Special education teachers' nature of science instructional experiences
Abstract
Special education teachers provide critical science instruction to students. However, little research investigates special education teacher beliefs and practices around science in general or the nature of science and inquiry in particular. This investigation is a cross-case analysis of four elementary special education teachers' initial semester-long professional development experiences learning about and attempting to implement nature of science and inquiry instruction. Participants were purposively selected from a larger study of 61 pre-K–5 teachers from one mid-Atlantic urban school district. Data sources included pre/postsurveys, video recordings of lessons, teachers' guided reflections through time, and a postcourse interview. Results demonstrated that all participants improved their nature of science conceptions, explicitly addressed nature of science tenets during instruction, and taught via inquiry. Further, they moved beyond simply mimicking course lessons they experienced by adapting them to student needs and even innovating new lessons. Teachers increased their attention to plans and instruction to meet the needs of students with special needs; yet most of the teachers made few references to specific Individualized Education Programs, individual student needs, or associated instructional decisions. Results suggest that nature of science and inquiry professional development can increase special education teachers' expectations of their students with special needs. To improve outcomes, professional development should increase the explicit attention to planning and strategies to help meet specific student needs. Also, special and general education teachers in inclusion settings can benefit from support with the negotiation of their roles. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 554–578, 2016
In an age of increasing numbers of identified students with special needs and a focus on reaching all children, all teachers—general education teachers and special education (SPED) teachers alike—need to be prepared to support students with special needs as they learn about and engage in science. Engaging students in inquiry and discussions about the nature of science (NOS) are considered key aspects of effective science instruction (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Yet, there is minimal research on SPED teachers in science education contexts (Therrien, Hughes, & Hand, 2011), let alone research with a focus on the NOS and/or inquiry. This study explores the impact of professional development (PD) on SPED teachers' NOS and inquiry instruction and their experiences attempting this instruction. This paper aims to provide important information on how to improve science teaching and learning for students with special needs.
- In what ways did participants learn and teach about the NOS, if at all?
- What were participants' experiences during their initial attempts at NOS instruction?
- What aspects of the PD did participants consider to have supported their instruction?
Research on SPED teachers' practices may provide important information on how to improve science learning for students with special needs.
The NOS
Given that there is a lack of science education research in SPED contexts, it is not surprising that there is no research on SPED teachers' NOS instruction. The NOS references generalizations about science as one of many ways of knowing as well as generalizations about the attributes of scientific knowledge. These central NOS understandings are considered important elements of scientific literacy (Bybee, 1997). Thus, NOS concepts need to be explored at all grade levels (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Teaching the NOS encourages students to know about and appreciate the bigger picture of science: what it is and how it works.
Science educators have long debated the specific tenets that comprise the NOS. Even with the disagreements, science educators and reform documents agree on a collection of generalizations that are acknowledged to be suitable for children in grades K–12 (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Lederman & Lederman, 2014; McComas, Clough, & Almazroa, 1998; McComas & Olson, 1998; Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003). This includes the idea that evidence is an essential component in scientific knowledge development. Although it is durable, all scientific knowledge has the potential to be modified or replaced when either new data is introduced or existing data is examined from a different perspective. Theory serves as a lens through which a scientific question is advanced, an investigation is planned, decisions are made about data collection (what, when, where, how), and results interpreted. Creativity pervades all facets of scientific investigations. The concept that scientists employ many methods to develop scientific knowledge also supports NOS understandings of K–12 students and teachers. An investigator's background knowledge, society, and culture all impact science. Funding, technological advances, and societal problems drive interest in and support for particular investigations. Lastly, scientific theories and laws represent different types of knowledge, with theories being explanatory and laws descriptive. Theories cannot be proven nor do they change into laws, and both can be modified with new evidence or perspectives on existing evidence. These interconnected tenets speak to common alternative conceptions, offering a more fruitful framework for comprehending science and the varied ways that science is done (Lederman, 2007). Although we depict the NOS tenets in list form here to be concise, they act as a framework that involves the integration of science content, inquiry, and associated science practices. This framework informs the present investigation.
As we found no research that directly addressed NOS PD targeting SPED teachers, we looked to successful NOS interventions for teachers in general. Successful interventions share an explicit, reflective emphasis on the NOS (e.g., Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011; Scharmann, Smith, James, & Jensen, 2005; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004). An explicit, reflective emphasis on the NOS does not assume that simply engaging in inquiry results in better understanding of the NOS. Instead, explicit discussion, questioning, and reflection upon inquiry experiences are needed to build understanding of the NOS tenets and make connections to scientific practices. An example of explicit, reflective NOS instruction would be a class discussion about how scientific knowledge can change, with students providing examples of how their conclusions changed within an inquiry lesson and/or unit based on having more information or a change in perspective.
Beyond general agreement for the need of explicit, reflective NOS PD, there are many differences among effective interventions. One major difference is the manner and degree to which NOS instruction is contextualized. Possible contexts relevant to the present investigation include science content and inquiry. Inquiry emphasizes student analysis of data to answer a science question (NRC, 1996). Results of quasi-experimental investigations indicate that teachers (Bell et al., 2011) and students (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006, 2007) improve their NOS understandings equally well when taught in both science content-based contextualized and noncontextualized interventions. Experience in a science apprenticeship without explicit NOS did not improve high school students' NOS conceptions (Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003). Yet, scientist–teacher interactions resulted in improved teacher NOS conceptions when the NOS was made explicit (Sadler, Burgin, McKinney, & Ponjuan, 2010). What seems to matter most are the explicit, reflective characteristics of instruction, not the degree of contextualization. Clough (2006) recommended teaching the NOS along a science content continuum from noncontextualized to highly contextualized lessons, prompting students to compare across lessons. The PD associated with the present investigation was aligned with this recommendation.
Although explicit, reflective NOS instruction has much evidence to support its effectiveness with teachers in general, we identified no research exploring its effectiveness with SPED teachers or students. This void is especially troublesome given the difficulties that both teachers and students experience with the construct. It is possible that the NOS may present a degree of abstraction that some researchers would advocate avoiding for students with special needs (e.g., Ellis, 1993). Yet, the NOS also may be empowering to students by encouraging them to explore more creative aspects of doing science. Understanding aspects of the NOS has been shown to help students to recognize the inherent values and beliefs of scientific knowledge and its development (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). Specific research is needed that addresses teachers' NOS instruction and student outcomes in SPED contexts to better understand to what extent the NOS is accessible and/or helpful to SPED teachers and students with special needs.
Both the NOS and inquiry practices are strongly recommended (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; NGSS Lead States, 2013) with an aim for all children to learn science concepts, practices, and understand how the scientists study the world around them. Although individuals often conflate the NOS with inquiry in part because they overlap each other, they are distinct concepts that both play critical roles in promoting scientific literacy (Lederman, 2007).
Inquiry Instruction
Inquiry is one of the potential contexts for NOS instruction. Therrien, Taylor, Hosp, Kaldenberg, and Gorsh (2011) advocated for the identification of instructional methods to support students with special needs in science, including the potential of inquiry instruction. The few studies that exist provide initial evidence that integrating inquiry science instruction has the potential to support the learning of students with special needs (e.g., Brigham, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2011; Palincsar, Collins, Marano, & Magnusson, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994, 1995; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993). Therrien, Taylor et al.'s (2011) meta-analysis of classroom-based science instruction for elementary and middle school students with learning disabilities reported that activity- and inquiry-based approaches had a large mean effect size of 0.78 for student science achievement. Yet, the level of guidance may matter; structured inquiry, for which students were provided with an inquiry question and procedures, was more beneficial than open inquiry, for which students develop even the question (Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, & Rawson Mead, 1997; Scruggs & Mastriopieri, 1994; Therrien, Taylor et al., 2011). Thus, students with learning disabilities can successfully learn from inquiry instruction if provided with adequate teacher support.
Initial empirical evidence suggests that inquiry science teaching can be more effective than noninquiry instruction for increasing the subject matter knowledge of students with special needs. Activity-based interventions helped elementary students with special needs such as mild sensory, physical, cognitive, variable, and/or emotional problems to identify, structure, organize, and understand science concepts better than traditional science teaching approaches (Scruggs & Mastriopieri, 1994, (1995). Inquiry instruction provided a platform for extended interrogation strategies that helped students to understand and remember scientific concepts better than direct instruction of facts. Questioning strategies used in inquiry drew out additional information from students with special needs through meaningful coaching and co-construction of knowledge. The researchers concluded that inquiry might not be the best option for all students with special needs but can be effective for students with mild learning disabilities and cognitive disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994). In support of this, elementary students with mild learning disabilities were more likely to retain content knowledge understandings when taught in a constructivist manner (Bay, Staver, Bryan, & Hale, 1992).
Inquiry instruction also can support student engagement and confidence in some SPED contexts. When taught through a guided inquiry supporting multiple literacy model (GisML), elementary students with mild cognitive disabilities experienced improved engagement and acquisition of subject matter knowledge in science and supported new ways of thinking and reasoning for students (Palincsar et al., 2000). Middle school students with “serious emotional disturbances” who learned about matter through a hands-on program outperformed those who learned via a textbook-based program on a performance assessment and short answer test (McCarthy, 2005). Melber and Brown (2008) studied five high school students with special needs ranging from learning disabilities to motor impairments in an informal environmental science field-based program developed for students with disabilities headed for college. All students indicated that they learned new content and considered the program's first-hand experiences to be critical for their improved understandings. Moreover, students reported feeling increased confidence in their abilities to do science. The researchers concluded that an inquiry approach resulted in both learning of science and engagement. Thus, inquiry could be an important instructional model for SPED teachers, although more research is needed on the conditions that promote its effectiveness with students with special needs.
As inquiry instruction for students with special needs holds promise for improving student learning, reasoning, engagement, and confidence, it is important to examine how SPED teachers teach the NOS in general and in inquiry contexts to better understand how these teachers experience initial implementation of that instruction. By understanding the problems and successes of these teachers, the science education community could strengthen the preparation of general education and SPED teachers alike to engage, support, and challenge each student (including those with special needs) in science.
Overall, SPED teachers lack preparation in science instruction (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005), and there is minimal research on SPED teachers and science. More research on SPED and science for teacher preparation and PD is needed. The present investigation focused on one such science PD with elementary SPED teachers as participants.
Teachers and Instructional Change
When teachers mainly use direct instruction, it is difficult for them to change to a more learner-centered approach. Teachers need to shift from knowledge deliverer to guide and may need to be a collaborator and learner with the students (Crawford, 2000). To facilitate this shift, teachers typically need both pedagogical and content support (Marx et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2007) as well as educative curricular materials (e.g., Davis & Krajcik, 2005). Low perceptions of student abilities can act as a barrier to student-centered instruction such as inquiry (Keys & Bryan, 2001; Wallace & Kang, 2004) and negatively impact student achievement (Steele, 2010).
SPED teachers grapple with challenges beyond those of non-SPED teachers. Current inservice SPED teachers largely were trained to focus on core academic skills such as providing supplemental remedial instruction where direct instruction often is warranted. Thus, many in-service SPED teachers require PD and support to implement NOS and inquiry instruction. As these teachers begin to take a larger role in science instruction, they need to develop a flexible teaching approach that is responsive to both the content and practices being taught and responsive to student needs (De Arment, Reed, & Wetzel, 2013).
Research on the characteristics of high-quality teacher PD consistently acknowledges the importance of active learning to support effectiveness (e.g., Borko, 2004). Research also increasingly highlights the importance of teachers learning about teaching together, within the context of their own teaching (e.g., Ball & Cohen, 1999; Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Wilson & Berne, 1999). This represents a community of practice. Desimone (2009) recommended “collective participation,” facilitated in the broader project associated with the present investigation by involving multiple teachers from each school and grade, all from the same district. This context was meant to encourage teacher-to-teacher interactions, a potentially influential way for teachers to learn (Banilower & Shimkus, 2004; Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2003) and help to develop a community of practice.
The present investigation examined outcomes of a science content-pedagogy training PD for SPED teachers. An emphasis on inquiry was intended to improve teachers' flexible responses to students' ideas and increase reflection on science and NOS concepts. In the arena of science education with students with special needs—where teachers play an especially critical role in the success of their students—it is important to examine what happens as SPED teachers attempt to incorporate substantive opportunities for students to reflect on NOS concepts, conduct investigations, and analyze and interpret data.
Situated Learning Theory
The intervention in this investigation was informed by a situated learning framework to encourage teachers to transfer what they might learn from the PD to their own practice. A situated learning perspective highlights the importance of learning in contexts that are similar to that in which the learned content and/or skills will be implemented (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Framing a PD around situated learning involves developing a community of practice to facilitate learning. For teachers, this learning includes growth in professional knowledge and ability to integrate that knowledge with instructional practice to improve (Greeno, 1997). This framework has been used successfully for general science teacher preparation (e.g., Bell, Maeng, & Binns, 2013) and has been identified as especially promising for early childhood special education contexts (Odom & Wolery, 2003). The usefulness of a situated learning framework still needs to be explored for inservice teachers and SPED teachers in particular, as no literature was identified that used a situated perspective to guide research on SPED teacher PD in science. The present investigation provides an initial exploration of the potential of this perspective for SPED teacher PD.
Methods
The present investigation involves qualitative case studies and cross-case analysis (Stake, 2013) of four elementary SPED teachers' NOS instruction as well as their experiences with and reactions to this instruction. We define a case as a single elementary SPED teacher enacting science lessons as part of a semester-long PD course. Cross-case analysis examined themes across teachers to answer the research questions. Data include pretest and posttests, videotaped instruction, teacher reflections, and interviews. Teachers' instruction and experiences are examined through time, in accordance with Lederman and Lederman's (2014) recommendation to move beyond pre/posttest investigations.
Participants and Setting
From a PD course for 61 pre-K–5 teachers from a single mid-Atlantic, urban school district, all SPED teachers were selected as participants. District student composition was Caucasian (49%), African-American (42%), and other ethnicities/races such as Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander/Hawaiian (9%). Students classified as gifted comprised approximately 22% of the student population and 14% qualified for SPED services. District families spoke 51 languages, and children from these families comprised 10% of the student population. Fifty-five percent of students qualified for free or reduced price lunch, the measure regularly used to approximate low family socioeconomic status.
As research on SPED teachers in science is limited, all four SPED teachers who participated in a semester-long graduate-level NOS and inquiry course were selected as cases for the present investigation. All participants were female teachers who taught at different schools. One participant taught in a combination of pull-out and inclusion settings (Diana), two participants taught pull-out classes (Lauren and Raena), and one taught as a collaborative teacher in an inclusion setting (Molly). Table S1 includes detailed participant background information.
Course Description
The U.S. Department of Education funded a Mathematics and Science Partnership between the school district and a local university science education program. The PD met for six Fridays across three months for a total of 42 instructional hours. The district provided release time for the teachers to participate. Each session focused on one or two new NOS concepts and, starting in the second session, one or two inquiry instruction strategies. About half of the PD was devoted to the NOS and the other half to inquiry, with much overlap. Building on a situated perspective and principles of effective PD in science (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2010), the PD was designed to encourage participants to transfer what they learned to their own practice (e.g., Putnam & Borko, 2000). The PD's main components involved (1) model lessons, (2) contextualized, distributed practice, (3) collaboration, (4) reflection, and (5) individualized coaching.
The PD engaged participants in NOS and inquiry activities. The instructors modeled best practices for effective NOS and inquiry instruction with lessons that were specifically chosen to fit in an elementary school context. Participants experienced at least 10 activities that served as a model of simple yet effective NOS instruction. Participants learned to distinguish inquiry from noninquiry as well as ways to scaffold inquiry instruction (e.g., increasing inquiry level over time). Participants completed many model inquiry activities, from structured to open inquiry and from lesson openers to long term inquiry. For example, participants made observations and inferences of objects, images, and short video clips. They offered their observations as evidence to support their inferences, or possible answers to research questions such as “Is the object living or nonliving?” Other inquiries focused on dissolving sugar in water of different temperatures, sinking and floating of objects, and the meal worm life cycle. Participants made quantitative and qualitative observations of mealworms over three class meetings (six weeks), considering the themes of constancy and change. During these activities, instructors modeled effective development and use of productive questions (attention-focusing, counting and measuring, comparison, action, problem-posing, and reasoning questions, as defined by Elstgeest, 2001). Participants practiced developing and implementing productive questions with their students.
PD instructors also modeled how to incorporate NOS instruction into inquiry investigations. Instructors facilitated explicit, reflective NOS discussions after inquiry lessons focused on specific science content. For example, during and after the meal worm life cycle inquiry, participants discussed what evidence supported conclusions, how ideas in science can change, and the many nonexperimental methods of science. The instructors emphasized how to explicitly discuss the NOS by making connections to specific tenets and how to encourage students' reflection at the end of activities by linking back to NOS tenets.
The PD also integrated contextualized, distributed practice by having the participants apply what they had just learned in the course to their own classrooms. Each participant attempted to teach about the NOS and/or via inquiry five times over three months. Thus, participants would engage in a PD activity as a learner, plan and try out an activity in their own classroom the following week, then discuss and debrief their lesson in the next PD session.
PD activities emphasized the importance of collaboration, or peer interactions to support learner growth, and knowledge co-construction. Each of the five course sessions after teachers attempted NOS or inquiry instruction began with participants working to make sense of their own instructional experiences during grade level and whole class discussions. Every session ended with at least 30 minutes to collaboratively plan NOS and inquiry lessons with other teachers at the same school or grade level to implement with their own students.
The PD provided many opportunities for participants to reflect upon their practice. Each class session included much reflective discussion on the NOS and inquiry as well as how to teach them. Participants also video-recorded lessons in which they attempted NOS or inquiry instruction. Participants privately watched and critically reflected on their video-recorded implementations, using written prompts to help structure participants' reflection. Prompts focused on what worked well and ideas for lesson modification. Teachers' reflection on their own video-recorded instruction is an established, helpful way to promote improvements in teachers' instruction, especially when teachers learn new strategies or content (Sherin & van Es, 2009). The first author provided individualized coaching, acknowledging what each teacher was doing well and providing suggestions for improvement for each of the individual lesson recordings and written reflections. Instructors provided substantial additional coaching during in-person sessions to help teachers integrate what they learned in the PD into their own classroom settings.
Data Collection and Analysis
Pre/postinstruction modified Views of the Nature of Science (VNOS-C) responses were used to assess teachers' NOS views. The instrument's content and construct validity are examined in Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz (2002) and Bell et al. (2003). To better understand participants' NOS instruction, researchers collected five video recordings of attempted NOS and/or inquiry lessons, or at least three hours of instruction, per participant. After each of the first five course sessions, participants were asked to attempt and record NOS and/or inquiry instruction. Participants selected which lessons to record. Two participants submitted four of the five lesson recordings. Data sources to assess participants' experiences with and reactions to that instruction included at least three guided reflections and an hour-long post-PD semi-structured interview per participant. The interview focused on views and experiences with NOS and inquiry instruction, what aspects of the PD most supported this instruction, and future plans for science instruction (if any). All interviews were transcribed prior to analysis. For all research questions, the researchers developed individual participant profiles first, followed by cross-case analysis.
To address the first research question, participants' pre/post-PD NOS views were categorized as alternative, transitional, or informed using systematic data analysis, following the guidelines of Miles and Huberman (1994). These categories represent a holistic judgment of the degree of appropriateness of participants' VNOS pre/post-PD written reponses and post-PD interview responses for each of the eight assessed NOS tenets. A participant categorized as holding an alternative view of the subjective NOS presented an unbalanced view that either scientific knowledge is entirely objective or entirely subjective. A participant categorized as holding a transitional view expressed emerging understandings. An informed view represented the acknowledgement that a person's background knowledge and past experiences impact all aspects of doing science with both negative and positive outcomes. See Table S2 for statements representative of the three categories. Two researchers examined and independently analyzed all video-recorded participant instruction and written reflections.
Using constant comparative data analysis as described by Creswell (2008), the researchers focused on determining the presence or absence of the following instructional characteristics: explicit, reflective NOS instruction; NOS tenets discussed; and substantial science content and/or inquiry contexts. One representative NOS lesson was selected per participant to provide an example of NOS instruction in SPED contexts. Researchers then performed data analysis through the lens of situated learning, categorizing participants' lessons by the degree of similarity to PD lessons or customization. The more different from PD instruction, the more participants exhibited an ability to transfer what they learned to suit their own context. Application lessons indicated substantial replication of a PD lesson; adaptation lessons involved substantial modifications of a PD lesson; and innovation lessons represented a lesson that was significantly customized by the teacher to her particular context. For each category, researchers compared codes. One additional category emerged from a review of the data: the extent to which students explicitly discussed/reflected on NOS concepts (none, low, moderate, or high). Low student NOS reflection was characterized by a few isolated student comments and/or student responses to yes/no questions. Moderate student reflection was characterized by students sharing ideas in short discussions with their class about how their lesson experiences related to NOS concepts. Students sharing and building upon each others' ideas about how their lesson experiences related to NOS concepts in extended discussions characterized high student NOS reflection. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
Inductive data analysis following the guidelines of Bogden and Biklen (1992) was used to address the second and third research questions. For the second question, the data sources were participants' instructional reflections and post-PD interviews. The interviews served as the data source for the third research question. For both research questions, two researchers independently examined the entire data set and open coded then developed initial themes. For research question two, 22 initial codes were identified then grouped into these intial themes: teacher focused, student focused, classroom management, instructional facilitation, teacher questions, language, inquiry related, NOS related, student needs, and relevance to students. Through discussion, researchers reached agreement on the following overarching themes: attention shift from logistics to higher level pedagogy, teacher questions, expectations of students, student needs, and SPED contexts. For research question three, open codes included teacher questions, model lessons, and communication with teachers. Researchers' initial codes were in complete agreement except for the specific wording. These codes were adopted as the themes to represent what participants found to be most helpful.
Results
To describe how participants learned and taught about the NOS, their experiences attempting NOS instruction, and what PD aspects participants considered helpful, the following section provides an overview of each participant's NOS views (Table 1), instruction (Tables 2 and 3) including an example lesson, reflections on their teaching, and what they found most helpful. Following the individual cases, a cross-case analysis discusses themes and differences across teachers.
| Preinstruction | Postinstruction | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOS Tenet | Diana | Lauren | Raena | Molly | Diana | Lauren | Raena | Molly |
| Scientific knowledge is | ||||||||
| Empirical | Alt | Alt | Tr | Alt | Tr | Tr | Tr | Alt |
| Tentative | Alt | Alt | Tr | Alt | Tr | Tr | Inf | Alt |
| Creative | Tr | Alt | Tr | Alt | Inf | Inf | Inf | Alt |
| Subjective, theory-laden | Alt | Alt | Inf | Alt | Tr | Tr | Tr | Tr |
| Roles of observation, inference | Alt | Alt | Tr | Alt | Inf | Tr | Inf | Tr |
| Relationship between theories, laws | Alt | Alt | Alt | Alt | Inf | Inf | Inf | Alt |
| Social and cultural influences | Tr | Alt | Tr | Alt | Inf | Alt | Tr | Alt |
| No single scientific method | Tr | Alt | Alt | Alt | Tr | Inf | Tr | Tr |
- Alt, alternative view; Tr, transitional view; Inf, informed view.
| NOS Tenet | Diana | Lauren | Raena | Molly | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific knowledge is | |||||
| Empirical | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 11 |
| Tentative | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| Creative | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Subjective, theory-laden | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Roles of observation, inference | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
| Relationship between theories, laws | N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a |
| Social and cultural influences | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| No single scientific method | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Total | 17 | 10 | 7 | 12 | 46 |
- Note: Above values are based on participants' video-recorded lessons only. Lesson coverage of a tenet within a lesson is counted as one instance regardless of the number of times the tenet is revisited in the same lesson.
| Level of Transfer | Context | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant (Pseudonym) | Application Lesson | AdaptationLesson | Innovation Lesson | Total Lessons (No.) | Inquiry Only | Content Only | Both |
| Diana | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Lauren | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Raena | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Molly | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 3 | 5 | 8 | 16 | 5 | 2 | 7 |
- Note: Above values are based on participants' video-recorded lessons only. Only lessons that explicitly included the NOS are included in the values.
Diana: Grades K–2 Pull-Out and Inclusion Settings
Overview: NOS Views and Instruction
Pre-PD, Diana held alternative views of five NOS tenets and transitional views of three tenets. Post-PD, she moved beyond alternative views, holding transitional views of four of the eight assessed tenets and informed views of the other four tenets. She reported never having taught the NOS before the PD. During the PD, she taught five NOS lessons with 17 instances of NOS instruction, addressing seven of the eight tenets. Diana's NOS instruction included two adaptation lessons and three innovation lessons. She taught one inquiry NOS lesson outside of and three within a science content content. One lesson had only a science content context. She included NOS objectives for one lesson. Students engaged in substantive NOS reflection in a few instances, including a student bringing up an NOS concept, but all of these instances were in her Lesson 4. In her other four NOS lessons, Diana taught NOS concepts mostly through declarative statements, telling students about the concepts and sometimes relating them to students' experiences within the lesson. She used the language of evidence, observation, inference, changing ideas, and creativity to help students recognize when they were using or doing them. However, she did not pose NOS-related questions to students, limiting the potential for student reflection.
Example Lesson
Diana taught an inquiry innovation Lesson 4 to two students with special needs in a pull-out setting. She targeted the science content of magnets and the NOS concepts of the following: (1) the empirical basis of scientific knowledge; (2) the creative nature of scientific knowledge; (3) no single scientific method; and (4) the social and cultural embeddedness of science. The inquiry lesson centered on a question codeveloped by her and the students: “What objects are attracted to a magnet?” Students touched objects with various magnets to address the question. During the inquiry, one student made an unprompted NOS comment: “Scientists are creative. That's what they do!” Diana responded, “That is what they do.” In the lesson closure, Diana said, “Science is based on evidence. … And we used scientific observations and inferences to help our knowledge of science.” Diana talked about NOS concepts throughout and provided examples of connections to the activity.
Reflections on Instruction
Diana consistently noted that the children were engaged and excited during the lessons and identified ways to improve the experience for her and her students. Yet, she struggled with changing to NOS and inquiry instruction. The time, resources involved, and classroom management left the teacher feeling stressed about her first NOS and inquiry teaching experiences. By Lesson 3, she had mostly moved beyond a classroom management focus to a consideration of teacher behaviors and their connection to student actions: “I think limited language skills, especially questioning techniques, student focus of attention, and my initial lack of scaffolding made it very difficult for my students to understand.”
Diana discussed teacher questions in her Lessons 2, 4, and 5 reflections. Her early lesson questions were “a little unfocused” (Lesson 2 Reflection) but she was satisfied with her questions by Lesson 4 and suggested increased wait time to provide the extra processing time students need. She determined to find ways to make her questions “meaningful and accessible for the students I serve in special ed. The issue of language processing is a challenge for me—how do I keep from overwhelming my students with auditory information?” Despite some progress, Diana continued to struggle with NOS and inquiry instruction. She both desired to return to more structured, teacher-directed instruction and to promote discussion and plan for multiple different lesson paths. Diana struggled with this tension throughout the PD.
I chose to do this activity with a very small group so I could provide lots of opportunities for hands-on exploration, provide extra verbal processing time and support, be clear and specific with directions, and assist students with vocabulary and concept development. Both these students demonstrate significant weaknesses in auditory processing which means whole-group lessons with significant auditory information may not be an efficient method for them to access information. (Lesson 4 Reflection)
For her one-on-one Lesson 5 with a kindergartener diagnosed with a neurological disorder associated with delayed fine motor and visual skills, she noted that the boy needed hands-on learning and extended use of manipulatives to develop and strengthen concepts, specific feedback, and modeling to support communication skill development. She considered how she could have better supported him: “Generating questions is particularly difficult for him, and word-finding is also a particular area of weakness. …I might have had him draw some of his predictions to provide a stronger framework and encourage a little more conversation and self-reflection.” Although she recognized the strong ideas of students and identified ways to improve the lesson, she provided very few opportunities for student NOS reflection, indicating that she may not have increased her expectations of students.
Most Helpful PD Component
Diana identified model lessons to be especially helpful. She expressed that changing to inquiry and NOS teaching was difficult for her, corroborating researchers' interpretation. The model lessons, supported by instructor feedback, helped her to incorporate NOS instruction in inquiry lessons.
Lauren: Grade 2 Pull-Out Setting
Overview: NOS Views and Instruction
Before the PD, Lauren held only alternative NOS views. After the PD, she improved to transitional views of four of the eight assessed tenets (empirical, tentative, subjectivity, and roles of observation and inference) and informed on three tenets (creativity, theory/law, and no single method). She retained alternative views for one tent, social and cultural influences. She reported never having taught the NOS before the PD but had taught via inquiry. During the program, she succeeded in teaching the NOS in three lessons with 10 instances of NOS instruction. She taught four tenets for which she held at least transitional views and did not teach the one tenet for which she held alternative views. Overall, she taught lessons that exhibited lower levels of transfer from PD lessons, focusing on application (two lessons) and adaptation (one lesson) lessons. Two of her three NOS lessons had an inquiry context and none had a science content context. For Lauren's Lessons 2, 3, and 4, NOS was the main lesson objective. For example, her main Lesson 3 objectives were to “introduce the concept that science doesn't have to always be an experiment. … I also wanted to talk about the concept of truth with a little t and how science is not absolute but changes.” Throughout her lessons, she highlighted student ideas, although she did much of the explicit reflection on the NOS. In her application Lesson 2, she integrated student NOS reflection through a short written reflection on NOS concepts introduced in that lesson and integrated NOS discussions throughout Lesson 3. In Lesson 4, she seemed to almost run out of time for a lesson closure, spending one minute reviewing the main NOS concepts addressed and how they related to the activity (see lesson description below).
Example Lesson
In her inquiry adaptation Lesson 4 outside of a science content context, Lauren used the book Look! Look! Look! by Hoban in which an image is a close-up of a subject and then the next is an image of the full subject. She posed a simple question, “What do you think this is?” that students answered through observation and interpretation of images. In the lesson closure, Lauren said, “Observations and inferences. That's what helps us form knowledge. And can our ideas change based on new evidence?” Students quickly and excitedly responded, “Yes!” Lauren elaborated, “We don't always have all of the information. Based on new information our ideas might change.” She made almost all of the NOS comments with minimal student input.
Reflections on Instruction
Lauren's early reflections focused on how to manage logistics such as student writing and the visibility of images, which decreased in later reflections. Across all reflections, she commented on the need to encourage students to make substantial contributions to the class, how to be a guide, and decrease teacher talk: “I need to allow the students to explain the nature of science concepts in their own words and simply be a facilitator on their journey to get to that point” (Lesson 2 Reflection). To support students' NOS conceptions about multiple scientific methods after her Lesson 3, Lauren suggested that she more clearly define “experiment” and provide examples and nonexamples through time.
Lauren improved her questions over time, contributing to students needing less guidance. She increasingly reflected on student needs (Lessons 3 and 4 Reflections): “Differentiation is very important when working with this group,” considering how to “scaffold the discussion more so that every student came away with the same big ideas.” Through the last lesson and reflection, she was still trying to better challenge individual students and meet their needs. Yet, it was encouraging that she drew attention to this issue. Lauren also was impressed by students' NOS concept development: “This group of students had some really amazing insight and ideas I wouldn't think they would grasp … I could really see their ideas forming as we went through the lesson” (Lesson 4 Reflection).
Most Helpful PD Component
She identified learning about and practicing productive teacher questions as the most helpful part of the PD: “I really did learn a lot about the way to question, having kids coming up with their own knowledge. That's so much more powerful than me telling them what I want them to learn” (Interview). Lauren identified her questions as supporting students in their development of conclusions. Her improved questioning aligned with inquiry instruction, helping her to act as a guide and encourage students to share ideas.
Raena: Grade 2 Pull-Out Setting
Overview: NOS Views and Instruction
Before the PD, Raena held an alternative view of one tenet, transitional views of five tenets, and an informed view of one tenet. After the PD, she moved beyond any alternative views, reaching informed views of four tenets (tentative, creativity, roles of observation and inference, and theory/law). She regressed on the subjectivity tenet, moving from an informed to a transitional view. She reported never having taught the NOS before the PD. During the program, she succeeded in teaching the NOS in four lessons with seven instances of NOS instruction. She taught five NOS tenets for which she held at least transitional views. Raena's NOS instruction included one adaptation lesson and three innovation lessons, all in an inquiry context and three also involved a content context. She included NOS concepts in her objectives for two lessons in which she successfully taught the NOS. Raena encouraged some student NOS reflection in three lessons, with her one adaptation level lesson (Lesson 5) involving substantial student reflection.
Example Lesson
Sometimes we get more information in science and we need to change our mind. Our observations can change our inference. And when you combine observations and inferences, that's how we get scientific knowledge. It's how we learn things about the world around us. We can't just make observations. We can't just guess what it means.
She continued to explain how scientists and the students need to make observations and inferences to learn things, and students shared how they changed their mind as they zoomed in and could observe more detail. A student described how some revised their idea that an object was a football stadium to be a parking lot, based on observations of the zoomed-in image.
Reflections on Instruction
Initially, Raena emphasized time and student behavior management as issues to overcome and expressed surprise about student ideas. In reference to a student with special needs strongly justifying an inference Raena exclaimed, “This was really impressive to me!” and “When S. eliminates an inference with additional evidence, I am thrilled!” … “They make some astute observations.” (Lesson 2 Reflection). Through time, she came to expect this level of contribution and considered ways to move beyond early struggles with classroom management: “I think I need cue cards to remind me to ask the specific questions.” … “I did feel that there was a good balance between open-ended questions and more precise, focused questions” (Lesson 2 Reflection). In later reflections, she proposed specific question modifications (Lesson 4 Reflection).
Most Helpful PD Component
Raena identified the ability to communicate with other teachers as the most helpful component of the PD. Raena shared that she often pulled students out during science and social studies, “so it's really good to know what will be taught so it can be part of what we do in the special education classroom” (Interview). She felt more able to align her SPED instruction with that of the general education classroom teachers.
Molly: Grade 5 Inclusion Setting
Overview: NOS Views and Instruction
Before the PD, Molly held only alternative NOS views. After the PD, she improved to transitional views of three of the eight assessed tenets (subjectivity, roles of observation and inference, and no single scientific method). She reported never having taught the NOS before the PD. During the PD, she succeeded in teaching the NOS in all but her first video-recorded lesson, for a total of 12 instances of NOS instruction. She taught all three of the tenets for which she held transitional views and two tenets for which she was categorized as holding alternative views (based on written and verbal responses to open-ended prompts). Her instruction on these additional two tenets focused on appropriate understandings, supported by PD materials including presentation slides and the general education classroom teacher. Molly taught one application lesson, one adaptation lesson, and two innovation lessons. One NOS lesson involved both inquiry and science content as contexts, one lesson involved only an inquiry context, and one involved only a science content context. Molly identified the NOS as a main objective of three lessons. Both teachers and students were involved in explicit, reflective NOS discussions in each NOS lesson—most pronounced in her application Lesson 2 for which NOS was a main lesson objective (see lesson description below).
Example Lesson
For her Lesson 2, an application of the Fossil Fragment activity experienced during the PD, Molly identified the NOS as the main lesson objective: “The students would understand that the scientific method is not the only method, as paleontologists are among the scientists who don't do experiments to gain scientific knowledge” (Lesson 2 Reflection). Molly began the lesson by asking students what paleontologists do and what fossils are, reviewing an earlier geology unit. The general education teacher introduced the activity by telling the students that they were going to be paleontologists. Then she posed the inquiry question to students: “What do you think the organism and habitat are for your fossil fragment?” Molly visited small groups, asking questions: “What are you asking yourselves right now?” A student with special needs responded, “What is it?” Another offered, “Where it comes from.” Another student shared, “It could be from a claw.” Molly asked, “What makes you think that?” and the student noted, “Because it's sharp on the edges.” Molly asked, “So what did you use right now?” Another student with special needs answered, “background knowledge.” This exchange referenced a NOS concept discussed in an earlier lesson.
After the activity, the general education teacher asked, “How was this different from what a paleontologist would do? This isn't exactly what a paleontologist would do. In what ways was it different?” A boy with special needs commented, “They would have studied more fossils and know more about them to begin with.” Molly responded, “So they would have more background knowledge?” The boy replied, “Yeah, they'd do more and look up more.” The general education teacher asked, “What information could they get by making their drawings where they found [the fossil]? What do they see that we didn't see?” A boy replied, “They get to see the rock to learn about the organism's habitat.” A girl with special needs commented, “They could dig around in the area to try to find more pieces of the fossil or other fossils.” Molly asked, “Can paleontologists do experiments?” Students disagreed. Molly asked if scientists could control variables. The general education teacher commented, “Paleontologists can't use the scientific method because they don't do experiments. So is it right to call it the scientific method?” Multiple students responded, “No,” explaining that paleontology is still science but does not involve experiments. Molly advised, “If you thought science is all about experiments, it's not. In some fields of science, there's no experiments involved. And if you thought that science isn't creative and you don't like doing experiments, you can still be a scientist!” This lesson featured students' ideas and the NOS centrally, with a third of the lesson time spent connecting the activity to the NOS. Both teachers and their students reflected on NOS concepts substantially during and after the activity, including extended teacher–student and student–student feedback loops throughout.
Reflections on Instruction
Molly considered mostly pedagogical concerns and successes across all lesson reflections. Reflecting on Lesson 2, she suggested that she and the general education teacher continue to teach the NOS in different contexts to help students better understand the similarities and differences across science disciplines including the many methods of science. Later reflections emphasized the importance of activating students' prior knowledge, connecting to students' experiences (Lesson 3), and revisiting science content and NOS concepts over time (Lesson 4).
In Lessons 2–4, Molly asked many productive questions, the most in application Lesson 2. Molly began referencing teacher questions in her Lesson 3 reflection, identifying that they worked and that she needed to ask more productive questions. Molly considered student responses to teacher questions to be “thoughtful.” Her instructional decisions and lesson analyses were informed by more than half of her students having special needs. She increased attention to students with special needs through time. In her Lesson 4 reflection, she wrestled with the difficulties students with special needs had with abstract thinking related to science content. There was no clear evidence of changes to her expectations of students.
We have a lot of special ed kids in that class, I mean it's tense. … I have to make sure my students' IEPs [Individualized Education Programs] and accommodations have been implemented because it's my job. When she teaches most of the class, I go around and help out the special ed kids. They ask me questions because, to be honest with you, students are more comfortable asking me questions than they are with her. (Molly, Interview)
This tension between the two teachers, with the SPED teacher being relegated to a supporting role by the other teacher, limited the impact Molly felt she could have on the science instruction. Nevertheless, the course assignments helped her to teach larger portions of each science lesson. She complemented this whole class instruction with small group and individualized instruction as she moved around the room. Overall, she translated NOS and inquiry experiences to meet the varied needs of her students.
Most Helpful PD Component
Molly found the emphases on how to integrate higher level questions and modeling of lessons to be particularly helpful aspects of the PD. She explained, “I thought a lot of the investigations can be tailored to kids with special needs.”
Themes Across Participants
NOS Views
Overall, the four SPED teacher participants transitioned to more informed views of the NOS (Table 1). Diana and Lauren improved their views of seven of the eight assessed tenets, Raena improved on four tenets, and Molly improved on three tenets. At the end of the semester, three of the four participants mostly held transitional or informed views of the tenets, providing a foundation for teaching the NOS to their students. Molly held a mix of alternative and transitional conceptions, potentially limiting her NOS instruction.
NOS Instruction
No participants reported teaching the NOS prior to the course. During the PD, all participants integrated NOS instruction into their practice for a total of 16 recorded NOS lessons. These lessons included 46 instances of explicit instruction on NOS concepts, with coverage of one tenet recorded as one instance even if revisited multiple times during a lesson (Table 2). 56% Figure 1 represents participants' lessons by level of transfer and level of student NOS reflection. Fields drawn around participants' lessons indicate approximations of participants' instruction for comparison across participants. Across lessons, Diana's instruction involved the greatest number of NOS instances and all lessons were at the adaptation or innovation levels of transfer from PD lessons. Yet, her lessons involved the least amount of student reflection. Lauren's NOS instruction was characterized by the lowest level of transfer, all lessons with some student reflection (although of varied amounts). Raena's lessons exhibited the greatest level of transfer and student NOS reflection present in three of four lessons. Molly's NOS instruction had the most variation in level of transfer and all lessons involved some degree of student reflection.
Tenets Taught
All participants taught at least four NOS tenets (Table 2). Of the eight tenets covered in the course, seven were deemed by the course instructors and its participants as appropriate for students in grades K–5 (all but the relationship between scientific theories and laws). Participants discussed that scientific knowledge is based on evidence (in 11 video-recorded lessons) and comprised observations/inferences and can change (in 10 video-recorded lessons per tenet) more frequently than other tenets. These counts are conservative, representing only those times for which there was video evidence; participants reported teaching additional nonrecorded NOS lessons.
Diana, Raena, and Molly discussed the subjectivity of science in five lessons across participants. Diana, Raena, and Lauren discussed how science is creative in four lessons across participants. Molly, who held a post-PD alternative view, did not teach this tenet. Diana and Molly each taught that there is no one single scientific method twice. Only Diana taught about the social and cultural influences tenet for which she held a post-PD informed view.
Level of Transfer From PD Lessons
Application lessons—or lessons very similar to those experiences as part of the PD—were implemented three times in the earlier lessons, through Lesson 3 (Table 3), for only Lauren and Molly. These lessons involved participants and their students making explicit, reflective NOS comments. Each participant taught at least one adaptation lesson. In three of the five adaptation lessons students engaged in explicit, reflective discussions focused on specific NOS concepts. Many adaptation lessons focused on object or image analysis. Lauren, Raena, and Molly each selected their own images and had students make observations with the aim of inferring the subject of the image(s), a strategy learned in the PD. Three participants adapted at least one PD lesson to integrate more or different science content. NOS innovation lessons were the most common, taught by three of the four participants. This level of transfer was more common as participants' Lessons 3 and 4 out of five lessons. In five of the eight innovation lessons, students engaged in explicit, reflective NOS discussions. In the other lessons, participants retained control of NOS comments. Students took less active roles in NOS reflection in innovation lessons compared to application and adaptation lessons.
Lesson Contexts: Inquiry and/or Science Content
Overall, most NOS lessons involved inquiry, substantive content, or both as context. Seventy-five percent of the NOS lessons had an inquiry context and 56% a science content context beyond the NOS (Table 3). Lessons in a science content context were more common in Lessons 3 and 4. PrePD, only Lauren had experience with inquiry instruction, yet all participants taught by inquiry in at least three recorded lessons and 12 of 16 NOS lessons were also inquiry lessons. Almost all of these inquiry lessons were structured inquiries, for which the research question and procedures were provided to students.
NOS Comments: Who Is Doing the Reflection?
Overall, participants succeeded in incorporating explicit, reflective NOS comments and explanations in their instruction. Participants themselves made most of the explicit, reflective NOS comments. Yet, each participant succeeded in moving beyond didactic NOS instruction to engage students in some degree of explicit, reflective NOS discussion. All application lessons involved student explicit reflection on NOS concepts, compared to adaptation lessons (three of five) and innovation lessons (five of eight) that included the least of these comments. Three lessons (one each by Lauren, Raena, and Molly, none at the innovation level) involved a substantial student role, and a student with special needs initiated a short NOS discussion in one lesson (Diana, Lesson 4). This served as an initial indication that students began to take ownership of NOS ideas.
Attention Shift From Logistics to Higher Level Pedagogy
Early on, participant reflections focused more on what they wanted to change about their instruction. This shifted to a balance between what to change and what worked in their lessons or to more of an emphasis on what worked. Within what they wanted to change or to do in the future, participants shifted over time from a focus on logistical issues to higher level pedagogical ones. This same shift was present in what participants identified as working well. These trends held for each of the four participants. As participants gained confidence, they began to move beyond the logistics of managing a lesson in which students had an increased role.
In Lessons 1 and 2, participant reflections focused on management issues (e.g., student seating arrangements and behavior, remembering to stop a lesson in time for a closure that included the NOS, and students' problems multitasking when making and writing down observations and inferences). Participants focused on other aspects of the lessons that worked well (e.g., developing a positive classroom environment, engaging students, reviewing rules and directions, and decreasing group size). In contrast, Lessons 3–5 reflections highlighted more high-level pedagogical concerns such as a desire to improve their own questioning; increase teacher wait time; support for students; decrease teacher talk and increase student talk; incorporate student justification of answers; reinforce concepts over time (distributed practice); differentiate instruction to meet all student needs; include alternative options in lesson plans to better adapt to student needs; and provide individual students specific feedback.
Teacher Questions
From participant reflections, it is evident that all found productive questions to be a valuable tool to organize their teaching and facilitate student interaction. Participants commonly noted that their questions were instrumental in shaping how much students could do and discuss meaningfully. At times, participants struggled to develop productive questions. As they gained experience, this concern mostly transitioned to the identification of how good questions facilitated effective student discussions about science content and the NOS. With practice, participants asked more and stronger productive questions. Thoughtful student participation increased in later application and adaptation lessons.
Expectations of Students, Student Needs, and SPED Context
As participants improved their handling of behavior management and other logistical issues, Lauren and Raena noted that they were impressed by what their students did and said. Diana and Molly acknowledged students' thoughtful ideas at times but did not seem to change their expectations of students. Participants also planned for and reflected on student needs and SPED-specific needs and/or concerns. Molly, Diana, and Lauren's reflections shifted away from whole-class concerns at the beginning to considerations of individual needs in later lessons. Molly and Diana referenced how specific student needs informed their instructional decisions. Molly explicitly identified and described students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and Diana described IEP-related information. Lauren did not refer to IEPs but made general statements about the need to differentiate instruction and address individual student needs. Raena largely ignored individual student needs and IEPs in favor of whole group/class needs.
The SPED context of pull-out classes provided participants with flexibility and autonomy not found in the inclusion classroom context. For the one collaborative teacher, Molly, working with another teacher supported her understandings of the NOS and inquiry and associated instruction. Yet, the general education teacher made it more difficult for Molly to play a large part in instruction and differentiate instruction for SPED students.
Most Helpful Aspects of PD
Participants identified three aspects of the PD as being particularly supportive of their NOS and inquiry instruction. Lauren and Molly identified learning about and practicing productive teacher questions as the most helpful. Diana and Molly found the modeling of lessons to be particularly helpful. They experienced the lessons themselves before teaching them, providing a base they could modify or use to inform the development of different lessons. Raena identified communication with general education teachers as the most helpful component of the PD, informing her of the content they taught when she pulled students out of science and social studies class. Overall, participants found value in NOS and inquiry instruction and considered the PD to have supported this instruction.
Discussion
This paper explored how a NOS and inquiry science PD informed by a situated perspective could influence elementary SPED teachers' understanding and practice, addressing the need for more research on SPED in science education contexts (Therrien, Taylor et al., 2011). In particular, the present investigation contributes to the need area of SPED teacher PD beyond the more common emphasis on core academic skills such as reading and mathematics (e.g., Faulkner & Cain, 2013; Swanson, Solis, Ciullo, & McKenna, 2012). Previous research provided some initial evidence that inquiry science instruction can have a positive impact on student engagement and confidence (Melber & Brown, 2008) as well as science learning (e.g., Brigham et al., 2011; McCarthy, 2005; Melber & Brown, 2008; Palincsar et al., 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994, 1995; Scruggs et al., 1993; Therrien, Taylor et al., 2011). The present findings extend SPED research in science contexts to a focus on changing SPED teachers' instruction.
Results demonstrated that all SPED participants implemented NOS instruction in general and in inquiry lessons. Three of four participants taught the NOS in content-based lessons. Pull-out and inclusion SPED classrooms served as the implementation contexts. This offers initial evidence that PD around the NOS and inquiry can help SPED teachers to integrate the NOS and inquiry into their practice. The results are particularly important because inquiry approaches can have a large positive effect on students with learning disabilities (Therrien, Taylor et al., 2011).
PD informed by a situated perspective may support the transfer of NOS and inquiry instruction into SPED teachers' own instruction. Three participants integrated NOS instruction into lessons that did not resemble any taught in the PD (Table 3), translating course concepts and skills into their own innovation lessons. This represents a high level of transfer from the PD to participants' own instruction. Modeling of activities in the PD may have helped the SPED teachers implement NOS and inquiry PD activities in their own classrooms, as two teachers identified lesson modeling as very helpful. Indeed, participants' application of PD lessons always involved student reflection on the NOS. With increased transfer, most innovation lessons still included student reflection. As teachers learn to implement NOS instruction, it likely is easier to teach NOS lessons that they experienced as learners and were accompanied by supplemental lesson materials such as a presentation with reflective NOS questions included, further supporting their NOS instruction. This increases the importance of strong, relevant model lessons in PDs. There is anecdotal evidence that the collaboration within the PD may have supported participants implementing NOS instruction. One participant highlighted that communication with general education teachers helped to prepare her to better align her instruction with theirs during pull-out sessions. Results from this study align with previous research that indicates the effectiveness of situated PD and preservice teacher program models (e.g., Bell et al., 2013).
Half of the participants identified the emphasis on productive teacher questions to be the most helpful PD component. Questioning techniques can help to support inquiry instruction and more reflective NOS teaching. The participants in the present investigation increasingly focused on student ideas and needs in their reflections. This agrees with the results of Sherin and Han (2004) who found that teachers shifted from a video reflection focus on teacher behaviors to an increased focus on students.
Raena and Molly incorporated the most student discussion about the NOS. For Raena, this level of student involvement may have been supported by her NOS views, which were the most sophisticated of the participants. Molly held the least informed NOS views post-PD, yet she explicitly taught the NOS 12 times in four lessons, including two NOS concepts she did not understand very well based on VNOS written and interview responses. It is possible that collaboration with a general education teacher supported this NOS instruction. For all participants, there was room for growth in student NOS reflection. Yet initial student internalization of some NOS concepts is encouraging, as participants were only just learning how to teach about the NOS as they practiced this with their own students.
Change in Teacher Beliefs About Student Abilities
Perhaps, most notably—and unexpectedly—results suggest that supporting NOS and inquiry instruction can potentially increase SPED teachers' perceptions of students' abilities. Participants increased their expectations of students, recognizing that they could effectively share and justify their ideas in inquiry activities, as noted by observations of their instruction and reflections. Teacher expectations of students can have a large impact on student achievement (e.g., Steele, 2010) and may be especially important for students with special needs. Future research should explore in more depth how inquiry-based NOS approaches can impact SPED teachers' perceptions of their students.
Consideration of IEPs and Student Needs
Although all participants reflected more on general student needs through time, only Molly explicitly referenced how IEPs informed her instruction once and Diana considered IEP information without labeling it as such three times. The largely absent reference to IEPs is problematic as they are meant to guide SPED teachers' efforts to meet students' needs. For Molly, this attention to IEPs and student needs did not correspond to continued growth in her NOS and inquiry instruction. She asked fewer divergent questions in her last lesson, against the general trend of increased divergent questions over time. This last lesson represented an innovation lesson focused on substantial science content. Similarly, Diana's references to specific student needs were not related to increased student NOS reflection.
The lack of connection between the teachers' attention to specific student needs and the explicit, reflective nature of their NOS instruction is problematic, given that attention to student needs should be a component of effective instruction for all teachers and for SPED teachers in particular. Thus, attention to IEPs or individual student needs did not seem to have supported their ability to increase student input in lessons.
To more fully capitalize on the potential power of NOS and inquiry instruction, some participants may have needed more pedagogical and content support as they tried to change their instruction. This support may be more important for adaptation and innovation lessons when it comes to helping teachers to involve students in explicit, reflective NOS discussions. Following the guidelines put forth by De Arment et al. (2013), attention to a flexibly adaptive teaching approach may be fruitful for SPED teachers. It is possible that Diana in particular held more routine expertise, or efficient time and procedures management, and did not have as much adaptive expertise. Adaptive expertise is the interaction of efficient uses of knowledge such as routine expertise development and innovative uses of knowledge such as flexible problem solving in response to nonstandard individual–environment interactions (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005). The possible influence of routine and adaptive expertise on teachers' NOS instruction and level of student NOS reflection still needs to be examined. Alternatively, coaching that specifically targets differentiated planning and instruction to address required individual student accommodations and other student needs could be effective. Ploess and Rock (2014) identified online coaching of coteacher pairs, each comprising SPED teacher and a general education teacher, to increase individual student level accommodations. Future science education research in SPED contexts needs to explore these possibilities.
Implications
Results point to the unique needs of SPED teachers who are trying to implement NOS and inquiry instruction. In particular, SPED teachers in inclusive settings may need additional supports to have a stronger voice in science instructional planning and implementation to better meet the needs of all students. PD aligned with situated learning theory started this negotiation, but more explicit attention needed to be paid to the dynamic between collaborating teachers. Indeed, more frequent PD that addressed coteaching has been associated with increased teacher confidence, interests, and attitude (Pancsofar & Petroff, 2013). Although this study provides evidence that a situated approach to science PD can benefit SPED teachers, the particular influence of reflection and the other PD components still needs to be investigated.
As two of the four teachers did not reference IEP-related information when planning or reflecting on their lessons, results also support that teachers need help to be able to individualize and flexibly adapt NOS and inquiry instruction to meet student needs. As the PD did not explicitly address the use of IEPs in NOS or inquiry instruction, it is not surprising that IEP-related references were rare. PDs need to carefully consider how to leverage and build on existing SPED resources and expertise to help SPED teachers implement rich science instruction.
The change in teacher perceptions of students provides evidence that NOS and inquiry could potentially transform the conversation about students with special needs in science classes. Providing opportunities for students with special needs to engage in NOS and inquiry instruction may have a powerful effect on teachers' beliefs of student capabilities, which can reshape how science is taught in these settings. Future research on SPED teachers should include how these approaches may affect teachers' perceptions of students.
Conclusion
Overall, this study provides critical insight into how science PD can help SPED teachers learn and implement NOS instruction within inquiry and science content contexts. This study also provides important evidence that a situated NOS and inquiry science PD can increase SPED teachers' expectations of their students. Indeed, half of the teacher participants reported increased expectations of students related to NOS and inquiry instruction. To help all students access authentic science and science careers, much more research is needed in the critical intersection of science and SPED teaching and learning.
The authors would like to thank William Therrien for his generous help with this manuscript. The authors also greatly appreciate the teachers and students involved with this project. This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnership Competitive Grant program, administered through the Virginia Department of Education. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or the Virginia Department of Education.
