1. Curiosity and Principles in Carbon TIME Classrooms
Wendy R. Johnson, Charles W. (Andy) Anderson, Michigan State University, Department of Teacher Education
Hannah K. Miller, Johnson State College/Northern Vermont University, Education Department
Research Questions
Curiosity-Oriented Discourse Video Analysis
Principle-Oriented Discourse Video Analysis
Content
Principles
Precision
Scale
The NRC Framework (2011) describes three-dimensional learning as building on students’ natural curiosity to explain scientific phenomena through deep engagement with science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and application of crosscutting concepts. However, discourse in many classrooms is not conducive to these goals. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) implementation documents contend that “By centering science education on phenomena that students are motivated to explain, the focus of learning shifts from learning about a topic to figuring out why or how something happens” (Achieve, 2016). Supporting students in figuring out phenomena requires scaffolding both curiosity and principled-based reasoning.
How do teachers scaffold curiosity about phenomena and principle-based reasoning in Carbon TIME classrooms?
How are students positioned in classrooms in terms of developing and using scientific knowledge and practices?
Ms. Nolan
Ms. Nolan
Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs)
The 3Qs are embedded in the context of phenomena and answered through the process tools, slides, and in the context of the investigations. Connections between principles and content is clear and explicit.
Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs)
Phenomena serve as a context for using principles. The 3Qs are used to identify what is happening in the investigations. In early stages of the instructional model, the content is addressed clearly, and questions remain.
Scale (CCCs)
Scale is scaffolded through modeling the language during instruction, and during questions in small groups.
Precision in Matter & Energy Words
Nolan models precise use of language and students have opportunities to use this as well – she directs them to specific scales in instructions, whole class discussion, and in small groups.
Category
Curiosity-driven discourse in Ms. Nolan’s classroom
Teacher’s Purposes
Figuring out phenomena
Driving question about phenomenon stated repeatedly and explicitly linked to every activity
Scaffolding sensemaking through questioning
Sophisticated metacommentary integrated conceptual, procedural, and epistemic issues
Epistemic Authority
Empirical evidence from investigations
Scientific models explain atomic molecular scale
Student Agency
Epistemic agents
Ask large number of conceptual questions indicative of sensemaking about the phenomena
Teacher’s practices positioned students as epistemic agents responsible for using evidence and models to explain the phenomenon
Rigor-Driven
Curiosity-Driven
Task-Driven
Content
Principles
Precision
Scale
Data & Analysis
Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs)
Teacher scaffolds attention to the rules of matter conservation by asking questions and congratulating them for adherence: "Nice work: you didn't destroy any matter." She uses the 3Qs often to guide student ideas.
Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs)
Ms. C uses the process tools to help students make connections between the modeling and the investigation. She names the connections and the students help by providing agreement or answers to questions.
Scale (CCCs)
Ms. C is explicit about which spatial scale student evidence comes from when new data emerge throughout the unit: ”What evidence do you have from the atomic-molecular scale?” She names the scale in her prompts.
Precision in Matter & Energy Words
Ms. C consistently scaffolds precision in matter words: she expects students to use words appropriately and checks on their usage in small group interactions.
Ms. Callahan
Ms. Callahan
Category
Rigor-driven discourse in Ms. Callahan’s classroom
Teacher’s Purposes
Rigorous conceptual understanding
No explicit driving questions about phenomena
Questioning focused on reviewing information & evaluating students’ knowledge
Detailed explanations of key ideas
Metacommentary on process of learning
Epistemic Authority
Teacher’s focus on rigor & assessment made her the authority
Empirical evidence central for investigations
Student Agency
Learning rigorous science concepts
Students asked many conceptual questions during small group work; teacher scaffolded their sensemaking
Students asked few questions during whole-class discussions; teacher responded with conceptual answers
Teacher positioned students as learning rigorous concepts, but sensemaking was done by the teacher
Rigor-Driven
Curiosity-Driven
Task-Driven
Participants: Middle and high school classrooms implementing the Carbon TIME curriculum in 2015 – 2016.
Data sources: Three videos of lessons from the Systems & Scale Unit in each of the four case study classrooms.
Analysis: We employed grounded theory methods to analyze classroom videos using StudioCode software. Codes for the principle-oriented framework come from prior work on student development of principle-oriented discourse (Miller, Johnson, Doherty, Freed & Anderson, 2017).
Discussion
Content
Principles
Precision
Scale
Ms. Apol
Ms. Apol
Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs)
Students are quizzed on the rules. Any focus on the principles in the content of their ideas and questions was replaced with a focus on the atomic-molecular structure of ethanol (context-specific knowledge).
Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs)
Content about investigations is replaced with focus on procedure; content that is addressed is not used to establish a context for larger guiding principles.
Scale (CCCs)
Scale is heavily scaffolded through attention to precision with examples: students are quizzed and drilled to show that they have named and memorized examples of scale. Wrong ideas are corrected swiftly by the teacher.
Precision in Matter & Energy Words
Ms. Apol heavily scaffolds student precision through modeling (her own language) and quizzing. Words are not used in context of phenomena.
Category
Task-driven discourse in Ms. Apol’s classroom
Teacher’s Purposes
Learning about science
No clear phenomenon or driving question
Very procedural directions
Questioning focused on facts and vocabulary
Metacommentary about procedural issues
Epistemic Authority
Teacher serves as epistemic authority
Student Agency
Learning facts and following procedures
Students asked very few conceptual questions and the teacher responded with facts or procedures
Teacher’s practices positioned students as responsible for following directions and learning correct answers
The coding on curiosity revealed that orchestrating curiosity-driven discourse, in which students are epistemic agents who figure out phenomena, is challenging. For example, Nolan’s classroom achieved this by making the driving question central to each activity, emphasizing the role of empirical evidence and scientific models, and using a variety of strategies to support students in answering the driving question. In other classrooms, a clear driving question about phenomena was not established, which positioned students as learners of authoritative knowledge.
The coding on principles revealed that teachers struggled to support principle-oriented discourse when they treated principles and scale (CCCs) & context-specific knowledge (DCIs) as separate realms of classroom talk and learning. Teachers Ross and Apol, for example, did not connect the CCCs and the DCIs. Teachers Callahan and Nolan, in contrast, used the phenomena of the investigations (the context-specific knowledge) as a genuine context for using and applying principles and scale (CCCs). Scaffolding the connections between specific phenomena and principles resulted in more successful examples of three-dimensional discourse.
NGSS implementation documents state that “Learning to explain phenomena and solve problems is the central reason students engage in the three dimensions of the NGSS” (Achieve, 2016). Our analysis demonstrates that achieving both curiosity-driven and principle-oriented discourse is a considerable and difficult accomplishment.
Rigor-Driven
Curiosity-Driven
Task-Driven
Content
Principles
Precision
Scale
Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs)
Scaffolding of principles was replaced with scaffolding of "brainstorming" and "procedure." In the introduction to the unit, the Mrs. Ross does not mention principles (rules, 3Qs, etc.) or model the language of principles.
Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs)
The teacher scaffolded student ideas in a way that was procedural and void of content. The demo lacked discussion of the main question (why ethanol burns and water doesn't). The content was de-emphasized.
Scale (CCCs)
Classroom talk stayed at the macroscopic scale; when students brought up the chemical composition of the ethanol, Mr. Ross pivoted away from scale and said “Does that remind you of the test?”
Precision in Matter & Energy Words
Mr. Ross used the names of the materials they were using (water and ethanol) in the macroscopic scale, but did not invite students to use these words themselves.
Mr. Ross
Category
Task-driven discourse in Mr. Ross’ Classroom
Teacher’s Purposes
Learning about science
Procedural framing (driving question stated once in the middle of an activity)
Most questioning focused on sharing ideas or reviewing information (with some instances of sensemaking)
Metacommentary on process of learning
Epistemic Authority
Teacher emphasized role of empirical evidence in science, but his control of who talked and what they shared tended to position him as the ultimate authority
Student Agency
Participating in activities to learn about science
Students asked few conceptual questions to which the teacher responded with facts or concepts
Teacher invited students to share ideas, but lacked strategies for orchestrating sensemaking discussions
Mr. Ross
Rigor-Driven
Curiosity-Driven
Task-Driven
Achieve, Inc. (2016). Using phenomena in NGSS-designed lessons and units. Retrieved from
Miller, H. K., Johnson, W. R., Doherty, J., Freed, A., & Anderson, C. W. (in preparation). Crosscutting concepts for re-
orienting science education.
National Research Council (NRC). (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and
Core Ideas. Washington, DC.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC.
This research is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation: A Learning Progression-based System for Promoting Understanding of Carbon-transforming Processes (DRL ), and Sustaining Responsive and Rigorous Teaching Based on Carbon TIME (NSF ). Additional support comes from the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, funded by the United States Department of Energy, from Place-based Opportunities for Sustainable Outcomes and High-hopes, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. 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 United States Department of Energy, or the United States Department of Agriculture.