Science Teacher Educator’s Partnership Experiences Teaching Urban Middle School Students in Multiple Informal Settings

Chapter
Part of the ASTE Series in Science Education book series (ASTE, volume 1)

Abstract

Based upon the belief that children need relevant science experiences outside the formal classroom setting, Sherri collaborated with informal educators and public works personnel (e.g., utility engineers and plant managers) to offer a summer camp to underserved urban seventh graders. This summer program was offered during six consecutive summers. As a group, students and teachers observed and participated in science “in action” at the zoo, wastewater treatment facility, power plant, and forest. From these experiences, Dr. Brown learned new strategies to use when visiting novel sites with adolescents. She also refined her skills to authentically use science notebooks and technology with this age group. By experiencing these community visits alongside adolescents, Sherri was able to apply this knowledge in working with teachers to authentically assist them in planning and organizing effective field trips.

Keywords

Site Visit Science Teacher Educator Wastewater Treatment Facility Gypsum Board Informal Educator 
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. American Forest Foundation. (2007). Project learning tree: Pre K-8 environmental education activity guide. Washington, DC: American Forest Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, N. (1998). A focus on art museum/school collaborations. Art Education, 51(2), 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, S. L. (2012, January). Outcomes of four environmental science institutes on urban middle school students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), Clearwater.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S. L., Votaw, N. L., & Tretter, T. R. (2010). Teachers connecting urban students to their environment. In A. M. Bodzin, B. S. Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.), The Inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 191–207). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. City of Louisville, Kentucky. (2010). A world class innovation: Louisville Water Company completes its riverbank filtration project. LouisvilleWater.com Newsroom. Retrieved 5 June, 2013, from http://www.louisvilleky.gov/LWC/News/2010/Riverbank+Filtration+Project+Completed.htm
  6. Cornell, J. (1998). Sharing nature with children. Nevada City: Dawn Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Council for Environmental Education. (2002). Project wild K-12 curriculum and activity guide. Houston: Council for Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  8. Dearing-Smith, K. (2002, May). Pure tap adventures in water: A learning curriculum. Louisville: Louisville Water.Google Scholar
  9. Eick, C. J., & Dias, M. (2005). Building the authority of experience in communities of practice: The development of preservice teachers’ practical knowledge through coteaching in inquiry classrooms. Science Education, 89, 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eick, C. J., Ware, F. N., & Jones, M. T. (2004). Coteaching in a secondary science methods course: Learning through a coteaching model that supports early teacher practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(3), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilmer, P., & Cirillo, J. (2007, April). Using cogenerative dialogue with undergraduate biochemistry students to improve learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  12. Kisiel, J. (2010). Exploring a school-aquarium collaboration: An intersection of communities of practice. Science Education, 94, 95–121.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lincoln Foundation. (n.d.). Lincoln Foundation: Overcoming adversity through education since 1910. Retrieved 28 September, 2008, from http://www.lincolnfdn.org
  15. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District. (2004). See how the Floyds Fork plant works. Retrieved 5 July, 2012, from http://www.msdlouky.org/insidemsd/floydswtp.htm
  16. Milne, C., Scantlebury, K., Blonstein, J., & Gleason, S. (2011). Coteaching and disturbances: Building a better system for learning to teach science. Research in Science Education, 41(3), 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moneypenny, J. S. (2009). The business case for green buildings. Sustainable, 20, 12–16, Spring/Summer.Google Scholar
  18. Osborne, K. (2012). Build your own motor kit. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from Science Kit and Boreal Laboratories’ website http://sciencekit.com/build-your-own-motor-kit-teacher-developed-classroom-tested/p/IG0031933/
  19. Population Connection. (2007). Something for everyone. Retrieved 5 July, 2012, from ftp://download.canaanvi.org/WVSLIC/Evening/someforeveryone%20simulation.pdf
  20. RiverVenture. (n.d.). Classroom activity: Food webs. Retrieved 5 July, 2012, from http://www.riverventure.org/charleston/resources/pdf/food%20web%20game.pdf
  21. Robertson, A. (2007). Development of shared vision: Lessons from a science education community collaborative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 681–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roth, W.-M., & Boyd, N. (1999). Coteaching, as colearning, is praxis. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbows of another: Learning to teach through coteaching. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Roth, W.-M., Masciotra, D., & Boyd, N. (1999). Becoming-in-the-classroom: A case study of teacher development through coteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7), 771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Louisville Zoo. (n.d.). Islands: The world’s first multi-species rotational exhibit. Retrieved 5 June, 2013, from http://www.louisvillezoo.org/islands/index.htm
  26. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Implementing coteaching and cogenerative dialoguing in urban science education. School Science & Mathematics, 105(6), 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wassell, B., & LaVan, S. K. (2009). Tough transitions? Mediating beginning urban teachers’ practices through coteaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weiland, I. (2011, October). Toward uncovering the nature of a partnership between an elementary teacher and an informal science educator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Association for Science Teacher Education, Olive Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whitney M. Young Scholars. (n.d.). Lincoln Foundation educational programs. Retrieved 5 June, 2013, from http://www.lincolnfdn.org/educational-programs/whitney-m-young/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Early Childhood and Elementary Education Department, College of Education and Human Development, Room 275University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations