Professional Identity Development of Teacher Candidates Participating in an Informal Science...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Maryland College Park]On: 13 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 915429136]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

Professional Identity Development of Teacher Candidates Participating inan Informal Science Education Internship: A focus on drawings asevidencePhyllis Katza; J. Randy McGinnisa; Emily Hestnessa; Kelly Riedingera; Gili Marbach-Adb; Amy Daia;Rebecca Peasea

a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA b College ofChemical and Life Sciences, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA

First published on: 26 August 2010

To cite this Article Katz, Phyllis , McGinnis, J. Randy , Hestness, Emily , Riedinger, Kelly , Marbach-Ad, Gili , Dai, Amyand Pease, Rebecca(2010) 'Professional Identity Development of Teacher Candidates Participating in an Informal ScienceEducation Internship: A focus on drawings as evidence', International Journal of Science Education,, First published on:26 August 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.489928URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.489928

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.489928

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

International Journal of Science Education2010, 1–29, iFirst Article

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/10/000001–29© 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.489928

RESEARCH REPORT

Professional Identity Development of Teacher Candidates Participating in an Informal Science Education Internship: A focus on drawings as evidence

Phyllis Katza*, J. Randy McGinnisa, Emily Hestnessa, Kelly Riedingera, Gili Marbach-Adb, Amy Daia and Rebecca PeaseaaDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA; bCollege of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Maryland, Maryland, USATaylor and FrancisTSED_A_489928.sgm10.1080/09500693.2010.489928International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010Dr. [email protected]

This study investigated the professional identity development of teacher candidates participating inan informal afterschool science internship in a formal science teacher preparation programme. Weused a qualitative research methodology. Data were collected from the teacher candidates, theirinformal internship mentors, and the researchers. The data were analysed through an identitydevelopment theoretical framework, informed by participants’ mental models of science teachingand learning. We learned that the experience in an afterschool informal internship encouraged theteacher candidates to see themselves, and to be seen by others, as enacting key recommendationsby science education standards documents, including exhibiting: positive attitudes, sensitivity todiversity, and increasing confidence in facilitating hands-on science participation, inquiry, andcollaborative work. Our study provided evidence that the infusion of an informal science educationinternship in a formal science teacher education programme influenced positively participants’professional identity development as science teachers.

Keywords: Informal education; Pre-service

Introduction

The need for quality teacher preparation and professional developmentprogrammes emphasized in worldwide science education reform efforts recognizes

*Corresponding author. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland,Project Nexus, Room 2226, Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA. Email:[email protected]

Downloaded By: [University of Maryland College Park] At: 15:36 13 September 2010

2 P. Katz et al.

the central role of teachers in promoting and improving science literacy. For exam-ple, a recent report from the European Union based on seminars held in 2006 todiscuss the state of science education recommends a significant long-range invest-ment in the professional development of those who teach science to sustain theirscience knowledge, innovative pedagogy, and their skills (Osborne & Dillon, 2008).The Australian Science Teachers Association (2009) establishes standards for‘highly accomplished teachers of science’ enumerating a broad, deep, and currentknowledge of content as well as understanding the socio-cultural, environmental,economic, and ethical implications of science. In the USA, the National ScienceEducation Standards call for teachers to practice active involvement in scientificinvestigations; to be introduced to resources that expand their knowledge and abil-ity to access further knowledge; to build on present science understandings, abili-ties, and attitudes; and to engage in collaborative science learning experiences(National Research Council, 1996).

Yet, despite the emphasis of reform efforts to improve science teacher preparationand professional development, particularly at the primary or elementary level, manyteachers report entering the classroom feeling inadequately prepared to teach science(Kelly, 2000). The situation is thought to be attributable to a number of factors,including the didactic nature of the science courses teachers have themselvesexperienced, or the disconnect between the teaching methods advocated in sciencemethods courses and the textbook or lecture-based methods still practiced in manyschools (Kelly, 2000). As a result, there is an evident need for innovative and effec-tive science teacher preparation and professional development opportunities. Tobin,Tippins, and Gallard (1994) argued that if systemic change is to be achieved,teacher education programmes must alter the way teachers are prepared to teachscience. One possibility is to look to science education that occurs outside of schoolsystems. The term informal science education is used to differentiate science teachingand learning from that within schools.

Rennie (2007) defined informal science education as the science learning thattakes place in contexts outside of the formal school setting. Crane (1994) identifiedseveral distinct characteristics of informal science education and suggested thatinformal activities ‘occur outside the school setting, are not developed primarily forschool use, are not developed to be part of an ongoing school curriculum, and arecharacterized by voluntary as opposed to mandatory participation as part of acredited school experience’ (p. 3). Other researchers have contributed additionaldistinguishing features of informal science education: learning is self-motivated, thecontent is often non-sequential, learning is socially constructed and guided by thelearner’s needs and interests, and there is no formal assessment (Falk, 2001;Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996; Rennie, 2007; Rennie, Feher, Dierking, & Falk,2003).

A growing body of research has highlighted the value of informal science learningand has advocated making connections between the formal and informal domainsto support teacher preparation and professional development. Experiences ininformal learning environments can supplement and enhance the knowledge and


Professional Identity Development 3

practices that teachers acquire in formal science education settings (Anderson,Druger, James, Katz, & Ernisse, 2001; Bybee, 2001; Dierking, Falk, Rennie,Anderson, & Ellenbogen, 2003; Jung & Tonso, 2006; Kelly, 2000; Rennie, 2007).In addition, informal learning environments such as museums, zoos, and commu-nity-based programmes can play an integral role in addressing science educationreform goals. The US National Science Education Standards (National ResearchCouncil, 1996) explicitly call for learning opportunities that extend beyond theclassroom. The unique characteristics of informal science education settings offeredbenefits for formal science teacher preparation programmes. Studies that haveinvestigated the inclusion of informal science education settings in formal teacherpreparation reported a number of perceived benefits for teacher candidates. Therewere themes that emerged in the literature. These themes clustered around affec-tive benefits, exposure to new teaching strategies, and the development of beliefsconcerning the teaching and learning of science.

Affective Benefits1

The literature on informal science education suggested that as a primary goal,many programmes focus on variables related to affective dimensions of learningand may have a unique potential to impact teacher candidates’ attitudes towardand interest in science (Crane, 1994; Dori & Tal, 2000; Meredith, Fortner, &Mullins, 1997). Falk (2001) argued that because museums and other informalprogrammes offer resources not necessarily available in formal school settings,learning in these settings could nurture curiosity, improve motivation, and fosterpositive attitudes toward science. Utilizing a science centre for a science methodscourse, Chesebrough (1994) reported that after participating, teacher candidatesdemonstrated improved attitudes as a result of the hands-on focus, the enthusiasmand modelling of the instructors, and the unique resources available. Similarly,Ferry’s (1995) study reported that a science centre-based teaching practicum had avery high impact on students’ curiosity and interest in science. Participantscommented that the informal environment made science fun and relevant to theirown lives. Ferry’s study further suggested that the inclusion of informal scienceeducation in teacher preparation may support other affective dimensions, such asteacher candidates’ confidence. Teacher candidates reported that the experienceimproved their self-confidence to understand and teach science. Ferry suggestedthat the non-threatening and supportive nature of the science centre was asignificant factor.

Exposure to Transformative Pedagogy

Anderson, Lawson, and Mayer-Smith (2006) studied teacher candidates participat-ing in an aquarium-based teaching practicum. They reported that, in some cases, theexperience provided teacher candidates an initial opportunity to see hands-onteaching methods and the theory of constructivism modelled. Studies of teacher


4 P. Katz et al.

candidates’ experiences of teaching in other informal settings, such as afterschoolprogrammes (Cox-Petersen, Spencer, & Crawford, 2005; Spencer, Cox-Petersen, &Crawford, 2005) and science camps (Naizer, Bell, West, & Chambers, 2003),suggested that these contexts allow opportunities to experiment with implementingtransformative teaching strategies.

Beliefs Concerning the Teaching and Learning of Science

Several studies have reported that experiences of teaching science in informal learn-ing environments can provide teacher candidates with a more informed understand-ing of learning theories and how these may be translated into practice. Andersonet al. (2006) found that the aquarium practicum provided a first opportunity forseveral teacher candidates to truly see constructivism in use. With regard to translat-ing these understandings into practice, Kelly (2000) reported that participating in ascience methods course that included a museum-based teaching practicum helped96% of participants achieve a better understanding of constructivism and itsimplications for teaching science. Similarly, Jung and Tonso (2006) found that out-of-school teaching practice made the idea of constructivist teaching concrete forinterns.

Beyond changing teacher candidates’ beliefs concerning science learning, informalsettings have the potential to foster development of their epistemologies of scienceteaching. Anderson et al. (2006) reported that teacher candidates ‘clearly trans-formed and broadened their epistemologies and pedagogies of teaching’ (p. 351)after participating in an aquarium-based teaching practicum. They came to seescience teaching as more than covering a prescribed curriculum, but also as a way tohighlight big picture concepts, such as conservation, that they now believed werevaluable for students to understand. Kelly (2000) found that by teaching science in amuseum, teacher candidates came to value science as a process, placing less focus onfinding ‘all the right answers’ and more focus on actually doing science withstudents. By experiencing science teaching in new contexts, teacher candidatesbecame open to new philosophies of what it means to teach science.

Thus, we found that prior teacher preparation programmes, connecting informaland formal science education, may alter pre-service teachers’ views about the natureof science teaching and learning, build confidence, develop identities, and supple-ment learning that occurs in the formal setting (Anderson et al., 2006).

With this research in mind, the Project Nexus (PN) introduced several innova-tions to address the need to alter teacher preparation, among them an informalscience internship. The informal afterschool science internship component of PNwas aimed at reinforcing or expanding teacher candidates’ beliefs of science teachingand learning in ways consistent with prominent science education standards docu-ments from the international, US, informal, and formal science education sectors(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National ResearchCouncil, 1996, 2009; National Science Teachers Association, 2004; Osborne &Dillon, 2008). From these documents, we distilled two goals for teacher education



in science that we believed applied most directly to including informal scienceeducation in formal science teacher education preparation: to assist teachercandidates in developing: (1) confidence and enthusiasm toward science teaching,and (2) beliefs concerning the teaching and learning of science that supportedreform-based pedagogy.

The research goal for the project’s inclusion of the informal science educationinternship thus became the following questions: How and in what ways did thisinformal science education internship influence undergraduate teacher candidates’beliefs of science teaching and of themselves as teachers of science? In what ways, ifany, were the teacher candidates’ professional identities aligning with reform-basedpractices?

Identity Development as a Lens

A recognized challenge to changing new teachers’ beliefs concerning the teachingand learning of science has been the tenacity of patterns of teaching as one has beentaught (Clift & Brady, 2005; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). Researchers havesuggested that a useful avenue to explore in addressing resistance to such change isto focus on new teachers’ images of their ‘ideal self as teacher’ (Eick & Reed, 2002,p. 402). This image may be influenced by experiences of teaching and learning bothin and out of school. Based on this thinking, we decided to use a professional iden-tity development lens as a way to understand how teacher candidates’ images orbeliefs about teaching and learning science may relate to their view of themselves asfuture science teachers.

Professional identity may play a critical role in whether and how educatorschoose to teach science in a transformative manner. Gee (2001) suggested fouraspects of identity: nature identity, institutional identity, discourse identity, andaffinity identity. The second view, institutional identity, may be the most informa-tive in elucidating differences between educators’ identities in formal and informalscience settings. Gee described institutional identity as a position authorized by therules, laws, traditions, and principles of an institution. Formal classroom settings(e.g. public and private schools) operate according to the rules set by the local,state, and national education boards. As a result, teachers in these settings followprescribed curricula, abide by certain rules as determined by school and districtpersonnel, and are often evaluated based on their students’ performance on tradi-tional assessment measures. Informal settings, conversely, are characterized bydifferent institutional rules and traditions. Experiences in these settings are notdeveloped as part of a prescribed curriculum and are often not formally assessed(Crane, 1994). Recently, Luehmann (2007) posited that developing professionalidentities that align with reform-based science teaching among educators is crucialfor implementing transformative science teaching practices. She contended thateducators’ personal histories and stories influence their identities as reform-orientedscience educators. In addition, she articulated the potential advantages of out-of-school settings for developing educators’ identities as reform-oriented science


6 P. Katz et al.

teachers, stating that experiences in these contexts are supportive for teaching in atransformative manner. Luehmann (2007) used inquiry-based instruction to exem-plify this notion: ‘out-of-school teaching of students (for example, running a sciencecamp) opens the door for the possibility of trying out inquiry-based instructionalstrategies with fewer students, less academic accountability, fewer institutionalhurdles, and more support (from peers as well as the university)’ (p. 832). Relatedto this notion, we wanted to investigate whether an experience in an out-of-schoolcontext could develop teacher candidates’ professional identities in ways thatcomplement and enhance their identity development from experiences in formalsettings.

In addition to how Gee (2001) and Luehmann (2007) conceptualized identity,Sfard and Prusak (2005) contended that identity development is prompted throughcommunication with others. They suggested that ‘identities may be defined ascollections of stories about persons or, more specifically, as those narratives aboutindividuals that are reifying, endorsable, and significant’ (2005, p. 16). For this andother reasons discussed later in the ‘Methods’ section of this paper, we decided toask our participants to draw as well as ‘tell’ their stories of themselves as teachers ofscience.

Methods

Context of the Study

Hands On Science Outreach (HOSO). Teacher candidates in PN had the option toparticipate in an informal internship with HOSO, an afterschool science programmefor elementary aged students. The HOSO programme was designed for small clus-tered groups based on age/grade to take into account children’s general prior experi-ence and physical development. The programme included four groups (Pre-K, K-1,Grades 2–3, and Grades 4–6). The activities focused on the potential science explo-rations in games, toys, music, arts and crafts, and simple science experiments. Forall of the activities, the materials were sent home with each child for familydiscussion, display, and/or re-use.

To offer this science enrichment opportunity from preschool through the elemen-tary school grades, HOSO developers prepared a three-year cycle utilizing Patterns,Energy, and Structure and Change as overall themes. Katz and McGinnis (1999)worked to align programme themes with the National Science Education Standards.The yearly cycles were divided into three sets of eight-week sessions. The eight-weeksessions were organized around a sub-theme corresponding to the overall yearlycycle topic (i.e. Patterns, Energy, and Structure and Change). HOSO provided threecomponents for quality science enrichment programming: inquiry-based activityguides for adults leading the groups, required training for Adult Leaders prior toeach session, and kits of materials for the activities in the guides.

The PN interns participated in the spring session of Structure and Change, whichcentred on weather and geology concepts. The interns participated in an adapted



version of the HOSO training and then were placed alongside adult leaders duringafterschool sessions with student groups. While placements were sought in the oldestgroups (for experience with early adolescents), time and distance constraints putsome interns into the second and third grade settings. We considered that thescience-focused experience weighed more heavily than the age match. During thespring session, second and third grade groups attended Rocky Road; fourth throughsixth graders spent their eight weeks in Terra Quest (both were sub-themes duringthe Structure and Change yearly cycle). The interns were provided with activityguides emphasizing inquiry (questions, discussions, reflective time), materialsmanipulation, and the pleasure of investigation. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summaryof the investigations, questions, and data collection activities for Rocky Road andTerra Quest, respectively.

Participants. Twenty-five teacher candidates volunteered for the informal scienceeducation internship that was offered during the spring semester of 2007.2 Theywere in the first, second, or third year (with the mode being third year) of theirundergraduate four-year elementary (Grades 1–8) teacher education programme.They were all accepted to the PN/HOSO informal science internship after anapplication process that screened for interest. The teacher candidates received anhonorarium for successful participation in the internship. The 25 teacher candidateswere diverse (4 African American females, 1 African American male, 3 Asian/PacificIslander females, 14 White females, 2 Hispanic females, and 1 Other female). Theadult leaders in whose classes they observed and worked received a smallerhonorarium (in addition to their programme stipends) to provide evaluative andobservational data on the interns.

Data Collection

In our study we decided to use mental modelling as a productive way to collect andcommunicate data on our participating teacher candidates’ beliefs that related totheir professional identity as science teachers. We were particularly interested indocumenting and communicating the ways in which the teacher candidates’ mentalmodels of science teaching and learning might evolve as they experienced a newscience teaching context, an internship in an informal afterschool scienceprogramme. Mental model theory suggests that humans create internal mentalrepresentations in order to better understand the world and their experiences in it(Norman, 1984). Gomez, Hadner, and Housner (1996) added that individuals usemental models not only to understand the world, but also to operate on it. Humansdevelop these mental models through experiences in diverse learning contexts, andmay modify their mental models as they gain new knowledge and experiences.Researchers believe that mental models play a crucial role in human reasoning andprediction, and may be called upon for the purposes of answering questions andsolving problems (Eilam, 2004; Livingston & Borko, 1990; Vosniadou & Brewer,


8 P. Katz et al.T

able

1.

Gra

des

2–3

Roc

ky R

oad

(Ear

th S

cien

ce)

Inve

stig

atio

n qu

esti

ons

guid

ing

lead

ers,

par

ents

, and

chi

ldre

nS

umm

ary/

rele

vanc

e qu

esti

ons

Con

nect

ing

to t

he c

hild

ren’

s liv

esD

ata

colle

ctio

n an

d an

alys

is a

ctiv

itie

s

1. W

hat

is f

ool’s

gol

d? W

hat

is a

str

eak

test

? W

here

ar

e th

e m

ajor

dep

osit

s of

gol

d?W

hy d

o yo

u th

ink

gold

is s

o va

luab

le?

Exa

min

atio

n of

pyr

ite

and

stre

ak t

est

com

pari

sons

2. W

hat

is h

alit

e? W

hat

do s

alt

crys

tals

look

like

? H

ow c

an y

ou m

ake

a m

odel

?H

ow d

o yo

u us

e sa

lt in

you

r ho

me?

Obs

erva

tion

s of

hal

ite

and

com

pari

sons

to

tabl

e sa

lt3.

How

can

you

mak

e di

rt f

rom

a r

ock?

Wha

t ha

ppen

s to

str

eam

s w

hen

it r

ains

? Is

the

re e

rosi

on a

t yo

ur s

ite?

How

can

ero

sion

be

a pr

oble

m?

Com

pari

son

of w

ater

spl

ash

mea

sure

men

ts

from

dif

fere

nt h

eigh

ts. C

ompa

riso

n of

si

mul

ated

ste

am b

ed a

ngle

s an

d er

osio

n pa

tter

ns4.

How

are

sed

imen

tary

roc

ks f

orm

ed?

Wha

t do

we

find

whe

n w

e ex

amin

e a

piec

e of

sed

imen

tary

roc

k?D

o yo

u th

ink

sand

ston

e w

ould

mak

e a

good

bui

ldin

g m

ater

ial?

Exp

lain

.N

/A

5. H

ow d

o w

e si

mul

ate

the

foam

y ro

ck o

f pu

mic

e?

Whe

re a

re v

olca

noes

fou

nd?

How

do

obsi

dian

and

pu

mic

e co

mpa

re?

How

do

you

thin

k yo

u m

ight

use

ob

sidi

an a

nd p

umic

e ro

cks?

Wha

t th

ings

w

ould

pum

ice

be b

ette

r fo

r th

an o

bsid

ian

and

vice

ver

sa?

Com

pari

son

of ig

neou

s ro

cks

6. W

hat

obje

cts

attr

act

mag

nets

? W

hat

are

som

e fo

rms

of ir

on a

nd t

heir

use

s?H

ow d

o m

agne

ts h

elp

us?

Exa

min

atio

n of

hem

atit

e an

d it

ems

attr

acte

d to

m

agne

ts7.

Wha

t do

cha

lk, l

imes

tone

, and

mar

ble

have

in

com

mon

? H

ow d

o w

e te

st f

or c

alci

um c

arbo

nate

? W

hat

are

the

buff

erin

g ef

fect

s?

Can

you

thi

nk o

f an

y w

ays

that

we

coul

d he

lp p

reve

nt t

he d

amag

e ca

used

to

stat

ues

and

build

ings

mad

e fr

om m

arbl

e by

aci

d ra

in?

Com

pari

son

of c

halk

, lim

esto

ne, a

nd m

arbl

e an

d th

eir

reac

tion

s to

vin

egar

8. H

ow d

o w

e pu

t al

l of

our

rock

and

min

eral

sa

mpl

es t

oget

her

and

begi

n to

cla

ssif

y th

em in

a

colle

ctio

n?

Whi

ch o

f th

ese

rock

s do

you

thi

nk is

the

m

ost

usef

ul t

o yo

u? W

hy?

Sum

mar

y, a

naly

sis,

and

cat

egor

izin

g of

roc

k da

ta f

rom

cla

ss s

erie

s


Professional Identity Development 9T

able

2.

Gra

des

4–6

Terr

a Q

uest

(E

arth

Sci

ence

)

Inve

stig

atio

n qu

esti

ons

Sum

mar

y/re

leva

nce

ques

tion

sD

ata

colle

ctio

n an

d an

alys

is

acti

viti

es

1. H

ow d

o th

e te

mpe

ratu

res

in a

nd o

utsi

de t

he

build

ing

com

pare

? H

ow d

oes

a th

erm

omet

er

com

pare

to

a bi

odot

?

Whe

n w

ould

mea

suri

ng o

ur b

ody

tem

pera

ture

be

impo

rtan

t?T

empe

ratu

re r

eadi

ngs

wit

h th

erm

omet

ers

and

biod

ots.

Dat

a co

mpa

riso

ns2.

Wha

t is

hum

idit

y? H

ow c

an y

ou m

easu

re r

elat

ive

hum

idit

y? W

hat

is a

hyg

rosc

opic

mat

eria

l?H

ow c

ould

a c

hang

e in

hum

idit

y af

fect

the

thi

ngs

that

yo

u do

?S

pong

e sa

tura

tion

m

easu

rem

ent.

Hum

idit

y m

easu

rem

ent

and

psyc

hrom

eter

ch

art

anal

ysis

3. H

ow d

o yo

u m

easu

re a

cid

rain

? H

ow d

oes

soil

type

aff

ect

acid

rai

n da

mag

e?W

hat

coul

d be

don

e be

side

s sp

read

ing

lime

all o

ver

the

wor

ld t

o m

inim

ize

the

effe

cts

of a

cid

rain

?M

easu

ring

pH

of

sam

ple

liqui

ds

and

soils

wit

h hy

drio

n pa

pers

4. W

hat

can

ambe

r te

ll us

abo

ut t

he h

isto

ry o

f lif

e on

ear

th?

Are

the

re p

iece

s in

you

r gr

avel

sam

ple?

How

mig

ht p

lant

and

ani

mal

mat

eria

ls f

ound

in a

mbe

r te

ll us

wha

t th

e ea

rth

was

like

man

y th

ousa

nds

of y

ears

ag

o?5.

Is

a sa

nd a

nd g

rave

l filt

er e

noug

h to

cle

an w

ater

? H

ow c

an y

ou in

crea

se t

he s

afet

y of

a t

rash

dum

p?W

hat

do y

ou t

hink

we

shou

ld d

o w

ith

our

tras

h w

hen

the

loca

l dum

p is

ful

l?C

ompa

riso

n of

san

d/gr

avel

fi

lter

ing

in m

odel

tox

ic le

ak6.

Wha

t is

air

pre

ssur

e? H

ow c

an w

e m

easu

re t

he

chan

ges

that

occ

ur in

air

pre

ssur

e?W

hen

wou

ld y

ou n

eed

to c

hang

e ai

r pr

essu

re?

Mea

sure

men

ts a

nd c

ompa

riso

ns

of a

ir p

ress

ure

wit

h co

nstr

ucte

d an

eroi

d ba

rom

eter

s7.

How

can

you

gau

ge t

he f

ury

of t

he w

ind?

How

is

the

Bea

ufor

t w

ind

scal

e us

ed t

o de

term

ine

win

d sp

eed?

Whe

n m

ight

you

nee

d to

kno

w h

ow f

ast

the

win

d is

bl

owin

g?M

easu

rem

ents

of

win

d sp

eed.

L

earn

to

use

Bea

ufor

t w

ind

scal

e

8. W

hat

are

vari

ous

form

s of

wea

ther

? H

ow c

an y

ou

tell

how

far

aw

ay a

sto

rm is

? D

o fo

lk s

tori

es a

bout

w

eath

er h

ave

any

scie

ntif

ic b

asis

?

Wha

t dr

amat

ic c

hang

es in

the

wea

ther

, do

you

thin

k,

coul

d ca

use

anim

al e

xtin

ctio

ns?

Obs

erva

tion

s of

col

d–ho

t w

ater

m

ixtu

res

to c

onsi

der

air

flow

s in

w

eath

er p

atte

rns


10 P. Katz et al.

1992). A number of studies in science education have investigated the ways inwhich students call upon their mental models of scientific phenomena to reasonscientifically and answer questions (Coll & Treagust, 2003; Gentner & Gentner,1983). In such studies, researchers have suggested that mental models are oftenconstrained by the individual’s conceptual understanding, prior experience, andpre-existing knowledge (Shepardson, Wee, Priddy, & Harbor, 2007; Vosniadou &Brewer, 1992).

We wanted to investigate whether the same was true for teacher candidates’conceptualizations of science teaching and learning: To what extent were theirmental models shaped by their prior knowledge and experiences, and how mighttheir mental models influence their thinking about themselves as future scienceteachers (i.e. their professional identities)? Further, would an experience teachingscience in an informal setting change the nature of teacher candidates’ mentalmodels of science teaching and learning? Vermunt and Verloop (1999) suggestedthat teachers develop habitual patterns of teaching that are linked to their teachingorientations and their mental models of teaching. Likewise, they believed that thestudents’ mental models of learning influence their interpretations of learning tasksand objectives. Windschitl (1999) suggested:

Our personal histories furnish us with mental models of teaching, and these models ofhow we were taught shape our behavior in powerful ways. Teachers use these models toimagine lessons in their classrooms, develop innovations, and plan for learning. Theseimages serve to organize sets of beliefs and guide curricular actions. Teachers are morelikely to be guided not by instructional theories, but by the familiar images of what is‘proper and possible’ in classroom settings. (pp. 752–753)

Because mental models are internal and unique to the individual, eliciting infor-mation about an individual’s mental model can become a difficult task for theresearcher (Coll & Treagust, 2003). To gain insight into our interns’ mentalmodels of science teaching and learning, we engaged them in drawing activitiesbefore and after their experience in the informal afterschool science internship. Weargued that there is a precedent for the use of drawings in mental models research(Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). Besides drawings, we also conducted interviews andengaged participants in written reflections in an effort to better understand theirmental models of teaching and learning and how these might have changed withexperience.

Drawings. We believed that the use of drawings as a data collection method appro-priately reflected the informal nature of the internship context. In analysing theteacher candidates’ drawings, we were particularly interested in the changes betweentheir pre- and post-internship responses to the drawing prompt. Chambers (1983)first published work on the use of drawings as a way to gain insight into individual’sthinking when he investigated student images of scientists. White and Gunstone(1992) asserted that the use of drawings as data was beneficial in that it providedparticipants with an opportunity for self-expression, gave a means of visually



representing ideas, and had the potential to reveal unforeseen information. In ourstudy, we adapted the Draw a scientist test and asked interns to respond to two modi-fied prompts: Draw yourself teaching science and Draw your students learning science.These two prompts allowed us to analyse the similarities and differences between theteacher candidates’ illustrations of their teaching actions and their students’ learningactions.

Email questions. During spring 2008 we decided to collect additional data by way ofemail delivered questions to a purposive selection of our sample. We wanted toprobe more deeply the tentative findings that had emerged from our analysis of thefull sample’s dataset (N = 29) as a member check on our own interpretations. Weselected 10 interns to contact based on their earlier responses. The selection of these10 interns was made to provide a representative sample with the least amount ofredundancy.

We sent a series of the same three emails to the interns. To the first email, weattached five open-ended questions as well as electronic scans of their original draw-ings in response to the prompt Draw yourself teaching science (see Table 3). Thesecond email contained the same questions and scans of original drawings from theprompt Draw your students learning science. For the final email, we sent personalizedquestions based on our interpretations of the intern’s responses to the questions (e.g.‘in response to the question … you stated … We interpret your statement to mean …Do you agree with our conclusion? Please explain’). We also asked interns abouthow the HOSO experience changed or supported their ideas about teaching scienceand whether or not they believed the effort to participate in an afterschool, informalscience education internship was worthwhile.

Table 3. Open-ended questions from member check

Questions submitted via email with teacher candidates’ drawings

1. Describe what is happening in your drawings (a) Pre-internship(b) Post-internship

2. What similarities or differences do you see in how you illustrated hands-on science learning inyour pre- and post-internship drawings? (a) To what do you attribute any changes?

3. What similarities or differences do you see in how you illustrated collaborative sciencelearning in your pre- and post-internship drawings? (a) To what do you attribute any changes?

4. What similarities or differences do you see in how you illustrated science inquiry in yourpre- and post-internship drawings? (a) To what do you attribute any changes?

5. Please share any further thoughts on your HOSO internship experience and how that experience may have influenced your thinking about science teaching.


12 P. Katz et al.

Analysis

Categorical analysis. As a first step in analysing the data, we interpreted the draw-ings through the use of a categorical analysis. Independently, two of the researcherscoded the drawings using a modified coding scheme developed by Katz (2003).The codes included identification of surface features and science processes.Specifically, each drawing was coded for: students’ gender, image inclusion,teacher expression, students’ expression, ethnicity of teacher, ethnicity of students,activity type, setting, and science processes (e.g. observing, experimenting, predict-ing) as referenced in the National Science Education Standards (National ResearchCouncil, 1996). After independently coding the drawings, any differences in inter-pretation (very few) were brought to the larger research group and negotiated untila consensus emerged. Initially, we used the surface features and science processcodes to interpret the drawings. We found that the high number of science processcoding categories obscured possible trends in the data by placing too much atten-tion on a micro-grain analysis. As a result, we decided to recode evidence ofscience teaching and learning depicted in the drawings using three categories thatencompassed the main goals of the HOSO programme: hands-on science, collabo-ration, and inquiry.

Mental model analysis. By analysing the components of teacher candidates’ drawingsbefore and after the informal afterschool science internship, we gained insight intotheir changing mental models of what it means to teach and learn science. We alsolooked for evidence that the informal afterschool science teaching experience helpedto foster reform-oriented thinking for the teacher candidates; that is, we investigatedchanges in their representations of transformative pedagogy, of the nature of scienceteaching and learning, of confidence and enthusiasm toward science teaching, and oftheir own capacities to transform school science. These broader categories wereconsistent with major goals for science education articulated in prominent scienceeducation reform documents. Focusing our attention on identifying the presence orabsence of evidence for these three categorical areas allowed us to draw conclusionsregarding the beliefs our interns held concerning the critical goals.

We used a mental model analysis to gain insight into the ways teacher candidatesviewed themselves in the context of science teaching and learning, and the waysothers would view them. The drawings and member check responses promptedteacher candidates to represent their mental models of science teaching and learningas teacher candidates drew and described components that were salient to them. Ininterpreting the teacher candidates’ mental models, we used an inductive approachand identified themes that emerged from the data. The mental models provided alens through which we could explore how the teachers’ were identifying as reform-oriented teachers of science.

Identity analysis. We used identity theory as another lens to address how teachercandidates came to see themselves as teachers of science and came to be seen by



others in the science education community following participation in an informalscience internship. We believe that the mental models framework provided us withinformation about teacher candidates’ thinking at a given time, while the identityframework afforded a narrative of their development over time as transformativeteachers of science. We used a deductive approach to connect teacher candidates’mental models of science teaching and learning with reform-based goals articulatedin prominent science education documents (international, US, informal, andformal). Using this approach, we were able to consider how the science educationcommunity would come to view the teacher candidates’ identities, as well as how theteacher candidates themselves would come to view their identities as transformativeteachers of science following completion of the informal afterschool scienceinternship.

When we investigated what influence the informal science internship had ondeveloping their concept of transformative teaching, we looked for evidence ofinquiry-based science investigations illustrated through question marks, questions inspeech bubbles, or intern notes on the drawing pages. We looked for evidence ofactive science, noting the presence of materials, how they were distributed and beingused, and whether their use was eliciting discussion. We looked for evidence ofcollaboration by how the students were arranged and how they appeared to becommunicating. We considered the setting and whether the intern was expressing avariety of resources by illustrating items not typically found in a classroom or bydepicting science instruction taking place outside of a classroom.

Findings

We selected four participants from our total sample (pilot study and scale-up study,N = 29) to represent our findings. These four participants illustrate the patterns ofresponses we found when we analysed all the participants’ data. In particular, wecoded the data for two categories: evidence of transformative pedagogy and enthusi-asm for science and science teaching and learning. For the transformative pedagogycategory, we selected three participants, Lindsey (White female), Sasha (Whitefemale), and Gina (Asian/Pacific Islander female) to represent three aspects oftransformative pedagogy, respectively: collaboration, inquiry, and hands-on science.Rachel (African-American female) was selected to represent the second category,enthusiasm. These four participants expressed their ideas related to the targeted twocategories in rich detail both in their drawings and their interview responses. Wereport elements of each teacher candidate’s mental model of science teaching andscience learning both before and after their participation in the informal afterschoolscience internship.

Focal Study: Lindsey (White Female)

Lindsey’s case represented an example of a teacher candidate whose drawingsprovide evidence of growth in developing an identity as a transformative teacher of


14 P. Katz et al.

science, particularly with regard to the use of collaborative learning. We interpretedher drawings to move toward a view of science teaching and learning as active ratherthan passive, and as a collaborative rather than solitary endeavour. In our initialinterpretations of Lindsey’s pre-internship drawings, we saw little evidence thatLindsey viewed hands-on learning, collaboration, or inquiry as central elements ofscience teaching and learning. In her pre-internship Draw yourself teaching sciencedrawing (Figure 1A), Lindsey depicted herself conducting a science demonstrationas a group of students observe. She appeared to identify the teacher (herself) as themain actor in the science classroom, and the students as passive observers. Afterengaging in the informal afterschool science internship, Lindsey’s depiction of herown science teaching was strikingly different (Figure 1B). She depicted studentsseated together, preparing to engage in a hands-on activity, carefully indicatingmaterials for each student. She placed herself seated in the circle with her studentsto help guide their own explorations, rather than standing in front of them as ademonstrator. In responding to the changes in her drawings, Lindsey stated: ‘I defi-nitely believe that students learn better through the discourse that is created in grouplearning … I think that the HOSO programme did an excellent job with that … Theadult leader guides the conversation rather than dominates it’ (Email, 2008).Figure 1. Lindsey’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching scienceLindsey’s Draw your students learning science drawings further demonstrated thesame themes. Before the informal afterschool science internship, Lindsey illus-trated students standing in isolation, with no evidence of interaction betweenstudents or with science materials (Figure 2A). She explained that her drawingshowed students ‘separated and examining various objects individually. They arestanding near the tables, but not really working with the materials’ (Email, 2008).In the post-internship drawing, Lindsey again reconfigured students into a circle

Figure 1. Lindsey’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching science



and provided each child with materials to use (Figure 2B). An important compo-nent of her mental model appeared to have become active students who engagewith materials and with one another. Lindsey commented that in the post-internship drawing, ‘students are working together and sharing ideas with eachother … [and] look like they are much more hands-on in their learning’ (Emailfollow-up study, 2008).Figure 2. Lindsey’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning scienceIn commenting on the changes between her drawings, Lindsey provided evidencethat she was developing an identity that incorporated elements of transformativepedagogy and beliefs of science teaching and learning. She writes:

HOSO made me much more confident in my ability to make science interactive andeducational for my students. My science lessons are much more hands-on and engagingfor my students. I think that the programme has made me more likely to take risks withscience lessons in my classroom, and view science as something I want to do with mystudents as opposed to have to. (Email, 2008)

Focal Study: Gina (Asian/Pacific Islander Female)

We identified Gina as a teacher candidate whose drawings provide evidence of herdeveloping identity as a teacher of science who values engaging her students inhands-on learning, a crucial element of transformative pedagogy in science. In eachset of drawings (Draw yourself teaching science; Draw your students learning science), theways that Gina represents science education changes dramatically after her engage-ment in the informal afterschool science internship. Before the informal internship,Gina appeared to hold a formal, lecture-based mental model of her own scienceteaching. In her pre-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing (Figure 3A), shedepicts herself at the front of the classroom, demonstrating with science materials

Figure 2. Lindsey’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning science


16 P. Katz et al.

(of which the teacher is the sole handler). After the informal afterschool scienceinternship, Gina appears to perceive the teacher’s role as guiding and encouragingstudents while they worked together and made their own discoveries (Figure 3B). Incomparing her pre- and post-internship drawings, Gina comments that sheattributed this change to her participation in the HOSO internship, stating, ‘Theprogramme emphasizes the type of learning shown in the second picture, where thechildren are very interactive. After my internship, that’s the way I began to viewscience’ (Email, 2008). Her mental model of teaching includes opportunities forstudents to collaborate with one another and enjoy their participation in science.Gina commented, ‘I understand that science needs to be a collaborative process inorder for it to be successful. This success can be defined as the students learning andhaving fun’ (Email, 2008). She now appears to view the science teacher’s role as notonly providing information, but also as helping to make science enjoyable. Thestudents handling the materials in the post-internship drawing indicate that hermental model of science teaching now includes students as active participants ratherthan passive observers in the science classroom.Figure 3. Gina’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching scienceIn depicting her students’ science learning (Figure 4A), Gina begins again byillustrating a formal, lecture-based classroom similar to the one she has drawn in herpre-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing (Figure 3A). Students are sitting atdesks filling out worksheets as they listen to a lecture, and responding to questionsposed to them. At this point, student interaction with materials or with one anotheris apparently not present in her mental model of science learning. After participatingin the informal afterschool science internship, Gina’s mental model of science learn-ing has changed considerably. In the post-internship ‘Draw your students learning’drawing (Figure 4B), she depicts her students participating in outdoor scienceexplorations together and emphasizes the importance of collaboration between

Figure 3. Gina’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching science



students. She notes that not all of the students are participating in the same activityand states that ‘the children are questioning themselves and each other to inquirewhat is happening’ (Email, 2008). This statement may represent an interestingchange in her conception of inquiry as it applies to her students’ science learning.Rather than responding to questions posed by the teacher or written on a worksheet(as in the pre-internship drawing), she indicates that students are developing andinvestigating their own questions and ‘making their own conclusions and discover-ies’ (Email, 2008). Gina mentioned that in her education courses as well as in theinternship, she began thinking about how to give students guidelines without limit-ing their exploration (Email, 2008). She again emphasizes student enjoyment in thispost-internship drawing, and noted that students enjoy the opportunity to learnscience in settings outside of the classroom (Email, 2008).Figure 4. Gina’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning scienceGina’s comments about her drawings suggest that she is beginning to develop animage of her ‘ideal self’ as a teacher of science, and an understanding of the practicesof transformative science education. She writes:

I hope I have the opportunity to teach in a school system that allows me to teach in amanner that is illustrated by the second picture. Unfortunately, there are school systemsthat do not believe that science learning should be anything but textbook and worksheets.I don’t think this is the best way to approach science. The programme emphasizes thetype of learning shown in the second picture, where the children are very interactive.After my internship, that’s the way I began to view science learning. (Email, 2008)

Focal Study: Rachel (African American Female)

We selected Rachel’s case as illustrative of movement toward the goal of developingconfidence and enthusiasm toward science teaching, an important aim of transformative

Figure 4. Gina’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning science


18 P. Katz et al.

teacher education in science. Further, it appears that the informal nature of theHOSO internship was particularly beneficial in helping Rachel to identify as a capableteacher of science. Before participating in the informal afterschool science internship,Rachel was hesitant about science and unsure of her own abilities to teach it. Rachel’spre-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing (Figure 5A) showed a teacherbehind her desk, reviewing a book that explained how to conduct a science experi-ment. Rachel expressed some apprehension by stating that ‘I don’t know much aboutscience’. It appeared that Rachel relied on her book/curriculum guide to ensure thatshe carried out her lesson according to a plan. She believed that if she were wellprepared, both teacher and students would have a positive experience in the scienceclassroom. In the post-internship drawing (Figure 5B), Rachel again depicted herselfbehind a desk, but also included a group of students sitting at a table preparing toconduct the experiment she had introduced. In commenting on her post-internshipdrawing, Rachel wrote:

My experience was more hands-on than I thought it would be. I walked around andhelped the students with whatever they needed, and I even conducted my own experi-ment right along with them. A lot of how I taught was by demonstration, not justexplaining. (Email, 2008)

These comments provided insight into some changes in Rachel’s mental model ofscience teaching from before to after the internship. Student–teacher interactionbecame a new component of her thinking. She viewed herself not only as anexplainer or direction-giver, but as a helper and demonstrator for her students.Figure 5. Rachel’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching scienceRachel’s ‘Draw your students learning’ drawings were quite different from her‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawings. Her pre-internship ‘Draw your students learning’drawing showed groups of students together at tables, conducting and discussing ahands-on science experiment (Figure 6A). Unlike the pre-internship ‘Draw yourself

Figure 5. Rachel’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching science



teaching’ drawing, the students had materials and were engaged in doing science. Inthe dialogue she showed between students, Rachel depicted one student encourag-ing another, indicating her awareness of the benefits of peer-to-peer interaction inthe science classroom. After participating in the internship, Rachel appeared toretain her idea that collaboration and discussion were central to her students’ sciencelearning (Figure 6B). However, rather than depicting her students collaborating overa formal lab experiment, Rachel drew her students with art projects. This changedemonstrated a new understanding of how to incorporate other subject areas inscience education to contribute to her students’ learning. The informal nature of theafterschool programme may have helped Rachel recognize alternative approachesthat would assist her students in learning and enjoying science.Figure 6. Rachel’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning scienceIn her post-internship comments, we saw a considerable change in Rachel’sfeelings about science teaching and learning, and in her sense of herself as a teacherof science. She wrote:

I completely agree that the HOSO internship changed my ideas about what it meansto teach science. In my opinion, this internship, and any other opportunity to teachscience informally is worthwhile. I believe there is a negative stereotype that goesalong with teaching science. Because the internship was informal, it really gave me achance to see how fun and creative you can be when teaching a science lesson. (Email,2008)

Rachel comments about how having a positive experience with science in the intern-ship helped counteract some negative prior experiences that she had in her ownscience learning. Her comments emphasized that personal histories were critical inthe professional identity development for teachers of science, and that negative expe-riences with science teaching and learning may lose influence when teacher candi-dates had opportunities to engage in informal science experiences that providepositive science teaching and learning experiences:

Figure 6. Rachel’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning science


20 P. Katz et al.

Growing up I was never really a ‘science person’. Most of my memories about scienceclass are not very exciting, so I think I just assumed my prior experiences would be simi-lar to my internship experience. Science isn’t as bad as I thought it was! It was madevery simple and easy to teach, and along with the kids, I had a great time (Email, 2008).

Focal Study: Sasha (White Female)

Sasha’s case presented an example of a teacher candidate who entered the informalscience afterschool internship already comfortable with inquiry-based scienceteaching and maintained this view through her participation in the internship.Sasha’s pre-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing (Figure 7A) depicted ateacher standing to the side of a group of students as they worked together withscience materials. In her mental model of teaching, Sasha appeared to view studentsas capable of directing many aspects of their learning, and the teacher as a facilitatorof their activities. Prior to the internship, Sasha already placed high importance onstudent collaboration in the science classroom, as well as on opportunities forstudents to manipulate science materials. She indicated in the drawing that studentswere sharing ideas and engaging in discussion as they made discoveries with thematerials. The post-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing (Figure 7B) lookedquite similar, but placed the teacher in a more active role: she provided direction tothe students and asked probing questions to promote higher level thinking. Sashaseemed to recognize that while it was important to allow student exploration withscience materials, it was also beneficial for the teacher to scaffold their learning andhelp guide their thinking through questioning. She commented, ‘I saw that studentscan easily come to their own conclusions about science with little probing’ (Email,2008). Sasha appeared to focus more on her own role in creating the best learning

Figure 7. Sasha’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching science



experience for her students. She wrote that this included being well prepared for thelesson and providing ‘very structured’ science lessons. It might be interpreted thatthis thinking was somewhat at odds with the informal approach to science teachingthat Sasha experienced in her informal afterschool science internship. Sashacommented that the focus on structure and organization was due to negative experi-ences she had in the internship: ‘I think I was very focused on the preparation aspectbecause I observed my HOSO teacher unprepared prior to experimentation, whichled to very disorganized and chaotic lessons’ (Email, 2008). This statement indi-cated Sasha’s recognition that meaningful hands-on science took a high level ofthoughtfulness, preparation, and engagement on the part of the teacher.Figure 7. Sasha’s response to the prompt: Draw yourself teaching scienceSasha’s pre-internship ‘Draw your students learning’ drawing (Figure 8A) againdepicted a group of students working together at a table with science materials.Sasha drew each individual student with a different thought in mind, indicating herbelief that each student in a collaborative group brought different ideas. Sasha’smental model of science learning included hands-on, collaborative work by thestudents and involved a number of scientific processes (e.g. observation, prediction,experimentation). As we saw in her pre-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing(Figure 7A), prior to the internship, Sasha viewed herself as having a somewhat‘hands-off’ role as her students worked together in the science classroom. In thepost-internship ‘Draw your students learning’ drawing (Figure 8B), there weremany similar elements, but more evidence of discussion and inquiry. The studentswere standing at a table with materials, speaking to one another rather than thinkingto themselves. Sasha’s mental model of science learning appeared, after the intern-ship, to include a considerable level of student dialogue as they engaged in groupinvestigations.Figure 8. Sasha’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning science

Figure 8. Sasha’s response to the prompt: Draw your students learning science


22 P. Katz et al.

Sasha’s comments indicated a higher level of awareness about the role of inquiryin her students’ learning. She wrote that she wanted her students to ‘use inquiry’ and‘ask questions and find ways to seek out their answers’. While she did not depictherself in the ‘Draw your students learning’ drawing, Sasha’s comments indicatednew ideas about her identity as a teacher of science. She was beginning to see herselfas a teacher who guided her students as they made sense of science, and took anactive role in her students’ learning. She wrote:

While I watched inquiry-based science instruction implemented during my HOSOinternship, I recognized that students need to think critically about the scientificconcepts they explore in order to gain a better understanding of science. Inquiry alonewill not help all students make important scientific discoveries, and I found that manyof the students I worked with during my HOSO experience needed closure and probingquestions to further their understanding of the concept we were exploring. (Email,2008)

Summary of the Focal Cases

The four focal cases illustrated the diversity of changes that occurred for ourparticipants through their experiences with the informal afterschool science intern-ship. Overall, these cases suggested that the totality of the afterschool informalscience internship fostered changes in the teacher candidates’ thinking about scienceteaching and learning, as well as about themselves as future teachers of science.

