From the Foreword by Kenneth Tobin:

This monograph is timely. For many years university scholars have participated in outreach activities 

with the goal of improving K−12 education. With the advent of a National Science Foundation 

program to fund collaborative projects between K−12 and university scientists, there was a clear need 

for a scholarly publication that described how a project was planned and enacted, explored the 

successes and contradictions, and considered what improvements were necessary. This monograph 

does just that by using a variety of data resources and sociocultural theoretical frames to highlight 

the benefits, contradictions, and directions for the future based on research and evaluation of a 

NSF-funded project from the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K−12 Education program....

The uses of coteaching in this project open the door for each coteacher to learn from the other.... 

What caught my eye in this monograph was the possibility that the coteachers’ goals progressed from 

personal growth and change to collective growth and change in the context of cotaught classes.

A feature of the monograph is its inclusion of practitioner research from a Graduate Teaching 

Fellows in K−12 Education program that made a conscious effort to ascertain what was happening 

and why it was happening. There is considerable merit in participants undertaking research on 

their own practices and, on the basis of what is learned, effecting changes so as to improve the 

quality of enactment.... 

— Kenneth Tobin, Presidential Professor of Urban Education

NSF, Distinguished Teaching Scholar

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York

Penny J. Gilmer,

D. Ellen Granger,

& Wilbert Butler (Eds.)
This document was produced 

with funding from the

Dwight D. Eisenhower

National Programs for 

Mathematics and Science 

Regional Consortia Program, 

Institute for Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education, under contact no. 

R319A000011-04.

The content of this publication 

does not necessarily reflect the 

views or policies of the Institute 

of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education, 

nor does mention of trade 

names, commercial products, 

or organizations imply 

endorsement by

the U.S. Government.

This material is

based on work supported

in part by a grant from the 

National Science Foundation 

(Grant #: DGE-0139299). 

Any opinions, findings, and 

conclusions or recommendations 

expressed in this monograph

are those of the authors and

do not necessarily reflect

the views of the NSF.

The SERVE Center at UNCG

Associated with the

School of Education,

University of North Carolina

at Greensboro

This document was produced in association with Florida State 

University and the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for 

Mathematics and Science Education @ SERVE.

First Printing, 2005

Co-Editors

Penny J. Gilmer, Ph.D., D.Sc.Ed.

Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida State University

D. Ellen Granger, Ph.D.

Director, Office of Science Teaching Activities, College of Arts and Sciences, 

Florida State University

Wilbert Butler, M.Sc.

Science Education Doctoral Graduate Student,

Florida State University

Program Support

Francena D. Cummings, Ph.D.

Director of the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics 

and Science Education @ SERVE

Donna Nalley, Ph.D.

Director of Publications, SERVE

Karen DeMeester, Ph.D.

Senior Program Specialist, SERVE

Tracy Hamilton

Art Director, SERVE
The Southeast Eisenhower 

Regional Consortium for

Mathematics and Science 

Education @ SERVE

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education @ 

SERVE is one of ten regional consortia created by Congress to improve mathematics and science 

education throughout the nation. The Consortium has three objectives:

➲ Coordinating mathematics and science resources

➲ Disseminating exemplary mathematics and science educational instructional materials

➲ Providing technical assistance for the implementation of teaching methods and assessment 

tools for use by elementary and secondary school students, staff, and administrators

The Consortium frames its work through the following focus areas:

➲ Collaboration and Communication. Joining forces with other mathematics and science 

education organizations at the national, state, and local levels

➲ Programs and Curricula. Identifying and disseminating exemplary mathematics and science 

materials with and through the Eisenhower National Center and other educational agencies

➲ Professional Development. Providing for the training of teachers, administrators, and other 

trainers in the use of exemplary mathematics and science materials, methods, and assessments

➲ Curriculum Frameworks. Assisting in the development and implementation of standardsbased state curriculum frameworks 

➲ Technology. Facilitating the use of telecommunications technology as a tool for mathematics 

and science instruction

➲ Equity. Supporting programs and activities that meet the needs of underserved groups in 

mathematics and science

➲ Informal Education Agencies. Supporting the use of informal mathematics and science 

agencies through disseminating information and encouraging collaboration

➲ Community Outreach. Promoting dialogue with community groups to engage them in 

meaningful ways to support mathematics and science

We offer the following services to promote our objectives:

Networks

➲ Collaborating with existing networks of mathematics and science educators

➲ Building and supporting new networks

➲ Providing opportunities for educators to share ideas and observations about what works in 

mathematics and science education

➲ Sponsoring conferences, teleconferences, meetings, and symposia

Access to Promising Practices in Mathematics and Science

➲ Identifying successful mathematics and science programs

➲ Publishing information on effective programs

Technical Assistance

➲ Helping schools and districts adapt and use new programs, policies, equipment, and resources

➲ Identifying the training needs of mathematics and science educators

➲ Developing effective training to meet identified needs through a Technical Assistance 

Academy for Mathematics and Science Services (TAAMSS)

Resources

➲ Providing access to SERVE products and services

➲ Helping educators gain access to local, state, regional, and national resources

Free and Low-Cost Materials

➲ Developing practical resources schools can use, including publications, video tapes, 

resource lists, and policy briefs that address concerns from schools, districts, and state 

education agencies

For more information about 

the Consortium, contact:

The main office:

Southeast Eisenhower 

Regional Consortium for 

Mathematics and Science 

Education @ SERVE

1203 Governor’s Square 

Boulevard, Suite 400

Tallahassee, FL 32301

800-854-0476

850-671-6033

850-671-6010 (Fax)

www.serve.org/ Eisenhower

Field offices:

Georgia 800-659-3204

North Carolina 800-755-3277
About SERVE

The SERVE Center for Continuous Improvement at UNCG, under the leadership 

of Dr. Ludwig David van Broekhuizen, is an education organization with the 

mission to promote and support the continuous improvement of educational 

opportunities for all learners in the Southeast. The organization’s commitment 

to continuous improvement is manifest in an applied research-to-practice model 

that drives all of its work. Building on research, professional wisdom, and craft 

knowledge, SERVE staff members develop tools, processes, and interventions 

designed to assist practitioners and policymakers with their work. SERVE’s 

ultimate goal is to raise the level of student achievement in the region. Evaluation 

of the impact of these activities combined with input from stakeholders expands 

SERVE’s knowledge base and informs future research.

This rigorous and practical approach to research and development is supported 

by an experienced staff strategically located throughout the region. This staff 

is highly skilled in providing needs assessment services, conducting applied 

research in schools, and developing processes, products, and programs that 

support educational improvement and increase student achievement. In the last 

three years, in addition to its basic research and development work with over 170 

southeastern schools, SERVE staff provided technical assistance and training to 

more than 18,000 teachers and administrators across the region.

The SERVE Center is governed by a board of directors that includes the 

governors, chief state school officers, educators, legislators, and private sector 

leaders from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina.

SERVE’s operational core is the Regional Educational Laboratory. Funded by the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, the Regional 

Educational Laboratory for the Southeast is one of ten Laboratories providing 

research-based information and services to all 50 states and territories. These 

Laboratories form a nationwide education knowledge network, building a bank 

of information and resources shared and disseminated nationally and regionally 

to improve student achievement. SERVE’s National Leadership Area, Expanded 

Learning Opportunities, focuses on improving student outcomes through the use 

of exemplary pre-K and extended-day programs.

SERVE Main Office

P.O. Box 5347

Greensboro, N.C. 27435

336-315-7400

800-755-3277 Toll-Free

336-315-7457 Fax

www.serve.org
This monograph is dedicated to Lisa Upham

who provided excellent secretarial, technological, and 

editorial help throughout the entire GK−12 grant, 

including this GK−12 SERVE monograph.
Table of Contents vi Acknowledgment

s

vii Foreword

1 Florida State University Science Graduate Students 

Working With K−12 Teachers and Students

By D. Ellen Granger

1 Addressing Our Country’s Need

s

2 Enacting the GK−12 Program

5 References

9 Incorporating Physics Into the Middle School

Science Curriculum

By David Graf

9 Introductio

n

10 Teaching Experiences and Observations: Learning Environments, 

Veteran Educators, and Meeting Standard

s

18 Notes and References

21 Impacts of the GK−12 Experience on the University

By Danielle Sherdan

21 My Changing Perspectives Through GK

−12

22 Principles for Effective Learnin

g

23 Impacts on University Teachin

g

26 Notes and References

29 Shifting Sands and Butterfly Gardens:

Growing a Scientifically Literate Society

By Mabry Gaboardi

29 Blank Stare

s

30 Teaching Methods: Process of Finding “What Works

”

30 Students as Stenographers

31 Wild Chil

d

32 Minds-On Teaching: Depth and Breadt

h

34 A Little Hel

p

37 We Are All Responsible

!

37 Reference

s

39 Cooperative Group Learning in Inquiry-Based

Science Activities

By Katie McGhee

39 Introductio

n

40 Settin

g

41 Activity

41 Observations During Sink/Float Activit

y

44 Techniques to Reduce Problem

s

46 Cooperative Learning at the Undergraduate Leve

l

47 Reference

s

49 The Learning Cycle of Classroom Management: A Design for Producing an Effective Teacher

By Jocelyn Dudley

49 Ready to Teac

h
50 My Role as a Scientist/Para-Educator

50 Good Teacher Versus Effective Teacher

51 Role of a Teacher

51 Ideal Class Under Good Classroom Management

52 Learning Cycle of Classroom Management

52 Observations of Teachers and Classroom Management

53 References

55 Better Lessons Through Topic Research

By Heaya Summy

55 Introduction

56 Lesson Preparation

56 Topic Research Explained

57 Know Your Sources

58 Get It Together!

59 Application in Practice

60 Final Remarks

60 Notes and References

63 Lessons Learned From the Partnership of a GK−12 Fellow 

and a Third-Grade Teacher

By Wendy J. Walton and Roberta Trowbridge

64 Constructing Lessons

66 Roberta’s Activities Assessment

68 Co-Teaching

69 What Was Learned

70 What Changed

70 Effects on Students

70 Challenges

71 Conclusions

71 Acknowledgments

71 References

73 Science Graduate Students Enhancing K−8 Education

By Penny J. Gilmer and Martin Balinsky

74 Introduction

74 Theoretical Frameworks

75 Research/Evaluation Design

77 Data Analyses and Findings

88 Challenges

92 GK−12 Fellows’ Learning From Writing This Monograph

93 Reflections by a Pre-Service Science Teacher

93 Fellows’ Learning Through Participating in Research

94 Summary of Final Evaluation

94 Acknowledgments

94 References

96 Index
vi

Other co-principal investigators (in addition to Penny J. Gilmer 

and D. Ellen Granger) on the NSF grant:

Dr. Paul Cottle, Dr. Thomas Miller, Dr. Donald Foss, and William Montford

Institutions:

Florida State University, Leon County Schools, School of Arts and Sciences, and 

SERC@SERVE

Major professors of GK−12 Fellows:

Dr. Doris Abood, Dr. Michael Blaber, Dr. James Brooks, Dr. Timothy Logan, 

Dr. W.H. Outlaw Jr., Dr. Randolph Rill, Dr. Joseph Travis, Dr. Alexander Volya, 

and Dr. Yang Wang 

GK−12 Teachers:

Year 1: Jennifer Kauzlarich (Sealey Elementary Math and Science Magnet School), 

Beverly O’Meara (Sealey), Linda Wolters (Sealey), MaLynn Kelso (Belle Vue Middle 

School), Julie Sear (Belle Vue), Marla Blair (Belle Vue), Debbie Willis (Godby High 

School), Patricia Riley (Sealey), Dave Rodriguez (Raa Middle School)

Year 2: Roberta Hudgins (W.T. Moore Elementary School), Linda McDonnell (W.T. 

Moore), Aaron Hicks (W.T. Moore), Roberta Trowbridge (W.T. Moore), Latonya 

Johnson (W.T. Moore), Jennifer Haid (Fairview Middle School), Sandra Davis (Cobb 

Middle School), Cindy Rodriguez (Springwood Elementary School), Paul Maclean 

(Springwood), Penny Kisiah (Fairview), Teresa Anderson (Fairview), Dawn Roberson 

(Fairview), Colleen Hosford (Raa), Christy Bowman (Raa), Teresa Callahan (Raa)

Year 3: Patricia Ball (Canopy Oaks Elementary School), Belinda Rudzik (Astoria Park 

Elementary School), Dan Nelson (Astoria Park), Julie Fredrickson (School of Arts and 

Sciences), Kathy Tripp (School of Arts and Sciences), Amelia Friemuth (W.T. Moore), 

Nancy Long (W.T. Moore), Debbie Bobroskie (Raa), Donna Tornillo (Sealey)

Others who helped with the research and layout of the 

monograph:

FSU graduate student, Martin Balinsky

FSU undergraduate students, Giselle Marsh, Jeremy Twachtman, and Jordan Rogers

Editorial and secretarial help from Lisa Upham

Acknowledgments
vii

Foreword

This monograph is timely. For many years university scholars have participated in 

outreach activities with the goal of improving K−12 education. With the advent 

of a National Science Foundation program to fund collaborative projects between 

K−12 and university scientists, there was a clear need for a scholarly publication 

that described how a project was planned and enacted, explored the successes and 

contradictions, and considered what improvements were necessary. This monograph 

does just that by using a variety of data resources and sociocultural theoretical frames 

to highlight the benefits, contradictions, and directions for the future based on 

research and evaluation of a NSF-funded project from the Graduate Teaching Fellows 

in K−12 Education program (hereafter referred to as GK−12).

When done well, the sort of project described in this monograph has the potential 

to substantially improve K−12 science education. Most would agree that scientists 

should be major stakeholders in K−12 science education, and if they can successfully 

collaborate with K−12 teachers, there seem to be strong prospects for enacting 

high-quality science curricula. Yet effective collaboration between participants can 

be elusive. Plans for collaboration that appear persuasive and elegant on paper can 

be replete with contradictions and require consistent tinkering when enactment 

occurs. An assumption underlying successful collaboration is mutual respect among 

participants. If this is to occur, the identities of all participants need to be secure. 

Ideally each participant must feel confident that he or she has something to offer and 

each must be prepared to learn from the other.

However, unlike the project described in this monograph, many GK−12 programs 

were developed around deficit ways of thinking about the quality of K−12 science 

education. Plans often focused on the shortcomings of teachers and teaching, 

especially on the inadequacies of teachers’ subject-matter knowledge and whether 

they knew enough to successfully teach science. From this perspective there is some 

appeal in plans to provide additional science subject matter experts to offset the 

deficits in the resident teachers’ knowledge. Not surprisingly, such approaches to 

collaboration are not well received by most teachers who regard themselves as wellqualified, professional, hard working, and effective in the circumstances in which they 

have to teach. Projects that begin with deficit perspectives have a lower likelihood of 

success than those in which it is realized that all participants in collaborative projects 

can learn from others through active coparticipation.

From the perspective of the science graduate students, it is important that they have 

understandings about teaching, learning, and curriculum so that their conversations 

with teachers are informed by up-to-date knowledge about appropriate resources, 

models, theories, and research. In this project, the graduate students were involved 

in a course that dealt with such topics prior to beginning their collaboration 

with teachers. Subsequently, they have to understand how to successfully interact 

with teachers and, in so doing, become resources for enhancing their learning 

and teaching. Such interactions should expand the teachers’ identities as science 

educators. At the same time, the science graduate student should approach all 

interactions with the teachers as a learner intent on learning from their knowledge 

and wealth of experiences. Hence, being willing to learn from others while being 

their tutor is a central tenet of successful collaborative ventures. Classroom teachers 

also should see themselves as teachers and learners in collaborative projects such 

as the one featured in this monograph. Furthermore, it is essential that they 

create structures to allow the graduate science students (GK−12 Fellows in this 

monograph) to actively participate in a full range of roles so that they can use their 
viii

expertise in science to create opportunities for students to learn science and for 

coteachers to learn about teaching science.

The uses of coteaching in this project open the door for each coteacher to learn from 

the other. Accordingly, if both teachers teach at one another’s elbow, then there is 

scope for learning to occur consciously and unconsciously. In a seven-year project of 

collaborative research, we found experienced and less experienced teachers learning 

from one another about how to more effectively teach science to urban youth 

who were ethnically and socially different from either coteacher. Also, we found 

that experienced science educators learned more science subject matter when they 

cotaught with others. Hence, the uses of coteaching may be a primary means for 

achieving the goals of this GK−12 project. What caught my eye in this monograph 

was the possibility that the coteachers’ goals progressed from personal growth and 

change to collective growth and change in the context of cotaught classes.

A feature of the monograph is its inclusion of practitioner research from a GK−12 

program that made a conscious effort to ascertain what was happening and why it was 

happening. There is considerable merit in participants undertaking research on their 

own practices and, on the basis of what is learned, effecting changes so as to improve 

the quality of enactment. Most often these forms of educational engineering involve 

identifying contradictions and dealing with them—in some cases eliminating them 

because they are deleterious and in other cases increasing the incidence of desirable, 

but infrequent, practices. Hence, taking what was done in this GK−12 project and 

using practitioner research to enhance the quality of collaboration has the potential 

to improve the quality of what is attempted in the participating science classes while 

providing bases for disseminating to others what is learned from the research.

The topics dealt with in this monograph cover the terrain of interests for science 

educators and include the infusion of good science into curricula, personal learning 

and growth as a teacher, inquiry and the use of models such as the learning cycle, 

cooperative learning, effective teaching, and learning science with understanding. 

Just how these issues arose during a GK−12 collaborative project set in K−8 classes is 

illustrated in nine chapters written by some of the participants. The result is a volume 

that is bound to catch the attention of school and university personnel who are open 

to establishing partnerships to benefit K−12 science education. As is shown in these 

chapters, they may get more than they bargained for. Not only are improvements 

likely in K−12 education but also in the quality of college science education. One of 

the more exciting aspects of the project described in this monograph is that college 

science faculty learn about learning, teaching, and curriculum, and then, through 

their activities in K−8 classrooms, they develop knowledge of science education that 

has the potential to be applied for the benefit of improving not only subsequent 

populations of K−12 students but also the quality of college science teaching and 

learning. The prospects of creating a critical mass of science faculty in universities 

with the motivation and skills to collaborate not only with colleagues in the college of 

education within their own university but also with K−12 teachers are appealing and 

auger well for the long term prospects of science education in the U.S.

Kenneth Tobin

Presidential Professor of Urban Education

NSF, Distinguished Teaching Scholar

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York


1

Florida State University 

Science Graduate Students 

Working With K−12 Teachers 

and Students

By D. Ellen Granger

Biographical information:

D. Ellen Granger, Ph.D. 

Director, Office of Science Teaching Activities,

College of Arts and Sciences, Florida State University

Doctoral Dissertation Title:

1987, Florida State University, Role of Acoustic Striae in Hearing 

(published in Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 60, 1988)

Why I chose my fields: 

My first love, brain research, is one of the “final frontiers” of science to me. I love discovering 

how this intricate organ enables different species to solve their “problems of life.” My second 

love, science teaching and learning, evolved from my first. How do we better communicate 

our scientific findings? How do we ensure a scientifically literate public? How do we ensure 

a continued pipeline of young students interested in entering science as a human endeavor? 

These questions, combined with my love of teaching, have driven my passion for science 

teaching and learning.

Why I wrote the GK−12 program proposal: 

To help scientists make more meaningful contributions to K−12 science teaching and learning. I feel 

that this is critical for a scientifically literate public and for a continued pipeline of young students 

interested in entering science as a career. The best time to reach scientists and give them a chance 

to learn about K−12 science teaching and learning is during their formative years as graduate 

students. Hence, I wrote the GK−12 grant proposal.

What I gained from the GK−12 program: 

I have learned a tremendous amount about science teaching and learning from the GK−12 

teachers, the GK−12 graduate fellows, and my science colleagues at FSU as a result of this program 

and would like to thank each of them for this. I have also learned about how to help science 

graduate students become better teachers at any level, K−20.

Addressing Our Country’s Needs

How can we make sure that the next generation is prepared to supply the mathematics

and science core forms of knowledge? With less than 10% of our public judged to 

be scientifically literate and our children performing almost last of the 41 countries 

participating in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 

by high school graduation, will we be prepared to sustain our products, services, 

standard of living, and economic and military security?2

 What should we be doing to 

maintain the pipeline of bright, young scientists and mathematicians and to create 

the scientifically literate populace necessary to make informed decisions about science 

policy as it impacts society? 

Several recent reports have addressed these questions,1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the answers 

are multifaceted. It is clear that to achieve the desired results, scientists and 

mathematicians must become more involved in the answers: our teaching practices in 

science and mathematics at the K−12 and undergraduate levels must be changed. This 

is not as easy a task as it may seem at face value. Just as the background of most K−12 

From mathematics and 

the sciences will come the 

products, services, standard 

of living, and economic 

and military security that 

will sustain us at home and 

around the world. From them 

will come the technological 

creativity American 

companies need to compete 

effectively in the global 

marketplace... mathematics 

and science will also supply 

the core forms of knowledge 

that the next generation of 

innovators, producers, and 

workers in every country 

will need if they are to solve 

the unforeseen problems and 

dream the dreams that will 

define America’s future.

— Report to the Nation from 

the National Commission 

on Mathematics and Science 

Teaching for the 21st Century 

(Glenn Commission)1

Ellen Granger, co-Principal 

Investigator on the GK–12 grant.
2

teachers has not provided them with adequate opportunities to learn about scientists 

and the process of science, the background of most scientists has not provided them 

with adequate opportunities to learn about the educational challenges surrounding 

the teaching of K−12 students. Nor have most university faculties researched 

their undergraduate teaching to discover more successful teaching practices. Most 

scientists, therefore, are not prepared to bridge the gulf between their profession 

and the K−12 classroom so as to make significant contributions to K−12 science 

and mathematics teaching and learning, nor are they comfortable doing so. Some 

do make well-intentioned efforts to contribute to K−12 classrooms, but their lack of 

sufficient preparation and experience often results in less than satisfying outcomes for 

both parties. Preparation for undergraduate teaching suffers from the similar neglect. 

Likewise, most K−8 teachers are not prepared to incorporate inquiry-based science 

into their classrooms. 

Enacting the GK−12 Program

Addressing the Goals of the Program

One effort to address these issues is the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) 

Graduate Teaching Fellows in K−12 Education (GK−12) program. This program 

“supports fellowships and associated training that enable graduate students and 

advanced undergraduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

[STEM] disciplines to acquire additional skills that will broadly prepare them for 

professional and scientific careers in the 21st century.”7 The goals of the NSF for this 

program are: 

1. To support highly qualified graduate students in NSF-supported STEM 

disciplines through Fellowships to provide them with an opportunity to acquire 

additional skills that will broadly prepare them for professional and scientific 

careers in the 21st century.

2. To improve STEM instruction in K−12 schools.

3. To provide institutions of higher education with an opportunity to make a 

permanent change in their graduate programs by including partnerships with 

K−12 schools in a manner that is of mutual benefit to their faculties and students.8

The Florida State University (FSU) GK−12 project funded by the NSF is designed 

to promote meaningful interactions between science professionals and K−12 

teachers and students by educating future science professionals (graduate students 

in the sciences) about K−12 science teaching and learning and by educating K−12 

teachers about science inquiry, and to give all successful experiences in the same. 

The goal of our GK−12 project is to increase the number of science professionals 

who are prepared and willing to make meaningful contributions to the K−12 science 

and mathematics enterprise and to enhance the science and mathematics teaching 

practice of K−12 teachers. Our objectives for this project are:

1. To teach GK−12 graduate fellows about the teaching and learning of science. 

Instruction includes child development; how students of different ages, abilities, 

cultural backgrounds, and learning styles learn; and how best to communicate 

science and mathematics content on the basis of these principles. 

2. To train GK−12 graduate fellows in the use of curriculum resources for 

elementary and middle school students.

3. To teach GK−12 graduate fellows about assessment alternatives for K−12 science.

4. To allow GK−12 graduate fellows the opportunity to use their expertise in science, 

mathematics, and technology and new-found knowledge about learning processes 

and knowledge transfer in the classroom to enhance elementary and middle 

school science teaching and learning.
3

5. To add to local science teachers’ arsenals of high-quality inquiry-based activities

that engender scientific habits of mind in their students.

6. To help local teachers incorporate science inquiry activities into their teaching

practice. 

7. To evaluate the effectiveness of these objectives in terms 

of graduate student outcomes and K−12 student and 

teacher outcomes.

Preparing the GK−12 Fellows to Teach

Doctoral students were recruited from science departments 

at FSU to become NSF GK−12 Fellows. Selected students 

engaged in extensive learning to prepare them to become 

valuable classroom resources for K−12 teachers and 

students. To achieve this, we designed a graduate course, 

Science Teaching and Learning, which focused on two 

themes: (1) child development and learning and (2) effective 

communication of science content (see sample syllabus 

in Figure 1). The course was grounded in the National 

Science Education Standards.

3

 It began with a unit on child 

development and how people learn, how this learning is 

affected by various factors, and how to use this knowledge 

about cognition effectively in the science classroom that was 

taught by faculty from the Department of Psychology in 

the College of Arts and Sciences and from the Educational 

Psychology program of the College of Education. 

The second unit of the course was on “Communicating Science” designed by a 

collaboration of educators at the University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Hall 

of Science with scientists from its science departments. The FSU Office of Science 

Teaching Activities, where this GK−12 program is administered, had previously 

been one of the test sites for this curriculum. This unit introduced 

the Fellows to a series of effective, widely tested, K−8 instructional 

materials as exemplars of important educational strategies in science 

teaching. In it, the theoretical aspects of teaching were interwoven 

with practical lesson applications. As a result of their experience with 

the benefits of inquiry-based activities designed for K−8 students, 

we expected the Fellows to engage in the process of learning science 

and reflection upon their teaching. This experience gave them a 

chance to examine and analyze a variety of best practices in science 

teaching and informed them about some high-quality instructional 

materials for teaching science at the same time. The course ended with 

an exploration of high-quality curriculum resources for classroom 

use. After the course, Fellows continued formal study and discussion 

of teaching and learning through monthly meetings. The Fellows 

increased the depth and breadth of their knowledge about the process 

of learning and knowledge transfer through discussion of their 

classroom experiences and a “journal club” format of readings from 

current science teaching-and-learning literature. 

Enacting the Teaching and Learning Process

In the semester after course completion, Fellows began working in 

K−8 classrooms. Fellows and their partnering K−8 teacher, designated as a GK−12 

Teacher, utilized a co-teaching format. Fellows served as content and curriculum

resources as well as participated in classroom instruction. As the program evolved, 

we learned that Fellows need to spend at least one-half of an academic year in each 

classroom for a productive partnership to develop between the GK−12 Teacher and 

GK–12 Fellow, Mabry, reflecting 

on the density lesson the GK–12 

Fellows did with elementaryschool students as their first foray 

into the classroom.

Child testing density of objects in 

a GEMS activity.
4

Fellow. For their classroom placements we tried to give Fellows a broad experience 

in teaching. All had assignments in at least one elementary and one middle school 

classroom. Fellows generally rotated from teaching in a standard “suburban” type 

class one semester to a Title I school during the following semester.

During summer semesters, GK−12 Fellows and Teachers participated in a variety of 

summer programs to enhance their teaching practice. The Fellows either served as 

teaching assistants or participants in one of the summer professional development 

experiences offered for K−12 teachers at FSU administered 

by the Office of Science Teaching Activities in the College 

of Arts and Sciences or by the National High Magnetic 

Field Laboratory also at FSU, or they participated in 

a Saturday-at-the-Sea Summer Camp—a week-long 

immersion in marine-science inquiry for middle school 

students, also administered by the Office of Science 

Teaching Activities. 

Science graduate students are at a stage in their academic 

development in which they are open and willing to 

respond to what constitutes quality science teaching. The 

format of this instruction is critical—it must employ the 

methodology that we advocate. After experiencing the 

power of reform-based methodology first hand through 

formal education and by employing it in the classroom, 

the Fellows are more likely to become supporters of the 

principles learned. 

Actualizing the Benefits of the Program

Short-term benefits of this project included the learning

and the experience that the program immediately brings 

to the Fellows. This learning and experience enhanced 

their communication and teaching skills and thus their 

value as educators not only for the K−12 community 

but also for the undergraduate classroom. The GK−12 Teachers have benefited 

from their participation in summer institutes and the participation of the Fellows 

in their classrooms. 

Participation of 

young scientists in the 

classroom brings an 

approach to science 

teaching that provides 

more relevance for 

An NSF GK–12 teacher, Jen 

Simmons, supervised Mabry in 

a seventh-grade Earth science 

classroom. She was our teacher 

representative to the national 

GK–12 meeting in Washington, 

D.C. in 2004.

D. Ellen Granger, co-PI on NSF GK–12 grant, seated (center) with 

some of the GK–12 Fellows after a monthly group meeting.
5

K−12 students and enriches their 

learning of science. 

In the long term, as the Fellows 

move into their science professions, 

we expect that the number of K−12 

teachers and students benefiting 

from their expertise will multiply. 

The GK−12 Teachers will continue 

to influence the science knowledge 

and attitudes of new groups of 

students who pass through their 

classrooms. The chapters that follow, 

written by some of our GK−12 

Fellows (and one co-written with 

one of the GK−12 Teacher partners), 

detail features of the experience 

that each Fellow has considered to 

be particularly meaningful. Our 

program’s internal evaluator, Penny 

J. Gilmer, with Martin Balinsky, a 

science education graduate student 

who has worked with Dr. Gilmer 

on this project, conclude the 

monograph with a look at what our 

data collection on the program indicates about its impact.

References

1. Glenn Commission (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from The National 

Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Jessup, MD: U.S. 

Department of Education, Education Publication Center.

2. Third International Mathematics and Science Study (1995). TIMSS 1995 Home Page. 

Retrieved July 11, 2004, from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995.html.

3. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 

4. National Research Council (2000a). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: 

New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

5. National Research Council (2000b). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: 

A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

6. National Science Teachers Association (1998). Standards for science teachers preparation. 

Retrieved June 12, 2005, from www.nsta.org/professionals.

7. National Science Foundation (n.d.). NSF graduate teaching fellows in K−12 education (GK−12).

Retrieved June 12, 2005, from www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5472.

8. National Science Foundation (n.d.). NSF graduate teaching fellows in K−12 education (GK−12): 

Program solicitation. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05553/

nsf05553.htm.

Child finishing up her data chart 

from inquiry experiment.
6

Syllabus, BSC 5936—Teaching and Learning Science—Fall 2002

M & W 8:00-10:00; Room 236 Conradi

Course Leader: Dr. Ellen Granger;

Phone: 644-6474

E-mail: granger@bio.fsu.edu

Blackboard Website: http://campus.fsu.edu

Text: National Science Education Standards, National Research Council, 1996.

Principles of Teaching and Learning

08/26 Course Introduction Dr. Ellen Granger, Office of Science 

Teaching Activities (OSTA)

08/26 Cognitive Development of Children Dr. Richard Wagner, Dept. of 

Psychology 08/28

09/03

09/09 How Students Learn and Related Issues Dr. Marcy Driscoll, Dept. of 

Education, Psychology and 

Learning Systems 09/11

09/16

09/18

09/23 Science Standards Dr. Ellen Granger

09/25 Classroom Management Ms. Coveta Grant, Sealey 

Elementary School, Ms. MaLynn 

Kelso, Belle Vue Middle School

Communicating Science

09/30 Nature of Science Dr. Ellen Granger, OSTA

10/02 Teaching Approaches Granger

10/07 Blank Slates or Clever Minds:

A Constructivist Approach

Granger

10/09 Questioning Strategies Granger

10/14 The Questions Lab

(at Sealey Elementary School)

Granger

10/16 Promoting Discussion Granger

10/21 Introduction to Assessment Granger

10/23 Inclusive Learning Environment Granger

10/28 Designing a Lesson Granger

10/30 FCAT and Other Assessment Issues Dr. Al Oosterhof, Dept. of 

Education, Psychology and 

Learning Systems

K−12 Exemplary Curriculum Units

11/04 Great Explorations in Math and Science 

“GEMS”

Mr. Todd Bevis, OSTA

11/06

11/13

11/18 Curriculum Activities Designed by National 

High Magnetic Field Laboratories (NHMFL)

Dr. Pat Dixon, NHMFL

11/20

11/25 Activities from Saturday-at-the-Sea (SATS) 

and Marine Activities, Resources, & 

Education (MARE)

Ms. Barbara Shoplock and 

Mr. Bob Lutz, OSTA

12/02 Activities from Science on the Move Mr. Lance King, OSTA

12/04 Final Course Assessment Dr. Penny J. Gilmer, Dept. of 

Chemistry and Biochemistry

Figure 1: The syllabus for the 

course I offered the cohort of 

nine GK−12 Fellows at the start 

of the program. 

8
9

Incorporating Physics Into 

the Middle School Science 

Curriculum

By David Graf

Biographical information:

David Graf, Ph.D.

Ph.D. in the Department of Physics at Florida State University

Major advisor Dr. James Brooks

First GK-12 Fellow to graduate with his doctorate

Ph.D. Dissertation Topic:

“Magnetic Field-Dependent Electronic Structures of Low-Dimensional 

Organic Materials” 

Why I chose my field:

I enjoy “hands-on” experimental work and the National High Magnetic Field 

Laboratory is unparalleled in the world for its facilities and the magnetic fields 

available.

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

In my three years in graduate school before joining the program, I saw how wide 

the gap was between international and domestic students in terms of science/

mathematics education (at least in physics). Trying to work with children in their 

early years to show them that science can be fun and exciting was important to me.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

I am far more comfortable working with groups of children. I have learned and 

used valuable lessons about the learning cycle, classroom management, and 

how to correlate science standards with classroom activities (an important consideration as every 

teacher in Florida worries about the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test—FCAT—and the No 

Child Left Behind Act).

Introduction

Some teachers in middle school classrooms find the transition from earth science and 

biology lessons to physics intimidating. The reason for this anxiety is not completely 

clear. Perhaps it is because many find it difficult to give a clear explanation in physics 

within the context of middle school mathematics. It could be due to the lack of 

exposure to both the content they are teaching and the equipment that the students 

use for experiments and activities. Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman takes note of the 

problem when discussed within the context of a typical high school curriculum, 

“[S]tudents were still taking biology (or earth science) in ninth grade, with 50% going 

on to a year of chemistry and maybe 20% taking a third year, the dreaded physics, as 

juniors or seniors.”1 The answer to this decrease in science involvement is exposing 

students to physics earlier and in a more engaging manner. If students develop a 

fear of physics before their high school years, maybe the reason lies in their lack of 

experience with the subject in middle school.

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 19992

 found 

that U.S. students in the fourth grade score well in mathematics and science in 

comparison to other countries. That interest seems to decline by the eighth grade, as 

reflected through declining test scores from that age group. In short, if science classes 

in middle school do not engage students, it is unlikely the students will continue 

to build a strong foundation in mathematics and science in the future. John Glenn, 

GK–12 fellow, David Graf 

(2nd from right), with his wife

and parents, standing by a 

sculpture of Jack Crow, founder 

of the National High Field Magnetic 

Laboratory. David is the first 

person named as the Jack Crow 

Postdoctoral Fellow. Jack Crow 

was a dedicated scientist and 

educator, and David follows in his 

footsteps. David’s new fellowship 

started shortly after defending his 

dissertation in June 2005.

David at the start of the GK–12 

Fellow program.
10

Chair of the Senate Committee, quoted this TIMSS study in 

the U.S. Senate report Before It’s Too Late, a product of the 

National Commission of Mathematics and Science Teaching 

(NCMST).3 The TIMSS and NCMST reports paint a grim 

and urgent picture of how science teaching in the U.S. must 

improve if today’s domestic students are going to compete for 

the top positions in an increasingly global marketplace.

These findings, along with my teaching observations of the 

past two years, made me curious about student performance 

in physics. Is it really too late? Especially in the area of physics, 

in which students will need to pursue futures in fields of 

technology or engineering, are we past a point where we can 

improve things? Is what I read in these reports what I actually 

saw in the classroom? What do the teachers with whom I 

worked think we can do to improve science and specifically 

physics education at the middle school level? With these 

questions in mind, I returned to the Tallahassee middle school 

classrooms where I had co-taught as a GK−12 fellow. Through 

an informal interview with each of the two eighth-grade 

science teachers with whom I worked, I learned their views on teaching physics, their 

comfort level with the topic, and the ways they thought teaching could be improved. I 

also interviewed Luke Jackson, who runs a FSU program providing science equipment 

and lessons to local schools. He also directs a summer workshop for middle school 

science teachers in which I have worked for two summers. I have tried to incorporate 

my observations from working with these teachers and our collective opinions to 

answer some of the above questions.

Teaching Experiences and Observations:

Learning Environments, Veteran Educators,

and Meeting Standards

What It Is

In Fall 2002, I entered the Florida State University (FSU) chapter of the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) GK−12 Fellowship program. This initiative enables 

graduate students from various areas of science to “co-teach” in elementary and middle 

school classrooms. The idea behind co-teaching allows GK−12 

fellows to work in a science classroom along with a teacher 

with the goal of enhancing the way we communicate science 

through lessons and activities. In my first and third semesters 

of teaching in the program, I worked in different eighth-grade 

science classrooms. Each of the teachers with whom I worked 

was a veteran eighth-grade instructor. 

Working with Mary was my first co-teaching experience in 

the GK−12 program. We worked together for four mornings 

each week, with two classes each day. During the semester, 

we covered a number of topics, including forces and motion, 

waves, energy, cells, ecosystems, space, and even how to use a 

microscope. Wanting to get off to a good start, I tried to think 

of activities that the students could do that would get them 

out of their seats and keep them interested. 

I observed that the learning environment is a critical factor in a student’s education 

process. The environments within the two middle schools in which I worked were very 

different. Mary Kopp’s school (referred to hereafter as Tallahassee Middle School #1 or 

A fifth-grader adjusting the 

microscope so that he can better 

visualize the material.

Science night.
11

TMS1) had discipline policies in place, but students were much more likely to break 

the rules. It was clear at times that some of the students in Mary’s school thought that 

learning science was a waste of their time. 

There were other challenges in addition to the 

problems associated with classroom discipline. 

For example, a Florida4 report showed that 75% of 

students in TMS1 were considered “economically 

disadvantaged.”5 TMS1 accepts federal resources 

to fund, among other things, the students who 

cannot afford to buy a full-priced lunch. Accepting 

this federal funding means trying to meet the 

federal guidelines for student achievement under 

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). TMS1 

must also meet the Sunshine State Standards (SSS) 

requirements for eighth-graders. These standards 

require a set of assessments in February and 

March of each year (the Florida Comprehensive 

Achievement Test or FCAT) to test students’ writing, 

reading, mathematics, and science skills. TMS1 

was rated as a “C” school based on the 2004 results, 

placing it into the lowest academic 30% of schools 

in the district. The learning environment, social, and economic factors, as well as the 

pressure to meet standards all warrant attention because of their obvious impact on 

the classroom environment and time constraints in teaching the topics.

Mary, one of my GK−12 Teachers, studied geology in Tennessee after serving in the 

U.S. Navy. She also completed a master’s degree in science education from FSU. She has 

been teaching at TMS1 for 15 years. Mary is certified by the National Board and prides 

herself in helping other teachers reach these goals. With her background in geology, 

Mary considers herself a “rock hound.” When exploring her storage room for laboratory 

equipment, I ran across a couple of bins filled with rocks. While I would have only 

thought of them as paperweights, she knew many scientific names and origins. What 

impressed me most about Mary was her presence in the classroom. Mary is tiny in 

stature; nonetheless, most students showed her proper respect and listened to her. 

For our first experiment with the students, Mary enthusiastically accepted the idea of 

using a lab that I wrote, which measured the speed and acceleration of toy cars rolling 

down a ramp. We tried to incorporate the concepts of measuring time and length and 

observing the effects of acceleration from gravity. I quickly learned that the eighthgrade classes did not enjoy mathematics but were happy to do any activity rather than 

listen to a lecture. I do not know if the attention spans of eighth-graders vary, but I 

believe they are easily distracted by various elements in the classroom, especially by the 

behavior of their peers. 

During the semester, we developed labs that required full class periods for exploring 

wave motion, the phases of the moon, and why the seasons of the year depend on 

the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Mary was very open to using my ideas, and this made me 

feel like my input counted for something. I will admit that I did not feel comfortable 

speaking in front of her class as much as I did contributing by developing ideas and 

preparing the experiments. Three more semesters in the program have given me a 

more solid background as a speaker for both elementary and middle school children. 

Mary did a fine job of giving pre-lab instructions, and I assisted her by working 

around the room during the lab to help any student who seemed confused or needed 

further instruction.

The reading level of students at TMS1 is low (as tested by FCAT standards), and 

the students’ attention spans are short; therefore, conventional reading, lecturing, 

and testing are not successful teaching strategies. On a positive note, instructors at 

GK–12 Fellows, Mabry Gaboardi 

and David Graf, having their first 

experiences in teaching science 

to elementary-school students.
12

all levels of science teaching are beginning to abandon this out-dated approach and 

replace lectures with well-structured, hands-on activities.6

 Students at TMS1 do 

not respond well to homework, and many seem to receive little support at home to 

finish it. As a result, many labs or worksheets become class work. Using this strategy, 

teachers can offer help to students who need it while checking that assignments are 

completed. The assignments must be collected from the students on a daily basis and 

retained by the teacher so that they are not lost, forgotten, or thrown away. On several 

occasions, I found assignments that I had handed out just moments earlier on the 

classroom floor as the students left the room. 

Following a semester of teaching in the fifth grade, I had the opportunity to work in 

another eighth-grade classroom at another middle school in Tallahassee (hereafter 

referred to as Tallahassee Middle School #2 or TMS2). Tammy has been teaching 

science at the eighth-grade level a few years longer than I have been alive. I found out 

that I liked working with the older students more because they had the potential to 

work on topics at a deeper level. By this point in time, I felt comfortable teaching and 

a little more seasoned in my duties associated with the GK−12 program. Though I 

felt ready to contribute, I found that Tammy was reluctant to let me take charge in 

any section of the curriculum. A lot of her material was quite good, so I was happy to 

assist her with teaching and file away the ideas for future use.

Tammy is well organized and has teaching strategies for every topic. She is a designated 

physical science teacher, so the topics in her course do not vary from year to year. She 

prides herself on staying current with science content in the news and especially with 

new teaching technology. Rather than resorting to a typical lecture using an overhead 

projector or marker board, she is much more likely to use Microsoft PowerPoint and 

a laptop computer. This gives her a better opportunity to discuss topics and work with 

her class as she goes through the lesson. Tammy proposed and was awarded a grant 

that funded a new science building where her classroom is approximately 1,500 square 

feet of open space, ideally suited for lab activities. 

Tammy’s school has strict policies on attendance, coming late to class, respect toward 

peers and teachers, and even attire. Physical conflict is an unlikely occurrence in 

Tammy’s school but is much more common in Mary’s school. Though violence can 

have obvious physical implications, it is a further nuisance because fights draw the 

focus away from learning for every student. The guilty students are often the students 

who need academic help. They are suspended from school and, consequently, miss 

valuable lessons. From what I observed, the school’s no-nonsense guidelines regarding 

physical conflict and otherwise strict policies made an overall comfortable learning 

environment for the students. The students with whom I worked in TMS2 were 

easier to teach because they were less disruptive in comparison to students in TMS1. 

The 2004 School Public Accountability Reports (SPAR) results were announced in a 

letter to parents. The principal of TMS2 noted that it had been an “A” school for five 

consecutive years. This ranks the school in the upper half of all district schools. 

During her time in college, Tammy said that chemistry was her favorite science topic, 

and she reflects that enjoyment in her instruction of the subject. She is certain to 

incorporate a number of different learning methods into every area she teaches. I joined 

her class halfway through the academic year while she was teaching the students organic 

chemistry. While studying this subject, the students heard lectures and did worksheets, 

but Tammy incorporated further teaching strategies. The students also had to make a 

model of an organic compound and explain where and why the bonds were placed as 

they were. Tammy said that she heard that a person should hear something at least seven 

times if he or she is expected to remember it. She tries to repeat parts of each topic in a 

variety of ways to expose students to topics more than once.

We co-taught two days each week, four classes per day. Two of the classes were 

considered to be for “gifted” students. This is where Tammy thought that I made 

the strongest contribution. Many of the students in the gifted classes, especially the 

GK–12 Fellow, David Graf, on the 

job at an elementary school.
13

male students, seemed comfortable in asking me questions 

beyond the scope of the lessons that they were in the process 

of learning. They were very up-to-date on technology and 

events happening around the world. Tammy does not believe 

the saying that “anyone can teach the smart ones” and 

told me that my interaction with these students helped to 

maintain their attention.

I also turned to Luke Jackson for a different perspective on 

teaching physics in middle schools. He is the director of a 

program at FSU called Science on the Move. Luke drives a 

large truck to schools all over Leon and surrounding counties 

to assist in teaching science, most often physics. Though he 

works with elementary and high schools, he said that middle 

school teachers needing help with teaching science sought his 

help more than other teachers. Often the topics with which 

they need help are motion, forces, and energy. Luke is also the 

instructor of a summer workshop called Motion, Forces and Energy (MFE), which 

Mary and Tammy attended following their co-teaching experiences with me.

Luke had been a high school physics teacher in the Tallahassee area for nine years 

before the Science on the Move outreach program began. His previous classroom 

experience was a valuable asset before going to meet a fresh set of students almost 

every day. He knew the pitfalls to avoid and also what would keep the students 

interested. The program originated from the idea that some teachers in the 

community who are knowledgeable in physics may not have experience working with 

science equipment or that the equipment, especially high-tech equipment, may not be 

available to them for use in their classrooms.

Because of the vast amount of experience he gets in a variety of learning 

environments each year, I wanted to get Luke’s opinion on what he thought could be 

done to improve the way we teach physics in middle schools. Below is a summary of 

insights that I received from Luke, Mary, and Tammy. I also have included some of my 

own ideas to enhance teaching physics in middle schools.

What Can Be Done

Improvements need to be made in several facets of physics education for promoting 

the understanding of physics among the students in middle schools. Some suggestions 

are specific to enhancing physics education whereas others have a broader view to all 

of science teaching. 

What School Districts and Administration Can Do

In TMS1, teachers are grouped together into teams. Each team is comprised of a 

teacher from the following areas: science, reading, mathematics, and social studies. 

That is one of the reasons that Mary loves teaching at TMS1. In this type of group, 

science and mathematics teachers have the opportunity to collaborate and discuss 

the mathematics skills that may enhance or impede the pace of students’ learning in 

science class. 

Programs like Science on the Move are an immense help to science teachers, but the 

programs are available for a limited number of teaching appointments each week. For 

example, Science on the Move is available for no more than one week per class. Teachers 

need better access to science equipment, as well as training on how to use it. Rarely 

can a lecture get the concepts across to students better than a hands-on activity or 

experiment. Even if funds are available to buy new equipment, the teachers need proper 

training on how to use the equipment. Teachers are allowed to sign out equipment 

from Luke’s program but are often reluctant to do so because they are not comfortable 

enough with it to use it to facilitate learning in a classroom setting. A reasonable 

David teaching science to his 

fifth-grade science class.
14

solution might be a summer workshop focused on increasing the comfort level of 

middle school teachers in using specific, available physics equipment. Further, teachers 

may be more willing to attend these workshops if school administration demonstrates 

an interest in purchasing an adequate amount of equipment for the classroom.

Additionally, it is critical that teachers must feel comfortable with using technology 

within the classroom setting. Tammy enjoys using technology in her classroom. When 

I visited Tammy to interview her, she was beginning to work with an “active board.” 

She learned about it during a conference on the use of technology in the classroom. 

An active board works like a giant touch screen. It gives students feedback about what 

they are doing in comparison to an old-fashioned marker board. The Internet is yet 

another tool that offers students a wealth of information about science when they are 

given adequate access to computers and educationally appropriate websites. 

A problem that all teachers face is a lack of time to teach everything that they would 

like to teach. This becomes a larger problem when working with a large group 

of students on a lab. Students should have lab periods in blocks where they can 

continuously work on a lab and have ample time to finish it. Less than an hour is not 

enough time to set up a lab for an incoming class, clearly explain the instructions, 

complete the lab, and clean up for the next class. Schools need to recognize that 

science education requires varying lengths of time ranging from regular class hours 

for lectures to additional hours for hands-on activities and experiments and use 

alternative scheduling strategies accordingly.

After evaluating the two different eighth-grade classrooms in which I participated or 

taught, it is clear that the schools need to have strict guidelines regarding discipline. 

As teachers, we are convinced that every student has the potential to learn. The 

classroom should not have to accommodate students who repeatedly display a lack 

of interest in learning. School administrators need to make it clear to students that 

following an adequate number of warnings, they will be removed from the classroom 

if they continue to impede the learning process of other students. There is no good 

reason to allow a few students to ruin a good learning environment for other students 

who want to learn. After comparing TMS1 and TMS2, it was obvious that the 

students of TMS2 knew Tammy had a “no-nonsense” principal backing her decisions. 

This made the learning environment very relaxed since both the teacher and students 

knew the consequences that would result from bad behavior. 

What Teachers Can Do

Mary does a great job in the classroom of giving students individual jobs to make 

the classroom run more smoothly. She tries to employ Harry Wong’s techniques of 

classroom management7 that give the students a sense of purpose and investment in 

the classroom. For example, the students begin each class by answering a question 

that they could see on the FCAT. They write this question down with the answer in 

their science journals, which are handed out and collected by students who volunteer 

for the job. More time can be devoted to learning if students know their roles in the 

classroom and help tasks run smoothly rather than impede progress.

Summer workshops are already available to teachers in many content areas. Some 

of them even offer free equipment, college credit, or financial incentives to teachers 

who attend. Although Mary and Tammy did not become completely comfortable 

with every topic taught in the workshop that they attended, they were glad to revisit 

some of the topics, work with the equipment needed to teach the topics, and exchange 

ideas with other middle school teachers on how they could disseminate the science 

information to middle school students. 

While talking with Luke about how to maintain interest in physics among students, 

he surprised me with the simplicity of his answer. He said, “The learning cycle is the 

key.” Although everyone hears about the learning cycle during training to become a 

teacher, many of us forget its power when it comes time to apply it. If students are 
15

properly introduced to a topic, they are more likely to get excited about it and want 

to explore it further. This process helps teachers to hone the students’ understanding 

of concepts and then allow them to apply these skills towards problem solving or 

activities. Our GK−12 preparation course emphasized the use of the learning cycle, 

and, as teachers, we need to continually remind ourselves to restructure our lessons 

with this as an organizing principle. Following is an example of the cycle used in the 

classroom, the steps of the learning cycle are described in Table 1.

An Aside: An Example of Using the Learning Cycle

An opportunity to use the learning cycle took place while Mary and I were discussing 

how to incorporate some of the state-required science “benchmarks” regarding space 

into her curriculum. Mary does a very good job of discussing current science events 

in the news with the students. It is usually easy to find something recent about NASA, 

the Hubble telescope, or space exploration to talk about. Following a brief general 

discussion, we try to narrow the focus of the conversation in the direction we would 

like to go by offering an open-ended question such as “Does the Earth rotate or 

does it revolve? What’s the difference?” Without trying to give away the answers, we 

propose a set of questions for the students to investigate. 

The students were given a lamp without a shade, a plastic white ball on a stick, and 

some markers. Labeling different spots on the ball represents locations 

on Earth with the stick from the bottom being the Southern axis point. 

The lamp can be plugged in and turned on as their “sun.” Questions 

during this period are meant to guide the students and give them 

the chance to explore, discuss within their groups, and discover the 

answers. For example, the question is proposed, “Make a mark on your 

ball which represents Tallahassee. Now, how is the Earth positioned 

around the sun during summertime in Tallahassee?” Leaving several 

open questions like this on the blackboard or overhead projector, we 

leave the students to work and discuss with other members of their 

groups. At this point, we only try to mediate fruitful discussions while 

Mary and I patrol the classroom. The focus is not on answering the 

questions correctly but on thinking about science and problem solving. 

Later in this period, a smaller ball might be introduced to each group 

as a “moon.” The students are asked, “When you see a full, bright moon 

where do you think the Earth and moon are located in relation to each 

other and the sun?” Members from each group can learn from each 

other, which helps students who are not comfortable discussing with the entire class.

After enough time for exploring has been given, a break from the activity is called 

and the students are asked, “Did anyone come up with correct explanations to the 

questions?” Some students may call on previous knowledge they had of astronomy. 

Others may have misconceptions that need to be corrected. Mathematics can be 

added to the lesson by discussing a number of topics. “Is the Earth’s rotation axis 

closer to being perpendicular or parallel to its orbit around the sun? Is 23.5° an acute 

or obtuse angle? The Earth is 92 million miles from the sun. How many meters is that 

and how do scientists write large numbers like this?” This is also an excellent avenue 

to discuss concepts from geography. The students’ recent work with their model 

Earth-sun systems keeps their focus on learning as we introduce definitions and 

accurate concepts to compare with their own observations.

Armed with a clearer view of the material, the students are then asked to figure out a 

set of problems with their groups. “Using what you have learned, would Tallahassee 

get more daylight during the summer or winter? What about if you lived in Sydney, 

Australia? What time of year would provide the most daylight?” Using the complete 

learning cycle promotes interest, gives students the opportunity to think like 

scientists, and improves how much content they take away from a lesson and how 

long they remember it.

Tallahassee fifth-grader 

investigating NaCl through 

the lenses of a microscope.
16

1

2

3

4

Table 1. The Four Steps of the Learning Cycle

Steps: Description:

Invitation

Approaches such as demonstrations, discussions, and 

open questions can be used to prepare the class to 

learn. Links should be made between past and present 

lessons and activities. The goal is to focus the students’ 

attention to upcoming activities and the topic at hand 

as well as creating interest.

Exploration

Students become engaged in investigating the topic 

like scientists. The purpose it to search for answers, ask 

new questions and share their discoveries or ideas. The 

students should have some direction from the instructor 

but also have the freedom to uncover new ideas on 

their own.

Concept Introduction

Using the student interest to the teacher’s advantage, 

new concepts can be taught. Following the students’ 

opportunity to explore, preconceived notions can 

be addressed at this point. The students’ experiences 

can be used as the basis for clarifying the material and 

introducing formal vocabulary and definitions.

Application

The students should now be able to use the new ideas 

towards problem solving or continuing the cycle to a 

more advanced level. 

It is the responsibility of each teacher to seek out those who can help the students 

learn science better. If students have difficulty in writing laboratory reports for their 

work, the teacher might seek out an English teacher for help. If a teacher does not 

feel comfortable explaining atoms to his or her students, assistance is mostly likely 

available from a local university, online resource, or fellow instructor. For another 

example, students need to be able to measure distance, time, temperature, and mass 

properly for some physics experiments. They often understand how to use a scale to 

measure distance but express confusion in writing down their readings. Which unit 

should they use? Where does the decimal place go? This offers a good chance for the 

science and mathematics teachers to collaborate and discuss with the students the 

topic of significant digits. When I took mathematics and science classes, I did not 

know why the teacher would throw this disjointed topic into her course. Later, I saw 

that a partnership between mathematics and science teachers would have made the 

“how” and “why” of this topic come together.

Luke summed it up simply and accurately—teachers do not have to “re-invent the 

wheel” each time they address a topic. In other words, there are already mountains 

of materials and lessons available for almost every topic in physics. Finding Internet 

resources, consulting with other science teachers, and using activities from the 

textbook can actually yield good, ready-made lessons. As a result, teachers are free to 

use their time refining the lesson guided by the learning cycle, preparing explorations, 

and dealing with the many other responsibilities associated with teaching. Rather than 

trying to conceive completely original ideas, the focus should be on keeping students 

who are eager to learn on the correct path and inspiring those who are less motivated.8

What the Community Can Do

Nearly 10 years ago, Tammy had a professor who visited from Auburn University 

and worked with her class using light boxes. They learned about lenses, mirrors, and 
17

the properties of light rays. Since then, Tammy bought a set of light boxes for her 

classroom and currently teaches an extensive section each year about light, mirrors, 

and lenses. Without a friendly and thorough introduction to the topic, Tammy might 

not have pursued it further. Consequently, her students would have missed out. This 

really demonstrates a “trickle-down” effect of transfer of content knowledge from a 

skilled scientist to a teacher keen on learning.

Thus, universities offer rich academic resources to teachers who would like to develop 

a mastery of subject matter and teaching methods. Universities have numerous people 

available, who are trained at a high level to explain difficult topics in any branch 

of science. Often professors are happy to provide explanations and even work with 

teachers. TMS1 uses the Computer Assisted Personalized Approach (CAPA) to provide 

homework that is customized to each student’s level of performance. CAPA was 

initiated in the school by a FSU physics professor. The computer provides immediate 

feedback as to the number of questions that the student answered correctly and which 

topics the student needs to still study. This saves the teacher considerable time and 

again shows the results of a partnership between those who want to teach better and 

those who want to help.

I really liked one of the ideas that Mary shared. It would be nice if each teacher had a 

“science consultant” for assistance with difficult topics. Teachers would likely benefit 

from having a person who could come to their classroom before or after school 

several times each semester to discuss ways to use equipment and the approach to 

teaching a topic clearly. Mary and Tammy are wonderful teachers, so they might only 

need a person to assist them with the details of a topic. For example, every teacher 

understands that objects that are accelerating are speeding up, but they may be 

confused about appropriate units (i.e., m/s2). Even a quick e-mail would go a long 

way to clarify concepts for teachers and help them feel more confident about teaching 

difficult topics. Hopefully, more university professor/K−12 teacher collaborations will 

be one result of the GK−12 programs around the nation.

Both of my GK−12 co-teachers signed up for Luke’s MFE workshop for a small group 

of middle school teachers (approximately 20) to work with them on concepts of MFE. 

Mary attended the workshop the first time that Luke offered it in the summer following 

our co-teaching experience. Tammy attended the workshop in the following summer. 

Mary said that the workshop was not “an uplifting experience.” Though she was glad 

to spend some time reviewing material, she did not feel at ease in the “climate” of 

the workshop. The level of knowledge of the teachers attending the workshop varied 

widely. There were a few high school teachers on the roster who were very vocal about 

their quick comprehension of each topic. This did not encourage the middle school 

teachers, who would have liked a slower pace. Tammy had a similar experience when 

she was partnered with a former high school teacher who was already familiar with 

the subject matter. Mary worked in the workshop with teachers from her own school 

and enjoyed the camaraderie as she tried to learn. She only wished that the teachers 

were not rushed through the material. Tammy suggested switching partners more 

often so that they could take turns as teacher and student, depending on who was 

more comfortable with the material. 

In summary, every idea on enhancing the teaching of middle school physics points to 

the following key ideas: 

1. Teachers need training in both course content and with equipment.

2. Learning is greatly accelerated within the proper type of environment. 

3. Schools must provide resources and support to those who want to become better 

science teachers.
18

Notes and References

1. Lederman, L. (2001). Revolution in science education: Put physics first! Physics Today, 54(9), 11–12.

2. The TIMSS is a collaborative project, taking place every four years, by the International 

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The results of 2003 study 

are available at http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003.html.

3. National Commission of Mathematics and Science Teaching (NCMST) (2000, June). 

Before it’s to late. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn.

4. Results for each Florida public elementary, middle, and high school are available at 

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org.

5. The percentage of the students considered “economically disadvantaged” is based on how 

many students apply for free or discounted lunches at school.

6. Powell, K. (2003). Spare me the lecture. Nature, 425, 234–236.

7. Wong, H. (2001). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Mountain View, CA: 

Harry K. Wong Publications.

8. Carmichael, M. (2004). Stirring up science. Newsweek, 144, 54–55.

David explaining how the 

pulse magnet he is holding 

works during a tour of the 

Magnet Laboratory.

20
21

Impacts of the GK−12

Experience on the University

By Danielle Sherdan

Biographical information:

Danielle Sherdan

Ph. D. candidate in the Department of Biological Science 

at Florida State University

Dissertation Topic:

My dissertation research is part of a series of experiments testing 

a hypothesis regarding water-use efficiency in plants. Specifically, 

I am studying the effects of humidity on the expression of genes 

related to carbon metabolism in guard cells, the cells that regulate 

water loss and CO2 uptake by plants.

Why I chose my field:

Plant biology grabbed my interest while I was in a botany course as 

anundergraduate. I was amazed when I first saw plant cells under the

microscope. I became interested in understanding the complexity of

plant cells and plant physiology.

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

I enjoyed teaching as a teaching assistant at the university, and I wanted to share 

my passion for science with others. Also, I wanted to better understand human 

cognition.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

From the GK−12 program, I gained confidence in teaching and speaking, a better understanding of 

the nature of science, and a deepening and broadening of my science background. I also realized 

the science of education and ideas about ways that I can improve my teaching and social skills. I 

also learned much about human cognition. I am certain that this experience will positively impact 

my career and my life.

My Changing Perspectives Through GK−12

Just a few feet from the laboratory where I conduct plant-biology research as a 

Ph.D. candidate in biological science, there is a classroom where professors teach 

undergraduates and graduates upper-level biology classes. Over the past three years 

in my graduate training, I have been a fellow in the National Science Foundation 

Graduate Teaching Fellows in K−12 Education (NSF GK−12) program.1

 During this 

period, I have noticed a change in my perspectives on the events occurring in that 

biology classroom across the hall from my laboratory. 

My participation in the NSF GK−12 program and my training at the university have 

changed my ideas. Through the NSF GK−12 program, I am discovering the science 

of education and the value of effective teaching skills in science. Teaching strategies 

learned and practiced for effectively teaching K−12 students can be applied to all 

learning situations, whether K−12 or higher education. From the GK−12 experiences 

and the skills I have acquired, I feel inspired with these ideas and how I might bring 

these into the university classroom, in general, and how I can now communicate 

science more effectively. Now when I walk by that same university classroom and 

the professor is still standing in front of the class lecturing to a body of disengaged 

students, I realize that I can utilize the lessons I learned from the GK−12 experiences 

and bring them to college-level or any other teaching situation. 

GK–12 Fellow, Danielle Sherdan, 

excited about the new GK–12 

program.

GK–12 fellow, Danielle Sherdan, 

visiting the Smithsonian 

Museum of Natural History after 

participating in the GK–12 Annual 

Meeting in Arlington, VA, is 

fascinated by the morphological 

similarities evident in the skeletons 

of various animals on display.

GK–12 Fellow, Danielle Sherdan, 

listening to another Fellow’s idea.
22

Principles for Effective Learning

The principles of inquiry, engagement, and 

application are effective for learners of all ages. 

Instead of lecturing to students, elaboration among 

students within the class would be a more effective 

method for enhancing the learning environment. 

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) stresses 

that under conditions of high elaboration when 

individuals engage in thoughtful, effortful 

processing of arguments, individuals’ concepts alter 

through the process.2

Another issue of importance is how the professor 

chooses to assess his/her students’ understanding. 

Does the professor really expect to fairly assess what 

the students have or have not learned from a test 

that will be given weeks later? How are the professors 

assessing what the students have learned when they 

never assessed what the students knew at the start? 

Formative assessment can be a powerful way to both 

encourage learning and see the growth of students in terms of what they learned and 

how they can apply that learning to solving problems.3

Many university professors have never learned how to make adjustments to 

accommodate the diversity of learning styles that may exist in their classrooms. 

As a result, they are not successful in communicating their construction and 

understanding of massive amounts of knowledge. Expertise often negatively impacts 

teaching because it is difficult for an expert to anticipate what is easy and what is 

difficult for students to learn.4

Also relevant to the learning process is diversity in the modes of presentation 

utilized.5 The use of different methods of presentation makes the information 

available to a larger population and increases the possibility for enhanced learning. 

How we present material greatly influences students’ interest in the material.6

 In 

the GK−12 program, by working with several different K−12 teachers, I practiced 

and learned several approaches for engaging the students, for example, relating the 

concepts being presented to the students’ daily culture, such as what they watch 

on television or the sports in which they have interest. I discovered their interests 

through “fun” questions on their worksheets and by listening to their conversations. 

Other examples of engagement strategies include demonstrations (especially with 

unexpected results), hands-on explorations, challenging problems, and competitions. 

Even more effective is engaging interest in the context of what students already know 

and what students want to know.7, 6 To do this, university professors must begin to 

assess entry-level understanding. Students of colleges and universities enter courses 

with a range of prior knowledge, skills, beliefs, and concepts that significantly 

influence how they organize and interpret new information.4 I have learned that 

recognition of students’ preconceptions is vital to effective teaching because new 

understanding builds on the framework of previous knowledge. To form new 

conceptions, previous misconceptions must be identified and challenged causing 

students to question their current understanding and develop new understanding.4

Therefore, recognizing what students currently know is an important step to teaching. 

Furthermore, it is equally relevant to assess and question the effectiveness of the 

teaching strategies being used. I learned strategies to analyze classroom events to 

recognize effective teaching from my GK−12 experiences (e.g., when I worked with 

a K−12 teacher that was trying to become National Board certified, I saw how she 

assessed her teaching strategies). My experiences have supported the idea that “minds 

Observing and comparing 

different common fruits like an 

apple, grape, tomato, green 

bean, and peanut. Students were 

identifying parts of the fruit that 

correspond to previously learned 

parts of the flower.
23

that want to know, inquire.” You know you have engaged your students when 

they begin asking questions about the subject matter. 

Impacts on University Teaching

In this research-driven time for scientists, professors spend 15% less time 

on teaching than they did 30 years ago.8

 Professors need to become efficient 

and effective teachers for the benefit of their own careers, the departments 

and institutions in which they work, their students, their community, and 

the scientific enterprise. Education is at the top of the list of problems facing 

the United States.8

 The following are observations and ideas of how the 

NSF GK−12 program is impacting and will continue to impact universities, 

primarily university classrooms, now and in the future.

I think the changes in universities will be evident in the hiring of future faculty

members who have GK−12 experiences. Graduate students are in a great 

position to initiate long-term improvements in university teaching. Most 

graduate students spend at least some time teaching in the university and, 

therefore, can learn how to analyze and improve teaching skills and put those 

skills into practice. Graduate students can apply the skills they learn from the GK−12 

experience to their own learning and develop activities to communicate the concepts 

of science. For example, after making concept maps with the K−12 students with 

whom I was working, I found myself making a concept map to organize a seminar 

that I presented at the university.

Most current science graduate students do not have a set of effective teaching

strategies. However, as a result of engagement in the science of education, GK−12 

Fellows may be more apt to try new teaching strategies. The combination of teaching 

strategies and the skills to analyze classroom activities may result in some very effective 

learning enhancement tools.4 For example, after attempting to teach general 

science concepts, I realized that I needed to assess the depth and breadth 

of my knowledge and give myself opportunities to review and broaden my 

understanding of the concepts that I have learned throughout my education. 

Graduate students that participate in programs like the NSF GK−12 program

will be future higher-education faculty with enhanced knowledge of effective 

teaching strategies and ideas about how to implement the strategies. One 

outcome of the program that I have observed is graduate students in science 

redirecting their career paths towards education and away from science. 

Although this outcome may be viewed as a disadvantage to the scientific 

community, it is certainly an advantage to the education community.

In my experiences, one of the major complaints of university professors is that 

the students do not want to learn the material or that the students “do not care.” 

Many professors may not feel it is their responsibility to interest students or to 

excite them, but rather to be a source of information. Many professors feel that 

it is the responsibility of each student to learn, and of course this is true, but it 

is also the responsibility of each professor to provide a learning environment

that engages the learners.6

 Students enter the classroom with a certain level of 

understanding, but they do not necessarily understand why they need to know 

the concepts or how the concepts relate to either what they already know or how 

the concepts connect to real life situations. With new crops of recent doctoral 

graduates entering the workforce, I expect that the graduates of the NSF GK−12 

program will change the teaching culture within the universities as they are hired as 

tenure-track assistant professors.

When a student enters a classroom, the professor has usually already predetermined 

what and how s/he will teach the course. Since the student was not included in the 

decision-making process, there was no opportunity for transfer of ownership of 

Danielle Sherdan examining the 

sample of mosquito larvae used 

in discussion of life cycles in 

aquatic habitats.

Danielle Sherdan, GK–12 Fellow, 

showing a sample of Daphnia 

as part of the food web of an 

aquatic habitat.
24

the learning to the student, thereby resulting in low student participation.9 Action 

research indicates that students tend to be more participatory when they have some 

input into what they are going to do or study. Additionally, effective learning occurs 

when students want to learn, so teachers must first engage the students.4

The common, current processes for university teaching

are no longer effective for a student who has experienced 

effective inquiry-based and engaging teaching techniques. 

For instance, the following example demonstrates how 

engagement and inquiry can be brought into the university. 

One day I overheard the biology professor talking about 

sedimentation on the sea floor. Immediately, I thought 

each table in the classroom should have a jar that had been 

shaken before the class and allowed to settle during the class. 

This would be a simple way to allow the students to become 

more engaged in the discussion, and the students may then 

inquire about sedimentation because they are witnessing the 

process. In my experience, inquiry-based teaching results 

in genuine interest in the learning activity and in persistent 

and applicable knowledge. During the semester, I never 

observed the professor demonstrating anything, showing 

interesting pictures that might stimulate inquiry, utilizing the available media, 

mediating class discussions, or engaging the students. Participating in the GK−12 

program has enhanced my consciousness to be sensitive to the needs of the students. 

According to the National Research Council, many professors need to improve their 

teaching,10 so change must be initiated. Programs like the NSF GK−12 program, in 

which future faculty members are made aware of the science of education, represent 

one way to accomplish this goal hopefully leading to a chain reaction of educational 

improvements.4

Often, a major outcome of engaging students and addressing their preconceptions 

is developing their curiosity and further investigation during which students reason 

through new concepts. Usually, in universities, all of the hands-on opportunities 

occur in separate laboratory courses that are in many ways disconnected from 

the classroom concepts by being scheduled on different 

days, with different teachers, and usually without much 

connection to the lecture content. Currently, most of 

the college laboratories are “recipe” experiments that the 

students do not really need to understand to complete. 

The students are not genuinely interested in the outcome 

of these experiments, except for the grade. Students spend 

the laboratory session learning how to follow directions, 

and although this is a valuable lesson, it is not the primary 

objective of the activity. Practicing inquiry-based teaching

methods in the program has led me to conclude that 

students are more interested in experiments aimed at 

answering questions that the students themselves have 

asked and/or designed. David Ausubel’s theory states that 

“to learn meaningfully, individuals must choose to relate 

new knowledge to relevant concepts and suppositions they 

already know.”7

As a teaching assistant in the university, I had the opportunity to assist in teaching 

a course that was, in my opinion, exemplary in inquiry-based science and a good 

example of how these teaching strategies can be implemented in the university. We 

spent the first couple of weeks becoming familiar with the system through small 

challenges (e.g., “Can you figure out what is wrong with this mutant?”). Then, the 

inquiry began. Each student tried to determine the phenotype of a set of mutant 

Children drawing conclusions 

from experiments from a class on 

plant germination and growth.

Students testing for type of 

bacteria on coins from different 

parts of the world.
25

organisms for which the phenotypic alteration is already 

known but not revealed to students until they tried to 

determine them using observation of behavior and response 

to stimuli in comparison with a wild-type organism. After 

this challenge, each student was given a set of mutant 

organisms that hadn’t been studied beforehand to screen 

for phenotypic alterations in behavior and/or response to 

stimuli. Afterwards, each student formulated questions and 

hypotheses regarding the biological system that they were 

studying. Students designed and executed experiments to 

investigate their hypotheses regarding mutants that had 

previously been investigated or novel mutants identified 

during the mutant-screening activity. Finally, each student 

presented the experiment to the class and wrote a paper in 

scientific-journal format. 

Every semester that the university offers this course, I hear 

students talking to each other about their projects in the 

halls and in the laboratory. These interactions are vital to 

the learning process and are important for student social 

skills. These students are applying what they are learning to a real system in a real 

laboratory, doing novel experiments, and thinking scientifically. By the end of the 

course, the students are teaching the professor and teaching assistants something new. 

Now that is effective and rewarding teaching, and as a result, students are learning! 

Not only the students but also the professor benefit from this course. Each semester, 

students investigate mutants that may be of interest to the professor’s research team. 

When professors begin thinking about inquiry-based curriculum and the abilities 

of their students, they will be better able to design experiments that can incorporate 

undergraduates in research and teaching, also increasing funding opportunities.

In addition to enhancing the quality of education, 

enhancing teaching skills will positively impact science. 

When asked how the GK−12 program has impacted the 

GK−12 Fellows, one of the first responses is that it has 

improved the communication skills of the Fellows.11

Being able to effectively communicate at several levels of 

depth will result in effective communication of science, 

in both oral and written presentation formats.

In addition to enhancing the quality of education

in the university, experiences in K−12 classrooms 

for future faculty may also lead to development and 

enhancement of outreach programs that impact 

the community. These programs can help support 

university departments from the administration and 

through grants. The increased funding can provide employment and opportunities 

for undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. Outreach programs can have 

major impacts on the public’s perception of universities. Participation in GK−12 

experiences will provide experiences for graduate students and future faculty that can 

lead to strategies for implementing outreach ideas.

In summary, there is much that GK−12 Fellows can contribute to the universities when 

they become future science faculty. The first impact will come to individual universities 

and colleges that hire future faculty with GK−12 experience. Overall the Fellows will 

impact the overall quality of higher education in the nation. Such future faculty will 

assess their students’ prior knowledge so that they can direct their lessons and students’ 

learning. They will give the students problems that they may face in their everyday 

situations and encourage them to ask their own questions that they can explore in 

Utilizing a digital microscope 

connected to a laptop computer 

to encourage and motivate the 

students to look under a regular 

microscope. The student is 

actually looking at an ant.

Girls working together to 

characterize different parts

 of a plant.
26

inquiry-directed activities. Seldom do institution rules bind us, and when they do, they 

are usually regarding things that do not pertain to the procurement of knowledge but 

rather to grading policies, etc. So in my mind, let’s think beyond selecting a textbook 

and following it chapter by chapter and administering examinations in formats so 

commonly found. We can do better for our students and the future of our country.

Notes and References

1. The National Science Foundation Graduate Teaching Fellows in K−12 Education (NSF GK−12) 

program can be found online at www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5472&org=EH

R&from=home.

2. Guzzeti, B., & Hynd, C. (1998). Perspectives on conceptual change. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

3. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowski, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (2001). Knowing what students know: 

The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). Committee on Developments in 

Science of Learning and Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. How 

people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

5. Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. 

Education Research, 26, 4–9.

6. Markie, P. J. (1994). A professor’s duties: Ethical issues in college teaching. Lanham, MD: Rowan 

and Littlefield.

7. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press.

8. National Science Board (NSB). (2002). Science and engineering indicators—2002 (NSB-02-1). 

Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

9. Stringer, E. (2004). Action research in education. Columbus, OH: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

10. National Research Council (NRC). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and 

science in the classroom. M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Washington, DC: The National 

Academy Press.

11. This information is from personal communication with other Fellows at regional and 

national meetings.

GK–12 Fellow, 

Danielle Sherdan, 

while mentoring 

the young women, 

discusses the 

importance of crop 

species for humans.

28
29

Shifting Sands and Butterfly 

Gardens: Growing a 

Scientifically

Literate Society

By Mabry Gaboardi

Biographical information:

Mabry Gaboardi

Ph. D. candidate in the Department of Geological Sciences

at Florida State University

Dissertation Topic:

Stable Isotopic Applications for Evaluating Climate Change

Why I chose my field:

I actually chose science as my career in order to understand climate change and to help educate 

the public about how we are affecting our environment. 

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

I was excited to join this program to learn wonderful, creative ways of teaching science. 

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

I really gained an appreciation for why I, as a scientist, need to be actively involved in K−12 

science education.

Scientists in the university setting often ask, “Why is our government not using the 

data we produce to create better policy? How is it that our leaders seem to be ignoring 

our input?” I believe that part of the answer to these questions lies in the quality 

of science education our children receive in our public schools. If we do not teach 

children the fundamentals of science, how can we expect them to make informed 

decisions about science or the environment as adults? If children do not gain the 

necessary fundamentals in school, where can they learn them? Currently our schools 

perform below most other industrial nations in science and mathematics according 

to the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which tested 

students from 41 nations.1 How can we remedy this problem, 

and how will it affect the scientific literacy of our citizens?

Blank Stares

I have had the opportunity to teach earth science both 

to university undergraduates and to K−8 students who 

attend public schools in northern Florida. My first teaching

experience was as a graduate student in geology at a research

university. I began, as do most, armed with inexperience 

and no real guidance about how to teach or what to expect. 

I thoroughly enjoyed working with my students and found 

them to be quite capable learners but was shocked at their 

lack of prior knowledge about basic earth systems. Students 

either never learned fundamental concepts or they failed to 

remember them. They had become university students and 

potential voters with little understanding of their natural 

Boys looking for bugs under 

schoolyard stepping rounds.

GK-12 Fellow

Mabry Gaboardi.
30

surroundings. Furthermore, they did not have the necessary 

knowledge to think critically about scientific issues, including 

environmental issues, facing their community.

Throughout the four semesters that I taught undergraduate 

geology laboratories, I had the students discuss the following 

issues relevant to their community: 

1. How does the use of petroleum products affect our 

 environment? 

2. Is beach renourishment, the practice of dredging offshore 

sand to line the beaches, a good idea for a community? 

Most students were interested in these issues and lively discussion usually ensued; 

however, I often found that students did not use scientific reasoning to reach any sort 

of conclusion. When I redirected the discussion to the more basic concepts needed to 

analyze the issue, I only received blank stares. My students lacked prior knowledge of 

how natural systems work. I found them asking such questions as: 

1. Where do we obtain petroleum products? 

2. What other energy sources are there? 

3. From where does beach sand come in a natural setting? 

4. From where does river water come and where does it ultimately go?

This lack of understanding of fundamental concepts left me wondering, “How could 

a student make it to the university level and not have an idea about these natural 

systems and how they work?” Our assumptions about “what works” in science 

teaching is helping us become a nation of scientifically illiterate citizens who lack 

the understanding of earth systems so necessary for making sound scientific and 

environmental decisions.2 The United States has identified the problem, as outlined in 

the report A Nation at Risk: Before It’s Too Late.

1

 What can we do, and where do we start?

Teaching Methods: Process of Finding “What Works”

One thing that must change is the manner in which we teach science in the classroom. 

Scientists learn by creative exploration, experimentation, and reasoning.3

 Students do 

not learn by memorizing facts as isolated tidbits of information. It is easy for teachers 

to present facts, but presenting facts does not give students an understanding of the 

ever-evolving nature of real science and the process of discovery. 

Students as Stenographers

Much of my own science education was based on the lecture/memorize/test approach. 

In fact, when I remember many of my science classrooms I do not think of a laboratory

or an activity but of a darkened classroom with an overhead projector. I did learn 

quite a bit of information in some of my classes and did have teachers that really made 

me interested in the material, but I cannot say I truly grasped many whole concepts. 

I certainly did not understand the importance of system interrelatedness, and never 

did I view a scientist as part of a team jointly exploring a concept. Nevertheless, I was 

very adept at fact memorization. It took me a long time as a beginning scientist to 

understand the importance of creativity and communication in science and not to feel 

dread when asked a question I could not completely answer. The lecture/memorize/

test approach fails students in that it does not: 

1. Teach students to think analytically and creatively.

2. Give students an understanding of complex concepts and system interrelatedness.

3. Convey an understanding of the process of science or how scientific knowledge 

proceeds.

Measurements of plant growth in 

their soil fertility experiments.

The students 

mapping out 

the schoolyard 

ecology: 

sunlight, 

moisture, plant 

cover, and 

animals (A).

Pink petals and dissected flowers.
31

Wild Child

While we fail to engage our children in gaining an 

understanding of science with the lecture/memorize/

test approach, too much free exploration can be equally 

unproductive. With no assessment of prior knowledge, 

concept introduction, or guidance toward concept 

application (e.g., inclusion of all of the phases of the learning

cycle4), students may feel lost and discouraged. This occurred 

in one eighth-grade classroom that I happened to observe. 

The teacher, Lynn (pseudonym), wanted to do an interactive 

lesson about energy resources. She chose to pair the students 

and assign each pair a topic related to energy. Topics included 

renewable resources, non-renewable resources, petroleum, 

wind energy, solar energy, and tidal energy. 

Once Lynn assigned the topics, the students 

had about two hours in the computer 

laboratory to do free research on their 

respective areas. During the next class period 

she expected them to create a poster and 

prepare for a short class presentation. Lynn 

collaborated with the students’ language arts 

teacher so that the students also had time 

in that class to work on oral presentations 

and public speaking. Finally, the students 

presented the information that they learned 

on their topic to their peers. Lynn graded the 

students on science content and presentation 

ability. Most students received a 

“C” or below on their science content.

Lynn was very frustrated with the outcome of the students’ efforts. Why did this 

assignment fail to help students learn about energy resources? I think it was due to 

the lack of guidance and structure in the teaching. Had this activity been created 

with the learning cycle in mind, the students could have been much more focused in 

learning about a topic very important to their future. Instead, the students had no 

understanding of the context of their individual topics. They appeared confused by 

the complex information that they were expected to digest without 

having an appropriate background for understanding it. Most of their 

reports consisted of simply rewording websites (at best!) and often 

distorting the information due to lack of real understanding. Just 

before the presentations, I heard students asking questions like, “We 

just make oil in factories, right?” “Isn’t the tide caused by wind?” and 

“Is gasoline renewable?” Because Lynn had done no assessment of 

prior knowledge, she was not aware that the students lacked these basic 

ideas. With no invitation, exploration, and basic background content 

introduction before this application activity, the students could not 

put the information they discovered into any context with which they 

had experience. They did not connect the use of energy with their 

daily lives, could not see how this information might be valuable to them, and were, 

therefore, unable to understand the content they discovered. All of these combined to 

make the students very uninterested in the material. Lynn never helped the students 

to link these “tidbits” of information to central concepts. 

The activity resulted in confused, and sometimes embarrassed, students giving 

presentations that were full of misinformation. Lynn, very disheartened with the 

efforts, lectured the students about being more diligent learners without analyzing 

why the activity had failed. Importantly, she never cleared up the misinformation 

Girl drawing a picture of a 

caterpillar in the jar in front of her.

A child’s observations about a 

caterpillar.

Mabry (center) with Kathy (right) 

and Bonnie. Kathy supervised 

Mabry in her fourth- through fifthgrade classroom. Bonnie is the 

para-teacher who helped in the 

classroom. They are standing in 

front of the butterfly garden that 

the students planted.
32

delivered in the student presentations. The students had been given freedom 

to explore, yet this was not an effective learning experience for them. Although 

this activity sounded good on paper for its student-directed approach, it 

was not placed in the proper learning context for success. Had the teacher 

approached this activity differently, the students should have been able to 

answer the following questions: 

1. Where do we obtain petroleum products? 

2. Are they renewable? 

3. How do they compare to other forms of energy?

Unfortunately, as was obvious during the presentations, many of these students 

would begin driving and continue with their lives without ever understanding

that gasoline and other petroleum products are non-renewable resources. 

Minds-On Teaching: Depth and Breadth

Some balance must be met between the two above teaching approaches with a little 

of “what works” taken from each. Many teachers already engage students’ minds, thus 

teaching in a “minds-on” manner. Some teachers enable students to explore 

questions themselves and to learn how to design experiments to discover their 

own answers. This process is often referred to as inquiry5 or guided inquiry. 

The teacher is no longer a lecturer but a facilitator of discussion and leader in 

research. The teacher allows the student some freedom of creative thought, 

while supplying enough guidance for the student to reach a reasonable 

conclusion. In short, the teacher helps the students truly learn and understand 

the material.

Through the NSF GK−12 program, I had the opportunity to observe teachers 

using the inquiry-based teaching techniques. My favorite tools used to engage 

students were the learning cycle and theme-based curricula. These very powerful 

methods enable the students to gain both depth and breadth of understanding. 

The learning cycle is a useful tool for structuring activities to engage students 

and guide them into deeper comprehension of the concepts. Theme-based 

curricula allow the teacher to align these activities in such a manner that 

students move seamlessly from concept to concept, easily relating them to one another. 

In combination, these tools help students gain in-depth understanding of individual 

concepts and a greater appreciation for how these concepts are 

components of more complex systems.

I had the opportunity to use these two tools with fourth-, fifth-, and 

sixth-grade students and was amazed at how well they worked. These 

students performed better than my university students had! In the 

activity below, I worked with Jen, a beginning teacher of sixth-grade 

earth/space science. By using the learning cycle to structure the lesson 

that we created together, we were able to turn a simple demonstration 

into a true learning experience. I repeated the lesson with two other 

teachers, Kathy and Bonnie, teachers of a fourth- through fifth-grade 

class in another school. This time I quantitatively assessed how the 

students’ thinking changed.

Shifting Sands

In this activity, which we called Shifting Sands, Jen and I used a large pan, sand, 

pebbles, and water to explore the process of erosion. Inside the pan, we made a 

“mountain” of the sediments. We used wind (our breath) and water to show how 

sediments are eroded from higher elevations and transported to lower ones. Our 

goal was for the students to understand that the sand on our beaches in Florida 

had been eroded from rocks in the Appalachian Mountains and transported to the 

Kathy helping her students 

explore the pond in their 

schoolyard.

Two girls inspecting the plants in 

their schoolyard garden.

Jen and Mabry planning lessons 

they would use in Jen’s classroom.
33

beach by rivers. Jen and I used this information in a later lesson to describe part of 

the rock cycle. 

Before beginning the activity, we chose to briefly review the 

topics related to erosion that we had already explored with the 

class. Although our theme was not as elaborate as the one that 

I would use later with Kathy and Bonnie, Shifting Sands was 

to be part of a month-long unit on geology that we created. 

In the lessons prior to Shifting Sands, we explored sediment 

formation, physical weathering, and chemical weathering, so 

we started this lesson by reviewing those concepts.

During the invitation phase of this learning-cycle structured 

lesson, we asked students to recall observations they had made 

in their own life experiences. Had they ever been to a beach? If 

so, what size sediments did they observe there? We also tried to understand 

their prior knowledge by asking questions like, “How does sand get to the 

beaches in Florida?” “Where does this sand originate?” and “What brings 

the sand here?” In Jen’s class, though I did not quantify it, I observed that 

the overwhelming majority of the students originally felt that the sand 

came from the ocean, not from rocks in the mountains. I repeated this 

activity later with Kathy and Bonnie’s class and made a quantitative record 

of the students’ prior ideas. Out of 25 students, 13 thought the sand came 

from the ocean, 6 thought the sand came from rocks, 5 thought it came 

from shells, and 1 did not respond. When asked if sand and pebbles had the 

same source, 12 agreed and 13 disagreed.

After the initial invitation in the lesson, the students explored geological 

processes by blowing on the sediments to observe wind erosion and pouring water 

(precipitation) down the mountain to form eroding streams and rivers. We asked 

them to observe sediment size, and then predict and observe the following:

1. The distance that different sediment sizes were transported.

2. How velocity of wind or water affected the ability to transport different size 

sediments.

3. Whether sediments were transported uphill or downhill. 

After they had made observations, we introduced the term erosion 

and discussed how both wind and water can erode sediments. We also 

noted that water flows downhill due to gravity so that sediments are 

almost always carried to a lower elevation. We then asked the students 

to apply this knowledge to discover the source of the beach sand in 

Florida. Jen’s sixth-grade class unanimously said that the sand was the 

result of weathering and erosion of the Appalachians. In the fourththrough fifth-grade class, 23 students decided the sand came 

from rocks in the mountains, 2 still thought it came from 

the ocean, and none continued to believe that all of the 

sand at the beach came from shells. Furthermore, all 25 of 

the fourth- through fifth-graders concluded that sand and 

pebbles had the same source.

This lesson successfully helped the students answer the 

following questions:

1. From where does beach sand come in a natural setting?

2. From where does river water come and where does it 

ultimately go?

Mabry demonstrating wind 

erosion as part of the “Shifting 

Sands” activity.

Part of the “Shifting Sands” 

activity in which the student 

demonstrates precipitation 

on a mountain slope.

Making observations of 

plants and butterflies in their 

schoolyard garden.

Student drawing 

comparative 

anatomy of 

similar butterflies 

that he thinks

he might see

in the garden.
34

Butterfly Garden

When I repeated this lesson with the fourth- through 

fifth-grade students, it was as part of a different 

theme. Kathy and Bonnie used the overarching theme 

“Butterfly Garden” to tie in all curricula for their 

classroom during the nine-week period. In this unit, 

the students observed and researched butterflies, 

and then used this information to design and plant 

a butterfly garden at their school. We designed the 

science curriculum around this theme, linking all 

topics back to their garden.

The erosion activity described above helped the 

students explore the soil in their garden. They first 

analyzed and classified soil samples from each of their 

own yards, then worked through the erosion exercise 

to learn the source of sediments within those soils. 

In a follow-up activity, students planted seeds in each soil sample to decide what 

sediment combination would support the fastest plant growth. The relatedness of 

soil, flora, fauna, and climate was emphasized with a final unit on ecology, using the 

Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS) guide Schoolyard Ecology.

6

 By this 

point the students were familiar with many components of an ecosystem and could 

appreciate how these components interacted in their schoolyard. The class remained 

engaged throughout the theme because they could see how each activity would 

affect their butterfly garden. The end-of-theme field trip was a visit to a local nature 

preserve. Here the students absolutely amazed the park staff with their knowledge 

of butterflies and ecosystems. For me, it was priceless to hear the excitement of the 

students and observe their ability to learn science. 

A Little Help

Undoubtedly, the teachers must do much of the work to create inquiry-based, active 

learning, but most teachers are already overworked and under-funded. Without 

adequate help and easily accessible resources, teachers may find it impossible to revise 

their activities and keep current on scientific ideas. If we truly 

want to have a nation of excited young students learning to 

make informed decisions using science, we must all accept 

some responsibility. What can we do to help? 

In the University Setting

1. Faculty should use inquiry-based, active learning 

 within their teaching.

 University faculty members need to incorporate the 

learning cycle and themes in the classes they teach. 

This may introduce future science teachers to this style 

of teaching and will almost certainly improve their 

understanding of science content. Importantly, it will 

model the teaching style that we hope they will use and 

so influence their later teaching. Most of us did not 

learn this way, and as a result, this type of teaching can 

be challenging at first.7

 Faculty are often more familiar 

with direct teaching, but well-timed questions for small 

group discussion during lecture8

 and thought explorations 

before introducing new concepts can make even the 

lecture hall a richer learning environment.

Students exploring bug ecology in 

their schoolyard.

Students making observations 

about the butterfly life cycle using 

a butterfly tent in their classroom.

Three boys looking for eggs in the 

butterfly garden they planted.
35

2. Faculty should make themselves more accessible to

the community.

 Teachers need resources! What can university faculty

offer? Web pages are a great (and unintimidating) place 

to start. Incorporating an “ask the scientist” link on 

each faculty’s web page allows teachers or students to 

access a researcher’s expertise. It also helps members 

of the community make a connection with a local 

scientist. Additionally, including a brief write-up of each 

scientist’s research, created for the middle- or highschool level, would enable students to learn about what 

scientists actually do. Each department can choose an 

outreach coordinator and have his or her contact information included on the 

departmental web page. In the community, faculty can judge science fairs, give 

classroom presentations, and participate in neighborhood events. They may 

want to include in their presentations reasons why they 

enjoy science or why they went into their field of research. 

Before you can educate a child, you must first capture the 

child’s interest. Remember that this has the potential to 

affect the quality of the students that will eventually reach 

the university classroom and the citizens who will vote 

on important scientific and environmental issues. They 

may be the very ones deciding whether future science 

programs should receive funding.

3. Faculty should never let science education majors 

off easily!

 This does them and their future students a disservice. 

University faculty should never, ever, suggest that future 

teachers “don’t need to know that.” Science education

majors should receive just as thorough an education as 

any other science major. Faculty should set an example of what a scientist is and 

how science should be taught. The impression made on these future teachers may 

be perpetuated for the next 30 years in a public school classroom. 

In the Home Setting

1. Parents should pay attention to what their children are learning in 

science.

 Parents can find out what topics children are learning and, if possible, 

help children see how this information applies to them. For example, if 

they are learning about weather, make a point of watching the weather 

with them and observing how often the meteorologist was accurate in her 

prediction. How does it affect daily life? Check out the weather in other 

areas of the world and discuss how it can affect the children living there. 

Parents don’t need to be experts, but they should try to stimulate interest.

2. Take science-oriented field trips.

 By taking children on fun, science oriented-outings their interest in 

their natural environment can be encouraged. Many communities have 

natural history museums, aquariums, parks, or other science centers which cater 

to children. In addition, university camps, like the Saturday-at-the-Sea program at 

Florida State University, or other events where children can interact with scientists 

are great opportunities for them. Due to encouragement by the National Science 

Foundation, many university-related laboratories now engage in some form of 

science outreach as a public service. For example, the National High Magnetic 

Field Laboratory in Tallahassee hosts an open house every spring. During these 

Three girls recording their 

butterfly observations in their 

nature sketchbooks.

Girl showing a tiny frog that she 

collected as a part of a GEMS’ 

“Schoolyard Ecology” project.

Child’s comparison of monarch 

and painted lady butterflies.
36

events, scientists offer child-friendly displays and encourage children to ask 

questions and explore the facilities. Many of these field trips can be done on a 

small budget and some are even free. 

3. Parents should donate their time and/or supplies to 

the classroom.

 Teaching science in the way I have described often requires 

more preparation time and classroom supplies than 

traditional lecture methods. For the geology activities

described above, we needed a large tray, aluminum pie 

plates, chalk, lemon juice, sand, pebbles, and food coloring. 

These were inexpensive supplies, but meager classroom 

budgets may preclude even these. Furthermore, teachers 

must shop for supplies on their own time. Jen might not 

have been able to do this activity if I had not purchased 

the supplies through the NSF funded GK−12 budget. 

Parents can improve this situation by offering assistance in 

purchasing classroom supplies, especially small ones. It is a 

minor contribution that can go a long way for good public 

education. If their budget is tight, parents can offer their 

time to help prepare for hands-on activities.

As a Concerned Citizen

1. Volunteer.

 Volunteering is a great idea, especially for those who work in a science-related 

field. Even those uncomfortable with presenting or helping during an activity 

can still be a resource. They may have access to information or supplies that seem 

trivial to them but may be a treasure to a local teacher. Workplaces may even 

have some old supplies that can be donated. Individuals can simply call up a local 

school and mention their interest. A teacher will more than likely be grateful for 

the effort given.

2. Monitor local politicians’ views toward education and museum funding.

 All of us can let our representatives know we value science education. We can 

remind them that museums provide a unique learning atmosphere and have 

sparked the excitement of many future science enthusiasts. Unfortunately, 

funding for education and museums is not plentiful and must be approved by 

politicians. We need to assure them that use of our taxes to fund these programs 

is important to us. A vote for better education may later translate into votes for 

more informed scientific and environmental policy.

3. Show respect towards the teaching profession.

 The effort required to teach good science lessons day after day is 

huge (or to teach any lesson, for that matter). Most teachers are 

on their feet addressing the needs of their students all day long, 

even during their planning period and lunch. I was surprised at 

how absolutely exhausting I found teaching to be. Many have little 

time to institute innovative curricula, yet teachers who understand 

the importance of their profession are willing to do just that. On 

a personal note, I grew up in a family of teachers and remember 

waking up many nights to see my mother sitting at the kitchen table 

after midnight, still working on lessons or grading papers. Sixty- to 

eighty-hour workweeks are not uncommon for a dedicated teacher, 

and most of those hours do not include coffee or bathroom breaks. 

The reward for that dedication does not come in the form of a large 

paycheck. It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract bright, 

Student inspecting for eggs in her 

butterfly garden.

“It’s 

beautiful.”
37

dedicated young scientists into the teaching profession as many can find 

an easier job elsewhere, making more money and working fewer hours. 

If we expect to attract dedicated, educated teachers to improve out 

science education we must pay and respect them for the professionals 

they are!

We Are All Responsible!

Through the GK−12 program, the National Science Foundation is helping 

to improve the science education crisis in our country by establishing a connection 

between scientists and teachers. As a GK−12 Fellow, I gained a broader understanding

of the earth systems with which I worked, a clearer perspective of the nature of 

scientific inquiry, and a new excitement for why this information is important to the 

public. I will take with me a stronger commitment to enhancing the quality of science 

education that is offered to our children. It is easy to see that good science education 

at the elementary- and middle-school level can lead to better students in the 

university classes that I will be teaching. More importantly, good science education 

creates a nation that is capable of making better scientific and environmental policy. 

Armed with an understanding of science, our children will be better able to make 

decisions about the scientific and environmental issues that will affect them. We all 

have a responsibility to provide them with that education.

References

1. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000). Before 

it’s too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science 

Teaching for the 21st century. Washington DC: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department 

of Education.

2. DeLaughter, J. E., Stein, S., Stein, C. A., & Bain, K, R. (1998). Preconceptions abound among 

students in an introductory earth science course. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union, 79(36), 429, 432.

3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, 

and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

4. National Research Council (NRC) (2003). Common components shared by instructional models from 

inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

5. National Research Council (NRC) (2001). National science education standards. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.

6. Barrett, K., & Willard, C. (1998). Great explorations in math and science (GEMS): Schoolyard 

ecology. Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California.

7. Macala, J. (2003). Must we teach as we were taught? Retrieved December 7, 2003, from www.neiu.

edu/~ctc/dl_right0.htm.

8. Division of Instructional Development, Center for Teaching Excellence (2005). Effective classroom 

questioning. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from www.oir.uiuc.edu/did/docs/questioning.htm.

Child’s sketch of butterfly anatomy 

to compare two species.
38
39

Cooperative Group 

Learning in Inquiry-Based 

Science Activities 

By Katie McGhee

Biographical information:

Katie E. McGhee

Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Biological Science, Florida State 

University

Dissertation topic:

The role of social interactions and male aggressive behavior in sexual 

selection and mating success of a freshwater fish

Dissertation details:

I am a behavioral ecologist interested in the evolution of social 

behaviors in freshwater fish. In particular, I work on aggressive male 

interactions and the role they play in sexual selection. I am interested 

in understanding how these behaviors affect mating success as well as 

whether they have a genetic basis and are affected by abiotic and biotic aspects 

of the environment.

Why I chose my field:

I chose to work in the field of behavioral ecology because I am interested in how 

biotic and abiotic factors in the environment have led to the tremendous diversity 

of animal behaviors we see in nature. With my research, I feel I am contributing 

to our understanding of the complex interactions between animals and the natural 

world around us.

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

I applied for the GK−12 program because I wanted to introduce students to basic natural 

history, evolution, and ecology as well as foster in them a greater appreciation for nature. Young 

students have a natural curiosity and fascination with animals and the environment, and I wanted 

to nurture this.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

Participation in the GK−12 program has broadened my teaching style and encouraged me to 

modify my teaching to encompass several different approaches, to find creative ways to explore 

difficult concepts, and to incorporate interactive activities that allow students to investigate 

concepts on their own.

Introduction

Cooperative learning in groups can be a very positive experience for both students 

and teachers and can improve students’ learning, attendance, self-esteem, enjoyment 

of school, and social skills.

1,2,3 Research studies have shown that children often achieve 

higher scores, are more creative and insightful, and use higher-level reasoning skills

when working cooperatively in small groups rather than working competitively 

or individually.4,2,5 However, the design of a task or activity is crucial for effective 

cooperative learning.

6

 If the interdependence of students’ roles and the benefits of 

working together towards a common goal are not communicated clearly, effective 

group interactions and learning rarely occur.

Cooperative learning occurs when there is positive interdependence among student 

accomplishments so that students feel that reaching their own goals is dependent on 

the other students in the group reaching their particular goals.1

 In addition to positive 

interdependence, small group activities must also include face-face interaction among 

GK–12 Fellow, Katie McGhee in 

her biology research laboratory.

GK–12 Fellow, Katie McGhee, 

distributing “baby birds” to 

students in an evolution activity.

“Two heads are

better than one.” 

— Heywood
40

students, individual accountability for learning the material, and the use of 

appropriate interpersonal social skills by the students in order to be truly 

cooperative.2 If done correctly, the cooperative group setting encourages 

students to help each other learn and master the material, as well as conveys 

to students that learning is important and fun.3

Effective cooperative learning is perhaps most important in teaching subjects 

that are conceptual and complex, such as science, that require critical 

thinking, problem solving, and decision making.

2

 Scientific research is never 

done in isolation—it is a continual collaboration between people in which 

progress is dependent on information sharing and discussion7

 (NAS, 1995). 

Unfortunately, teachers often teach science as a process conducted by a single 

individual who either gets the “right” or “wrong” answer to a specific question, with 

right answers leading to progress and wrong answers being a waste of time. Teachers 

do not explain that right, wrong, and even unclear answers all play important roles in 

scientific research and contribute to our collective knowledge of the world and how it 

works. Teachers rarely teach that scientific discovery occurs by continually building on 

the ideas and findings of others. Progress is a result of the cooperation of many people, 

even across different disciplines, towards a common goal. 

Incorporating cooperative learning into science teaching allows students to explore 

and come to their own conclusions and in doing so, strengthens their understanding

of science concepts and their use of higher-level reasoning. In addition to knowledge 

in the sciences, students gain essential social skills, self-esteem, and positive feelings 

towards cooperation and group interactions. Cooperative learning helps motivate 

students and instills in them a greater confidence in tackling 

an area that they often view as difficult and boring. Use of 

cooperative learning in science teaching through inquirybased and interactive group activities, sets the stage for critical 

thinking and honest discussion,5 as well as an understanding 

of the true scientific process as it occurs in the “real world.”

In this chapter, I discuss observations conducted during 

a particular inquiry-based science activity performed by 

fifth-graders in small groups. I focus on observed behaviors 

and problems, student opinions on group work, potential 

techniques to minimize problems, and the benefits of using 

cooperative groups in teaching science at the 

K−12 and undergraduate levels.

Setting

I conducted these studies at Canopy Oaks 

Elementary School with Patty Ball’s fifthgrade science classes. At the point when 

I made the majority of the following 

observations, I had been visiting the classes 

as a GK−12 NSF Fellow once a week for 

three months.

This is a fairly new school (built in 1998) 

located in Northern Leon County in Florida 

and consists of pre-kindergarten to fifthgrade students. Each classroom is isolated from the others by walls, and the school 

is technologically advanced with computers and TV screens in each classroom. 

The number of students in each of the four fifth-grade classes ranged from 25−28 

students with an almost even mix of boys and girls. These children are from either 

single-parent homes or two-parent homes in which at least one of the parents is 

Students making observations 

and recording data from a 

GEMS “sink-float” activity.

Students recording behavior 

observations of salamanders.
41

working. The ethnic make-up of the four classes is approximately 

67%−75% Caucasian and 25%−33% African American with few other 

minorities. Desks in the classroom are arranged in groups of five or six 

although the children often work individually. Students are accustomed 

to working in groups during science experiments, and I had specifically 

worked with them in groups for other Great Explorations in Math and 

Science (GEMS—curricula developed at Lawrence Hall of Science at 

the University of California, Berkeley) activities such as Ooblek: What 

Do Scientists Do? The student groups consisted of students of mixed 

skill and achievement levels, as well as genders (although some groups 

were all boys or all girls) and ethnicities. 

Activity

Although I made similar observations during most of the interactive activities in my 

time in Ms. Ball’s classroom, this chapter concentrates on the behaviors observed 

during a “sink/float” activity. Both Ms. Ball and I participated in this particular activity 

during a GEMS teacher workshop during the previous summer, and based on our own 

experience, we were excited to try it with the students. In the previous science class, we 

introduced the students to the concept of density through an activity in which they 

added salt to water until an egg floated. The sink/float activity expands on the concept 

of density and seeks to have the students work through the common misconception 

that small objects float and large objects sink. It also allows students to make 

predictions about what they think will sink/float and 

then test their predictions. Students recorded their 

predictions, results, and interpretations on a data 

sheet I created (see page 47). 

After discussing what they had learned the previous 

day about density, the sink/float activity was 

described. In groups of four to six, students passed 

around each of the 12 objects and tried to come to 

a consensus on their predictions of what objects 

would sink or float. We used overlapping circles of 

yarns to enable the students to physically divide the 

objects into “sink,” “float,” or “unsure” categories. We 

encouraged the students to voice their ideas and try 

to convince others of their views by justifying them 

with clear reasoning. Ms. Ball and I circulated among 

the groups asking the students about their predictions 

and their reasoning. The students then took turns 

putting objects in the water to test their predictions. 

They recorded their results and answered some interpretive questions on their data 

sheet. After testing their predictions and completing the data sheet, students shared 

their group results with the rest of the class and Ms. Ball wrote a sink/float list on the 

blackboard. Students discussed and interpreted their findings together as a class. We 

divided the activity into three sections (i.e., predictions, testing predictions, results) 

with each section separated by instructions. In addition, we distributed resources

during each section. We distributed the data sheets and objects in section one and the 

bucket of water during section two. We removed the buckets of water in section three.

Observations During Sink/Float Activity

Making Predictions

Animated discussion occurred during this stage. Students used higher-level reasoning 

and past experience to justify their predictions. For example, some students had 

Students showing their 

artistic representation of 

the ship the Mimi from the 

story Voyage of the Mimi. 

Note their depictions of 

themselves on the boat 

and clouds.

GK–12 teacher Patty Ball with 

Katie McGhee, GK–12 Fellow, in 

the classroom.
42

“floating candles” at home; others remembered throwing a penny into a wishing 

fountain and seeing it sink; and others remembered the paperclip sinking into 

the Ooblek during that activity. Students did not realize they were using previous 

experience as a justification until Ms. Ball and I prompted them, but they understood 

the importance of this knowledge immediately. Most students discussed their different 

ideas at great length and had clear justifications and reasoning for their ideas. 

Most groups had a difficult time reaching a consensus about their predictions. Listening 

to each other’s opinions and arguments was frustrating for some students who would 

get impatient and interrupt. Other students were more patient and let others explain 

themselves. The most common objects students disagreed about were the candle and 

the string. Although initially and as we circulated among groups Ms. Ball and I stressed 

that students had to justify their predictions to one another and try to convince their 

group of their reasoning, some groups ignored those who disagreed with the majority 

stating, “Since this is a democracy, the majority rules.” Though it is easy to superficially 

settle disputes using “majority rules,” it does not promote learning or discussion, and 

students should uphold their opinion unless logically persuaded. When disagreements 

persisted, we gave students the opportunity to record their differing opinions. 

Testing Predictions

After groups completed their predictions and students filled out that portion of 

the data sheet, I explained to the class the next step: testing their predictions. We 

distributed buckets of water, and students were able to test their predictions by gently 

placing each object in the water and recording 

whether it sunk or floated. In order to promote 

participation by all students, Ms. Ball and I instructed 

the students to take turns testing the objects and 

to record their observations on their data sheets. 

Students were extremely excited about testing their 

predictions especially the highly debated objects that 

they had placed in the “unsure” category. 

Problems with taking turns to test the predictions

varied by group. All groups decided on the order 

and who would test which objects before testing 

began. After we gave permission to begin testing, 

many students frantically grabbed for an object as if 

they were afraid they would be left out. Some groups 

agreed on the order, and each student patiently waited 

for the student ahead of them to test his or her object. 

At the prompting of their group members, the next 

student tested his or her own object. Although few 

groups followed this type of fair protocol for the entire group, the ones who did were 

usually groups of close friends. 

The majority of the groups had at least one minor problem testing their predictions. 

Common issues included students who wanted to be the last one to go (in the few 

cases where this occurred, the student was female), students who wanted to test a 

particular object (usually the objects in the “unsure” category), students who went 

out of turn, or students who tested fewer than the others (there were not always 

two objects per student). These minor problems only slightly disrupted the group, 

and usually the activity resumed a minute or two later. Often, the group would 

get upset with a particular student for not following the agreed upon order or for 

“cheating” (testing more than his or her share of the objects, going out of turn, or 

stealing someone else’s object). These “trouble” students were often disruptive in 

other activities as well. In order to maintain order, which got out of hand a few times, 

Ms. Ball and I circulated among groups asking questions and encouraging forward 

progress while only staying a minute or two at any one group. 

GK–12 Fellow Katie McGhee and 

students discussing results of a 

GEMS “sink-float” activity.
43

Disagreeing and Sharing Results

At both the prediction and experimental stages, when students had different opinions, 

predictions, ideas about “fairness” or the “rules,” and were unwilling to compromise, 

the discussion sometimes elevated to an argument. Physical grabbing of an object or 

shoving often occurred when there were disagreements about who was going to test 

which object (the objects about which students were uncertain were often the most 

coveted) or the order in which students were going to test their objects. There was 

never a case where all members of the group were arguing different points. Instead, 

the group would divide into two camps or one student versus the rest of the group.

When it came time to see which members of the group were “right,” there was 

surprisingly little gloating. Most students simply stated they were right and moved 

on to the next step in the experiment. The students that ended up being “wrong” 

usually acknowledged happily that the other student was right and that they were 

way off. In some ways, being surprised was a good result. For example, after testing 

the predictions, students were not discussing which ones they were right about but 

which ones they were wrong about and how surprising it was! Often groups that had 

wrong predictions were the ones most excited about sharing their results with the rest 

of the class. Students were not reluctant to talk about their right or wrong answers in 

any way, and this is likely due to their experience doing inquiry-based and interactive 

science activities.

When groups had completed their experiments and students had completed their data 

sheets, the groups could then share their results with the class by stating what they 

found to float and sink and recording it on the board. The class discussed inconsistent 

results (e.g., some crayons sank while some floated) as well as results that differed 

across the day (e.g., the string only floated for the first class of the day), and students 

discussed possible explanations for these results. Although it is not necessary for 

groups to compete against one another to increase cooperation in the group, students 

will often make group comparisons informally. These comparisons can be important 

for increasing interdependence within a group and “group-support.” In addition, these 

types of comparisons do not lead to low self-esteem or negative feelings since groups 

containing both low-achievers and high-achievers make these comparisons. 

What Students Think About Cooperative Group Work

After completing the exercise, I asked two of the four classes how they felt 

about doing these types of activities in groups. In all the classes, there was 

agreement that groups were often more fun because you can talk with 

others, especially if you have friends in your group. In addition, all agreed 

that they did not like the arguing that often occurred during group work, 

especially when trying to reach a consensus. For example (all names have 

been changed):

What do you like about working in groups like this?

Paul: It’s fun. You get to talk to people and your friends. And you don’t 

have to be quiet.

John: You can get help if you need it.

Anne: If you don’t know the answer and need help, you can ask smart people in 

your group and they can help you.

Jack: You get more opinions and ideas. Sometimes people have different ideas.

Jennifer: You can test your hypothesis.

What do you not like about working in groups like this?

Anne: Arguing. There is sometimes a lot of arguing, and I don’t like that. 

Dean: Sometimes people don’t listen to your opinion and ignore your ideas. 

A student in Katie’s 

classroom.
44

Sara: Sometimes a person is too sensitive and pouts when they don’t get their way.

Christina: Sometimes people gang up on one person. If you have a different 

idea and the group thinks you’re wrong, they gang up on you. They won’t 

compromise. 

Theo: If the group won’t compromise, they put an object in “unsure” instead of 

making a choice on sink or float.

Anne: You don’t always like people in your group.

Sara: I don’t like being bossy, but I end up being the leader in a group.

Aaron: Sometimes one person will be the boss and the rest of the group doesn’t 

matter.

Although students had more to say on why they did not like group work than on 

why they did like group work, approximately 67% of the students in the surveyed 

classes preferred to work in groups rather than individually, and almost all 

preferred inquiry-based, group learning to a teacher demonstration of an activity.

Techniques to Reduce Problems

Group Assignments

Designating groups is often difficult, and there is no guaranteed way to assign students 

to a group to ensure cooperative learning. Teachers who work with small groups often 

find that groups formed based on friendship work better together and produce better 

work than groups formed based on other criteria.8 In the activity previously described, 

there was only one group formed entirely of male friends. However, it is impossible 

to have all groups formed entirely of friends. It should be noted that close friends 

in a larger group might form cliques from which other members of the group feel 

excluded or by whom they may be bullied. In some cases, peer groups may overwhelm 

independent thinkers and cause wrong ideas to persist.8 Perhaps it is best to separate 

close friends and distribute students throughout the classroom.

For effective cooperation and interactions to occur, the more difficult the concept 

or task, the smaller the groups should be.2

 In addition, groups should not consist 

of more than six students and all students must be able to see and 

reach the objects involved in the task to be able to actively participate.2

These groups should consist of students of mixed abilities to promote 

discussion, creativity, and peer teaching.

2

 Cooperative learning in such 

mixed groups allows students of all levels to feel successful by allowing 

low-achieving students to contribute while challenging bright students 

to explain the concepts to others.5

Differences of Opinion

Teaching students the difference between “not listening to your opinion” 

and “disagreeing with your opinion” is difficult but an essential concept. 

In the activity described here, one particular student, “Dean,” got very 

agitated that the group did not agree with him and interpreted it as the 

group ignoring or not listening to him. Most other students who could not convince 

their group of their opinions wrote down their own independent predictions; “Dean,” 

however, pouted and refused to participate for a few minutes, convinced that the 

group was not changing their predictions because they did not like him. He took 

their disagreement with his predictions personally. Some of the other group members 

attempted to coax him into participating by encouraging him to test a prediction or 

even volunteering one of their own objects for him to test. Perhaps these particular 

students were attempting to placate Dean in order for everyone to be included and 

the activity to continue. It is possible that these students had younger siblings who 

have behaved in a similar manner when they did not get their way. 

In an evolution activity, 

students acting as birds 

received a “baby bird” for 

every five beans they collected 

and gave to the GK–12 Fellow.

Girl observing fossils.
45

Perhaps one of the more difficult concepts for teachers to convey to 

students is that listening to someone’s idea does not mean you have 

to agree with it6 and that the converse is true. It is important for all 

students to have a non-judgmental environment in which to voice 

their opinions and accept those of others.6

 It is also important that 

students understand that it is okay to criticize and disagree with 

an idea, but that it is not okay to criticize a person for their ideas. 

Teachers are in a position to provide ways that group members can 

maintain their individuality and improve their role as a member of 

the group.9 If the teacher stresses a no-risk environment and respect 

within a group, meeting the needs of individuals can be done in a 

cooperative learning setting when all students work together.9

Distribution of Resources and Labor

Having enough objects or “jobs” so that students can take turns and all can participate 

is essential for cooperative learning in a small group setting. This alleviates much 

tension, especially that directed towards the most domineering students 

who the others often regard as bossy. Encouraging student collaboration

by distributing resources and equipment among students (resource 

interdependence) or dividing the labor of a common project among 

students (goal interdependence) results in positive interdependence and 

gives students the impression that they will get better results by working 

together.6, 1, 9 This division of resources and labor works well in today’s 

classroom in which there is limited time and teacher resources. 

Activity Parts

Breaking up the activity into smaller chunks (e.g., predictions, testing, 

results) separated by teacher instructions or material distribution so that 

the teacher can restore quiet in the classroom, helps calm students down 

and allows them to “start over” at each part of the activity. Some students, 

who were bossy in the first section, became subdued in the next section, perhaps 

because the others in their group got upset with their bossiness in the previous 

section. Other overlooked students often spoke up or participated more in the next 

section, perhaps because they didn’t want to be excluded. 

Cooperative Groups and Science Learning

My observations lead me to conclude that working in groups is extremely 

important for students not only in learning concepts but also in learning 

social skills. It teaches them sharing, patience, tolerance, and respect for 

others. Although many children work well in groups and sincerely try 

to help others, others do not seem to know how to compromise, make 

their opinion known without pouting, or follow directions. It would be 

interesting to investigate whether having siblings plays a role in learning 

how to compromise and work with others.

Cooperative learning promotes positive interaction, and these strategies 

should continue to be incorporated in early childhood classes to encourage 

sharing, taking turns, and enhancing children’s relationships with peers 

of different genders, races, and social groups.10 Instilling the feeling that 

more can be accomplished when you contribute as part of a group can help 

students in many of their school subjects, in addition to their “real-life” 

experiences. Cooperation is essential in almost any career, and students will be better 

equipped in their future the earlier they learn these skills. 

In terms of science and mathematics, students learn best when they can construct 

understandings based on their own experiences, when they can examine and solve, 

and when they can discover, prove, and communicate their own theories.

11 In other 

Students showing GK–12 Fellow 

Katie McGhee local fish they had 

identified from a field guide.

Students watching freshwater 

fish behavior.

Students recording behavioral 

observations of freshwater 

shrimp.
46

words, cooperative learning aids science learning. Without the ability to work with 

others, science does not progress at all. Communicating ideas, sharing results, and 

listening to different perspectives are crucial and part of what makes science so 

exciting. As the students in this activity acknowledged, sometimes it is better to work 

in groups because you get new ideas and you can get help when you do 

not know the answer. I think that activities that encourage students to 

work together and cooperate, perhaps in planning an experiment as well 

as executing it, help students get excited about science, learning, and 

discovery. In addition, group inquiry-based activities keep all students 

engaged throughout the entire learning process. 

In this day of rapid technological and biological advancements, it is 

important that students feel excited about science and remain interested 

in the subject area as they progress through school. Cooperative learning

helps students promote a positive attitude towards the subject area as 

well as continued motivation to learn about the subject in the future.2

The teacher is in a unique position to provide guidance and cooperatively 

designed science activities so that the students’ experiences with science, cooperation, 

and group work are ones that they will want to repeat again in the future.9

Cooperative Learning at the Undergraduate Level

Undergraduate teaching in universities rarely utilizes effective cooperative learning in 

the sciences. Although students may have a laboratory partner or group with whom 

they must work, it is primarily because of limited resources. The professor assesses 

work individually, and slower students are often left behind when faster group 

members rush through the experiments, dissections, and other activities in order 

to get out of the laboratory quickly. Using cooperative learning in exploration and 

learning of concepts, and especially in revealing common misconceptions, could be 

extremely helpful. It is perhaps at the undergraduate level when most misconceptions 

could be remedied and where this approach could be extremely rewarding. When 

students hear from the professor that things are a certain way, they may memorize it 

for a test but may not believe or truly understand it because of previous teachings in 

high school or earlier. Inquiry-based activities in a small group setting help expose 

these deep-rooted misconceptions and enable students to reconstruct on their own 

what is important. As with younger students, encouraging undergraduate students 

to work together positively rather than competing against one another could help 

students of all abilities by allowing low-achievers to contribute in being creative and 

voicing ideas and challenging high-achievers to explain difficult concepts to others. At 

an age when most students feel they are smarter than everyone else, using interactive 

groups to explore difficult concepts, design an experiment, gather data, and explain 

results to others could capitalize on this attitude by using it to help motivate students 

to learn and help each other. Although lesson and activity design can be challenging, 

allowing students to explore rather than support the information the teacher has just 

explained would be the most valuable for undergraduates. 

After working with elementary-school students, I think students of all ages would 

benefit from incorporating cooperative learning into inquiry-based science activities

with small groups. After a little nudging in the correct direction, students often 

progress at a faster pace and gain a more thorough understanding and mastery of 

the material in a cooperative group setting than in a lecture setting. It takes practice 

and thoughtful execution for the teacher or professor to develop science lessons that 

result in truly cooperative learning. However, the teacher can nurture the skills used 

in cooperative learning, and once students and teachers have experience in this type 

of learning, the teacher can hone these skills so that the students can build upon them 

for the rest of their lives, resulting in a lifelong appreciation for science, exploration, 

and teamwork.

Girl recording data from a fish 

behavior experiment.

Boy excited about marine 

invertebrate activity.
47

References

1. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1988). Cooperation in the classroom (revised). Edina, 

MN: Interaction Book.

2. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together & alone: Cooperative, competitive, and 

individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

3. Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative learning: Can students help students learn? Instructor, 96(7), 

74–78.

4. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), 

Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York: Praegar.

5. Featherstone, H. (Ed.) (1986). Cooperative learning. The Harvard Education Letter II, 5, 4–6.

6. Coelho, E. (1994). Learning together in the multicultural classroom. Markham, Ontario: Pipin.

7. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

8. Smith, L. M. (1973). Group processes in elementary & secondary schools. National Education 

Association of the United States.

9. Miel, A. (1952). Cooperative procedures in learning. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, 

Columbia University. Clinton, MA: The Colonial Press.

10. Lyman, L., & Foyle, H. (2002). Why try cooperative learning? The International Child and Youth 

Care Network, 38, 1–5.

11. Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across 

the curriculum. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

The sink/float activity expands 

on the concept of density and 

seeks to have the students 

work through the common 

misconception that small objects 

float and large objects sink. It 

also allows students to make 

predictions about what they 

think will sink/float and then 

test their predictions. Students 

recorded their predictions, 

results, and interpretations on 

a data sheet Katie McGhee, the 

GK–12 Fellow, created.
48
49

The Learning Cycle of

Classroom Management:

A Design for Producing 

an Effective Teacher

By Jocelyn Dudley

Biographical information:

Jocelyn Dudley

M.S. in Chemistry and Biochemistry, August 2005 from 

Florida State University

Why I chose my field:

My science teacher from high school, Mrs. Weida, and my father 

inspired me. Mrs. Weida made science so fun and engaging. I never 

had a dull moment in her class. As a child, all the toys that I received 

from my father were educational and mostly related to science and 

mathematics. He prepared me for my journey ahead in the science field. He made 

sure that I had the best and the latest technology in order to do well in school.

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

I wanted the opportunity to help my community and increase the interest in science 

by aiding the science teachers. 

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

I have realized that I would make a wonderful professor. I have gained the experience, the 

patience, and the tolerance to handle anything.

Ready to Teach

On the first day of class I was ready to teach. I had all of my lesson 

plans and assignments designed for three weeks, and the enthusiasm 

that I felt would last me a hundred years. Much to my chagrin, I soon 

learned that it takes more than just having lesson plans and activities

to teach. It takes patience, adaptability, good communication skills 

appropriate for that particular audience, and the ability to control

the mood of my students in the classroom. In the beginning, it was 

very difficult to try to teach science to my students when there was 

very little order in the classroom. I found that the major problem 

with me trying to be a good teacher was not that I was ill prepared, 

uncommunicative, impatient, or unable to adapt, but rather that I 

had a problem with classroom management. I had to find some way 

to take control of my classroom in order for me to teach. To do so, 

I had to implement careful planning of the procedures, routines,

and school policy for appropriate behavior. I had great mentors

and teachers who taught me how to gain the experience needed in 

managing a classroom. I observed and critiqued their management 

skills and personalized my own techniques. Most importantly, I 

learned that an effective teacher is one who has great classroom 

management skills. By maintaining control over the classroom, this 

decreased chaos and optimized the environment for learning. 

GK–12 Fellow Jocelyn Dudley.

GK–12 Fellow, 

Jocelyn Dudley, at 

graduation.

Jocelyn Dudley, GK–12 Fellow, 

sharing the fun of science.
50

My Role as a Scientist/Para-Educator

I participated in the National Science Foundation-funded GK−12 Program 

in which the GK−12 Fellows went into the educational community and aided 

the science teachers. Our goal was to improve the quality of science that we 

taught with the teacher through use of alternative teaching styles and inquiry. 

It was my pleasure to make science as exciting and interesting as possible. The 

ultimate goal was to try to capture the students’ attention and to encourage 

them to learn more science, and perhaps, pursue a career in the sciences. To 

show them that science was fun and attainable and that there are so many 

things to be discovered, I always tried to treat my students like little scientists in 

the making. I valued their thoughts and ideas and encouraged them to pursue 

the answers to their own questions. 

Good Teacher Versus Effective Teacher

As an educator, I learned that we wear many hats. We are classroom managers, 

communicators, counselors, role models, disciplinarians, conveyors of 

information, and other roles. Since we influence our students in so many ways, it is 

our job to vary our presentations and create a learning environment that addresses 

the individual learners. I have found that there are some great and 

wonderful teachers, and there are some teachers who lack the passion 

and capability to teach. 

What are the characteristics of a good teacher? A good teacher is 

very good at explaining information to the students at a level that 

the majority fully understands. She takes the time to willingly and 

patiently help those who do not understand the information. A good 

teacher has a wonderful sense of humor. She can make any room 

light up and ease the tension in the classroom. A good teacher likes 

people and is comfortable with the age group that she teaches. A 

good teacher is fair-minded, has common sense, and can make good 

decisions quickly and fairly. She is very knowledgeable in her field 

and is constantly learning new ideas that will vary the classroom 

environment so that the students can learn through inquiry. She sets 

high standards and expectations for her students and accepts nothing 

less than the best from them. She keeps the class focused and on task 

and manages her time wisely. 

How is an effective teacher different? I knew I had all the qualities of 

being a good teacher, but it takes more than good teaching and being 

knowledgeable in my field to be an effective teacher. It takes great 

management skills to make sure that the class stays on task, to decrease 

chaos, to have more time to engage in activities, and to increase the 

amount of learning in the classroom.1

 It takes an effective teacher. An 

effective teacher will spend more time in the beginning of the year 

managing the classroom in order to prevent classroom discipline 

problems later in the year. By taking control early in the school year 

and teaching the students procedures, routines, and the school policy, 

the students will know appropriate behavior and will maintain 

structure and order. Thus, more time can be spent on teaching, 

activities, and learning. This is where the problems lie with some teachers; they do not 

spend enough time going over procedures, routines, and school policies. Teachers are 

sometimes inconsistent with their methods of correcting behavior. Teachers need to 

realize that the majority of the bad behavior can be corrected very easily by practicing 

good classroom management. 

A future scientist!

GK–12 Fellow Jocelyn guiding the 

student in her own discovery.
51

Role of a Teacher

Classroom management is a process that should be 

considered in advance and constantly emphasized to the 

students. The role of the teacher is to manage the classroom. 

It is her job to enforce the routines and procedures and to 

avoid the problems before they start. It is very difficult for 

para-educators to teach students when there is no order 

in the classroom, no control, no structure, and, therefore, 

no learning takes place. The teacher must know what she 

wants and expects from her students. She must precisely 

convey her expectations to her students and communicate 

that clearly to her students. In order to reinforce her 

expectations, she can have the student sign a contract with 

her and forward a letter home for the parents to sign as well. 

The letter should consist of expectations and school policy 

and the consequences for not following them. Rewards for 

adherence to the guidelines should also be outlined. For 

more information about techniques and guidelines for 

classroom management, you can visit The Really Big List of 

Classroom Management Resources2 for an invaluable list of 

resources available.

