Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Interdisciplinary Knowledge for Teaching: A Model for Epistemic Support in Elementary Classrooms

  • Lilly, Sarah (University of Virginia) ;
  • Chiu, Jennifer L. (University of Virginia) ;
  • McElhaney, Kevin W. (Digital Promise)
  • Received : 2020.12.07
  • Accepted : 2021.08.14
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Research and national standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the United States, promote the development and implementation of K-12 interdisciplinary curricula integrating the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and computer science (STEM+CS). However, little research has explored how teachers provide epistemic support in interdisciplinary contexts or the factors that inform teachers' epistemic support in STEM+CS activities. The goal of this paper is to articulate how interdisciplinary instruction complicates epistemic knowledge and resources needed for teachers' instructional decision-making. Toward these ends, this paper builds upon existing models of teachers' instructional decision-making in individual STEM+CS disciplines to highlight specific challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinary approaches on classroom epistemic supports. First, we offer considerations as to how teachers can provide epistemic support for students to engage in disciplinary practices across mathematics, science, engineering, and computer science. We then support these considerations using examples from our studies in elementary classrooms using integrated STEM+CS curriculum materials. We focus on an elementary school context, as elementary teachers necessarily integrate disciplines as part of their teaching practice when enacting NGSS-aligned curricula. Further, we argue that as STEM+CS interdisciplinary curricula in the form of NGSS-aligned, project-based units become more prevalent in elementary settings, careful attention and support needs to be given to help teachers not only engage their students in disciplinary practices across STEM+CS disciplines, but also to understand why and how these disciplinary practices should be used. Implications include recommendations for the design of professional learning experiences and curriculum materials.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. NSF DRL-1742195. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank the teachers and students who participated in the study.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International journal of science education, 22(7), 665-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
  2. Alfieri, L., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Case studies of a robot-based game to shape interests and hone proportional reasoning skills. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, Article 4. DOI 10.1186/s40594-015-0017-9.
  3. Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(6), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9109-4
  4. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy in primary schools: Teachers' beliefs, practices and pupils' learning. London: King's College, University of London.
  5. Baker, C. K., & Galanti, T. M. (2017). Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activities: Responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. International journal of STEM education, 4(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0066-3
  6. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  7. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
  8. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
  9. Browning, C., Edson, A. J., Kimani, P., & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2014). Mathematical content knowledge for teaching elementary mathematics: A focus on geometry and measurement. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(2), 333-383. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1306
  10. Chevallard, Y. (2006). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 4) (pp. 21-30).
  11. Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275-1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
  12. Chiu, J. L., McElhaney, K., Zhang, N., Biswas, G., Fried, R., Basu, S., & Alozie, N. (2019, April). A Principled approach to NGSS-aligned curriculum development: A pilot study. Paper presented at NARST Annual International Conference, Baltimore, MD.
  13. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront? American Journal of Education, 100(3), 298-324. https://doi.org/10.1086/444019
  14. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500306
  15. Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Chao, J. (2017). Investigating teacher's technological pedagogical content knowledge in a CAD-enabled learning environment. In Paper presented and published at the 124th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Columbus, Ohio June 25-28-2017.
  16. Duschl, R. A., Bismack, A. S., Greeno, J., & Gitomer, D. H. (2016). Introduction: Coordinating PreK16 STEM education research and practices for advancing and refining reform agendas. In R. A. Duschl & A. S. Bismack (Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The central role of practices (pp. 15-46). Routledge.
  17. Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: a professional development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM education, 4(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3
  18. Fllis, A. K., & Fouts, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: The research base: The decision to approach music curriculum from an interdisciplinary perspective should include a consideration of all the possible benefits and drawbacks. Music Educators Journal, 87(5), 22-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399704
  19. Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers' views of pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and teacher Education, 12(4), 429-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(95)00049-P
  20. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x
  21. Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185-189.
  22. Ganesh, T. G., & Schnittka, C. G. (2014). Engineering education in the middle grades. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 89-115). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
  23. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
  24. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. GessNewsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3-17). Springer, Dordrecht.
  25. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. Reexamining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, 41(7), 28-42.
  26. Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers' framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821-844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
  27. Gray, R., & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2018). Talking modelling: Examining secondary science teachers' modelling-related talk during a model-based inquiry unit. International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1345-1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1479547
  28. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  29. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000709
  30. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461-487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616
  31. Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Zhang, N., Snyder, C., Ledeczi, A ., & Maroti, M. (2020). Domain-specific modeling languages in computer-based learning environments: A systematic approach to support science learning through computational modeling. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30(4), 537-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00209-z
  32. K-12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org.
  33. Ke, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2021). Supporting students' meaningful engagement in scientific modeling through epistemological messages: A case study of contrasting teaching approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 335-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21662
  34. Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  35. King, K. P., & Wiseman, D. L. (2001). Comparing science efficacy beliefs of elementary education majors in integrated and non-integrated teacher education coursework. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016681823643
  36. Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18231.x
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
  38. Lazenby, K., Stricker, A., Brandriet, A., Rupp, C. A., Mauger- Sonnek, K., & Becker, N. M. (2020). Mapping undergraduate chemistry students' epistemic ideas about models and modeling. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(5), 794-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21614
  39. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  40. Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 331-350). Springer, Dordrecht.
  41. Librea-Carden, M. R., Mulvey, B. K., Borgerding, L. A., Wiley, A. L., & Ferdous, T. (2021). 'Science is accessible for everyone': Preservice special education teachers' nature of science perceptions and instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 43(6), 949-968 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1893857
  42. Lilly, S., Fick, S.J., Chiu, J.L., McElhaney, K.W. (2020). Supporting elementary students to develop mathematical models within design-based integrated science and mathematics projects. In M. Gresalfi, and I. S. Horn (Eds.), The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020 (Vol. 2, pp. 847-848). Nashville, Tennessee: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  43. Lilly, S., McAlister, A. M., Chiu, J. L. (2021). Elementary teachers' verbal support of engineering integration in an interdisciplinary project. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education.
  44. Lilly, S., McAlister, A. M., Fick, S. J., Chiu, J. L., & McElhaney, K. W. (2020). Supporting upper elementary students' engineering practices in an integrated science and engineering unit. Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Online. https://peer.asee.org/35258
  45. Lin, F., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Promoting elementary students' epistemology of science through computer-supported knowledge-building discourse and epistemic reflection. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 668-687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1435923
  46. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719004100302
  47. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
  48. Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Preservice elementary teachers' science self-efficacy beliefs and science content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 649-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y
  49. Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
  50. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182
  51. Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 2.
  52. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3-15.
  53. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
  54. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  55. Pantoya, M. L., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Hunt, E. M. (2015). Developing an Engineering Identity in Early Childhood. American Journal of Engineering Education, 6(2), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v6i2.9502
  56. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K- 12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
  57. Ruppert, J., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2019). Disentangling the role of domain-specific knowledge in student modeling. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 921-948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9656-9
  58. Russ, R. S. (2018). Characterizing teacher attention to student thinking: A role for epistemological messages. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 94-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21414
  59. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation- driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  60. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional development: The teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. ZDM, 50(3), 491-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0908-y
  61. Schon, J. (1983). Petrophysik: Physikalische eigenschaften von gesteinen und mineralen (p. 405). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
  62. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  63. Sierpinska, A., & Lerman, S. (1996). Epistemologies of mathematics and of mathematics education. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 827-876). Dordrecht: Springer.
  64. Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers.
  65. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical thinking and learning, 10(4), 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
  66. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 4.
  67. Stroupe, D., Moon, J., & Michaels, S. (2019). Introduction to special issue: Epistemic tools in science education. Science Education, 103, 948-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21512
  68. Tan, E., Calabrese Barton, A., & Benavides, A. (2019). Engineering for sustainable communities: Epistemic tools in support of equitable and consequential middle school engineering. Science Education, 103(4), 1011-1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21515
  69. Taylor, J. C., & Villanueva, M. G. (2017). Research in science education for students with special needs. In M. T. Hughes & E. Talbott (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of diversity in special education (pp. 231-252). John Wiley & Sons.
  70. Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Hosp, J. L., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Gorsh, J. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta- analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 188-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x
  71. Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Hobbs, L. (2019). Rethinking disciplinary links in interdisciplinary STEM learning: A temporal model. Research in Science Education, 1-19.
  72. Wendell, K. B. (2014). Design practices of preservice elementary teachers in an integrated engineering and literature experience. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1085
  73. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878-903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027
  74. Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205-220). Cham: Springer.