Comparing participants’ pre- and post-internship Draw yourself teaching scienceand Draw your students learning science drawings was useful for gaining insight intopotential changes in teacher candidates’ mental models of science teaching andlearning, as well as in their professional identities as teachers of science. With regardto mental models of science teaching and learning, the four focal cases exemplifiedseveral ways in which teacher candidates came to reconceptualize the inclusion oftransformative approaches to science education in the areas of hands-on learning,collaboration, and inquiry. For example, Lindsey, Gina, and Sasha’s drawings allsuggested changes in their mental models which provided evidence for a greaterunderstanding of transformative pedagogy after participating in the informalafterschool science internship. Lindsey and Gina both included transformativeapproaches in their post-internship drawings that did not appear to be present intheir pre-internship drawings. And while Sasha included transformativeapproaches—especially relating to inquiry-based science teaching—in both her pre-and post-internship drawings, her case suggested not only that the afterschoolinformal science internship supported interns in maintaining their use of transforma-tive approaches like inquiry, but also in learning to apply these in new ways. In eachof these cases, we found evidence that as the interns’ mental models of scienceteaching and learning were changing, so were their professional identities as teachersof science. Lindsey, Gina, and Sasha all appeared to be developing a new sense ofwhat it meant for them to teach science and how learners learned science. The resultwas a more sophisticated view of their ideal selves as teachers of science.



The focal cases also provided evidence of affective changes for teacher candidatesfrom the beginning to the end of their participation in the informal afterschool scienceinternship. For example, Rachel’s case showed changes in her drawings and accom-panying comments in her confidence and enthusiasm for teaching science. Hermental models of science teaching and learning appeared to have changed from envi-sioning science education as an intimidating endeavour to something of which shebelieved she was capable and interested in doing. In terms of her professional identityas a teacher of science, Rachel’s data provided evidence that she came to see herselfas a more confident science teacher who did not have the same hesitations aboutscience that appeared to be present in her pre-internship drawing and comments.

Discussion

Identity theory posits a relationship between how one regards oneself and how one isregarded by others (Danielewicz, 2001; Gee, 2001; Luehmann, 2007). In our study,we were interested in discerning the ways that teacher candidates came to regardthemselves as future science teachers and the ways that others in the science educa-tion community could regard them as developing in key recommended areas. Ouranalysis of the collected data permitted us to draw conclusions in two of the four keygoals of science teacher education that we synthesized: ‘Science teacher preparationshould provide opportunities for teacher candidates to be seen as knowledgeable andconfident in transformative pedagogy (inquiry techniques, active sciencing, collabo-rative work, a variety of formal and informal resources)’ and ‘Science teacher prepa-ration should encourage teacher candidates to be seen as modelling enthusiasm forscience as they engage in science teaching’.

Below, we present our discussion by the two goals in science teacher preparationthat we identified as directly relevant to our study.

Science Teacher Preparation Should Provide Opportunities for Teacher Candidates to be Seen as Knowledgeable and Confident in Transformative Pedagogy (Inquiry Techniques, Active Sciencing, Collaborative Work, and Use of a Variety of Formal and Informal Resources)

We posited that transformative pedagogy included a more student-centeredapproach that moved closer to the way that professional scientists work—in groups,handling materials, and questioning authority and each other. The National ScienceTeachers Association (2004) asserted that teachers should both understand transfor-mative pedagogy and find resources to support their teaching. They stated thatteachers should be able to ‘understand processes, tenets and assumptions in multiplemethods of inquiry’ (p. 13) … ‘identify, access, and/or create resources and activitiesconsistent with standards, … [and] plan and implement to reach National ScienceEducation Standards goals’ (p. 18).

The recent informal science education document by the National Research Coun-cil (2009) stated that informal educators should give students opportunities to


24 P. Katz et al.

‘manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe and make sense of the naturaland physical world’ (p. 4). Osborne and Dillon (2008) described additional transfor-mative features of science teaching that included opportunities for students to ‘workin groups, explore written and oral expression, more open-ended, problem-solvingexperiences’ (p. 21). The National Science Education Standards stated that the teach-ing of science ‘requires integrating knowledge of science, learning, pedagogy andstudents—and applying to science teaching. [Teachers and students] use inquiry,reflection, research, interpretation’ (National Research Council, 1996, p. 62). TheAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) document suggestedthat the methods of science are not only useful ways of thinking, but that perhaps abroader range of situations strengthens the way in which this thinking can transferamong life’s circumstances.

We found evidence that the teacher candidates who participated in the afterschoolinformal science education internship became more knowledgeable and confident inthe recommended transformative pedagogy. For instance, Sasha was very thoughtfulin drawing an image of her students. Both her pre- and post-drawings and hercomments on her drawings illustrated a positive attitude, students with ideas,reasoning and predicting, using materials, and asking questions (Figures 7A–8B).However, her internship made her more aware of her necessary role in guidingstudent learning. She learned that she needed to ask questions and facilitatediscussion among students as they engaged in inquiry-based science experiences inorder to further their understandings of science concepts. The Adult Leader whoworked with Sasha wrote at first that, ‘the intern rarely asked questions and insteadwhen a child asked a question [the] intern was prompted to answer the questionrather than to inquire their reasoning behind the question … By the end of herinternship the Leader wrote, ‘the intern asked appropriate questions especially in thelast activity to help children learn the importance of air pressure’ (Adult Leaderreflection, 2007).

We also found evidence of teacher candidates’ knowledge of transformativepedagogy through their depiction and discussion of collaborative learning.Lindsey provided an example of movement from a view of students learning inisolation (pre-internship) to learning together with peers (post-internship) (Figures2A and 2B).

She writes:

[The students] were definitely more engaged and I think they got a lot more out of itthan just lecture based science. (Interview, 2007)

We interpreted that Lindsey not only saw the benefits of collaborative work for thestudents, but that she was thinking about her own role as facilitator and perhapslearner as a part of the process of responding to students’ communications.

Further evidence of teacher candidates’ knowledge and confidence in transforma-tive pedagogy came through depictions of active science. The use of drawing as adata source was particularly informative as a strategy to reveal their thinking (espe-cially when combined with the member check). We looked for teacher candidates’



illustrations of hands-on science learning, as well as the discussion and meaning-making they believed should accompany its use.

In her post-internship ‘Draw your students learning’ drawing, Sasha depictedstudents engaged with materials while discussing their ideas (Figure 8B). We believedthat Sasha understood that hands-on learning was important in transformative scienceteaching, but that it cannot stand alone without discussion and meaning-making. Incommenting on her drawing, she wrote:

Students should be given the opportunity to explore and use hands on approaches tomake scientific discoveries, but I realized that teachers need to ask probing questionsand facilitate discussions about science in order to further students’ understanding of ascience topic. (Follow-up email, 2008)

While she was concerned with providing students opportunities to explore materi-als and discuss on their own, we also believed that Sasha had an appropriate sense ofthe teacher’s role in guiding these science learning experiences for her students.

One final way we interpreted teacher candidates’ knowledge and comfort withtransformative pedagogy was through their depiction and discussion of the inclusionof informal science resources and settings. Because each teacher candidate waspreparing to teach in a formal setting, we were interested to see whether they viewedany elements of the informal afterschool setting as translatable to their futureteaching careers. Gina provided one example of a teacher candidate who movedfrom a view of science learning as highly structured and taking place in formalsettings, to a view of science learning as more exploratory and possibly existingoutside of the classroom. In her pre-internship ‘Draw your students learning’drawing, she drew her students completing worksheets by themselves at desks(Figure 4A). In the post-internship drawing, students were exploring collaborativelyin a setting outside of the classroom (Figure 4B). These drawings indicated to us abroadening in Gina’s view of science teaching and learning, with her post-internshipdrawing being much more illustrative of transformative pedagogy.

Science Teacher Preparation Should Encourage Teacher Candidates to be Seen as Modelling Enthusiasm for Science as They Engage in Science Teaching

In its introductory remarks, the National Science Education Standards spoke to thedesired enthusiasm of students and by implication teacher models: ‘The goals forschool science that underlie the National Science Education Standards are to educatestudents who are able to experience the richness and excitement of knowing about andunderstanding the natural world’ (National Research Council, 1996, p. 13). The Blue-prints for Reform: Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education state that ‘The enthu-siasm of a teacher matters in the learning process, and one important way to generateteacher enthusiasm is to give teachers ownership over what they do’ (AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, 1998, p. 108). National ResearchCouncil (2009) addressed informal science education and stated that learners (andby implication those who prepare learning environments to teach science) ‘experience


26 P. Katz et al.

excitement, interest, and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural andphysical world’ (p. 4). Osborne and Dillon (2008) stated that ‘Good science teachers… hold a passion for science’ (p. 25). Our participants most frequently stated passionand enthusiasm for science teaching and learning by the use of the word ‘fun’.

We found evidence of enthusiasm in the use of the word ‘fun’ often to describehow the interns themselves enjoyed the informal internship experience or valuedmaking science enjoyable for their students. For example, Gina stated:

I understand that science needs to be a collaborative process in order for it to besuccessful. This success can be defined as the students learning and having fun. (Gina,email, 2008)

Sasha’s post-internship ‘Draw yourself teaching’ drawing provided an example ofhow participants illustrated enthusiasm (Figure 8B). In this drawing, she depictedherself with a smile, enthusiastic body language, and the words ‘Science is fun!’ onthe board.

To conclude, consistent with the research of Chesebrough (1994) and Ferry(1995), we found that the teacher candidates in this study benefitted from the infor-mal programme’s focus on affective dimensions. The goals of HOSO focused onoutcomes such as promoting curiosity, sparking students’ interest in science, andengaging students in science through play. As a result of these unique goals, theteacher candidates that participated in the afterschool internship experiencedemonstrated positive changes in their attitudes and beliefs about science. Theteacher candidates’ professional identities were also influenced as a result of theafterschool internship experience. As Anderson et al. (2006) reported in their studyof an aquarium practice experience, and as Luehmann (2007) posited, teachercandidates benefitted from exposure in an informal science education context totransformative science teaching methods. Teacher candidates observed and partici-pated in the implementation of hands-on, inquiry-based, and collaborative scienceactivities with students during the HOSO programme. As a result of the internship,teacher candidates expressed in their drawings and interview narratives a view thatshifted away from didactic, lecture-based instruction and began to emphasize theimportance of incorporating hands-on, inquiry-based, and collaborative activities inscience instruction. These insights supported those of Anderson et al. (2006) andKelly (2000) who suggested that informal internship experiences could help teachercandidates develop more sophisticated epistemologies of science teaching andlearning.

A major limitation of our study is that it does not examine the actual teachingpractices of the participating teacher candidates in their beginning years of theircareer as teachers. Future study is recommended in this area.

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation underGrant No. 0455752. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations



expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Science Foundation.

Notes

1. The content in sections ‘Affective Benefits’, ‘Exposure to Transformative Pedagogy’, and‘Beliefs Concerning the Teaching and Learning of Science’ was drawn from McGinnis et al.(in press).

2. During the fall semester of 2006 a small pilot study was conducted. Four interns participatedin the afterschool internship. Refinements were made to the research design and datacollection instruments based on the pilot study.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science,mathematics, and technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, A., Druger, M., James, C., Katz, P., & Ernisse, J. (2001). An NSTA position statementon informal science education. In P. Katz (Ed.), Community connections for science education(pp. ix–xi). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Anderson, D., Lawson, B., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Investigating the impact of a practicumexperience in an aquarium on pre-service teachers. Teaching Education, 17(4), 341–353.

Australian Science Teachers Association. (2009). National professional standards for highly accom-plished teachers of science. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.asta.edu.au/freestyler/files/FINAL%20draft%20of%20Science%20Standards.pdf

Bybee, R. (2001). Achieving science literacy: Strategies for insuring that free-choice science educa-tion complements national formal science education efforts. In J. Falk (Ed.), Free choice scienceeducation (pp. 44–63). New York: Teachers College Press.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: Draw-a-scientist test. ScienceEducation, 67(2), 255–265.

Chesebrough, D. (1994). Informal science teacher preparation. Science Education International,5(2), 28–33.

Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERApanel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coll, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Investigation of secondary school, undergraduate, andgraduate learners’ mental models of ionic bonding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(5), 464–486.

Cox-Petersen, A. M., Spencer, B. H., & Crawford, J. H. (2005). Developing a community ofteachers through integrated science and literacy service-learning experiences. Issues in TeacherEducation, 14(1), 23–37.

Crane, V. (1994). An introduction to informal science learning and research. In V. Crane, H.Nicholson, M. Chen, & S. Bitgood (Eds.), Informal science learning: What the research saysabout television, science museums, and community-based projects (pp. 1–14). Ephrata, PA: SciencePress.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves. Albany: State University of New York Press.Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement

of the ‘Informal Science Education’ ad hoc committee. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(2), 108–111.


28 P. Katz et al.

Dori, Y. J., & Tal, R. T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industrywith environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95–113.

Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influenceof learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86(3),401–416.

Eilam, B. (2004). Drops of water and of soap solution: Students’ constraining mental models ofthe nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 970–993.

Falk, J. H. (2001). Free-choice science learning: Framing the discussion. In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school (pp. 3–20). New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Ferry, B. (1995). Science centers in Australia provide valuable training for preservice teachers.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(3), 255–260.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research inEducation, 25, 99–125.

Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters and teeming crowds: Mental models ofelectricity. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.) Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Gomez, R. L., Hadner, O. D., & Housner L. D. (1996). Conceptual maps and simulated teachingepisodes as indicators of competence in teaching elementary mathematics. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 88(3), 572–585.

Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal sciencelearning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87–112.

Jung, M. L., & Tonso, K. L. (2006). Elementary preservice teachers learning to teach science inscience museums and nature centers: A novel program’s impact on science knowledge,science pedagogy, and confidence teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 18(1),15–31.

Katz, P. (2003, March). Drawing conclusions, part I: Adapting ‘Draw-A-Scientist’ for informal scienceeducation research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

Katz, P., & McGinnis, J. R. (1999). An informal elementary science education program’s responseto the National Science Education Reform Movement. Journal of Elementary Science Educa-tion, 11(1), 1–15.

Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy,and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 755–777.

Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1990). High school mathematics review lessons: Expert–novicedistinctions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(5), 372–387.

Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. ScienceEducation, 91(5), 822–839.

McGinnis, J. R., Hestness, E., Riedinger, K., Katz, P., Marbach-Ad, G., & Dai, A. (In press).Informal science education in formal science teacher preparation. In K. Tobin, B. Frasier, &C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Meredith, J. E., Fortner, R. W., & Mullins, G. W. (1997). Model of affective learning for nonfor-mal science education facilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 805–818.

Naizer, G., Bell, G. L., West, K., & Chambers, S. (2003). Inquiry science professional develop-ment combined with a science summer camp for immediate application. Journal of ElementaryScience Education, 15(2), 31–37.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, andpursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W.Shouse, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Divisionof Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.



National Science Teachers Association. (2004). NSTA position statement on science teacher prepara-tion. Retrieved October 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/preparation.aspx

Norman, D. A. (1984). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.),Mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: TheNuffield Foundation.

Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell (Ed.), Handbook of researchon science education (pp. 125–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancingresearch on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(2), 112–120.

Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytical tool for investigatinglearning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 12–22.

Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, M., & Harbor, J. (2007). Students’ mental models of theenvironment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 327–348.

Spencer, B. H., Cox-Petersen, A. M., & Crawford, T. (2005). Assessing the impact of servicelearning on preservice teachers in an after-school program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4),119–135.

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teachingscience. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93).New York: Macmillan.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, L. (1999). Congruence and friction between teaching and learning.Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual changein childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.

White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer.Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta

Kappan, 80(10), 751–755.Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education

‘washed out’ by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–11.


Professional Identity Development of Teacher Candidates Participating in an Informal Science...

Documents

Transcript of Professional Identity Development of Teacher Candidates Participating in an Informal Science...