Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdisciplinary Secondary Science Methods

A United States – Massachusetts Context

  • Chapter
Designing and Teaching the Secondary Science Methods Course

Abstract

Reforms in science teaching and learning in the United States (U.S.) date back to Sputnik and the race for space (Bybee & McInerney, 1995; NCEE, 1983; National Science Board, 1983). During this time, the U.S. began to emphasize science and mathematics more in schools and later included engineering and technology to what is now known collectively as STEM – for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Bybee, 2013; NRC, 2011).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/next-generation-science-standards

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Gowals, A. W. (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning and Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R, W., & McInerney, J. D. (1995). Redesigning the science curriculum: Report on the implications of standards and benchmarks for science education. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). Report on the BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Unpublished white paper, Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Retrieved from http://bscs.org/bscs-5e-instructional-model

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, A. (2008). Experiencing the nature of science: An interactive, beginning-of-semester activity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(5), 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Witzig, S. B., Welty, D., & French, M. M. (2014). STEM in the science classroom: A critical examination of mathematics manifest in science teaching and learning. In R. E. Yager & H. Brunkhorst (Eds.), Exemplary STEM programs: Designs for success. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, C. (2015). Modeling molecular machinery. The Science Teacher, 82(2), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konicek-Moran, R., & Keeley, P. (2015). Teaching for conceptual understanding in science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education volume II (pp. 601–620). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching science. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DESE). (2001/2006). Science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf

  • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DESE). (2015). Guidelines for the professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/edprep/advisories/TeachersGuidelines.pdf

  • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DESE). (2016). Science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html

  • McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(8), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Successful STEM education: A workshop summary. A. Beatty, Rapporteur. Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education, Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment. Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, DC: A report the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (U.S.). (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: A plan of action for improving mathematics, science, and technology education for all American elementary and secondary students so that their achievement is the best in by 1995. Washington, DC: The National Science Board Commission on Pre-college Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 1109–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, S., Klein, V., & Namdar, B. (2016). Making critical friends: Using socioscientific issues to teach argumentation and evidence-based reasoning. The Science Teacher, 83(10), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., Pilburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, R. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzig, S. B., & Campbell, T. (2015, April). Investigating the development of secondary science methods students’ orientations and practices toward teaching science. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witzig, S. B., Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2013). The interface of opinion, evaluation, and understanding while learning about a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2483–2507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzig, S. B., Freyermuth, S. K., Siegel, M. A., Izci, K., & Pires, J. C. (2013). Is DNA alive? A study of conceptual change through targeted instruction. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1361–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of STEM Education & Teacher Development, USA

    Stephen B. Witzig

  2. School of Education, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA

    Stephen B. Witzig

Authors
  1. Stephen B. Witzig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Western Sydney University, Australia

    Aaron J. Sickel

  2. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA

    Stephen B. Witzig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Witzig, S.B. (2017). Interdisciplinary Secondary Science Methods. In: Sickel, A.J., Witzig, S.B. (eds) Designing and Teaching the Secondary Science Methods Course. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-881-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-881-5_3

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-881-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation