Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Analysis of Children’s Science Talk in an Undergraduate Physics Course

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

We investigated how prospective teachers used physics content knowledge when analyzing the talk of elementary children during special activities in an undergraduate physics content course designed for prospective teachers. We found that prospective teachers used content knowledge to reflect on their own learning and to identify students’ science ideas and restate these ideas in scientific terms. Based on this research, we inferred that analyzing children’s ideas through videos provides a meaningful context for applying conceptual physics knowledge in physics courses. Activities that are embedded within a disciplinary curriculum, such as those studied here, may help prospective teachers learn to use disciplinary knowledge in exactly the type of activity in which their content knowledge will be most useful: listening to and interpreting children’s science ideas.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abell, S., & Cennamo, K., (2004). Videocases in elementary science teacher preparation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching volume 10: Using video in teacher education (pp. 103–129). New York: Elsevier.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • American Association of Physics Teachers [AAPT]. (1995). Powerful ideas in physical science. College Park, MD.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Ball, D. (1997). What do students know? Facing challenges of distance, context, and desire in trying to hear children. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. II, pp. 769–818). Doderich, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (2003). Opportunities to talk science in a high school chemistry classroom. Research in Science Education, 33, 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and teacher education, 24, 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D., Horton, G., Van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2004). Concerning scientific discourse about heat. Sacramento, CA: Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B., & Ryoo, K. (2007). Teaching science as a language: A ‘‘Content-First’’ approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553. doi:10.1002/tea.20255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., Schunn, C., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, D., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistic perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. doi:10.1002/sce.20050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fosnot, C., & Dolk, M. (2002). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing fractions, decimals, and percents. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulp, S. (2002). 2000 National survey of science and mathematics education: Status of elementary school science teaching: Horizon Research Inc.

  • Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construction and its implications. Dordrecht: Klewer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & Otero, V. (2007). Physics and everyday thinking (PET). Armok: It’s About Time.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., & Kuhl, P. (1999). The scientist in the crib: What early learning tells us about the mind. Mew York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J. (1986). Interactional sociolinguiostics in the study of schooling. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social construction of literacy (pp. 45–68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussin-Paley, V. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56(2), 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 441–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Zee, Van. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, D. (2010). Structures and improvisation for inquiry-based science instruction: A teacher’s adaptation of a model of magnetism activity. Science Education, 94(1), 142–163. doi:10.1002/sce.20348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and teacher education, 3, 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, S., Jacob, W., Moon, K., Guzman, M., & Lager, C. (2010). Measuring the differences in prospective elementary teachers’ and secondary teachers’ early pedagogical content knowledge using video cases. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2010 (pp. 3456–3467). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrepic, Z., Adams, P., Zeller, J., Talbott, N., Taggart, G., Young, L., et al. (2005). Developing an inquiry-based physical science course for preservice elementary teachers. In L. McCollough & J. Marx (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 PERC (pp. 818–821). Melville, NY: AIP Press.

  • Itza-Ortiz, S., Rebello, N. S., & Zollman, D. A. (2003). The vocabulary of introductory physics and its implications for learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 41. doi:10.1119/1.1607802.

  • Jackson, D. P & Laws, P. W. (1997). Workshop physical science: Project-based science education for future teachers, parents, and citizens. In E. F. Redish & J. S. Rigden (Eds.), The changing role of physics departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the international conference on undergraduate physics education (pp. 623–630). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, AIP Press.

  • Jenness, M., & Miller, P. (2005). PET external evaluation: An analysis of pre/post content test scores. Western Michigan: Mallinson Institute for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P. (2005). Using research-based video-cases to help pre-service primary teachers conceptualize a contemporary view of mathematics teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 351–377. doi:10.1007/s10763-004-8369-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, B.A., Hsu, L., Sadaghiani, H., Taylor, J. W., & Cummings, K. (2012). Positive attitudinal shifts with the physics by inquiry curriculum across multiple implementations, Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 010102.

  • May, D. B., Hammer, D., & Roy, P. (2006). Children’s analogical reasoning in a third-grade science discussion. Science Education, 90(2), 316–330. doi:10.1002/sce.20116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special courses for teachers,”. American Journal of Physics, 58(8), 734–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by inquiry (Vols. I and III). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, A., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, G. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–478. doi:10.1002/tea.1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: AERA.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Educating teachers of science, mathematics and technology: New practices for a new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Child discourse and social learning (pp. 63–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Otero, V., & Gray, K. (2008). Attitudinal gains across multiple universities using the physics and everyday thinking curriculum. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 4, 020104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). Teachers as designers: Pre and in-service teachers’ authoring of anchor video as a means to professional development. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 411–423). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X029001004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosaen, C., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. (2010). Videocses for science teaching analysis (ViSTA): An experience with online, videocase-based modules designed for use in pre-service science methods courses, Association of Science Teacher Educators, www.bscs.org/ASTE2010.

  • Sanders, T. (2004). No time to waste: The vital role of college and university leaders in improving science and mathematics education. Paper presented at the Teacher preparation and institutions of higher education: Mathematics and science content knowledge, United Stated Department of Education.

  • Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38–51. doi:10.1177/0022487108328485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. (2007). The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: And empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video0based field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 123–140. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edn., pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, J., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockero, S. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 373–394. doi:10.1007/s10857-008-9079-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 637–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps and recommendations (No. R-01-3): Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

  • Yadav, A. (2008). What works for them? Pre-service teachers perceptions of their learning from video cases. Action in Teacher Education, 29(4), 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R. (2002). Using digital video to expand prospective science teachers’ views of science. The Online Journal of Teaching and Learning in the CSU.

  • Yerrick, R., Ross, D., & Molebash, P. (2005). Too close for comfort: Real-time science teaching reflections via digital video editing. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 351–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the support of NSF (DRL-0096856) and the entire PET team, particularly Fred Goldberg and Steve Robinson. The data presented, the statements made, and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9490, USA

    Danielle B. Harlow

  2. Whittier College, Whittier, CA, USA

    Lauren H. Swanson

  3. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Valerie K. Otero

Authors
  1. Danielle B. Harlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren H. Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valerie K. Otero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle B. Harlow.

About this article

Cite this article

Harlow, D.B., Swanson, L.H. & Otero, V.K. Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Analysis of Children’s Science Talk in an Undergraduate Physics Course. J Sci Teacher Educ 25, 97–117 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9319-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9319-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation