Change in Thinking Demands for Students Across the Phases of a Science Task: An Exploratory Study

Abstract

Science education communities around the world have increasingly emphasized engaging students in the disciplinary practices of science as they engage in high levels of reasoning about scientific ideas. Consistently, this is a critical moment in time in the USA as it goes through a new wave of science education reform within the context of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We argue that the placement of high demands on students’ thinking (i.e., a high level of thinking) in combination with positioning students to use disciplinary practices as they try to make sense of scientific ideas (i.e., a deep kind of thinking) constitute critical aspects of the reform. The main purpose of this paper is to identify and describe the kinds and levels of thinking in which students engage when they are invited to think and reason as demanded by NGSS-aligned curricular tasks. Our analysis of video records of classrooms in which an NGSS-aligned, cognitively demanding task was used, revealed many ways in which the aspirational level and kind of student thinking will not be met in many science classrooms. We propose a way of characterizing and labeling the differences among these kinds and levels of thinking during the implementation of a reform-based biology curriculum. These categories, which focus on two important features emphasized in the NGSS, can help us to better understand, diagnose, and communicate issues during the implementation of high-level tasks in science classrooms.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Anderson, D., & Nashon, S. (2007). Predators of knowledge construction: Interpreting students' metacognition in an amusement park physics program. Science Education, 91(2), 298–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change. Journal of MathematicsTeacher Education, 8(6), 499–536.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aubusson, P., Panizzon, D., & Corrigan, D. (2016). Science education futures: “great potential. Could do better. Needs to try harder”. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 203–221.

  4. Banilower, E., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weiss, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). The task and the teacher: Enhancing student thoughtfulness in science. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Planning and managing learning tasks and activities, Vol. 3. Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside school. Teachers’ College Record, 110(3), 608–645.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boston, M., & Wolf, M. K. (2004). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) toolkit to assess academic rigor in mathematics lessons and assignments. San Diago: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice. In Design Brief. Evanston: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, 17–36.

  11. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

  13. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2000). Instructional innovation: Reconsidering the story. New Orleans: Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  14. Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In N. Leder-man & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Vol II. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 355–376.

  16. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Duncan, R., & Cavera, V. (2015). DCIs, SEPs, and CCs, Oh My! Understanding the three dimensions of the NGSS. Science and Children, 52(2), 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond nature of science: The case for Reconceptualising “Science” for science education. Science Education International, 25(1), 93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: Research and perspectives (pp. 89–120). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Kennedy, C. A., et al. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 1362–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: classroom based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.

  24. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 17–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jackson, K. J., Shahan, E. C., Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. A. (2012). Launching complex tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(1), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jones, M. T., & Eick, C. J. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations, and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science Education, 91(3), 492–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

  30. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Levin, D. M. (2008). What secondary science teachers pay attention to in the classroom: Situating teaching in institutional and social systems. University of Maryland at College Park: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Levin, D. M., & Richards, J. (2011). Learning to attend to the substance of students’ thinking in science. Science Educator, 20(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Levin, D. M., Grant, T., & Hammer, D. (2012). Attending and responding to student thinking in science. The American Biology Teacher, 74(3), 158–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Levin, D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2013). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.

  37. Nashon, S. M., Anderson, D., Okemwa, P., Kelonye, F., Ooko, S., & Ombogo, P. (2015). Student learning impact on science teachers’ teaching: The case of a form 3 science case in Kenya. Journal of Technology & Socio-Economic Development, 4(6), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  39. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196.

  41. Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in earth systems science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Powell, J. C., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 107–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reiser, B. J. (2013). What Professional Development Strategies Are Needed for Successful Implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? White paper presented to the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment. K-12 Center at ETS.

  44. Reiser, B. J. (2014, April). Designing coherent storylines aligned with NGSS for the K-12 classroom. Boston: National Science Education Leadership Association Meeting.

  45. Reiser, B. J. (2015). Designing coherent storylines aligned with NGSS for K-12 classroom Received on April 1, 2017 from https://www.academia.edu/6884962/Designing_Coherent_Storylines_Aligned_with_NGSS_for_the_K-12_Classroom

  46. Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Schuchardt, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100(2), 290–320.

  49. Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  51. Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform. In G. M. Lloyd, J. T. Remillard, & B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37–55). New York, NY: Routledge.

  52. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: an analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.

  53. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: from research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.

  54. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.

  55. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (First Edition). New York: Teachers College Press.

  56. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environments on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tekkumru-Kisa, M. (2013). Science teachers’ learning to notice from video cases of the enactment of cognitively demanding instructional tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

  59. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2014). Using contrasting video cases of enactment of cognitively demanding science tasks in professional development. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.), 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 808–815). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.

  60. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways a foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136.

  61. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 659–685.

  62. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Hiester, H., & Kisa, Z. (2017). Nature of science tasks as a lens to understand students’ opportunities to learn. San Antonio: Paper presented at 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  63. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Trautmann, N., MaKinster, J., & Avery, L. (2004). What makes inquiry so hard? (and why is it worth it?). In Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC.

  66. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education. Research Monograph No. 6.

  67. Weiss, I. R. (1987). Report of the 1985–86 national survey of science and mathematics education. Research Triangle Park: Research Triangle Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1982). Students’ and teachers’ views of thinking processes for classroom learning. The Elementary School Journal, 82(5), 493–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work on this paper was supported by a grant DRL-1027629 from the National Science Foundation to the Learning Research and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh. All opinions and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

We would like to thank Louis Alferi for his contribution to the data analysis.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miray Tekkumru-Kisa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C., Stein, M.K. et al. Change in Thinking Demands for Students Across the Phases of a Science Task: An Exploratory Study. Res Sci Educ 49, 859–883 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9645-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Scientific practices
  • Cognitive demand
  • Student thinking
  • Science tasks