pp. 415
–444
.38.
M. M.
Keller
, K.
Neumann
, and H. E.
Fischer
, “The impact of physics teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students' achievement and interest
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
54
(5
), 586
–614
(2017
).39.
J.
Baumert
et al., “Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress
,” Am. Educ. Res. J.
47
(1
), 133
–180
(2010
).40.
S. B.
Empson
and V. R.
Jacobs
, “Learning to listen to children's mathematics
,” in Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education
, edited by D.
Tirosh
and T.
Wood
(Sense Publishers
, The Netherlands
, 2008
), pp. 257
–281
.41.
A. D.
Robertson
, R. E.
Scherr
, and D.
Hammer
, Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics
(Routledge
, New York, NY
, 2016
).42.
E.
Ochs
, P.
Gonzales
, and S.
Jacoby
, “When I come down I'm in a domain state: Talk, gesture, and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists
,” in Interaction and Grammar
, edited by E.
Ochs
, E.
Schlegoff
, and S.
Thompson
(Cambridge U. P.
, Cambridge, UK
, 1996
), pp. 328
–369
.43.
A. C.
Maskiewicz
, “Navigating the challenges of teaching responsively: An insider's perspective
,” in Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics
, edited by A. D.
Robertson
, R. E.
Scherr
, and D.
Hammer
(Routledge
, New York, NY
, 2016
), pp. 105
–125
.44.
L. P.
Project
, “Responsive teaching in science
,” 2011; accessed 19 January 2012, <http://cipstrends.sdsu.edu/modules/modules/teacher.html>.45.
A. R.
Daane
, S.
Vokos
, and R. E.
Scherr
, “Goals for teacher learning about energy degradation and usefulness
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
10
, 020111-1
–16
(2014
).46.
A. R.
Daane
et al., “Energy conservation in dissipative processes: Teacher expectations and strategies associated with imperceptible thermal energy
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
11
, 010109-1
–15
(2015
).47.
R. E.
Scherr
and A. D.
Robertson
, “The productivity of ‘collisions generate heat’ for reconciling an energy model with mechanistic reasoning: A case study
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
11
, 010111-1
–16
(2015
).48.
R. E.
Scherr
et al., “Representing energy. I. Representing a substance ontology for energy
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
8
(2
), 020114
(2012
).49.
R. E.
Scherr
et al., “Representing energy. II. Energy tracking representations
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
8
(2
), 020115
(2012
).50.
R. E.
Scherr
et al., “Negotiating energy dynamics through embodied action in a materially structured environment
,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.-Phys. Educ. Res.
9
(2
), 020105
(2013
).51.
J. L.
Pierson
, The Relationship Between Patterns of Classroom Discourse and Mathematics Learning
(University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, TX
, 2008
), p. 161
.52.
M.
Lau
, “Understanding the dynamics of teacher attention: Examples of how high school physics and physical science teachers attend to student ideas
,” Ph.D. thesis (University of Maryland
, College Park, MD, 2010
).53.
D. M.
Levin
, “What secondary science teachers pay attention to in the classroom: Situating teaching in institutional and social systems
,” Ph.D. thesis (University of Maryland
, College Park, MD, 2008
).54.
K.
Brodie
, “Working with learners' mathematical thinking: Towards a language of description for changing pedagogy
,” Teach. Teacher Educ.
27
, 174
–186
(2011
).55.
J.
Richards
, “Exploring what stabilizes teachers' attention and responsiveness to the substance of students' scientific thinking in the classroom
,” Ph.D. thesis (University of Maryland at College Park
, 2013
).56.
A. D.
Robertson
et al., “What is responsive teaching?
,” in Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics
, edited by A. D.
Robertson
, R. E.
Scherr
, and D.
Hammer
(Routledge
, New York, NY
, 2016
), pp. 1
–35
.57.
D. M.
Levin
et al., Becoming a Responsive Science Teacher: Focusing on Student Thinking in Secondary Science
(National Science Teachers Association Press
, Arlington, VA
, 2012
).58.
D.
Hammer
, F.
Goldberg
, and S.
Fargason
, “Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom
,” Rev. Sci., Math., ICT Educ.
6
(1
), 51
–72
(2012
).59.
B.
Jordan
and A.
Henderson
, “Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice
,” J. Learn. Sci.
4
(1
), 39
–103
(1995
).60.
F.
Erickson
, Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching
, edited by M. C.
Wittrock
(Macmillan
, New York, NY
, 1986
), pp. 119
–161
.61.
J. A.
Maxwell
, “Using qualitative methods for causal explanation
,” Field Methods
16
(3
), 243
–264
(2004
).62.
S.
Crissman
et al., “Looking through the energy lens
,” Sci. Child.
52
, 26
–31
(2015
).63.
R. E.
Scherr
et al., “Energy tracking diagrams
,” Phys. Teach.
54
, 96
–102
(2016
).64.
A. R.
Daane
, L.
Wells
, and R. E.
Scherr
, “Energy theater
,” Phys. Teach.
52
, 291
–294
(2014
).65.
M. C.
O'Connor
and S.
Michaels
, “Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy
,” Anthropol. Educ. Q.
24
(4
), 318
–335
(1993
).66.
D.
Hammer
and E.
van Zee
, Seeing the Science in Children's Thinking: Case Studies of Student Inquiry in Physical Science
(Heinemann
, Portsmouth, NH
, 2006
).67.
D.
Hammer
, “Discovery learning and discovery teaching
,” Cognit. Instr.
15
(4
), 485
–529
(1997
).68.
A. D.
Robertson
and J.
Richards
, “Teacher sense-making about being responsive to students' science ideas: A case study
,” Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
5
(4
), 314
–342
(2017
).69.
D.
Hawkins
, “Messing about in science
,” in The Informed Vision, Essays on Learning and Human Nature
, edited by D.
Hawkins
(Agathon Press
, New York
, 1974
).70.
L. J.
Atkins
and B. W.
Frank
, “Examining the products of responsive inquiry
,” in Responsive Teaching in Science and Mathematics
, edited by A. D.
Robertson
, R. E.
Scherr
, and D.
Hammer
(Routledge
, New York, NY
, 2016
), pp. 56
–84
.71.
C.
Chabris
and D.
Simons
, The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us
(Random House
, New York, NY
, 2011
).72.
K. F.
Miller
, “Situation awareness in teaching: What educators can learn from video-based research in other fields
,” in Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers' Eyes
, edited by M. G.
Sherin
, V. R.
Jacobs
, and R. A.
Philipp
(Routledge
, New York, NY
, 2011
), pp. 51
–65
.73.
R. A.
Engle
, J. M.
Langer-Osuna
, and M. M.
de Royston
, “Toward a model of differential influence in persuasive discussions: Negotitating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument
,” J. Learn. Sci.
23
(2
), 245
–268
(2014
).74.
B.
Warren
et al., “Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
38
(5
), 529
–552
(2001
).75.
C. J.
Rop
, “The meaning of student inquiry questions: A teacher's beliefs and responses
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
24
(7
), 717
–736
(2002
).76.
D.
Chazan
and M.
Schnepp
, “Methods, goals, beliefs, commitments, and manner in teaching: Dialogue against a calculus backdrop
,” Social Constructivist Teach.
9
, 171
–195
(2002
).77.
R. A.
Engle
and F. R.
Conant
, “Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom
,” Cognit. Instr.
20
(4
), 399
–483
(2002
).78.
R. S.
Russ
et al., “Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science
,” Sci. Educ.
92
(3
), 499
–525
(2008
).79.
R. S.
Russ
et al., “Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking
,” Sci. Educ.
93
(5
), 875
–891
(2009
).80.
P.
Machamer
, D.
Darden
, and C. F.
Craver
, “Thinking about mechanisms
,” Philos. Sci.
67
, 1
–25
(2000
).81.
P.
Machamer
, “Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms
,” Int. Stud. Philos. Sci.
18
(1
), 27
–39
(2004
).82.
L.
Darden
and C. F.
Craver
, “Strategies in the interfield discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis
,” Stud. History Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci.
33
, 1
–28
(2002
).83.
L.
Darden
, “Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining
,” Philos. Sci.
69
, S354
–S365
(2002
).84.
All teacher and PD instructor names are pseudonyms.
85.
We are able to speak to what Isaac wants because he is a co-author on this paper (LS). We gave him a pseudonym in the paper—a name that starts with “I,” to set instructors apart from participants.
86.
To watch a video of this scenario, go to: https://focusonenergy.terc.edu/resources/classroom/stopper.html).
87.
Full transcript and audio of the episode can be found here: goo.gl/zWXxBW.
88.
Because we cannot see Brian's or Pam's faces, it is difficult to draw conclusions about why Brian says this. Our guess is that Pam says something inaudible just before, or that her facial expression has communicated something to him that he interpreted as her questioning his support.
© 2019 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2019
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
