Helping Preservice Science Teachers Analyze Their Practices as We Study Our Own

Chapter
Part of the Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices book series (STEP, volume 12)

Abstract

This self-study describes the impact of introducing and using a teaching observation protocol, the Oregon Teacher Observation Protocol (OTOP), on preservice teachers’ abilities to examine their own science teaching in light of reform-based teaching practices and the effects of this assignment on us as science methods instructors. Students were introduced to the protocol and practiced applying it by viewing video-taped science lessons. As the contextual anchor for self-reflection, preservice teachers used the protocol to critique one of their practicum science lessons. They were asked to identify particular strategies evident in their lessons and to rate them as major, minor, or absent. This assignment showed them how to analyze their teaching using a lens of reform-based practices for science teaching. It also enabled us to see where we needed to refocus our teaching to better prepare preservice teachers and to identify where we needed to be more transparent about our own modeling of practices.

Keywords

Science Teaching Preservice Teacher Student Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teacher Candidate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aldridge, B. G. (1989, January/February). Essential changes in secondary school science: Scope, sequence and coordination. NSTA Reports, 1, 4–5.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aubusson, P., Griffin, J., & Steele, F. (2010). A design-based self-study of the development of student reflection in teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 6(2), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, A. J., & Rosaen, C. (2010). Making sense of classroom diversity: How can field instruction practices support interns’ learning? Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benford, R., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2006). Factors affecting student academic success in gateway courses at Northern Arizona University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495693).Google Scholar
  7. Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Casareno, A. B. (1994). Examining teacher reflectivity in the multicultural classroom: Two teachers’ view on diversity and literacy development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Ciriello, M. J., Valli, L., & Taylor, N. E. (1992). Problem solving is not enough: Reflective teacher education at the Catholic University of America. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teacher education (pp. 99–115). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.Google Scholar
  11. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grouws, D. A., & Schultz, K. A. (1996). Mathematics teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Horizon Research, Inc. (2005). 2005–06 Core evaluation manual: Classroom observation protocol. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/cop.pdf
  14. Jackson, D. K. (2009). Incorporating RTOP as an assignment in a science methods course. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Educators, Hartford, CT.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, C. (2007). Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher change: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 629–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, C., Kahle, J., & Fargo, J. (2007). Effective teaching results in increased science achievement for all preservice teachers. Science Education, 91(3), 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2001). Tracking transfer of reform methodology from science and math college courses to the teaching style of beginning teachers of grades 5–12. Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (Technical Report No. PRGOI-2, ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 455 208).Google Scholar
  18. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice. In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacIsaac, D., Sawada, D., & Falconer, K. (2001). Using the reform teaching observation protocol (RTOP) as a catalyst for self-reflective change in secondary science teaching (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452070).Google Scholar
  21. Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McClanahan, L. G. (2008). Practicing what we preach: Using reflective writing as an indicator of learning. Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morrell, P. D., Flick, L., & Wainwright, C. (2004). Reform teaching strategies used by preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(5), 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrell, P. D., & Latz, M. (1992, March). The development of preservice teachers’ perceptions of positive and negative teacher characteristics. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  25. Morrell, P. D., Latz, M., & Lwo, L. (1992, January). The sources of stress among student teachers in science and mathematics. Paper presented at the meeting of the Oregon Academy of Science, Salem, OR.Google Scholar
  26. Morrell, P. D., Steinbock, S., & Casareno, A. (1999, January). Reflective journaling: A way to enhance preservice teachers’ field experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  27. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1992). National science education standards: An enhanced sampler (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360174).Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (1996a). From analysis to action. Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (1996b). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (1999). Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Judson, E. (2000). Reform teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual (ACEPT Technical Report No. INOO-3). Tempe, AZ: Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  36. Sampson, V. (2004). The science management observation protocol: Using structured observations to improve teachers’ management of inquiry-based classrooms. Science Teacher, 71(10), 30–33.Google Scholar
  37. Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reform teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wainwright, C., Flick, L., & Morrell, P. D. (2004). The development of instruments for assessment of instructional practices in standards-based teaching. The Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 6, 21–46.Google Scholar
  39. Wainwright, C., Flick, L., Morrell, P. D., & Schepige, A. (2004). Observation of reform teaching in undergraduate level mathematics and science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 104(7), 322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of PortlandPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Division of Teacher Education, College of EducationWestern Oregon UniversityMonmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations