Writing worth reading: Science methods textbooks ...

DOI: 10.1002/sce.21342

EDITORIAL

Writing worth reading: Science methods textbooks and science education articles This essay is meant to be reminder about the refreshing and inspiring potential of well-written material. When done effectively, such writing prompts us to rethink prior assumptions or to reconsider what might be possible should ideas be put into motion. We begin with a quick consideration of science methods textbooks and then transition to examples of transformative and informative articles appearing in this issue. In the process, the hope is that thinking about one's potential audience will encourage prospective contributors to be mindful about generating manuscripts that members of the Science Education community will find worth reading. To situate this within a broader context, consider this introduction to a science education report: In the preparation of this report, attention has been directed primarily to problems associated with the planning of a program for the teaching of science. There are evident discrepancies between the best thought in education and current practices in the teaching of science. A principle that seems to have full acceptance among educators is that education should be seen as a continuous process that begins with the learning experiences of early childhood … The concerns expressed here are familiar. The authors assert that the ways science is taught has been insufficiently grounded in the field's best thinking. The twist here is that this quote comes from a report published between the two world wars. More than just another lament about educational conditions, this report lead to the design of the foundational elementary school science course of study (National Society for the Study of Education, 1932). As this committee's lead author, Gerald S. Craig developed the first science scope and sequence for grades 1–8. He used his framework to produce science curriculum that moved past observing and describing nature and into active scientific investigation. However, in creating student materials he did not also produce parallel resources to support teachers in delivering the new curriculum. Later Craig's subsequent Science for the Elementary School Teacher methods text was welcomed as a major advancement in science teacher education (Parker, 1941; Underhill, 1941). This teaching methods text was more than a how-to manual. Instead it offered a compelling rationale about infusing high-quality science instruction into elementary schools. The book began with expositions about the psychology of learning, the value of witnessing children as they learn, and an emphasis on science's role in educating children within a democracy. Even today, this vision inspires (see Figure 1). From this single text arose methods textbooks that became standard issue in undergraduate methods courses, and soon there were a dozen different titles to choose from (Settlage & Barrow, 1992). That changed — why? Even though science methods instructors are often dismissive about teaching future science teachers by relying on texts, it is nevertheless striking how precipitously has been the recent drop-off in methods text availability. One possibility is that during the current reform era, science educators lack sufficient energy and motivation to translate policy adjustments into written guides for preparing future science teachers. To a certain extent this situation, in which there is a paucity of instructional materials suitable to guide teacher preparation, parallels that of Gerald Craig's time. His 1927 dissertation proposed an elementary science curriculum in response to the loose structure of “nature study” (Kohlstedt, 2010). Only after that framework was translated into a series of classroom instructional materials resources was there a pressing need for tools for preparing teachers. What Craig produced was material worth reading, not simply for its practicality but also for how substantially it addressed the nuances of science teaching. Shifting forward almost 100 years we find ourselves in a similar situation, and the release of the National Research Council's (2012) Framework and Next Science Education. 2018;102:447–451.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sce

c 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 

447

448

EDITORIAL

FIGURE 1

Methods textbook illustration from Craig (1958) page 39 “Using Science to Make Democracies Strong”

Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) has created a niche for materials devoted to preservice science teacher development. Recently, a new science method textbooks has been released. Unlike older methods textbooks that tended to be prescriptive and technical, with Ambitious Science Teaching Mark Windschitl, Jessica Thompson, and Melissa Braaten (2018) have translated thoughtful and continuous improvements into a written guide for supporting novice teachers and sustain them as they enter the workforce. The depth and thoughtfulness of Ambitious Science Teaching is striking. Science educators familiar with the frameworks and tools will be relieved to find all the key features bound into a single document. Years of dedicated effort involving researchers and practitioners has been translated into an accessible example of cogent writing. Rather than stating “this is what should be done” the tone of this text is truly generative. The authors share what they have learned but also invite others to join in and extend their ambitious agenda. Despite the complexities of the ambitious approach to science teaching, the book is a model of clear and substantive writing. Concepts are strategically prioritized and information is logically presented. There is no confusion about the central messages as the examples and explanations move the narrative forward. The Preface reveals the authors’ frustrations with others’ attempts to translate theory into practice – and invest themselves in addressing previous shortcomings. This result is a book that presents a coherent vision for science instruction. Similar thoughtfulness is suffused throughout and as the book approaches its end, we are reminded that educational change is a process best done in the company of thoughtful, dedicated collaborators. The effect on the reader is as if the authors are inviting us to wrestle with the possibilities, to begin applying their vision to many contexts, and consider advancing the discussions initiated by the authors. Through their writing, the authors help us see science teaching in ways that are fresh and optimistic.

1

AMBITIOUS WRITING FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

Through the extensive review process, Science Education seeks to move viable manuscripts toward the ideal of published articles that are worth reading. To be worth reading means having the potential to be transformative. Kevin Pugh (e.g., Pugh, Bergstrom, & Spencer, 2017) offers that to be transformative means that an experience promotes the free application into other contexts, expands the perspectives through which events and materials are viewed, and provides an enriching platform for valuing other experiences (Heddy & Sinatra, 2017). Ambitious Science Teaching has

EDITORIAL

449

a transformative influence because it affords new ways to think about how people learn, it expands the range of ways in which we can interpret science teacher development, and it offers aesthetic sensibilities about the craft of teacher education and science learning. We are eager to receive manuscripts written to be transformative —and we will freely offer suggestions about revisions that move written work closer to transformability. Jeannie Oakes brilliantly describes in her 2016 AERA Presidential Address the importance of translating research into practice by making scholarship public and practical (Oakes, 2018). In contrast, the ambition of publishing Science Education articles that are worth reading means they are intentionally written to advance discourse among scholars in our field. We see an important distinction between reports that add to the field versus those that contribute to the field. Manuscripts in the former category are stashed into a vast repository where they may never realize a measurable impact; manuscripts that contribute extend conversations by pushing into new intellectual territory: stretching theories, extending methods, and even pursuing wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). To encourage future manuscripts’ authors to produce written materials worth reading, the remainder of this essay highlights aspects of this issue's articles worthy of the time required to read them.

2

WHY THIS ISSUE'S ARTICLES ARE WORTH READING

In their contribution to this issue of Science Education, McNeill, Lowenhaupt, and Katsh-Singer (2018) investigated perceptions of principals about science education reform enactments. The instructional moves noted by principals largely failed to include arguing with evidence and constructing explanations, along with other sense-making and critiquing moves. When principals remarked on instruction, science practices often were missing. This showed the principals’ weak appreciation for the learning value of student discourse. Rather than do what science educators seems to have always done – to despair about administrators – the authors of this study suggest changing the ways in which the current reform is framed for administrators. Recognizing that the durability of NGSS-aligned approaches requires attending to systems rather than teacher competence alone, developing observation and evaluation protocols aligned with scientific practices is a step that could engender enduring shifts in science instruction. The need to change educational systems via leadership is an area of great interest but with only weak empirical foundations. Whitworth, Maeng, and Bell (2018) explored science ccordinators' efforts to shift teacher practices. The summary of three coordinators’ efforts offers a baseline for additional research on supporting reforms. Many questions arise from this study including the distinctions between leadership by building-level administrators versus science coordinators, the salience of professional backgrounds on leadership decision-making, and continued deliberations about professional development – for teachers but also for the coordinators themselves. This study's focus on science coordinators opens new possibilities for conceiving of systemic changes and the barriers and resources for sustaining science education reform. Many science educators are troubled by dismissals about the facts of global climate change. Meehan, Levy & Collet-Gildard (2018) admirably contribute by examining curricular materials that could be the sources of climate change misconceptions. Among the problems with the information sources available to science teachers are that these materials often lack appropriate acknowledgement of international impacts and fail to nominate potential solutions – even when causes of climate change were accurately represented. Practically speaking, this article provides science educators with a filter for critiquing information sources to be used with students. Further, this article leaves open the question about the modalities of information sources (i.e., static texts vs. digitally dynamic tools) for their capacity to shift students’ perceptions about significant socio-scientific issues. In a study of summer STEM programs for their influence on students’ career aspirations, Kitchen, Sonnert, and Sadler (2018) drew upon survey data to assert that real-world relevancy correlated with participants’ orientation toward STEM careers. These researchers suggest that STEM immersion programs for high school students reveal the malleability of STEM dispositions. This in turn holds implications for recruitment and program design, suggesting that aptitude is less powerful than efforts to shift STEM views among adolescents. This offers a critiques about strategies that screen for student characteristics by instead promoting summer programs as levers to shift participants’ views.

450

EDITORIAL

Engineering has emerged as a key features of contemporary science education and there is awareness that the field has much to learn about teachers’ development to support students’ productive engagement in engineering. Jessica Watkins and her colleagues (2018) report on their extensive, 3-year project in which they investigated affordances and constraints for the influencing teachers’ engineering instruction. This article shows intriguing distinctions between how teachers learn to implement science versus engineering instruction. While attending to students’ preconceptions as has long been advocated for science teaching, during engineering instruction, the participants in this study were favorably predisposed to incorporate students’ ideas into instruction and discourse. Further, the teachers displayed care toward the students during sense-making activities and in ways more substantive and attentive than typically witnessed during science activities. Other valuable revelations from this study was the productive use of videos as tools for teachers to reconsider their roles during engineering design activities. While this article's focus is on engineering, it holds generative potential for how science educators think about the complexities of STEM teaching and the associated challenges with guiding teachers to implement the goals described by the Frameworks. The curriculum and standards for science education have, over the years, struggled with the overlap and distinctions between the science done by professionals and science as feasibly accomplished in classrooms. Most recently, this has manifested as practices as per the NGSS. Missing is information about developing within students the capacity to ethically judge scientific data. Howitt and Wilson (2018) examined ethical and intellectual growth as students confronted cases of abusing scientific data. This intervention advanced the need to provide students with a better sense for uncertainty as a central feature of science and learning. The ambiguities related to interpreting scientific data creates ethical challenges. Evidence became a much more pliable feature of science once participating students realized their faith in scientific objectivity was misplaced. The authors suggest pedagogical implications and may offer readers fresh perspectives about future research, science teacher preparation, and questions about what it means to become scientifically literate. Michelle Koomen along with colleagues (2018) looked at the potential realization of scientific practices as students engaged in a citizen science program along with a subsequent science fair competition. Using rubrics developed to assess science fair project explanations as well as the presence of scientific practices, supplemented by participant interviews, the researchers found useful synergies between informal, independent investigations followed by more typical science fair projects. Along the way, teachers and students adopted multiple identities over the course of the science experiences even as the researchers noticed widespread use of scientific practices. This study implies that advancing NGSS principles by retooling established programs may offer previously under-realized opportunities for authentic science learning. All in all, a rich piece of writing that deserves to be read. Sherry A. Southerland John Settlage

REFERENCES Craig, G. A. (1958). Science for the elementary school teachers, new edition. Boston: Ginn & Co. Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). Transformative parents: Facilitating transformative experiences and interest with a parent involvement intervention. Science Education, 101(5), 765–786. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/full/10.1002/sce.21292 Howitt, S. M., & Wilson, A. N. (2018). Reflecting on the use and abuse of scientific data facilitates students’ ethical and epistemological development. Science Education, 102(3), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21333 Kitchen, J. A., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2018). The impact of college- and university-run high school summer programs on students’ end of high school STEM career aspirations. Science Education, 102(3), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21332 Kohlstedt, S. G. (2010). Teaching children science: Hands-on nature study in North America, 1890–1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Koomen, M. H., Rodriguez, E., Hoffman, A., Petersen, C., & Oberhauser, K. (2018). Authentic science with citizen science and student-driven science fair projects. Science Education, 102(3), 593–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21335 McNeill, K. L., Lowenhaupt, R. J., & Katsh-Singer, R. (2018). Instructional leadership in the era of the NGSS: Principals’ understandings of science practices. Science Education, 102(3), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21336

EDITORIAL

451

Meehan, C. R., Levy, B. L., & Collet-Gildard, L. (2018). Global climate change in US high school curricula: Portrayals of the causes, consequences, and potential responses. Science Education, 102(3), 498–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21338 National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Society for the Study of Education (1932). A program for teaching science: The thirty-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Company. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Oakes, J. (2018). Public scholarship: Education research for a diverse democracy. Educational Researcher, 47(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/0013189X17746402 Parker, B. M. (1941). Science for the elementary-school teacher. Elementary School Journal, 41, 632–633. Pugh, K. J., Bergstrom, C. M., & Spencer, B. (2017). Profiles of transformative engagement: Identification, description, and relation to learning and instruction. Science Education, 101(3), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21270 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Settlage, J., & Barrow, L. H. (1992). Recent professional productivity of the authors of elementary science textbooks series. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 446–449. Underhill, O. E. (1941). Review: Science for the elementary school teacher. Science Education, 25(3), 167. Watkins, J., McCormick, M., Wendall, K. B., Spencer, K., Milto, E., Portsmore, M., & Hammer, D. (2018). Data-based conjectures for supporting responsive teaching in engineering design with elementary teachers Science Education, 102(3), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21334 Whitworth, B. A., Maeng, J. L., & Bell, R. L. (2018). Exploring practices of science coordinators participating in targeted professional development Science Education, 102(3), 474–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21337 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.