Search for: All records

Abstract This study explored secondary science teachers’ attending and interpretation of three science and engineering practices (SEPs) occurring in a classroom setting. This data were further examined to see if teaching experience and disciplinary area influenced the secondary science teachers attending and interpretation of the SEPs. The data collection process involved having teachers talk about the science instruction they viewed in short videos. The videos highlighted three SEPs: developing and using models, analyzing and interpreting data, and engaging in argument from evidence (see NGSS Lead States, 2013). A mixed-method analysis was used to examine the responses of teachers. From this analysis, there were four important conclusions. First, most science teachers struggled to provide full descriptions of the SEPs in the videos. Second, being able to describe an SEP, at least partially, often coincided with a higher level of interpretation of the SEP. Third, the disciplinary area of the teachers did not pose a barrier in their ability to point out and talk about an SEP. Fourth, preliminary evidence suggested that new science teachers had more sophisticated discussions about the SEPs than their experienced science teacher counterparts. This study found evidence that science teachers are still building their knowledge of the SEPs, attending and interpretation are connected, and that attending and noticing of the SEPs may not be content specific. These findings have implications for the ongoing learning of teachers. 

This article explores science teachers’ implementation of science and engineering practices (SEPs) under different instructional settings. We compared the number of SEPs science teachers reported using in face-to-face instruction (traditional), online-only instruction (virtual), or HyFlex instruction (synchronously online and in-person) from August 2020 to May 2021. Records and artefacts of the teachers’ instructional practices were collected over three one-week periods. Interview data were used to validate teachers’ instructional activities, the context of SEP implementation, and their challenges when navigating the different instructional settings. Through a lens of consequential transition perspective, our findings revealed that science teachers implemented significantly more SEPs in a HyFlex or traditional setting than in a virtual setting. The results also showed that regardless of the instructional setting, elementary and secondary teachers generally implemented few investigating SEPs. Among elementary teachers, developing explanations and solutions were the most frequently used SEPs across all instructional settings. Among secondary teachers, the developing explanations and solutions SEPs and evaluating SEPs were prevalent but varied across the different instructional settings. Our findings suggest that science teachers need to continue to build their knowledge and practice of the SEPs, and have different supports to facilitate their SEP implementation in different instructional environments. 

Abstract Knowing how science teachers develop their professional knowledge has been a challenge. One potential way to determine the professional knowledge of teachers is through videos. In the study described here, the authors recruited 60 elementary and secondary science teachers, showed them one of two 10‐min videos, and recorded and analyzed their comments when watching the videos. The coding focused on their noticing of student learning, teacher's teaching, types of teaching practices, and the use of interpretative frames. The noticing data were collected and analyzed to determine the differences between groups of teachers. The findings from the analysis indicated that most science teachers noticed the instruction of teachers rather than the learning of students, and these noticing events were often focused on general instructional practices as opposed to the science practices emphasized in theNext Generation Science Standards(National Research Council, 2013). The only difference between the teachers was in the area of evaluating the videos. Secondary science teachers and experienced elementary teachers were more likely to evaluate the videos than were novice elementary teachers. This may be a result of the knowledge base of the teachers. These results suggest a need for explicit reform‐based instruction and a revision of this research process.