Ideal Class Under Good Classroom 

Management

An example of a class with good management would be one that has the procedures, 

routines, school policy, and consequences for everything posted visibly for all students 

to see and read.3

 There would be a student center that would contain a pencil sharper, 

a homework collection drop box, a box for returned graded assignments, and an 

assignment folder listing all homework or in-class assignments for those who were 

absent. This way, if the student had been absent, all the student would have to 

do is go to the folder and see what work s/he had missed. The teacher should 

write the homework due for the next day in a consistent, visible place so that 

after the students arrive in class they can write down that day’s assignment 

in their agenda books. In order to control the beginning of class, a bell-work 

assignment, which is to be finished before the bell rings, should be available as 

the students enter the classroom. The quicker they come in, the more time they 

will have to complete the bell-work that will be graded. The objectives for the 

day should be written on the board. So, the first five minutes of class should 

consist of students coming in, placing homework in the homework drop box, 

the student helper passing out any graded work, the students writing their 

assignment in their agenda books, students completing their bell work, and 

students starting to review the day’s objectives while the teacher takes roll. If 

done properly, this saves a tremendous amount of time, maximizes the amount 

of learning, and minimizes the frequency of behavioral problems. The bell-work 

must be graded or the students will not do it and may spend their time talking.

Working in groups also calls for procedures and routines.

4

 As a scientist, I 

try to teach the students the process of investigation. The scientific method

consists of first observing and noting these observations, forming a hypothesis

to explain what they think is happening, performing experiments to test their 

hypothesis, collecting data, analyzing their results, and perhaps formulating 

new questions or developing a hypothesis based on the new data. The students will 

never fully conquer this task in one period nor gain the concept of that particular 

laboratory unless they are extremely focused and structured. For the laboratory, 

the teacher should place a container full of the materials needed to perform the 

Jocelyn was a role model for 

young girls like this one to pursue 

a career in science.

Girl recording data from the 

experiment, Analyzing Physical 

Properties.
52

laboratory in the center of the table. At first the students should 

not touch anything; the first step of the scientific method is to 

observe with their senses of sight, sound, smell, but never taste. 

Once this has been done and with the teacher’s permission, the 

students may touch the items and then must write down their 

observations and continue the steps of the scientific method. 

There should be someone to record, to collect the materials, to 

test the materials, and to return the materials and clean the area. 

The students will learn by inquiry and cooperative learning. 

They will learn to work together quietly and efficiently and to 

practice following directions, staying focused, presenting and 

communicating with peers, taking notes, and solving challenges

together. At the end of the laboratory, the students should write 

a summary of what they have learned and, if time permits, share 

their results with the class for an open discussion.

Learning Cycle of Classroom Management

The five Es of the learning cycle are to engage, explore, explain, extend, and 

evaluate.5

 The learning cycle can be applied to any learning environment. The first 

step of the cycle is engaging the learners. I will give 

you examples of what we did in our program when the 

GK−12 Fellows took a graduate-level course for credit 

on the Teaching and Learning of Science. During the 

engaging process, our class prepared us for what we 

might be faced with as scientists entering a classroom. 

We learned about such things as children’s mentality, 

learning styles, teaching styles, Florida Comprehensive 

Assessment Test (FCAT), assessments, classroom 

management, and other objectives. 

During the exploration stage of the class, we learned 

how to assess and to teach for different learning styles 

through watching a video of Harry Wong on classroom 

management, listening to guest speakers who provided 

inquiry activities, and having in-class discussions. Once 

we were teaching in the K−8 classrooms and aiding the 

teachers, the Fellows met to discuss our experiences and what we 

had learned, what we liked and disliked, and how we could try to 

improve those situations. We reflected on what we learned in the 

class and how we could influence the teachers on what we grasped 

from our class without confrontations. With every class I taught, 

I was able to improve my techniques of managing the classroom. 

This led to the extension and evaluation steps of the learning

cycle. We modified different techniques to suit our managing 

styles while making class as fun, exciting, and enthusiastic as 

possible. We reflected on what happened each day in our K−8 

classrooms as part of the evaluation step in the learning cycle.

We brought this model of the learning cycle into our K−8 classrooms to enhance student understanding and interest in science.

Observations of Teachers and Classroom 

Management

My first assignment was at Sealey Elementary School working with Mrs. O’Meara’s 

fourth-grade class. She was a wonderful, effective teacher. The students followed every 

Boy exploring and discovering 

endless possibilities.

Girl engaging 

in the 

scientific 

process of 

observation.

Children discussing their findings 

cooperatively in an inquiry 

experiment.
53

routine and procedure flawlessly, even when she was not there. For every 

laboratory we always finished on time, had time to summarize and discuss 

what was learned, and discussed other approaches that could have been 

done. She had great management skills from the beginning of class to the 

very end.

My second assignment was working in a sixth-grade class. This was my 

teacher’s second year of teaching. She had not quite developed efficient 

management skills and therefore lacked control over her class. It was 

extremely difficult to plan activities and perform laboratories when there 

was little structure.

Next, I had the pleasure of working with Mrs. Roberson’s sixth-grade class 

at Fairview Middle School. She was a very efficient teacher. I learned from 

her about structuring a classroom from A through Z and how to help the 

students take control of their own learning experiences. She was very good 

at making the students feel that they had a voice 

in what activities she implemented and asked for 

feedback from the students about the quality of 

new activities.

From the three teachers with whom I worked, 

the mentors within the GK−12 program, and the 

guidance of Harry Wong, I strongly feel that I 

have fully traveled the path of the learning cycle

of classroom management and have grasped the 

skills needed to be an effective teacher. The GK−12 

program was a wonderful experience that allowed 

me to expand my horizons and to aid the scientific 

community by preparing the young minds of today 

for the future tasks of tomorrow. 

References

1. Sandy, L. (n.d.). An effective teacher. Retrieved June 11, 

2005, from http://oz.plymouth.edu/~lsandy/effective.html.

2. Graduate Class: ED554 Modern Educational Practices, Monmouth University, West 

Long Branch, NJ (2000). The Really Big List of Classroom Management. Retrieved 

June 11, 2005, from http://drwilliampmartin.tripod.com/classm.html.

3. Wong, H., & Wong, R. (2002, October). Effective teaching. Teachers.Net Gazette, 

3(10). Retrieved June 11, 2005, from 

www.teachers.net/gazette/OCT02/

wong.html.

4. The Teacher’s Guide (n.d.). Classroom 

management. Retrieved June 11, 2005, 

from www.theteachersguide.com/

ClassManagement.htm.

5. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as 

inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee 

(Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning 

and teaching in science (pp. 20–43). 

Washington, DC: American Association 

for the Advancement of Science.

Girl reading directions 

in order to follow the 

procedure correctly.

Mrs. O’Meara, Jocelyn’s 

GK–12 Teacher, looking 

over her student’s work.

Amazed by science!

Girl collecting data and analyzing 

her results.
54
55

Better Lessons Through

Topic Research

By Heaya Summy

Biographical information:

Heaya Summy

Ph. D. candidate in the Department of Physics at Florida State 

University

Dissertation Topic:

Shell Model and Nuclear Structure

Why I chose my field:

The nucleus is the heart of the atom, and by solving some mysteries 

associated with it, new and useful science may be produced.

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

Having attended many public schools in the nation, I saw a need for some improvement in the 

teaching of science and math. Also, there have been some good examples of teaching styles that I 

felt should be perpetuated.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

By participating in the GK−12 program, I gained a deeper understanding of teacher-student 

dynamics and effective teaching methods.

Introduction 

As a product of America’s public school system, I am very 

interested in learning about the science education reform 

movement and contributing to possible improvements in 

science teaching and learning. There are many fine teachers 

at all grade levels, but the very best are the teachers who 

retain their inquisitive nature and try to continue to learn 

regardless of how long they have been teaching. During 

my time as a GK−12 Fellow, I have encountered many of 

these fabulous teachers and know how the teachers value 

the opportunity to show children that learning can be both 

fun and interesting. Since the teaching profession is such 

a critical one, I would like to provide some assistance and 

confidence to those who are teaching science outside of their 

fields of expertise.

There are a plethora of studies raising the alarm for the 

need to improve science education in the U.S.1,2,3; however, 

imposing new standards from classroom outsiders alone 

cannot extinguish the deficiency. The classroom element 

with the greatest influence is the teacher, thus definitive 

progress can only be made with his/her help. 

All high-performing countries show student gains between grades 3 and 4, and again 

between 7 and 8. The U.S. does not. Even in fourth grade, where the U.S. students 

do well relative to those in other countries, their performance in physical science

areas is weak, foreshadowing their average performance at eighth grade and their 

unacceptably poor showing at twelfth grade. When we compare our GK−12 schools 

and curricula in light of the TIMSS1

 results, we find many teachers lacking good 

content preparation and, in the aggregate, a muddled and superficial curriculum.

2

GK–12 Fellow Heaya Summy 

showing student how to read 

the thermometer.

GK–12 Fellow Heaya Summy at one 

of the GK–12 monthly meetings.
56

Based on my two years as a GK−12 Fellow, I perceive that what is needed most is 

something that has to be implemented by teachers themselves. Perhaps you have 

heard the expression “physician, heal thyself.” Along similar lines (but without 

the cynicism), I propose, “instructor, teach thyself.” When a teacher is unfamiliar 

or uncomfortable with a subject, it is easy to gloss over it, cover it poorly, or 

even eliminate it from the curriculum. Even with the time constraints of today’s 

classrooms, this does not have to be the case with the application of a little organized 

research on the part of the teacher.

Lesson Preparation 

Another contributing factor to the widening gap between the 

U.S. and other countries in their students’ performance in 

mathematics and science3

 may be the small amount of time being 

spent preparing to teach. In the U.S., most science teachers teach 

five to six periods of classes each day, have laboratory materials to 

get ready and put away themselves, meet with individual students 

and sometimes their parents, and have grading to do as well as 

lesson preparation. In other countries that are doing well in terms 

of their students’ performance in mathematics and science, their 

teachers have fewer classes to teach each day and have planning 

periods to work together to improve the lesson.3

In part due to this time and responsibility crunch, even specialized 

U.S. science teachers sometimes use activity sheets with their 

students without reading over the material beforehand to make 

sure that they are clear on the objectives and principles of the lesson. Thus, a teacher 

can at times introduce major ideas without a full understanding of the lesson, thereby 

presenting vague and/or incorrect fundamentals to the students. Although teaching

students incorrect information is a key issue, the main 

point I want to make is the lack of careful, thoughtful 

preparation of the lesson. Furthermore, this presentation 

is probably repeated to several classes during the day.

Today’s teachers have a myriad of administrative 

responsibilities in addition to their teaching duties. Most 

have an array of standards to cover to ensure students 

succeed in the high-stakes testing environment found 

in many states. This causes serious time constraints for 

many teachers. What I suggest may appear unattainable; 

however, I believe that if a teacher takes the time 

necessary to review the material and curricula available 

on the topics to be presented, he or she will end up saving 

time in the long run.

Topic Research Explained

Since knowledge is the difference between a teacher and a pupil, foremost to becoming 

a brilliant teacher is gaining familiarity with a lesson topic. Understanding the lesson 

can seem confusing at first because we may not initially have a feel for how much 

we need to know or where to even start in the search for knowledge. Hopefully, this 

chapter can serve as a reference source for those who feel overwhelmed by the prospect 

of researching science subject matter on their own. Topic research does not have to 

be a looming monolith waiting to fall and crush the unwary. The following are some 

guidelines that may help alleviate some of the anxiety attributable to preparing for a 

difficult science lesson.

Cooperative teaching with Heaya 

Summy, GK–12 Fellow, and Teresa 

Anderson, GK–12 Teacher.

Heaya teaching how to take 

temperature measurements.
57

Know Your Sources 

We need to discuss how to approach topics that are 

unfamiliar or uncomfortable for the reader. With this in 

mind, it is useful to start with some basic material, whether 

it be an activity out of a laboratory manual, a worksheet 

obtained at a teachers’ conference, or a guide to already 

researched and prepared activities (e.g., GEMS—Great 

Explorations in Math and Science4). Additionally, any quality 

material that contains the target subject makes our task of 

laying a foundation easier.

The textbook to be used with the students plus some 

additional comprehensive texts should be the first source of 

reference. Choosing a supplemental reference textbook is not 

problematic but should be done carefully before the school 

year begins. It could be the college textbook that the teacher 

used (for example, in my field, the freshman physics text or a 

text from the science area being taught). I found my college 

textbooks to be particularly useful even when I was teaching

elementary-school science during the GK−12 program. Other 

teachers or professors can be helpful in recommending a fundamental textbook if 

you are not sure what is available or useful. It is important to remember that you 

are not teaching from this text but learning enough to make yourself comfortable 

enough with the content material to prepare a good and accurate lesson appropriate 

for the grade level. Look in the index for the topic (e.g., energy, work, waves, lenses), 

and read as much as necessary to understand basic ideas. Develop questions on the 

subject matter as the reading progresses, and try to predict what sort of questions 

your students might ask. It may be necessary to look up additional terms and 

subjects in order to understand the main topic. Don’t go overboard here—only some 

background information is needed at this point. If the questions are not answered 

to your satisfaction with further reading, do not worry. There are 

plenty of other sources of information.

Take advantage of the golden age of the Internet in which we 

live. This may turn out to be one of your favorite sources of 

information. First, test out the various search engines in order to 

find the one that suits your needs. 

Table 1: Search Engines on the Internet

Google www.google.com

Netscape www.netscape.com

Lycos www.lycos.com

Altavista www.altavista.com

Yahoo www.yahoo.com

Excite www.excite.com

In Table 1 are some suggestions of search engines that you may 

utilize. Searching the Internet successfully is an acquired skill that 

may take a little practice. If good results are not obtained with 

the initial topic for which you searched, try transposing words or 

rewording the search. One caveat: be wary of the websites visited. 

Keep in mind that anyone with a computer can post material on the Internet; only 

gather information from reputable sites (e.g., universities, government, professional 

organizations, etc.).

Student examining his data chart.

Students composing a rap about 

heat energy. Heaya Summy, the 

GK–12 Fellow, and her GK–12 

Teacher allowed the students 

to do this after the class was 

completed and just before the 

bell rang. The students paid 

attention, as they knew they had 

the opportunity to apply the 

science vocabulary to their song.
58

The Web can do more than just detail content background for your topic. It may 

provide lesson or activity ideas, post good test/quiz questions or other assessments, or 

provide interactive sites that your students can use (some of these are especially well 

developed). It can be an invaluable tool in learning details of various things not easily 

found anywhere else. Some examples of useful physics related websites are listed in 

Table 2. Included at the end is my GK−12 Web page that is still under construction.

Table 2: Physics Resource Websites

States of Matter • www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_states.html

• www.harcourtschool.com/activity/states_of_matter 

(interactive)

• www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/atoms/states.html

Forces, Vectors, 

and Newton’s 

Laws of Motion

• http://sciencespot.net/Pages/kdzphysics.html

• www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/vectoc.html

• www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/

newtltoc.html

Work, Energy, and 

Power

• www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/energy/

energtoc.html

• http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

Heaya Summy’s 

GK−12 Web page • http://comphy.fsu.edu/~hsummy/GK12/index.html

For additional information, as a final step, ask other teachers 

and scientists for any needed clarifications. If you do not have 

rapport with a knowledgeable scientist or science educator, 

why not send an e-mail to an appropriately positioned 

professor at your local college or university detailing your 

question? I recommend directing questions to more than 

one professor, in case the first is extremely busy at the time of 

your inquiry. Make sure to let the professors know who you 

are in case their own children attended, are attending, or will 

attend your school, then who knows how much help you will 

get! Many are very willing to aid teachers. After a couple of 

e-mails, a useful new relationship may become established. If 

you cannot find someone to help you after this, type, “ask a 

scientist” into your Internet search engine and access online 

assistance from sites maintained by practicing scientists.

Using the finished product of activities, lesson plans, and 

curricula of your colleagues that are published on public 

school sites on the Internet can save a considerable amount 

of time. There are numerous already prepared items ready for 

immediate use. Your colleagues in the public school system

have already time-tested most of these ideas, and it would be 

to your great advantage to utilize these resources.

Get It Together! 

Most likely, it will not be necessary to go through every 

step outlined above. Also, since each teacher has individual 

strengths and weaknesses, you will probably find that you 

have preferences in regards to the order of the steps and the 

amount of time to spend on each step. Tailoring these ideas to your personal style 

optimizes the benefit of this guide. The section entitled “Application in Practice” 

lists some GK−12 teachers with whom I have worked and their talents that most 

impressed me.

Students engaged by 

teacher’s explanation.

Students taking temperature 

measurements.
59

Another requirement for successful implementation of this guideline is early 

preparation. It is not clear from the beginning how many days it will take to get your 

questions answered, so it is better to start sooner rather than later. This does not mean 

that it will take you a long time to actually prepare the lesson, but for instance, you 

may have to wait longer than you expected for an e-mail reply.

The first time you research a subject will take the most time. After going though it 

once, you will bring that information with you in the next school year. The best time 

to begin your research might be during the summer or breaks (like winter or spring 

break). Consider too, that simply listening to students’ questions or noticing their 

points of confusion can often help to re-evaluate the lesson and improve it. Also 

encourage your students to find the answers through inquiry, either in the laboratory

or through the Internet. After teaching the lesson once, it is much easier to revise, 

improve, and re-use in subsequent years. Select a few lessons to develop each year 

until you have a full toolbox of strong science lessons and confidence in their content.

Application in Practice

As mentioned in the previous section, every teacher has natural strengths. In this 

section, I mention some of the strengths of the teachers with whom I have worked. 

Developing similar strengths could be useful for you in helping to produce good lessons.

I had the pleasure of working with 

two wonderful teachers at W.T. Moore 

Elementary School. My first assignment 

was with a third-grade class working with 

a highly talented and remarkable teacher, 

Roberta Hudgins. Her most unique and 

rare strengths are her ability to utilize many 

resources to the maximum advantage and 

to deliver a potent lesson. Even as a teacher 

with expert experience, she spends much 

of her own time perusing bookstores for 

fresh ideas to make lessons more fun and 

interesting for her students, and she is 

eager to learn new things to share with her 

students. Roberta practices critical thinking

during class discussions and often asks 

insightful and thought-provoking questions. Sometimes she would ask me questions 

that I would have to go home and think about overnight before attempting to answer 

in any sensible manner.

My second assignment took me to Fairview Middle School where I worked with 

Theresa Anderson and her eighth-grade classes. Even though her physical science

classes are filled with difficult preteens who do not necessarily want to be in school, 

Theresa is able to hold order in her classroom and successfully reach out to the 

students. She attends many workshops, staying alert for laboratory and other 

materials to interest the students in science. Her position requires a delicate balance 

of challenging the students to learn while keeping attrition to a minimum.

The next assignment was again at W.T. Moore with Nancy Long’s fifth-grade class. 

Nancy knows the value of science laboratory materials, which is a big benefit for 

her students. She is very organized with her equipment and keeps good supplies 

so that we could do practically any experiment or laboratory exercise desirable. It 

was enjoyable to develop activities and curriculum with a positive and cooperative 

teacher such as Nancy. 

Students taking timed data.
60

Currently, I am finishing my last assignment with Teresa 

Callahan at Raa Middle School. One of Teresa’s eighthgrade classes is for advanced or “gifted” students, so there 

is an added challenge of planning lessons at two different 

levels. Teresa is amazingly resourceful and committed to 

conveying meaningful science to her students. She is well 

known for holding yard sales in order to raise money for 

science laboratory supplies. She scopes many sources for 

information and helpful teaching aids and approaches 

her lessons from multiple directions for effectiveness and 

thoroughness. 

Skills and talents among teachers are ideally multifaceted 

and can be honed to encompass more and more methods 

of teaching. Increasing our skills should ultimately have 

the effect of perfecting our teaching styles.

Final Remarks 

Even as teachers, we remain students. Learning is a lifelong 

process that always holds possibilities of excitement and 

reward. It is uplifting to see the wonderful attitudes of the 

public school teachers with whom I have worked in the 

GK−12 Program. These teachers were delightful and openminded. They were willing both to share their skills with me and to learn from me 

new ideas and techniques for communicating science to their students. I owe them a 

debt of gratitude that I hope to repay by continuing my work with other teachers as I 

proceed through my science career.

I also hope this guide will prove helpful not only to the teachers who have had the 

assistance of GK−12 fellows but also to the teachers who have not had any extra help 

in their classrooms. My public school teachers have made all the difference in my 

career choices. To all teachers, I want to again emphasize how important your work is 

and to ask that you never give up the quest for knowledge and/or desire to pass it on 

to your students.

Notes and References

1. For details on TIMSS methodology and findings, see Schmidt W. H. et al. (1996). Characterizing 

pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Dordrecht, 

the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. See also, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997, 

June). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. fourth-grade mathematics and science achievement 

in international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (NCES 97255). See 

also, Mullis, I.V.S. et al. (1998, February). Mathematics and science achievement in the final 

year of secondary school: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study. Chestnut 

Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center. The Commissioner of Education Statistics has 

also responded to criticisms of the TIMSS methodology and interpretation of findings. See, 

Center for Education Reform and Empower America. (1998). Achievement in the United States: 

Progress since a nation at risk? Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education, also online at http://nces.ed.gov.

2. National Science Board Report on Mathematics and Science Achievement (1999). Preparing 

our children: Math and science education in the national interest (NSB 99-31). Retrieved June 

12, 2005, from www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1999/nsb9931/nsb9931.htm.

3. National Commission of Mathematics and Science Teaching (NCMST) (2000, June). Before it’s 

too late. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn.

4. GEMS—Great Explorations in Math and Science can be found online at www.lhsgems.org/

gems.html.

Students working together in 

chemistry/physics laboratory to 

generate their data.

62
63

Lessons Learned From the 

Partnership of a GK−12 Fellow 

and a Third-Grade Teacher

By Wendy J. Walton and Roberta Trowbridge

Biographical information:

Wendy Walton

Ph. D. candidate in the interdisciplinary program in Molecular 

Biophysics at Florida State University

Dissertation Topic:

I study glycoprotein biochemistry. Glycoproteins are proteins 

that contain carbohydrates, and I am interested in the function of 

carbohydrates on glycoproteins.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

I really enjoyed the GK−12 program. Even though it was a lot of extra 

work, I learned so much about so many disciplines of science. I have a new appreciation for 

space science, and I also feel like I relearned everything I had forgotten from elementary school 

science. I hope that I will be able to work with K−5 schools sometime again. It was a gratifying 

experience, and I hope it helps spawn more scientists from America, because American scientists 

are truly needed.

Biographical information:

Roberta Trowbridge

Area of expertise:

I am a third-grade teacher at W.T. Moore Elementary School in 

Tallahassee, Florida.

Why I chose my field:

I have always been a compassionate person and a person who 

wanted to help others. I became interested in teaching students 

with disabilities after meeting my first college roommate who was 

blind. It amazed me how she was able to function in a sighted 

world and how difficult even daily living could be. After I made the decision to major in the 

Visual Disabilities area of Special Education, my father advised me to earn a degree in Elementary 

Education as well. While teaching, I decided to take advantage of living near a university and spent 

the next several years working on my Masters Degree in Early Childhood Education before the birth 

of my daughter.

Why I applied for the GK−12 program:

I became interested in the GK−12 program while attending a GEMS workshop. I was hoping 

that someone could assist me in narrowing down what I needed to present about science to

the students. I also wanted to learn motivating ways to teach science.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

Team teaching with Ms. Walton and participating in the GK−12 program afforded me the 

opportunity to provide a high-quality, effective science experience for all students in my 

classroom.

As described in the first chapter of this monograph by Dr. Granger, the GK−12 

fellowship at Florida State University is an NSF-sponsored program that places 

the science graduate students in public school classrooms at elementary or middle 

schools. Most of the GK−12 Fellows aid the teachers with activity- and inquiry-based

lessons in science. This chapter describes the cooperative learning of science and 

Wendy is a Ph.D. candidate 

in Molecular Biophysics and 

has been a GK–12 Fellow for 

three years.

Roberta Trowbridge is a thirdgrade teacher who supervised 

GK–12 Fellow Wendy Walton. 

The two co-taught together in 

a very productive way.
64

science teaching between one of the authors, Roberta Trowbridge (a teacher), and the 

other, Wendy Walton (a GK−12 Fellow). The information presented in this chapter 

comes from written questionnaires, and the chapter describes our interactions and 

lessons learned during one semester.

Roberta Trowbridge is currently a third-grade teacher. She has a B.S. in elementary 

education and visual disabilities (K−12) and a M.A. in early childhood education. She 

has taught in several areas in her 24 years of teaching: special education (i.e., visually 

impaired, hearing impaired, as well as the multi-handicapped), first grade, second 

grade, and third grade. Roberta learned about the NSF GK−12 program during her 

participation in a Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS) workshop during 

the summer of 2003. Dr. Granger mentioned the program in passing, and by the 

end of the day, Roberta was volunteering. Initially, she did not know what to expect 

and was just thrilled to have a willing individual come into her classroom and be an 

extra set of hands. She was hoping that someone could assist her in narrowing down 

what she needed to present about science to the students. She also wanted to learn 

motivating ways to teach science.

Wendy Walton is currently a fifth-year graduate student working on her Ph.D. in 

molecular biophysics. She has a B.S. and M.S. in biology. She started her research

career with aquatic toxicology as an 

undergraduate, and after her B.S., 

she worked as an environmental 

chemist for one year. Afterwards, 

she spent three years working on her 

M.S. where her research focused on 

glycoprotein hormone biochemistry. 

