Advertisement

Negotiating Science Content: A Structural Barrier in Science Academic Performance

  • Barbara Rascoe
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter proposes strategies designed to launch, promote, and enhance science educators’ effectiveness relative to addressing preservice science teachers’ negotiating science content and using different perspectives to engage science learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving (County of Chief State School Officers, 2011). It is incumbent upon science educators to help future science teachers negotiate science content—notwithstanding pedagogical methodologies. This chapter posits how science educators may help future science teachers become science content engineers using crosscutting concepts, science and engineering practices, and other science standards such as science and technology and the history and nature of science. Conclusions infer “so what” in reference to the big picture—positioning science students for telescopic experiences that augment their getting and understanding the core ideas in science.

Keywords

Science Educator Science Teacher Scientific Method Science Content Science Student 
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. Aikenhead, G., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (1999). A movement against and beyond boundaries: “Politically relevant teaching” among African American teachers. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 702–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bianchini, J. A. (2011). How to foster student to student learning in science? The student, the teacher, and the subject matter. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 6(4), 871–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamany, K. (2006). Science and social justice: Making the case for case studies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), 54–59.Google Scholar
  5. Chiou, G.-L., & Anderson, O. R. (2010). A multi-dimensional cognitive analysis of undergraduate physics students’ understanding of heat conduction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 2113–2142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chisholm, L. (2008). Re-contextualising learning in second modernity. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 13(2), 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clough, M. P. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the game of science is played. Clearing House, 74, 13–17.Google Scholar
  8. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coll, R. K., Dahsah, C., & Faikhamta, C. (2010). The influence of educational context on science learning: A cross-national analysis of PISA. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connors, M. M., & Perkins, B. (2009). The nature of science education. Democracy and Education, 18(3), 56–60.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  12. Cowens, J. (2006). The scientific method. Teaching PreK-8, 37, 44–46.Google Scholar
  13. Crowther, D. T., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). Understanding the true meaning of nature of science: Teaching suggestions to help you highlight the meaning of science. Science and Children, 4, 50–52.Google Scholar
  14. Deng, Z. (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary-school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deutsch, D. (2011). The source of all progress. New Scientist, 210(2809), 30–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  19. Garcia, P. (2009). Discovery by serendipity: A new context for an old riddle. Foundations of Chemistry, 11(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauld, C. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science and Education, 66, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giberson, K. (2005). Teachable moments. Science and Spirit, 16(5), 6–7.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graeber, A. (1999). Forms of knowing mathematics: What preservice teachers should learn. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1–3), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grossman, R. W. (2005). Discovering hidden transformations: Making science and other courses more learnable. College Teaching, 53(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodson, D. (2010). Science education as a call to action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 10(3), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurd, P. D. (1991). Why we must transform science education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 33–35.Google Scholar
  28. Ivan, H. (2010). Single-crystal-to-single-crystal reactivity: Gray, rather than Black or White. Crystal Growth & Design, 10(7), 2817–2823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kincaid, H. (2009). A more sophisticated Merton. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 39(2), 266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krone, R. M. (2005). Science and technology for what? Review of Policy Research, 22(4), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279(5350), 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Gerlovich, J. (2000). Teaching science for all children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  34. McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science and Education, 7, 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Medawar, B. (1963/1990). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In the threat and the glory: Reflections on science and scientists. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  37. Mensah, F. M. (2009). Confronting assumptions, biases, and stereotypes in preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of science teaching through the use of book clubs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merrett, C. D. (2004). Social justice: What is it? Why teach it? The Journal of Geography, 103(3), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merriam-Webster. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20contract
  40. Mervis, J. (2009). A death in Antarctica. Science, 323(5910), 32–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mohrig, J. R. (2004). The problem with organic chemistry labs. Journal of Chemistry Education, 81(8), 1083–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, F. M. (2008). Agency, identity, and social justice education: Preservice teachers’ thoughts on becoming agents of change in urban elementary science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 38(5), 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962
  44. National Research Council. (2009). A new biology for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  45. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  46. National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Orstein, A. (2010). Achievement gaps in education. Society, 47(5), 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rascoe, B. (2005). Black male students’ academic achievement in science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(5), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Santrock, J. W. (2010). Adolescence (13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Sweeney, M. O. (2008). The world is not Black and White. More like Black and Gray. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 19(1), 28–31. Retrieved from DOI:  10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.01004.x
  51. Valadez, J. R. (2010). Explaining the science achievement gap. Leadership, 40(1), 30–38.Google Scholar
  52. Venkatramani, R., Keinan, S., Balaeff, A., & Beratan, D. N. (2011). Nucleic acid charge transfer: Black White and Gray. Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 255(7/8), 635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinberg, M. (2003). A leg (or three) to stand on. Science and Children, 40(6), 28–30.Google Scholar
  55. Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
  56. Wood, D. R. (2007). Professional learning communities: Teachers, knowledge, and knowing. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Woolfolk, A. (2011). Educational psychology: Active learning edition (11th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  58. Zeide, B. (2010). Falsification and certainty. Mathematical and Computational Forestry and Natural Resource Sciences, 2(2), 161–162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tift College of EducationMercer UniversityMaconUSA

Personalised recommendations