SCIN 315: Technologies for the General Science Laboratory-Spring 2011
I. INSTRUCTOR
Paul J. Bischoff
Office: Human Ecology Office 120 D.
Phone: 436-2613
e-mail: bischopj@oneonta.edu
Laboratory studies of the materials, techniques, and safety aspects appropriate in the middle school science classroom.
The goal of this course, to help prepare pre-service secondary science teachers for the world of classroom teaching, reflects the expectations of the National Science Education Standards, the National Science Teachers Standards for Science Teacher Preparation and the New York State Learning Standards for Mathematics, Science and Technology. Recognizing the national need for qualified science teachers and the current reform initiatives in secondary science education, this course will emphasize the development of participants’ skills in developing, facilitating and evaluating laboratory activities appropriate for middle school science teaching.
Course objectives reflect the Standards of the National Science Teachers Association and SUNY Oneonta Division of Education Conceptual Framework themes:
(1) Academic and Professional Excellence;
(2) Best Professional Practices;
(3) Commitment to Empowerment, Respecting Diversity and Social Justice.
1. Develop and present to the class inquiry driven science lessons clearly justified by the National Science Education Standards and the New York State Intermediate Level Science Core Curriculum. [NSTA, 3.a]
(1) Academic and Professional Excellence; (2) Best Professional Practices
2. Develop and present to the class science lessons that deliberately connect middle school level science to social and cultural issues relevant to middle school science learners. [NSTA, 4.a, 4.c, 6.a, 6.b, 6.c, 7.a, 7.b] (3) Commitment to Empowerment, Respecting Diversity and Social Justice.
3. Read current science education research focusing on learning and assessment strategies (cooperative learning, learning cycles, manipulative use, concept mapping) and apply the research to the development of inquiry based science activities. [NSTA, 3.a, 5.a, 5.c, 6.a, 6.b, 6.c, 8.a] (1) Academic and Professional Excellence.
4. Understand the importance of the Nature of Science and develop lessons deliberately engaging middle school science students in understanding and applying Nature of Science thinking processes in science activities. [NSTA, 2.a]
(1) Academic and Professional Excellence;
(2) Best Professional Practices.
5. Demonstrate knowledge of and ability to use a wide variety of classroom materials, including technologies and laboratories as well as traditional text based materials. [NSTA 4.a, 5.d, 6.a, 6.b, 7.a, 8.a]
(1) Academic and Professional Excellence;
(2) Best Professional Practices.
6. Select and use various models for teaching about controversial, problematic and value-oriented issues [NSTA 4.4]
(3) Commitment to Empowerment, Respecting Diversity and Social Justice.
7. Apply current research findings about teaching and learning to the development and application of teaching strategies for culturally and linguistically diverse populations, students of different ages and students with exceptionalities [NSTA, 5.a, 7.a]
(3) Commitment to Empowerment, Respecting Diversity and Social Justice.
8. Design a safety plan for facilities, materials, and learners in science classrooms that addresses legal issues of science safety [NSTA 4.4]
2) Best Professional Practices.
V. Course Topics
Graded Assignments
1. Wilson, E. (2002). The Power of Story. Joy Hakim-The Story of the Atom-American Educator----This paper is written with middle school science teachers in mind and is one of the best examples of Nature of Science in practice that I have identified.
Details of the assignment: Read the article. Consider the content of the article based on what you know about the Nature of Science. For example, an important attribute of the nature of science is that conventional understanding of science at any given time are tentative and subject to change. There is often a historical progression of ideas in science. Ideas in science are embedded into the socio-cultural context of the scientists time. Moreover, scientific understandings are different from philosophical beliefs because they rely on empirical evidence. Scientific ideas can be defended by facts. Keeping the attributes of the Nature of Science in mind as well as further information on the NOS, your essay demonstrates that you have synthesized the information in the paper into an expressed understanding of the Nature of Science.
To do do well on the assignment, develop a timeline summarizing what you found most important and interesting You do not need to refer to every scientists in the article. This first part may not exceed 3 pages, 12-pt font, double spaced. You may want to identify major events, the name of the scientist, the year, and what they did. Also identify some other interesting facts about the person, or the event. End the essay with 4 well thought out ideas on how you could apply what you have learned to teaching. This last page should be 4 paragraphs and not exceed one full page.
The writing rubric below will be used to score your essay and converted to the appropriate points.
The article is available online at
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2002/Atom.pdf
Due February 17th. Your grade from the rubric below will be converted to a scale of 0-100%
SCIN 315 Rubric 1.
|
Rubric Used to Evaluate Writing Assignments |
|
|
Score |
Descriptors (Organization) |
|
4 |
Clear structure including thesis statement. Develops logical progression of ideas. |
|
3 |
Topic/Subject clear although not explicitly stated in thesis. Ideas are developed consistently into logical sequence. |
|
2 |
Essay may lack internal consistency or have faulty logic sequences. |
|
1 |
Essay does not set clear focus or is rambling in structure. Rudimentary structure with inconsistencies in developments. |
|
0 |
Essay is illegible or has minimal understanding of essay structure. |
|
Score |
Descriptors (Language Use and Conventions of Writing) |
|
4 |
Demonstrates control of sophisticated language use with essential no error or only very minor infrequent errors. |
|
3 |
Language is appropriate to the task. Student demonstrates control of language conventions such as spelling, punctuation capitalization, tenses) exhibiting only occasional errors. Displays sentence fluency. |
|
2 |
Weak transition and use of basic language that is not precise. Demonstrates emerging control of language conventions that do not hinder comprehension. |
|
1 |
Language use hinders comprehension. Essay does not demonstrate sentence fluency or awareness of common writing conventions. |
|
0 |
Inappropriate language use and/or writing conventions. |
|
Content |
|
|
Score |
Descriptors (Developmental Support and Quality of Statements) |
|
4 |
Prompt is analyzed in depth and insightful connections are made. Ideas are developed fully. Relevant and specific support is included. Employs sound reasoning and demonstrates the skills of evaluation, analyzing and applying knowledge to the prompt. |
|
3 |
Conveys a complete understanding of the prompter and makes clear and developed connections to the prompt. Student cites appropriate examples, but may lack sophisticated reasoning and thoughtful development. |
|
2 |
Some ideas are developed more fully than others or student may exhibit some misunderstanding of the prompt or the application of examples to support claims. Demonstrates basic reasoning skills. |
|
1 |
Ideas are not fully developed and student may cite inaccurate or inappropriate examples. Demonstrates little or no evidence of any apparent reasoning skills. |
|
0 |
Essay is illegible or does not exhibit any understanding of the prompt. Response may be unrelated. |
|
Total Score and Conversion based on assignment. |
|
2. Lesson presentations. We are a large class and it is not practical to have each of you present several lessons to the entire class. The following sequence will guide our lesson presentations.
1. Arrive at the class fully prepared to present your lesson to a group of about 4 peer students. That means, lesson plans, worksheets and all materials are ready to go. You'll likely need to come in the day before to get the materials ready. Have enough copies for 4 students.
2. Identify on the top of the lesson plan what type of lesson your are submitting (a 1, 2, or 3 based on the list below).
3. You'll have about 10 minutes to present your plan. Consider this a presentation to peers, not middle or high school students.
4. You'll have about 5 minutes to get feedback on how to improve your lesson presentation from your peer group.
5. Once all group members have presented, you'll have about 20 minutes to modify your lesson plan and materials based on the feedback received.
6. At the end of the lesson you will submit the lesson plan and materials showing in italics of bold what you changed as a result of the peer feedback.
The content of the lessons will vary depending on where we are in the course. All lessons need to be student centered and have at least one identifiable "Inquiry Objective".
In addition, the lessons will include the following:
1. An inquiry oriented lesson that connects science to societal issues.
2. An inquiry oriented lesson involving technology.
3. An inquiry oriented lesson using laboratory equipment and teaching procedural skills (scales, beakers, Bunsen burners, etc).
Presentation Dates are February 10th, March 17th and April 14th
Rubric #2: Each lesson will be graded 0-100%. The three grades will then be averaged generating one score of 0-100.
| Poor (0-14 points/category) | Satisfactory (15-19-points/category) | Exemplary (20-25-points/category) | |
| Lesson Plan | Sloppy, does not represent best effort in addressing all components as identified in lesson plan format. | Represents good effort at addressing all components of lesson plan format. Particular attention taken in aligning goals, instruction and assessment. | Highly detailed plan and creative in presentation. Assessments may include well developed rubrics. Pedagogical strategies are appropriate for middle school learners (cooperative learning, pair/share, learning cycle, jig-saw, etc. You obviously carefully considered the lesson plan template when planning. |
| Inquiry Component | Really a teacher directed lesson. The students follow the teachers lead and the asking and identifying ways to answer questions is not central to the lesson. | Your lesson has some attributes of inquiry (there are many) like observing, data collecting and data analyzing but the lesson does not allow for individuals to ask questions or create novel ways to complete the task. | You have identified the inquiry attributes on the lesson plan and they are central to the thrust of the lesson. In an exemplary inquiry oriented lesson, the pupils will generate questions from observations or experiences and then design ways to come to know the answers to the questions. Ideally inquiry has a personal component to it. That is individuals may seek to discover different things. |
| Presentation and class involvement. | You are looking for materials at the last minute-you are not prepared to teach. | Lesson clearly addresses the assignment and you are ready. There were a few mishaps that you could have avoided-if you had practiced the lesson with your team prior to the class presentation. | You have practiced this lesson and it shows. The college students were involved and you gave them a copy of your lesson plan. |
| Reflection | Little or no evidence you considered the feedback given to improve your lesson. | Some evidence you considered the feedback received and used it to improve your lesson. | You've carefully considered the feedback received from your peers and professor and identified on the lesson plan and materials where modifications were made. |
3. A 6 page paper (not to exceed 6 pages!) on the The Nature of Science and Middle School Science Teaching. Follow APA style and include 5 references. 100 Points Max. Due on April 14th.
a. Pages 1-4 are the main essay and include the 5 references cited.
b. Page 5 is a description in paragraph form, of 3 good examples of how to explicitly teach Nature of Science in Middle School.
c. Page 6 is a rubric you developed to assess students understanding of Nature of Science.
Rubric #3: a 100 point assignment.
| Requirement | Weak (0-19 Points ) | Basic to exemplary 20-33/34 points for each category |
| Conveys knowledge of the Nature of Science | Essay does not convey a clear understanding of NOS or its attributes. You mention NOS attributes but fail to provide sufficient detail convey deep understanding. You paper is not convincing in terms of why it is critical to frequently incorporate ideas of the NOS in science teaching. | Essay describes at least 5 attributes of NOS and why it is critical to incorporate NOS into teaching. The attributes of NOS are described in detail. You distinguish how and why science is different from other ways of knowing. About 4 pages in length--quality is more important than quantity. References (5) are listed at the end of the essay. These should come from journal articles and the National Science Education Standards. Look at "school science and mathematics; the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, or Science Education. These are in Milne Library. |
| Connects Nature of Science to Middle School Science Teaching and Learning | Examples of how to connect NOS to middles school science teaching are either missing or poorly developed. The focus is not convincingly NOS or too superficial to be a meaningful learning experience for k-12 science students. | End the essay with three well thought out examples of how to connect Nature of Science ideas to Middle School Teaching. Describe the objectives, a description of the learning activity, and why you think this is a good idea. |
| Rubric | Rubric is poorly designed and does not unambiguously assess students understanding of three nature of science attributes. | Rubric has three important Nature of Science Attributes and the language in the rubric assesses students understanding at 3 levels (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = satisfactory/developing and 3 = strong understanding). Prepare the rubric so it can be used to evaluate students progress at several points throughout the academic year. |
Rubric 4. Class Participation Rubric: In addition to the three submitted and formally graded assignments you will be scored on your readiness to participate in class and readiness to be a science teacher. You will be graded twice for 100 points. Assessment Dates are March 3rd and May 5th.
|
Assessed |
Poor <84 |
Acceptable 85-94 |
Excellent 95-100 |
|
Readiness to be a Science Teacher |
Little evidence that your science content knowledge and knowledge of teaching and learning are becoming integrated and that you are developing the skills necessary for effective teaching.
Your communication skills need much improvement. |
Your Pedagogical content knowledge is developing but there is evidence that you struggle at times with designing meaningful lessons and or assessments.
Your communication skills-oral and written are satisfactory. You should continue to focus much effort at explaining scientific ideas and concepts. |
On-time and ready to begin each day. Readings and assignments are completed. Actively participate including listening to the ideas of others and the professor. There is evidence that you are developing researched based positions and ideas about teaching and learning.
Your pedagogical Content knowledge is exceptionally well developed for an undergraduate pre-service teacher. You know science content well and you are very capable of developing meaningful and effective lessons and units of instruction. There is solid evidence that you are a reflective learner and dedicated to becoming an excellent science teacher.
Your communication skills-oral and written are excellent. You are very capable of clearly explaining scientific ideas and concepts. |
Grades are based on 400 points using the following scale.
A = 96-100
A- = 92-95
B+ = 89-91
B = 85-88
B- = 81-84
C+ = 77-80
C = 73-76
C- = 69-72
D = 66-68
D- 62-65
E < or = to 61
References for Further Reading
American Association for the Advancement of Science: Project 2061. Science for All Americans. 1990. New York, N.Y. Oxford University Press.
Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 1989. Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, L.B. Resnick, ed.: 361-392. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Brown, A. 1994.The advancement of learning. Presidential Address, American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 23: 4-12.
Brown, A.L., and J.C. Campione. 1994. Guided discovery in a community of learners. In Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, K. McGilly, ed.: 229-270. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruer, J.T. 1993. Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S. 1985. Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carey, S., and R. Gelman, eds. 1991. The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Champagne, A.B. 1988. Science Teaching: Making the System Work. In This Year in School Science 1988: Papers from the Forum for School Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Cohen, D.K., M.W. McLaughlin, and J.E. Talbert, eds. 1993. Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. 1992. Standards of Practice for Learner Centered Schools. New York: National Center for Restructuring Schools and Learning.
Harlen, W. 1992. The Teaching of Science. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Hassard, J. 1992. Minds on Science: Middle and Secondary School Methods. New York, N.Y: Harper Collins Publishers.
Leinhardt, G. 1993. On Teaching. In Advances in Instructional Psychology, R. Glaser ed., vol.4: 1-54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Loucks-Horsley, S., J.G. Brooks, M.O. Carlson, P. Kuerbis, D.P. Marsh, M. Padilla, H. Pratt, and K.L. Smith. 1990. Developing and Supporting Teachers for Science Education in the Middle Years. Andover, MA: The National Center for Improving Science Education.
Loucks-Horsley, S., M.O. Carlson, L.H. Brink, P. Horwitz, D.P. Marsh, H. Pratt, K.R. Roy, and K. Worth. 1989. Developing and Supporting Teachers for Elementary School Science Education. Andover, MA: The National Center for Improving Science Education.
McGilly, K., ed. 1994. Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards). 1991. Toward High and Rigorous Standards for the Teaching Profession: Initial Policies and Perspectives of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 3rd ed. Detroit, MI: NBPTS.
NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). 1991. Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance, D. Druckman and R.A. Bjork, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Fulfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 1987. Education and Learning to Think, L.B. Resnick, ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Schoen, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L.S. 1987. Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57 (1): 1-22
http://oldsci.eiu.edu/physics/DDavis/1350/05Laws/ToC.html
*Shepardson, D. 1997. The Nature of Student Thinking in Life Science Laboratories. School Science and Mathematics
*Wilson, J.T & Stensvold, M. 1993. Using Three Types of Outcomes to Design Laboratory Activities. School Science and Mathematics
Shepardson, D.P & Pizzine, E.L 1993. A Comparison of Student Perceptions of Science Activities within Three Instructional Approaches. School Science and Mathematics
Bischoff, P; Hatch, D & Watford, L.(1999) The State of Readiness of Middle School Mathematics and Science Teachers. School Science and Mathematics
*Kpan, Joseph Paul ; Andre, Thomas. The Effect of a Prior Dissection Simulation on Middle School Students' Dissection Performance and Understanding of the Anatomy and Morphology of the Frog. Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology v8 n2 p107-21 Jun 1999.
Sadler, P. Coyle, H. & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering Competitions in the Middle School Science Classroom: Key Elements to Designing Effective Design Challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.
Ritchie, D & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of Two Generative Learning Strategies in the Science Classroom. School Science and Mathematics.
Meichtry, Y.L 1992. Using Laboratory Experiences to Develop the Scientific Literacy of Middle School Students. School Science and Mathematics.