Her current research focuses on 

a neuronal glycoprotein. Wendy’s 

teaching experience consisted of two 

undergraduate cell biology laboratories 

and one undergraduate microbiology 

laboratory during her time working 

on her M.S. thesis. During the GK−12 

Fellowship, Wendy helped teach 

third- and fifth-grade science, as well 

as seventh-grade life science. The 

semester with Roberta Trowbridge was 

Wendy’s second GK−12, semester-long 

assignment. Wendy originally found 

out about the GK−12 program from 

her research advisor, Dr. Timothy 

Logan, who encouraged her to apply. 

She was hoping to make an impact on 

children by increasing their interest in 

science and by making science fun for 

them. As she progressed though the 

program, she focused more on enabling 

the teachers to create engaging ways to 

present science. 

Constructing Lessons

We worked closely with another 

teacher and another GK−12 fellow in 

the third-grade classroom next door. We met for planning approximately one week 

before we taught a new unit. Roberta and the other teacher were ready with lesson 

Wendy Walton, GK–12 

Fellow for three years.

“I love science.” A student 

remembers our trip to identify 

the schoolyard trees.
65

suggestions during these planning 

sessions, which moved things 

along quickly. We planned most 

lessons to include Florida’s teaching

standards, the Sunshine State 

Standards (which are not unlike 

those in many U.S. states). The two 

teachers listed available activities

appropriate for third-graders 

from several sources: their text,1

Great Explorations in Math and 

Science (GEMS) guides, Activities 

Integrating Math and Science

(AIMS) guides, other commercially 

available lesson books, and the 

Internet. The other Fellow, Heaya 

Summy, and Wendy looked over the 

activities and decided which ones 

to pursue, based on whether or not 

the materials needed were available 

and the activity clearly illustrated 

the standard of interest. Fortunately, 

the school science laboratory had 

many supplies available. Roberta 

provided most of the disposable 

items such as cups, spoons, and 

starch. We also asked the students to 

bring in materials from home when 

appropriate. 

We used a variety of methods 

to convey information such as 

reading, writing, and hands-on

inquiry activities. When possible we 

incorporated mathematics and art into the science lesson. We also reinforced material 

with movies on a few occasions. Roberta and Wendy both agreed that there is not one 

way of teaching science that works best in all instances. Roberta added: 

Every approach has its place in the teaching of science. In the early 

stages of learning about a new topic, exploration and hands-on seem 

to be the best approach. Demonstration and lectures also have a place 

in the process. Science does not have to be taught from a textbook or 

in a classroom lecture setting. Science is everywhere, and we should 

be aware of our surroundings and be able to relate what we see in our 

environment back to things we may have learned in units previously 

taught. I also think that we should not end a unit, never to discuss it 

again for the entire year if a natural learning situation should occur 

related to the topic. 

Roberta, a constructivist teacher, believes that learning is a complex process that 

develops from previous knowledge.2

We covered the standards on life science, space science, matter, and energy in our 

semester together. The next semester, Roberta finished force and motion, earth 

science, and ecology by herself. Table 1 is a list of the activities used in one semester 

of third-grade science. For each activity, we list the Sunshine State Standard (e.g., 

SC.F.1.2.3) and the reference but do not include the pre-tests, tests, lectures, 

worksheets, movies, and reading materials also used in the science lessons. 

Learning about planets.

Wendy is showing Roberta’s 

students some neat websites 

on space.
66

Table 1. Calendar of activities Sunshine 

State 

Standards

Weeks 1−2: GEMS: Treasure Boxes3

Weeks 3−7: Life science and ecology 

Family/species matching game SC.F.1.2.3

Protists and microscopes SC.F.1.2.4

Worming their way home SC.G.1.2.21

Exploring schoolyard trees with tree field guides SC.F.1.2.3

Weeks 8−11: Space science

Day, night, and seasons demonstration with a globe4

SC.F.1.2.3 Solar eclipse demonstration with sun, earth, and 

moon model

Star box construction SC.E.2.2.14

Solar system picture (art) SC.E.1.2.5

Star book

SC.E.1.2.34

Lunar eclipse demonstration with model

Moonlight demonstration with foam ball and a 

flashlight

Making moon craters using a sandbox, ruler, and 

rocks4

Space camp (paper plane races, balloon rocket 

races, marshmallow toss)

Weeks 12−15: Matter and energy

Measuring with balances SC.A.1.2.11

What is matter? (grouping)1

GEMS: Dry Ice investigations; Activity 2, Session 1 SC.A.1.2.25

GEMS: Oobleck Sessions 1 & 3 SC.A.1.2.4 & 

SC.A.1.2.56

Melting crayons into cupcake pans with heat SC.A.1.2.2

Hot air balloon (demonstration that gas takes up 

more space using a candle, test tube, and balloon)7

SC.A.1.2.2

AIMS: Heat energy moves SC.B.1.2.68

AIMS: Sound energy [Paper cup telephones; musical 

bottles; sound is vibration (pluck rulers hanging off 

side of desks, Popsicle sticks in mouths, and rubber 

bands on rulers)]

SC.B.1.2.28

AIMS: Light energy [Prism power; I love color] SC.B.1.2.28

Roberta’s Activities Assessment

Roberta thought that the GEMS activity Treasure Boxes,

3

 a unit in which children use 

collections of small “treasures” to acquire many mathematical and scientific skills, was 

the perfect way to start a school year. She recalled that the children became excited by 

the investigations and that it was a wonderful situation in which to observe her new 

Two of Roberta’s students are 

playing with a GEMS treasure 

box activity.

One of Roberta’s students is 

drawing a picture of a Protist 

that she is observing under 

the microscope.

A student shows Wendy her 

space travel brochure.
67

students as they classified and sorted items. She said, “It was interesting to watch the 

thinking of different students as they worked.” Roberta’s favorite activity of those we 

did together was the Oobleck: What Do Scientists Do? activity6 (by GEMS), a unit in 

which we actively engaged students in learning about the nature of science, because the 

students were so enthralled with the properties of the Oobleck. She enjoyed watching 

the students explore the Oobleck (i.e., a slimy green goo that is a solid when exposed 

to rapid pressure and a liquid without). She thought it was a great way to teach the 

properties of matter. Roberta liked using the GEMS guides because they are so well 

thought out and easy to follow. When using the GEMS guides, the teacher can quickly 

read over the lesson and know what materials are needed. Many of them also match 

well with the standards that we needed to teach.

Roberta’s favorite activity in life science was looking at microscopic Protists. Had it 

not been for her involvement in the GK−12 program, she would not have known how 

to get access to the slides or live Protists. Furthermore, she would not have been able 

to provide the background and the knowledge that Wendy shared with the children as 

they looked at the different Protists. Roberta thought the experience was terrific and 

that students felt as if they were “really doing science.” 

The solar eclipse demonstration with the model was Roberta’s favorite space science

activity. She said that she had a horrible time explaining a solar eclipse and thought, 

“Wendy made it very clear and the children really understood the concept. Some of 

the students asked particularly good questions and I was impressed!” When asked 

what her favorite physical science activity was, Roberta replied, “The light energy 

demonstration with the prism was so astonishing to the students. They were so 

amazed! Light was magic to them, and it was a true teaching moment when Wendy 

explained why we saw the colors of the rainbow.” 

Roberta began the next school year doing the GEMS Treasure Box3

 unit again�this 

time without a GK−12 Fellow partner. She spent four weeks on it and did all 12 of the 

activities. She also did the “Worming Their Way Home” activity again. In addition, 

Roberta repeated the microscope activity, borrowing Protist slides once again from 

the Department of Biological Science at Florida State University (FSU) through 

Phases of the moon. In this 

picture a student recalls our 

demonstration of the phases of 

the moon. There were two GK–12 

Fellows for this lesson.
68

Wendy, who was in another classroom at Roberta’s school. Roberta 

did not have live Protists available that time since the biology 

laboratory classes at FSU did not include a unit on Protists until 

much later in the semester. To do the Protist activity again after 

Wendy graduates, Roberta will have to arrange to get the materials 

directly from FSU herself. It would be great if there was a program 

that could transport materials readily available in universities, such 

as dry ice and biological specimens, to K−12 classes to use, keep, 

or temporarily borrow like the program that FSU has that loans 

physical science equipment to schools.

Co-Teaching

Wendy tried several different roles in the classroom before finding 

effective ones. At first, Roberta led the class through the GEMS

activity Treasure Boxes.

3

 Wendy’s schedule allowed her to be there on Monday, 

Wednesday, and Friday mornings during science, and she helped Roberta by 

answering questions from the children working with their treasure boxes. This was a 

good beginning role for Wendy until she became more familiar with the class, but she 

was anxious to participate more in the future.

We spent the next few weeks on life science since that was one of Roberta’s favorite 

subjects and one of Wendy’s strengths. On the days when Wendy was in the 

classroom, she sometimes directed games or short activities for small groups of 

students that were pulled from the classroom one group at a time. At other times, 

Roberta and Wendy would 

direct activities for the 

entire class, when students 

watched while volunteers 

from the class performed 

experiments. There were 

also activity days where 

small groups of two or 

three each performed their 

own experiments with 

their own supplies. The 

first method, in which 

we pulled students from 

the main classroom to do 

quick games or activities 

with Wendy, proved to be 

disruptive: students waiting 

to be called were so eager 

with anticipation that they 

were unable to give Roberta 

their undivided attention. 

Wendy was also learning

how to manage students 

and, at times, had difficulty 

getting a few of them to 

behave. Another issue was 

that when they were in 

Wendy’s group activity, 

students missed material 

presented by Roberta to 

the rest of the class. The 

methods in which Roberta 

Wendy demonstrates that bottles 

of the same size containing 

different volumes of water make 

different pitches of sound.

“I want to be a scientist.”
69

and Wendy directed demonstrations or small group activities together worked 

much better. 

Roberta led all of the classes on space science. Aside from the usual worksheets and 

short lectures, the students also used creativity when constructing star books, star 

boxes, and drawings of stars and solar systems. During this unit, Wendy would often 

lead a short activity for small groups of students pulled from the class; these were less 

disruptive during the art projects. Wendy also gave several short demonstrations to the 

class using a model of the Earth, Sun, and Moon. 

When the class started physical science, Wendy assumed a more centralized role, as 

she felt more comfortable with the material. When Wendy led lessons on matter and 

energy, Roberta managed the classroom, assuring that the children were on task. This 

proved to be an excellent union between Roberta and Wendy. Roberta was especially 

skilled at clarifying ideas or concepts for the students if they became confused about 

something Wendy had said. Roberta observed Wendy’s lectures and helped with the 

activities. She plans to repeat some of the lessons on her own, especially those in 

matter and energy. 

It was difficult to co-teach in a continuous fashion when one of the teachers was 

part-time. It worked best when Roberta continued the teaching on the days when 

Wendy was not there. This saved a lot of time, added continuity to the lessons, and 

gave Roberta the chance to teach the material upon which we had agreed. Roberta 

also included science words from the Sunshine State Standards during her spelling 

lessons. This kind of reinforcement was beneficial to the students’ learning and 

understanding of science.

What Was Learned

When asked what she learned from the time she spent with Wendy, 

Roberta replied that she found that teaching science required a broad 

knowledge base and substantial time to plan lessons and gather materials. 

Roberta noted that she already knew this, but it seemed more apparent 

when it was time to plan together or gather materials. In addition, 

Roberta said she had learned to really listen to students’ questions and 

take them more seriously. Roberta noticed that Wendy explained the 

answers to student questions in very grown-up terms, and they respected 

her for that. Roberta also felt that she learned a great deal about science. 

For example, Roberta had never heard of a Moneran or a Protist before 

co-teaching with Wendy. Here are some of Roberta’s comments about 

co-teaching: “Co-teaching is the way that classrooms should be all day, 

everyday. There are too many subject areas to cover in an elementary 

classroom and too many different children’s needs to meet (even in small 

classes). Co-teaching with an expert in the field, makes the learning so 

much more natural. I did not have to concentrate on making sure all the facts I had 

were correctly presented. I had an expert in the room to either confirm or negate 

what I said.” 

Wendy also learned much during that semester in Roberta’s class. Each time they 

went over a new subject, it was a chance for Wendy to brush up on her knowledge 

and understanding about it. Roberta also introduced her to many activities and 

creative lessons appropriate for third-graders. The most valuable training for Wendy 

was learning how to be in better control of a classroom after watching Roberta with 

her class. This has been very helpful in her subsequent work with three additional 

classes during her GK−12 fellowship.

Wendy is teaching about atoms 

and compounds in Roberta 

Trowbridge’s third-grade 

classroom.
70

What Changed

Roberta felt most comfortable teaching reading and mathematics before Wendy spent 

time in her classroom. For Roberta, each subject has positive aspects, but teaching 

students to read and appreciate books was one thing that she particularly enjoyed. 

Roberta now looks forward to and feels more comfortable with teaching science 

lessons. She was optimistic about what the next school year would be like, as she 

would be teaching some of the topics that they had taught together by herself.

Before working with Roberta, Wendy felt most capable teaching life science to older 

students. After working with Roberta, Wendy felt prepared to teach space, life, and 

physical science to elementary-school students. Notably she was also more enthusiastic 

about teaching physical science after their experience. Wendy now realized the 

importance of this subject and how difficult it was to understand and communicate 

to such young students. She was pleased to find that there are numerous physical 

science activities available to convey difficult topics, such as energy, in an engaging and 

comprehensible way. 

Effects on Students

Roberta observed that the students were more at ease about asking questions after 

Wendy spent a semester in her classroom. Science had become more meaningful and 

fun to them. The girls looked up to Wendy as a role model and were not self-conscious 

about asking questions. The girls seemed to be more confident that their answers 

were going to be considered as valuable as the answers given by the boys. Wendy was 

especially gratified to hear many of the girls say that 

they wanted to become scientists toward the end of her 

semester in their classroom. Roberta thinks that before 

the students worked with Wendy their perception of a 

scientist was a person in a white laboratory coat unable 

to relate to people, especially kids. 

Challenges

One challenge Roberta faced was scheduling. As she 

was in a contained classroom, teaching all subjects, 

she had to rearrange her teaching schedule for several 

subjects to accommodate Wendy’s availability based 

on her university schedule. Usually Roberta taught the 

same subjects at the same time as the other third-grade 

teachers, which is often done to facilitate the teamwork 

among elementary-school grade levels. Another 

complication was incorporating a third person into 

their lessons. Roberta was assigned an intern from FSU 

at the time and did not want her to feel that she was any 

less important because she was an intern. Fortunately, 

all of these situations worked out well. Everyone was 

flexible, and they worked well together.

The most difficult challenge for Wendy was balancing 

her time between her dissertation research and her 

GK−12 responsibilities. Since Roberta’s class had science 

every morning, Wendy came three mornings per week. 

The school was far from her home and the university

so she spent quite a bit of time in transit. She also spent 

appreciable time preparing and would often stay up late reading. Wendy liked getting 

ready for lessons by reading-up on the subject that she was presenting the next day. 

All things to learn about science.
71

Even though she felt she was learning important things for herself and her students, 

the significant preparation time consequently took time away from her research.

Conclusions

The experience between Roberta and Wendy was successful on many levels. It was 

important that Roberta was eager to work with and to learn beside Wendy the 

entire semester. They had separate responsibilities of equal value in planning and 

teaching. This cooperative relationship allowed them to efficiently learn from each 

other. Information that either one knew or learned was spread to the other when 

they watched and listened to each other. Both learned more about science and 

teaching, Roberta came to value the student’s questions, Wendy learned classroom 

management, and the children learned science and came to appreciate and love it.

Acknowledgments

Roberta and Wendy want to thank the other teacher, Roberta Hudgins, and the other 

GK−12 Fellow, Heaya Summy, for all the time and effort they put into planning 

lessons, writing tests, and gathering materials with us. We also thank Jean Hancock 

and Barbara Shoplock from the Biology Department at FSU for providing Protist

slides and live Protists for the students.

References

1. Batters, W., Bethel, L. J., Fu, V., Peck, C., Sumners, C., & Valentino, C. (2000). Discovery works 

science Florida edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

2. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist 

classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

3. Kopp, J., & Hosoume, K. (1997). Treasure boxes. (Great Explorations in Math and Science series). 

Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.

4. Moore, J. E., & Robison, D. (1998). Exploring space. Monterey, CA: Evan-Moor.

5. Barber, J., Beals, K., & Bergman, L. (1999). Dry ice investigations. (Great Explorations in Math 

and Science series). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.

6. Sneider, C. I. (1985). Oobleck: What do scientists do? (Great Explorations in Math and Science 

series). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Science.

7. Gunzenhauser, K., & Thompson, S. (Eds.) (2002). Physical forces and chemical changes. 

Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.

8. Hoover, E., & Mercier, S. (1994). Primarily physics: Investigations in sound, light, and heat energy. 

(Activities Integrating Math and Science series). Fresno, CA: AIMS Education Foundation.
72
73

Science Graduate Students 

Enhancing K−8 Education

By Penny J. Gilmer and Martin Balinsky

Biographical information:

Penny J. Gilmer

Ph.D. (Biochemistry)

D.Sc.Ed. (Science Education)

Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida State 

University

2nd doctoral dissertation title:

Transforming University Biochemistry Teaching Through Action 

Research: Utilizing Collaborative Learning and Technology (Curtin 

University of Technology, 2004)

Why I chose my second field of science teaching:

I chose my field of science education to improve college science teaching, to bring into teaching 

what we are learning about improving learning environments and to enhance my own life and 

teaching.

Why I became the GK−12 program evaluator:

Since I was doing an evaluation project for my own second doctorate on my own teaching and 

since I am a practicing biochemist, it seemed like a natural to become the internal evaluator on our 

GK−12 program. What I learned on one project helped with the other.

What I gained from the GK−12 program:

I gained a renewed interest in what happens to graduate students in the sciences as they progress 

through a graduate program, whether they are in the GK−12 program or in our comparison 

group. I’m interested in what they think of the nature of knowledge, or epistemology, especially 

knowledge in the sciences and if this changes as they proceed through graduate school.

Biographical information:

Martin Balinsky

Doctoral candidate in Science Education in Middle and Secondary 

Education at Florida State University

Doctoral dissertation topic: 

The Confluence of Cultures in a Collaborative Partnership Between 

Science Doctoral Students and K−8 Science Teachers

Why I chose my research topic: 

I have a dual background in both science and education, with M.S. 

degrees in both geology and science education. I have always been 

interested in how these two cultures view and inform each other. 

By having experienced both, I feel that my mental landscape has 

been enriched. Of particular interest to me is the dual existence and interplay of objective fact 

and subjective interpretation. Also, having taught earth science at both community college and 

middle school, I am interested in the ways that experiences teaching K−12 science can inform an 

individual’s ability to teach college science more effectively.

What I gained from participating in the evaluation of the GK−12 program?

I gained a tremendous appreciation for the difficulties that science doctoral students in such 

programs face when attempting to negotiate between two worlds: the world of scientific research 

within their home departments and the world of K−12 science education. The demands on 

their time and the challenges to their thinking have been many. But I believe that the experience 

will expand their breadth of understanding in marvelous and immeasurable ways. Their range of 

understanding will surpass that of their peers, and their time-balancing skills will serve them well. It 

has allowed me to understand better my own challenges involved in splitting my time between a 

science doctoral program and a full-time job at a state department of education.

Penny J. Gilmer, GK–12 internal 

evaluator, graduating from Curtin 

University of Technology in 

Western Australia with her second 

doctorate—this one in Science 

Education. Her first doctorate 

was in Biochemistry from the 

University of California, Berkeley. 

Dr. Gilmer worked on the GK–12 

evaluation while she was finishing 

the writing for her own doctorate.

Martin Balinsky, a GK–12 Fellow, 

is a Science Education graduate 

student who is doing a qualitative 

study of several of the GK–12 

Fellows in collaboration with Dr. 

Penny J. Gilmer.
74

Introduction

In 1999 the U.S. federal government started a grant 

program called the GK−12 program with the idea to involve 

graduate students in science, mathematics, technology, and 

engineering in K−12 school education on a nationwide 

basis. These graduate students are young, idealistic, and 

knowledgeable individuals who have much to contribute 

to the K−12 teachers and students. Also the GK−12 Fellows

have much that they can learn about teaching and learning

and about science content, especially because they often must 

teach in areas beyond their area of expertise. In addition, the 

Fellows learn about the culture of K−12 so that in the future 

they will understand better how to interact with the K−12 

system as a service to the community, whether it is directly 

with the schools that their children will attend or in their 

professional careers.

Florida State University received its NSF funding for our 

GK−12 grant in August 2002, and we started with a cohort of 

nine graduate students in their second through fourth year of 

graduate school in the sciences with the plan that they would 

remain in the program for the entire three years. We still have 

seven of the original GK−12 Fellows. We replaced one who left after one year and 

another who left after two years. In addition, we had one undergraduate senior who 

participated in the first year. Therefore, a total of 12 Fellows have been part of our 

program, and currently there are nine.

The focus for the evaluation of our program is to determine how our GK−12 Fellows’ 

ideas of what makes a good environment for teaching and their ideas on the nature of 

science have changed or are changing during their three-year program.

1

 These GK−12 

Fellows immerse themselves in the culture of K−8 and learn from the GK−12 Teachers

about teaching and learning and the strengths and constraints of the system. It is a 

true partnership among tertiary education, K−8 schools, and the federal government. 

It is also a collaboration of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, students, teachers, 

principals, and the community. We expect that our GK−12 Fellows would have learned 

about teaching and learning within the culture of K−8 schools and about the nature 

and content of science while immersed in the planning and execution of science 

lessons with the GK−12 Teachers.

Theoretical Frameworks

Our theoretical referents include social constructivism,

2 cultural-historical activity theory

(CHAT),3,4 and the theory of structure.

5,6 Through social constructivism we understand 

that people learn based on their prior constructs and experiences (such as the Fellows’ 

experiences in science and in learning in the classroom). By providing new experiences 

and social interactions, we influence people’s thinking and what they learn.

Through CHAT (Figure 1), we understand that we live within certain constraints 

and opportunities that influence the contradictions and coherences that influence 

what activities happen and how and why they happen as they do. According to CHAT, 

there are several interacting factors involved: Subjects, Objects, Tools, Communities, 

Division of Labor, and Rules or Schemas. All of these influence the Subjects, Objects, 

and Outcomes. 

Various elements influence the flow of the Subjects (i.e., the GK−12 Fellows, in 

this case) toward their Objects (learning about teaching and learning and about 

science) and on to their Outcomes (becoming professional scientists with an evolving 

A third-grader pretending she is 

a butterfly.
75

understanding of teaching and learning and of science). The influential factors 

include Tools (i.e., GEMS lesson plans,7 the Internet, resources within their science 

departments, their own lesson plans), Communities (i.e., other GK−12 Fellows, 

GK−12 Teachers, GK−12 grant faculty and staff, fellow science graduate students, 

science faculty), Division of Labor (i.e., between the GK−12 Teacher and GK−12 

Fellow, and among GK−12 Fellows), and Rules or Schemas (i.e., state-mandated 

testing of students, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for testing 

of K−8 students, the Sunshine State Standards, organization of K−12 schools, 

constraints within graduate programs). By focusing on the progression of the Fellows 

toward becoming professionals and on how the various elements influence this flow, 

we better understand how to make the system more productive in both a formative

and summative fashion.

Sewell’s ideas on structure and agency fit well with CHAT. Through the theory of 

structure we understand that there is a dialectical tension between structure and 

agency, in which one influences the other. There are three components to structure: 

human (includes social networks, practices, communities, and division of labor), 

material (includes technology and other “tools” from activity theory), and symbolic

(includes a person’s status and “rules and schemas” from activity theory). There are 

two components to agency: access (includes gender, underrepresented populations, 

and technology) and appropriation of resources (includes what individuals know and 

can do from their culture and use of resources to meet their own goals—goals include 

relevance, interests, and the “objects” from activity theory). When the structure 

changes, it influences one’s agency, and vice versa.

Research/Evaluation Design

We adhere to the quality criteria of trustworthiness and authenticity.

8

 This is a 

formative study that started with the beginning of the program and is ongoing during 

the third year of the program.

Currently, there are over 1,000 Fellows within the United States.9

 GK−12 programs 

vary considerably from one location to another, with some programs enrolling new 

Fellows for each academic year, and without any special training in teaching and 

learning in advance. Other programs enroll Fellows for two years, and perhaps some 

others for three. Some of the programs concentrate on science, some mathematics, 

some on engineering, and some on technology. Some concentrate on a particular 

FIGURE 1. Using the culturalhistorical activity theory (CHAT) 

diagram is a way to think about 

how the Subjects, in our case 

the GK−12 Fellows, move within 

activities toward their Objects

and to their Outcomes. The 

Tools, Rules or Schemas, 

Communities, and Division of 

Labor can inhibit the flow with 

contradictions (or challenges) or 

add to the flow with coherences. 

This theory informs our 

understanding of what and how 

activities happen or not.
76

specialization within science. Our program involves students in science but not in a 

particular specialization. Our Fellows come from a variety of science departments: 

biochemistry, biological science, geological sciences, physics, and molecular 

biophysics. In addition to the 11 graduate students, for two semesters we had an 

undergraduate Fellow. Of the 12 GK−12 Fellows that have been part of our program, 

we have had a rich ethnic mixture of Fellows, with three African Americans, one 

Hispanic American, an Asian American, and seven Caucasian Americans. Nine of 

our Fellows are now assisting in K−8 classrooms. Of the 12 individuals who have 

participated in our program, 10 are female and two are male.

