Reflecting on Pedagogical Practice

Analyn Grasz

ITL 518: Science Integrative Design

Professor Amanda Bell

September 4, 2022
 1

The videos discussed will include a second grade classroom doing science

experiments (Teacher A), a third grade classroom discussing environmental adaptations

of animals (Teacher B), and a fifth grade classroom researching gravity (Teacher C). As

stated by Fitzgerald and Smith (2016), “A stimulating classroom environment has a

positive impact on student learning” (p.71). All the teachers observed strived to create a

stimulating and engaging classroom environment, where students could freely share

questions and knowledge related to the science standards at hand.

In the second grade classroom led by Teacher A, students were able to engage in a

hands-on learning activity where they were prompted with a big question: which form of

sugar will dissolve faster in water? Students shared their thinking with a partner and

then shared with the class, using a tink-pair-share model of instruction. As students

shared which form of sugar they thought would dissolve faster, they demonstrated

higher-order thinking by explaining their reasoning. For example, a student would share

that they thought the sugar cube would solve faster because it seems like a smaller

amount of sugar, or the granulated sugar would dissolve faster because it was already

broken down.

As Fitzgerald and Smith (2016) state, a teacher’s job is not to “merely deliver the

curriculum. They develop, define it and reinterpret it too” (p. 66). Teacher A’s strength

was her ability to define and reinterpret the curriculum to empower students to lead

their own experiments. By the end of the lesson, students were actually leading the class

in a new experiment, and each student had the tools and words to explain what they

were doing. An identified growth area for Teacher A would be in providing feedback to

students. Although students were consistently explaining their thinking, there was little
 2

opportunity for students to hear affirmation that their thinking was on the right track,

or that their thinking should be redirected.

In Teacher B’s third grade classroom, the following quote from Fitzgerald and

Smith (2016) is being embodied to the fullest extent: “Affective engagement is also an

important part of science learning, contributing to the development of a more

purposeful and positive learning environment” (p.71). Every part of Teacher B’s

instruction was thoughtful in engaging all students. As Teacher B gave direct

instruction, she used different hand motions that students mimicked to follow along

with her teaching.

To reference the work adapted from Kinsella (2010), when academic language

competence is a focus in the classroom, “Language becomes a vehicle, rather than a

barrier, to learning” (p. 2). This was a great strength in Teacher B’s classroom. When

students were sharing about the different animal adaptations they read about, they were

given sentence frames that they filled in with the information they used. Providing this

academic language helps students focus on explaining learned content, rather than

focus on the nerves of public speaking. The sentence frames and language students used

correlates directly with the academic language function of analyzing identified by

Kinsella (2010, p. 9).

This class also had an identified strong social emotional benefit; the students

were prompted to encourage each classmate that shared. When students are given the

reassurance of knowing they will receive praise for sharing, the intimidation of speaking

in front of their peers is taken away. Additionally, students had an opportunity to

discuss with their partner before sharing in front of the class, which gives students an

opportunity to practice their speech.

The entirety of Teacher B’s lesson engaged every learner in total body learning.

Not only did students repeat after the teacher and their classmates, they also used hand

motions to describe every adaption they discussed. At one point, Teacher B listed off

different animals and the students had to physically act out the adaptation that each

animal uses in its environment. By the end of the lesson, Teacher B asked a lengthy,

higher-order thinking question, but the students were prepared to answer because the

different parts of this question had been chunked and taught throughout the lesson.

One improvement Teacher B could make to this classroom would be to the

accessibility of the lesson. This particular lesson was very physical, and fast-paced.

Students with learning disabilities that struggle with auditory processing may struggle

to keep up with this lesson. Students with physical disabilities may face limitations, as

the lesson did require students to be moving their whole bodies. One recommendation

to Teacher B would be to include modified movements for students who, for whatever

reason, cannot participate at the same level as the rest of the students.

Lastly, in Teacher C’s fifth grade classroom, students had an opportunity to recall

prior knowledge about the lesson’s topic, gravity. From the beginning of the lesson,

Teacher C clearly identified the learning goal of the day, so students were immediately

given an expectation for the class period. Teacher C asked strong prompting questions

during the direct instruction portion of the class period, such as “what do we know

about gravity?” and “how can we do an investigation to determine this?” Teacher C was

able to connect the conversation of gravity to prior topics as well, such as inertia.

The remainder of Teacher C’s class period was dedicated to students working,

either individually or with a partner, on developing an investigative question about

gravity to answer through experimentation at a later date. Teacher C encouraged

students to use “science words” and prompted students with language similar to what is

discussed in the “Inquiry / Seeking Information” (p.4) section from Kinsella (2010). The

students were engaged with technology, using Google Docs as a form of collaboration

with group members. Teacher C was consistently roaming the classroom, providing

feedback and prompting questions to students when necessary. Fitzgerald and Smith

(2016) write, “It is essential that primary science education assists students to develop a

more consistent understanding of the nature of science and better equips them to

become scientifically literate citizens” (p. 70). It is evident that Teacher C’s goal is to

equip students into becoming scientifically literate citizens, capable of writing probing

questions and designing experiments to test their knowledge and find answers.

In Teacher C’s classroom, students would greatly benefit from Networking

Sessions, an idea from Himmele’s Total Participation Techniques (TPT). These

Networking Sessions are a way for students to reflect on their own questions, and then

discuss their questions with their peers. Teacher C’s classroom was a quiet environment,

with little student-to-student collaboration allowed. Students were often hushed and

prompted to get back on track, but it was evident that students were begging for an

opportunity to collaborate and share ideas. Another TPT strategy that Teacher C’s fifth

grade classroom would benefit from would be a Think-Pair-Share. Students were asked

to think about gravity-related questions and write them down, but there was not an

opportunity for students to learn from each other or hear about their peers’ thinking. A

growth area for Teacher C would be to allow students the space to collaborate and work

outside the box, so to speak.

In a program led by Davis and Smithey (2008) they note, “Most of the preservice

teachers in our classes are White females, like most of the elementary teachers in the
 5

United States (NCES, 2003), and they have been successful in school—yet these teachers

will teach children who are different from one another in many ways” (p.765). It is

important to note that Teachers A, B, and C were all perceived to be White female

teachers. While this is not an inherently bad or problematic feature, it is important to

note that the students in their classes were not all the same as them. It is important that

teachers, like Teachers A, B, and C, are aware of the potential limitations they may have

due to their separate experiences from their students. Because strong teachers will

incorporate students’ funds of knowledge into instruction, it is important to make sure

that student needs and experiences are regularly assessed and incorporated into lessons

and curriculum.
 6

Bibliography

Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward Effective

Elementary Science Teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745–770.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20311

Fitzgerald, A., & Smith, K. (2016). Science that matters: Exploring science learning and

teaching in primary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4),

64–78. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n4.4

Himmele, P & W. Total Participation Techniques (TPTs): Making Every Student an

Active Learner.

http://acadiatechinfo.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/60481382/beleive%2Bin%2Btp

ts.pdf

Kinsella, K. (2010). Academic Language Functions Toolkit. Sweetwater District-Wide

Academic Support Teams. 1-19.