Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Investigating Pre-service Science Teachers’ Developing Professional Knowledge Through the Lens of Differentiated Instruction

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the author implemented a problem-based learning (PBL) experience that allowed students in an advanced science methodology course to explore differentiated instruction. Through working systematically in small, collaborative groups, students explored the nature of differentiated instruction. The objective of the study was to examine pre-service teachers’ developing conceptions of differentiated instruction (DI) as a way to teach for diversity. The author adopted action research as a strategy to explore students’ perceptions of DI in the context of science teaching and learning. Several data collection methods and sources were adopted in the study, including student-generated products, student interviews, classroom observation, and journal writing. Outcomes report on students’ perceptions of both the potential and challenges associated with adopting a DI approach to science teaching and learning.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although scientific literacy has been accepted as a desirable goal, consensus on meaning does not exist. The author’s beliefs about scientific literacy align with a conception presented by Hodson (1998) as follows: learning science (acquiring and developing conceptual and theoretical knowledge); learning about science (developing an understanding of the nature and methods of science, an appreciation of its history and development, and an awareness of the complex interactions among science, technology, society, and environment); and doing science (engaging in and developing expertise in scientific inquiry and problem-solving) (p.5).

  2. Flexible grouping is based on the premise that all students learn at different rates and in different ways. When adopted in classrooms, students may be grouped (group sizes varies) based on interest, need, level of understanding of content, or skill level for particular tasks/topics. Groups are not static and groups may be formed and dissolved, and new groups formed as the need arises and the learning goals and objectives targeted vary.

  3. Tracking is the educational practice of placing students in permanent groups based on ability. Used in many parts of North America and in Britain, the practice has been highly criticzed (Oakes, 1985, 1990, 1992) as being harmful to many children, especially those who are not White and from lower socioeconomic families. Some harmful effects reported for low ability tracked groups include stigmatization by peers, delivery of unengaging curricula, and assignment of less experienced teachers to low-ability groups.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artiles, A., & McClafferty, K. (1998). Learning to teacher culturally diverse learners: Charting change in preservice teachers’ thinking about effective teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 189–220. doi:10.1086/461891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (1995). (Eds.). Handbook of research on multicultural education. New York: Macmillan.

  • Barrows, H. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University of Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., & Kelson, A. C. (1995). Problem-based learning in secondary education and the problem-based learning institute (Monograph 1). Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, N. H., & Lechner, J. V. (1995). Preservice teachers’attitudes about and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 149–161. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00018-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, L. (2002). The politics of standardization: Teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 28(3), 239–245. doi:10.1080/0260747022000021377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, G. A., & Cordes, J. (2005). An action research project on preparing teachers to meet the needs of underserved student populations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 43–64. doi:10.1007/s10972-005-6991-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers. (2005). Interstate new teacher assessment and support consortium (INTASC). Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Consortium/.

  • Council of Ministers of Education (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). The future of teacher evaluation. In The Education of Teachers pp. 221–256. Chicago, IL: NSSE-University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S., & Hammer, M. (2006). Laura's story: Using problem based learning in early childhood and primary teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 22(4), 465–477. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eick, C., & 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(3), 470–491. doi:10.1002/sce.20036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York: Nichols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, C., Petrilli, M., & Vanourek, G. (2000). The state of state standards. Fordham Report, 2(5), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fives, H., & Buehl, M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers' knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 134–176. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenewald, D. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X032004003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, (3), 235–266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Andrews, R., & Carr, D. (2004). Traditional versus integrated preservice teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 341–356. doi:10.1177/0022487104266778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, V. (1990). Differentiation is the key. Language Learning, 3, 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, C. (2005). The “I-Thou” relationship, place-based education. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), 277–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, J. (2007). Student teachers, special educational needs and inclusion education: reviewing the potential for problem-based, e-learning pedagogy to support practice. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 33(3), 359–377. doi:10.1080/02607470701450551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., & Fradd, S. (1998). Science for all, including students form non-English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). “Source of teachers' pedagogical knowledge.”. In J. Gess Newsome, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 21–50). Dortrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). NCATE standards. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://www.ncate.org/standard/m_stds.htm.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1986). Tracking, inequality, and the rhetoric of reform: Why schools don't change. Journal of Education, 168(1), 60–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Class, and Tracking Opportunities to Learn Math and Science. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political Considerations. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1992). Detracking schools: Early lessons from the field. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(6), 448–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 3–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, V. O., & Sablan, V. A. (1998). Teacher efficacy. In M.E. Dilworth (Ed.), Being responsive to cultural differences (pp. 39–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, A. J., & Kitchen, R. S. (2005). Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: promising strategies for transformative pedagogy. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(1), 37–55. doi:10.2307/1602144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagor, R. (2004). The action research guidebook: A four-step process for educators and school teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M., & Lee, J. (2001). But electricity isn't static: Science discussion, identification of learning issues, and use of resources in a problem-based learning education course. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460021) Retrieved October 5, 2008, from ERIC database.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (1995). Detracking and its detractors: Flawed evidence, flawed values. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 220–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally divers schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. doi:10.1177/0022487101052002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., Moallem, M., & Sherrill, D. (1997). How preservice teachers think about cultural diversity. Educational Foundations, 11(2), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443572).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2001a). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom: What does it mean? How does it look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2001b). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valli, L. (1995). The dilemma of race: Learning to be color blind and color conscious. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 120–129. doi:10.1177/0022487195046002006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 885–897. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winzer, M. (1999). Children with exceptionalities in Canadian classrooms (5th ed.). Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall/Allyn and Bacon Canada.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Goodnough.

Appendix

Appendix

A. Problem Scenario

Janice, a second-year science teacher, is completing a grade 9 unit on Environmental Quality and will be starting a unit on Chemical Changes. She has a class of 25 students who are diverse in terms of academic ability, interests, and motivation. Six of her students find it very difficult to grasp scientific concepts, one student misses class regularly, and a couple of students are exceptionally bright (they can learn very quickly and are independent learners). Janice is not very pleased with how her students are responding to science classes. She gave them a short survey yesterday to find out what they think about science. At least 50% of the class reported that they did not like science and could not remember doing much science in elementary school. Other students said they liked science, but wanted to do more investigations. One student said, “My friend at Belfast Junior High does lots of exciting things in her class. They got to make ice-cream, made an invention, and go to the lab all the time. That sounds more exciting than reading books and talking in groups.”

Janice discusses her concerns with an experienced science teacher, Ms. Rice, on her staff. Ms. Rice received a teaching award last year for her innovation in teaching science. Ms. Rice explains to Janice that she may need to move away from a teaching approach that attempts to use “a one-size-fits-all” approach. Ms. Rice says, “I try to differentiate instruction when teaching science. It is not always easy. . .my classes seem to become more diverse with every passing year. There are four ways you can think about differentiating learning: through the content, your assessment tools, your performance tasks, or your instructional strategies. If I were you, I would start small and try one new thing at a time.”

Janice reflects on this advice and decides she needs to find out more about differentiated instruction. What does this mean? What are the benefits of differentiated instruction? How do you do this in a large science classroom? How should I start?

B. Approaches and Strategies for Differentiating Science Instruction Adopted by Pre-service Students during the Development of their PBL Products

 

Group

Topic

Content Goals/Outcomes targeted and Types of Product

Approaches and strategies adopted

Specific example

I

Interactions within Ecosystems

Set of lesson plans

B, L, O, T

Tiered Assignment (based on readiness):

Students will propose and defend a course of action to protect the local habitat of a particular organism

Student Scenario: It has recently been discovered that a local pulp and paper mill has been releasing pollutants into the river (it is not known whether it is accidental or intentional). The discharge has seriously damaged the local river system, and has placed river life in jeopardy.

Students complete one of the following projects:

a) Choose a species found in or around the river system. Explain how this species might be affected by the pollutants, describe the habitats of the chosen species, and provide suggestions for how the river can be cleaned up so it may return to normal. b) Write a letter to the editor, explaining why people should care about the situation and what government and the general public may to address the problem. c) Complete an oral report to the New Brunswick government’s environmental committee outlining how the problem may be addressed.

II

Electrochemistry

Set of lesson plans

M, T

Students are placed in one of three groups, based on ability, for this assignment. All students complete the same laboratory activity; however, highly motivated students or able learners collate their own data and represent it graphically. It should be noted that the activity can be attempted by all students.

Students will develop an understanding of electrochemical theories and how series and parallel circuits work, as well as developing the skills of collecting and interpreting data.

Within the activity, several multiple intelligences are targeted as well. The activity involves students recording current and voltage readings in series and parallel circuits.

III

Buoyancy and Density

Newsletter Students determine the relationship between density and buoyancy

F, T

All students complete an introductory brainstorming session on swimming and floatation devices, view am interactive video about the potential of household devices to float or not float, complete a reading about density, and record their understanding of buoyancy and density on file cards. Based on information, teachers place students in one of three groups (structured inquiry, guided inquiry, and open inquiry) to complete an activity involving mystery liquids.

IV

The Cell, DNA, and the Nucleus

Four Learning Centres (each has a different focus) Students examine the structure and function of DNA.

B, I, L, M

Each centre included questions at various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, several multiple intelligences are targeted across the centres, and one centre provides the option for highly motivated or high ability learners to complete an independent study. Example: At one centre, students extract DNA form onion cells, and answer core questions. Learners then have the option to create biological drawings of cells.

V

Mitosis

Core Lesson for all Four Learning Centres (differentiated)

F, M, T

Within each centre, activities vary according to complexity. Each student is assigned a colour, based on ability, prior to starting the activities. Students do not know that each colour is aligned with tasks of varying difficulty. For example, at one centre, students examine how cell structure changes during mitosis by viewing a video and examining prepared slides. Blue activity: Using a sketch provided, students label the stages of mitosis. Red activity: Students sketch stages of mitosis, and illustrate the stages using body positions. Green activity: Students answer short questions about mitosis, illustrating the stages with sketches.

Students illustrate the process of mitosis and develop an understanding of how disease may impact mitosis.

VI

Atmospheric Pressure

Core lesson for all Set of lesson plans

B, T

Students complete a core set of learning activities and then complete a set of laboratory activities (three are completed by all students and others are optional). Heterogeneous teams of students of students are established (6–8 students). Within these teams, labs may be completed individually, by partners, or in small groups. Laboratory activities vary in terms of complexity and challenge.

Students will explain how air pressure works (weight, presence, and how affected by temperature)

Example (optional laboratory activity): Students build a barometer using materials provided and record changes in water levels over a three-day period. Students record and interpret data and provide explanations for the changes observed.

VII

Not Applicable

Newsletter

 

This group did not provide specific examples of how science content could be integrated with instructional strategies and approaches, although their product did provide detailed explanation of a range of strategies that may be adopted to differentiate instruction.

  1. Legend: Bloom’s Taxonomy (B), Flexible grouping (F), Independent Study (I), Learning Centres (L), Multiple intelligences theory (M), Open-ended Assignments (OA), Tiered Assignments (T)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goodnough, K. Investigating Pre-service Science Teachers’ Developing Professional Knowledge Through the Lens of Differentiated Instruction. Res Sci Educ 40, 239–265 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9120-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9120-6

Keywords

Navigation