One special feature of our program was described in detail in the introductory 

chapter: a four-credit, one-semester, graduate-level course, Teaching and Learning 

of Science, designed for the Fellows for their first semester in the program (Fall 

2002). We also have a BlackBoard website where the GK−12 Fellows can download 

PowerPoint presentations and other files made available to them and can have 

discourse on a posting forum.

While enrolled in the class, the Fellows had opportunities to design science lessons 

while using the learning cycle,

10,11 now proposed with either four steps: invitation, 

exploration, concept introduction, and application (e.g., as described in a Geologic 

Education Outreach12 program) or as the five E’s: engagement, exploration, 

explanation, elaboration, and evaluation.

13 For instance, the Fellows divided into 

collaborative groups and designed a lesson on substances dissolving in water. One 

group set a goal for what the students should learn: what a solution is, what dissolving 

is, and what is the meaning of concentration. The Fellows in that group devised ways 

to invite the students into the discussion to explore 

meanings, discuss these meanings, and introduce 

applications of them. Groups made presentations to 

each other of their suggested ways of teaching this 

topic, and we compared and contrasted them in a 

group discussion afterwards. 

To measure how these GK−12 Fellows’ views on 

the nature of science might be changing, we used 

the VNOS-C (Views on the Nature of Science) 

survey14,15 at the beginning of the program (August 

2002), again in April 2003 after they finished the 

course and one semester of teaching, and once again 

in April 2005 during the last month of their fifth and 

final semester of teaching in the schools. The main 

audiences who have taken the VNOS-C in other 

studies are students and K−12 teachers. Few have 

used it to study graduate students in the sciences. 

Schwartz and Lederman report preliminary results 

on a study of senior faculty in the sciences.16 In April 

2005, we asked the GK−12 Fellows to respond, in 

paragraph form, to a “final questionnaire,” a fourquestion survey about how the experience had 

influenced their ideas about science and teaching.

In addition to the GK−12 Fellows, we have a comparison group of seven science 

graduate students not working with the GK−12 Teachers to see how their ideas on the 

nature of science change during their time in graduate school, as compared with the 

GK−12 Fellows. However, since we are focusing on the experiences and reflections of 

the GK−12 Fellows, we have chosen not to include the reflections of the comparison 

group in this chapter (but it will be part of the NSF report).

Children exploring density with 

an educator.
77

In addition to the two types of surveys, we gathered qualitative data in the form of 

interviews with a number of the Fellows, visitations to all but the newest Fellow in 

their classrooms, and videotapes of many of them teaching a lesson. We also met 

with the GK−12 Fellows monthly as a group to talk about problematic issues in 

teaching and learning and reviewed and posted some of their lesson plans on our 

GK−12 website. Below is a list of various data sources that we used in the analysis:

1. Videos of the Teaching and Learning of Science course taken by the GK−12 

Fellows, notes from the class activities, summary day of Fellows’ ideas on teaching

and learning, Fellows’ responses to assignment #2 

2. VNOS-C questionnaire data (9/02, 5/03, and 5/05) for 

GK−12 Fellows

3. “Teaching Survey” data (12/02 and 5/05)

4. Visitation of GK−12 Fellows in their classrooms:

# of Fellows Time span Type of classroom

4 May 2003 Elementary

1 May 2003 Middle

1 January 2004 Elementary

2 February 2004 Middle

1 April 2004 Middle

1 September 2004 Elementary

1 March 2005 Elementary

2 February–May 2005 Middle

5. Feedback from GK−12 Teachers on GK−12 Fellows

(by e-mail)

6. Interviews of seven of the nine GK−12 Fellows who 

completed the program and twelve participating 

GK−12 Teachers

7. Transcripts of GK−12 Fellows monthly meetings

8. GK−12 comparison group: VNOS, April/June 2003 and 

March/April 2005 (seven responses at the beginning and 

four at the end)

9. Interviews of two from the comparison group

10. Constructed GK−12 website at http://gk12.bio.fsu.edu 

11. Lessons constructed by GK−12 Fellows and uploaded on GK−12 website

12. Chapters written by seven of the present GK−12 Fellows for SERVE monograph 

on their experiences

Data Analyses and Findings

Using the qualitative software research (QSR) program,17 we sorted the GK−12 

Fellows’ responses to VNOS-C, the teaching surveys, and our own set of questions 

obtained from the transcribed interviews. We use pseudonyms for all Fellow 

responses throughout this chapter. There were five main categories of responses, 

which we refer to as “nodes:”

➲ Early Experiences in Science and in Teaching

➲ Ideas on Teaching

➲ Ideas on Assessment

➲ Ideas on Learning

➲ Ideas on the Nature of Science

Child recording some notes.
78

GK−12 Fellows’ Early Experiences 

Early Experiences in Life in Science 

The GK−12 Fellows commented about their early experiences in life in science or 

teaching. Tamara commented, “I strongly disliked science in K−12,” and “I hated 

coming up with science projects because I never felt I had good guidance as to how 

to come up with a question(s).” Rebecca mentioned how she had grown up in a 

“family of teachers and had always believed that you simply either do or do not have a 

personality for teaching,” that it was “in your blood.” Rebecca’s grandmother thought 

that Rebecca had a “big dose of it [personality for teaching].” Wanda, Nathan, and 

Rebecca commented on their participation in science fairs in their childhood. Rebecca 

participated every year between fourth and eighth grades, and she mentioned, “I 

probably had to be helped with an idea the first year, but I can remember coming up 

with ideas every year after that.” Nathan participated but does not remember how 

he arrived at his topic. Wanda said, “I got my ideas from my experiences and my 

resources, including other people.” 

Early Experiences in Teaching Science

When the GK−12 Fellows first started to teach in the program, Nathan’s levels 

of self-efficacy were low when compared to later in his teaching. As he relates, 

comparing himself to two other Fellows in the program:

I think they (the other two Fellows) were confident in front of a class 

right from the get-go. For me it took a few years to develop in front 

of any age group, feeling ready to get up and give a presentation and 

keep them engaged. (Nathan interview, 2/15/05)

Thus, Nathan reveals his view that some of his peers were more naturally confident in 

front of a K−12 classroom, and it took him a long time to adjust. Yet he grew a great 

deal during the course of the program and now feels at ease teaching K−12.

Some of the Fellows initially experienced problems in negotiating their role in the 

classroom. In one case, Rebecca did a significant amount of work preparing projects for 

the teacher, only to have the projects cut or not included in the class. Another, Jose, had 

interpreted his role to be that of a mentor to the teachers, a role that excited him, and 

that was the reason he joined the program. As he stated, “ What I understood was we 

were to be mentoring the teachers, so I said, ‘Okay, this is okay.’” Later he learned that 

this was only his interpretation of the program; he was to observe and learn from the 

teacher, which he found disappointing. Jose revealed this interpretation when he related, 

“You were supposed to only follow the teacher and supposedly try to learn what they 

did.” He had hoped that he would be the source of knowledge from which the teacher 

would draw, but instead he found that he was supposed to learn from her. Nathan 

reported that he experienced one teacher who worked very well in tandem with him as 

an equal and another who wanted him more in the background. He had been expected 

to be more involved, the way he had with the first teacher. As he stated,

She’s been there 30−35 years, and I came in the classroom, and I 

said, “I've done this and I've done that,” but right from the start it 

was like, “Okay, I'm gonna be the magician and you're gonna be the 

lovely assistant. That's the impression I got, although she never said 

it. (Nathan interview, 2/15/05)

In this instance, Nathan entered the classroom of an already well-established, 

experienced teacher, and one who probably felt that she did not need much 

assistance in the classroom. In an interview, the GK–12 teacher admitted finding 

difficulty relinquishing control:

I think sometimes he has to push me away because I enjoy teaching

and I’m not real good about just leaving him to take over, so he’s 
79

had to be a little forceful with me to give up my kids. But I think he’s 

doing a nice job.

In the last part of this passage, we see Nathan’s teacher’s belief that she feels that he is 

doing well. So her difficulty in relinquishing control to Nathan has nothing to do with his 

ability. This is part of the Fellows’ learning as well, that teachers feel ownership over their 

own classrooms.

By contrast, Nathan worked so well with the first teacher that he asked to return to 

her in his fifth (and final) semester of teaching. She was very pleased to have him 

return to her classroom. As he reported,

I wanted to go back there because (the teacher) is the best co-teacher 

I’ve worked with. And she—whether she's doing it consciously or 

not—co-teaches. I'll be teaching and she’ll interrupt and say, “oh and 

by the way”, and she’ll throw something in. And that’s what I need 

someone to do co-teaching. We work together. Yesterday we worked 

on a lab. Today we are backing it up with this. She has been great 

to work with. Not every teacher is like that. She is very good at that 

kind of stuff .(Nathan interview, 3/28/05)

This quote clearly shows that Nathan and this teacher work 

very well together, and they complement each other in a 

natural way. One of us visited his classroom in May 2005 and 

observed the good atmosphere that existed when they were 

in the class together. The other of us visited Nathan in his 

classroom with a different teacher in April 2004, and there was 

a similar complementarity between them as well.

GK−12 Fellows’ Ideas on Teaching

The GK−12 Fellows’ ideas on teaching have changed 

considerably in three phases: the first was during the 

graduate-level course that we offered on the Teaching and 

Learning of Science during their first semester in the program 

(for more details see Granger’s Chapter 1 in this monograph), 

the second was during the first semester of teaching, and the 

final was throughout the rest of the program. Before entering 

the program, most of the Fellows had not thought much 

about how people learn (they seemed to assume that most 

people learned like they did) nor about how to promote science learning through 

teaching. Most science graduate students had been a teaching assistant for at least one 

undergraduate laboratory but had not needed to formulate the lessons to go with the 

laboratory experiments or to devise their own experiments. 

After the Fellows took the course, there were differences for the Fellows in their 

teaching philosophies and their ideas on teaching and learning (except for one 

graduate student in the comparison group who was about equal in her thinking in 

comparison to the Fellows). For instance, Jose stated:

Well, through the classes that we took in science education it did 

[change my ideas]. It did change somehow, especially as we saw 

the information from psychologists about how students are able to 

see things. I see that some things in kindergarten and elementary 

will need to be changed about science. [It’s] the methodology that 

we have to change. It shouldn’t just be at the blackboard and talk 

to them. It should be more interactive, and they should have to do 

things on their own too. (Jose interview, 1/21/05) 

Student conscientiously studying.
80

Additionally, immediately after the course on teaching

and learning, Jessica wrote:

I have been aware that understanding is the 

key to learning, but I was not aware of the 

importance of two fundamental concepts 

of understanding: learning the whole 

picture puts everything into perspective 

and hands-on experience gives students a 

visual understanding....Once students truly 

understand a concept, at multiple levels, it 

is more likely that they will remember it, 

compared to merely 

memorizing concepts.

These statements demonstrate 

how the ideas of the GK−12 

Fellows were changing once they 

had started to learn how people 

learn and how one assesses one’s 

students’ learning.

One of us visited Jessica while she 

was teaching in her fifth-grade 

classroom near the end of her 

first semester of teaching. Jessica 

had mentioned beforehand to 

one of us that she was not looking 

forward to teaching space science 

and the planets (as her own area of 

scientific expertise was different), but, 

nonetheless, that topic was coming 

up in the curriculum close to the time 

one of us was to visit. One of us shared 

some presentations she had prepared 

for another course on exploring our 

universe, and Jessica opened to it, 

embracing it. Space science quickly 

became one of her favorite science 

subjects to teach. She realized that what 

she had written about the children—“It 

is important that children realize 

learning is a gift and not a chore”—also 

applied to herself in learning space 

science. Her fifth-grade students came 

to love space science too, and each 

wrote a report on a planet, with some 

students including either a lovely picture they had drawn or poems they had written 

about their planets. They also enacted the movement and scaled distribution of the 

planets around our sun in their school playground.

At the end of the program Jessica said that one of the ways that she has changed 

since starting the GK−12 program is in coming to learn that “there are numerous 

methods [to teach], but using a variety seems to be important since there are a variety 

of different kinds of learners in a given classroom.” We saw multiple modalities 

of teaching enacted in her classroom. The other way that Jessica reported having 

changed was, “I realize the importance of student inquiry. When students ask 

questions the students are truly interested in [the] material, and their questions 

Collection of fifth-grade 

students’ reports on 

various planets.

The two girls in the 

center hold hands while 

enacting the sun and the 

three boys circle them 

while representing the 

inner planets Mercury, 

Venus, and Earth. The 

boy further away from the 

“sun” in the background 

was Mars.

Student sharing poems she’s 

written on comets: 

You know if I was flying

 with a comet,

I think when I’m up high

 I will vomit,

Hopefully I will quickly 

 get down

Or else the vomit will be all

 on the town.”

The comet looks like a bluish

 and yellow firework,

It smells like a large chunk

 of dirty ice,

And feels like a bunch of air

 flowing through your hair.
81

should be answered as completely as possible to keep them interested and to help 

them learn effectively.” Student inquiry was another theme that we saw enacted in the 

GK−12 Fellows’ classrooms.

In her teaching, Wanda learned different ways to connect to students. She found 

discussion to be particularly useful but also found that using a variety of strategies is 

important in order to connect to different types of learners. As she stated:

The discussion sections are where a lot of the learning takes 

place. The only thing is that some students are going to be left 

out of the discussion. There are some students who don’t learn 

that way [discussion], and you can see the ones that are making 

connections while you are talking and discussing. And I have the 

students answering a lot and telling a lot of information, and some 

others don’t believe or listen, as they are waiting for the teacher to 

answer. That’s a problem—a lot of the information is coming out 

of students’ mouths, and some other students aren’t going to pay as 

much attention to that. (Wanda interview, 2/4/05)

So, through her experiences, Wanda came to recognize different types of learners. 

Her mind is often on how to connect to students, and this is reflected in classroom 

observations we made of her teaching.

At the end of the program, Kisha mentioned, “My participation in the program has 

changed the way I plan to teach undergraduate classes [when I become a faculty

member myself], and I feel like I can do a lot of good through teaching science.” 

Interestingly, she also said that with her research in biology she needed to learn much 

physics and chemistry to teach basic concepts, and “it has really made me realize how 

broad science is and that there is so much known and I know so little of it.” 

Nathan mentioned something similar to Kisha, saying, “One thing that has changed 

is I am slowly learning to appreciate more disciplines of science.” In the beginning, he 

was most comfortable helping to teach physics, his area of specialization. By the end 

of the program he found himself 

looking forward to working on subject matter I normally wouldn’t 

study. For example, I recently worked with my co-teacher to 

explore adaptations and mutations in coral reef organisms by 

showing students clips from Finding Nemo. It was fun for them 

and us, and I was interested in studying the topics we were 

discussing so I would be better prepared for the class. (End of year 

VNOS-C survey, April 2005)

The experience in the program is having such powerful 

effects on our Fellows in the area of teaching to diverse styles 

of learning and in learning science content beyond what each 

knows through scientific research. This experience should 

serve them well in their future careers, particularly when it 

comes to teaching college courses and potential involvement 

in K−12 science classrooms.

GK−12 Fellows’ Ideas on Assessment

The third node from the analysis was on the topic of 

assessment. Prior to their course on teaching and learning, the 

Fellows had not been aware of the importance of assessment. 

As one of the GK−12 Fellows, Tamara, said, “I have learned 

new ideas on assessment and that there are a variety of 

creative ways to determine what students have learned.” She also noted that different 

A students report on Saturn: 

“Saturn, A Vacation in Space: If 

you are tired of warm summers 

and springs then come to Saturn 

where it is at least -185°F (-175°C) 

in its clouds. The atmosphere is 

thick and cloudy with winds up 

to 1,000 mph. This makes Saturn a 

good place to hang glide!”

A GK–12 Teacher showing one of 

her student’s earlier bird books, 

which she is still using in her 

elementary school classroom.
82

students learn in different ways, so we need to enact different methods of assessment. 

This is a big step in growth when a graduate student in the sciences has been assessed 

in traditional ways, to see that there are alternative ways to assess students’ learning 

and knowledge. Similarly, Jessica noted, “Assessment should occur before, during, 

and after a lesson.” She realized that she needed to use both formative and summative

assessment.

The only one of the GK−12 Fellows who brought up assessment on our teaching

survey (it was not asked explicitly) was Jessica. What she said early in the program 

was, “Assessment is more difficult than I thought prior to this class.” By the end of 

the teaching and learning course, she realized and clearly stated, “I have learned the 

importance of assessing what students know when they come into the classroom.” 

GK−12 Fellows’ Ideas on Learning

The fourth node from the analysis was on the topic of learning. One concept that 

Fellows learned was children of different ages have different cognitive abilities. As 

Rebecca pointed out, “The same goals of exploration and learning are there [between 

different age groups], but younger students may need simpler, more directed exercises 

than older students.” 

The Fellows also learned that learning builds upon prior knowledge. As Nathan 

reported, “We concluded that students already have viewpoints about most topics 

before they hear a lecture of explanation.” Nathan also reported that it was sometimes 

a challenge not aiming the material at too high a level (not unlike the challenge we 

see among many science faculty teaching undergraduate courses). Sometimes he was 

uncertain as to what they had and had not already learned in school. As he related:

There are textbooks, and I’ll flip through and say, do they know 

that yet? And I’ll see—oh, they haven’t had this yet, and it’s not 

even required for their grade, because I went in my first time at 

[his school], and I would check their textbooks, but sometimes I 

would miss stuff and it would be way over their head, and [his 

participating teacher] would say, “Hold back, we should revise 

this, and be careful not to use all these terms.” (Nathan interview, 

2/15/05)

This indicated that Nathan was not aware, prior to this experience, of either what 

content was taught at what level in the K−12 system or what developmental level 

students were at different ages. Yet he gained all of this knowledge because he was 

open to learning about it. Nathan not only had a good working relationship with 

a number of his GK−12 Teachers, as we mentioned above, but he also learned 

considerably from them.

In addition, the Fellows learned that conceptual learning is more meaningful than 

rote recall of facts. As Rebecca stated, “Conformity and memorization are much less 

important than creativity and understanding.” This demonstrates her understanding 

of the value of such conceptual learning, something that she came to understand 

through her work with an alternative K−8 school where the students learned 

conceptually and through using themes.

Especially common among the Fellows’ learning was their recognition of the 

importance of creativity. Sandra summed up the views of her colleagues with her 

comment, “Imagination and creativity are key in all aspects of experimentation.” Other 

Fellows echoed this view.

Rebecca learned the importance of relating material to students. She realizes that the 

material she is teaching should be applied to students’ everyday lives. Without these 

connections, the material will not be meaningful to students. As she stated:
83

You can teach geology in a very dry way, which is the way most 

people teach it. Or you can teach them [geology students] in an 

interesting way, including Milantkovich Cycles, or the way the 

plates move, and how that affects our lives, and I don’t think a lot 

of them [professors] are applying it to the students’ lives at all. If 

the students don’t see how it relates to them, they’re not interested. 

(Rebecca interview, 2/10/05)

This comment by Rebecca demonstrates a bridge that she is making between the 

K−12 classroom and the university geological sciences department in which she has 

been a teaching assistant in the past and will be again in the future. It is probable that 

the GK−12 Fellows will become college faculty in the future and they will bring such 

ideas to their own teaching of undergraduates and graduate students in the sciences.

Near the end of the program, Crystal commented, “Well, the idea of teaching science 

to be exciting for the kids is new to me since teaching in K−8 classrooms.” This 

probably represents a change for Crystal since it must have been boring when she was 

a K−8 student herself.

GK−12 Fellows’ Ideas on the Nature of Science

For the fifth node, the Fellows’ beliefs about the nature of science appeared to reflect 

the dominant paradigms of science found in science and science textbooks, at least 

in some of the early interviews and our VNOS-C results (September 

2002, June 2003, and April 2005). Their beliefs reflected probably what 

would be found among most individuals with a science background, 

at least in the early stages of their tenure as GK−12 Fellows. We found 

this to be true with regard to the GK−12 Fellows’ ideas about the 

nature of knowledge, the nature of scientific investigation, ideas about 

theories versus laws, creativity in science, and social and cultural 

influences on scientific knowledge. In the following sections, we 

address each in turn.

Nature of Knowledge 

On the nature of knowledge or epistemology, in the first month of 

the program (at the beginning of the course), Crystal addressed this 

topic by writing, “Scientific knowledge is based on observations that 

are concrete and can be taken to be factual.” Beth, at the start of her 

program, wrote, “Unlike other disciplines, science does not allow for 

multiple interpretations.” These are positivistic views of the nature of 

knowledge. 

When asked whether science is always true, Beth responded that it 

was and gave the reason: “Nature holds those answers not humans,” 

meaning that the human instrument as a measuring device was not 

relevant to the “truth” of science. Instead, truth is “out there” to be 

discovered and not to be interpreted or constructed using our prior 

experiences. She too saw subjectivity as a limitation and objectivity a 

virtue, stating it as a positive criterion, “Nature is not bound by beliefs 

or values.” In this vein, Wanda stated that science differed from other 

disciplines because opinions and untestable theories are the basis of 

some other disciplines, implying that predisposed beliefs do not play a 

factor in scientists’ interpretation of results.

Nature of Scientific Investigation

Relative to the nature of investigation, Sandra wrote at the beginning of the 

program, “Science is the enactment of the scientific method; that is, the formulation 

of hypothesis, experimentation, and finally interpretation of data.” Tamara came 

from the perspective of using a null hypothesis, commenting, “An experiment is a 

A third-grade student. 
84

controlled way of collecting data in order to reject hypotheses that explain a natural 

phenomena.” Beth’s idea indicated that creativity can be influential in the approach 

taken: “The invention of a better design for an experiment and/or using a novel 

approach when analyzing data could lead to vast improvements or the discovery 

of new ideas.” Therefore, at the beginning, the Fellows’ ideas varied from some 

traditional to some more creative.

Four months into the program, the teaching survey indicated that their ideas on the 

nature of science had started to shift. For example, Tamara commented, “From my 

experience, I think it is very important to teach the process of science by actually 

conducting science.” Tamara wanted students to experience science first-hand. 

She commented further, “The process of science is a description of how science is 

carried out, how information is gained through asking questions and discovering the 

answers.” Wanda’s view was more open-ended than the others, asserting, “The process 

of science is identifying something that is intriguing and then investigating it.”

By one year into the program, Wanda’s view on the nature of investigation was even 

more open-ended, writing, “To me, observation is preliminary to experimentation; 

after observation, questions arise that may be answered by experimental design.” 

Wanda went further, stating, “In other words, simply taking what is already known 

and reanalyzing it from a different perspective is a way to develop scientific 

knowledge.” However, Nathan’s ideas are more traditional: “An experiment is the 

instrument used to gain further understanding.” Crystal’s ideas were similar to 

Nathan’s: “I think that experiments are necessary for the development of science 

because science is about asking questions, and the only way to find the answer to 

a specific question is to do an experiment, no matter how simple.” To be fair, we 

should also mention that by this time the Fellows were a year further into their 

graduate programs. Therefore, their more advanced understandings of the nature 

of science may possibly be due (in part, in full, or not at all) to their work in their 

laboratories. A detailed analysis of the responses of the comparison group may help 

differentiate the possibilities.

By the end of the program, Wanda commented in the VNOS-C survey, “Science is 

a discipline based on inquiry that is addressed in a process that involves hypotheses

that are useful for mathematical interpretation of observation (with or without 

manipulations) and are useful for identifying possible explanations.” This is more 

in depth from what Wanda said after the first four months, and it takes into account 

the use of mathematics to understand processes and that there can be more than one 

explanation for the data.

Wanda felt that the process of teaching connected her well with the world of 

scientific research. We had expected that the Fellows would all report some alienation 

from their discipline because of being isolated physically from the people in their 

departments. While this was true in some cases, it was not true in Wanda’s case. In 

particular, she learned considerably about areas of her discipline, biology, that were 

not directly related to her subfield, botany. As she related:

I learned microbiology, like I said, I learned so much! I had never 

taken a microbiology class, so here I was with a microbiology 

textbook. We learned different colonies and morphologies, so it was 

good. It’s great for learning. (Wanda interview, 2/4/05) 

Just as importantly, she expressed the idea that in some ways it connected her more 

with scientific research because of this increase in content knowledge.

Wanda saw schools as a place where real scientific research can take place. In the 

following passage, she talked of her idea to have scientists’ laboratories extend into a 

classroom. As she stated:
85

I could see with certain sets of students if you just turn the classroom 

into a laboratory, you could see how that could happen. You can have 

your courses melding with what you’re (as a scientist) doing in the 

laboratory, or investigate some of the wider scale—the things that 

you’re doing with the class—investigate them even further. (Wanda 

interview, 4/18/05)

So Wanda saw science classes (in college or K−12) as potential places to connect 

students with scientists and scientific experiments.

Rebecca reported that her teaching connected her more with her research by making 

her more holistically focused. Her topic related to climatological cycles in East Asian 

sediments. Although she originally had been focused solely on the sediment cycles, 

she came to recognize, through her teaching, that different factors influence each 

scientific phenomenon. As she related:

I never would have gotten the connection with the loess [an 

airborne dust particle] sequence and with the Milantkovich Cycles, 

and human evolution, and so many different areas if I hadn’t been 

interested enough to look in all those different areas, I would have 

never got the connection. (Rebecca interview, 2/10/05)

She saw science more in terms of connections, and it influenced her to view her own 

research topic in a broader sense and to learn more about different topics that relate 

to it. Her experiences teaching a variety of subjects motivated her to research in 

depth a variety of topics that related to her dissertation. She researched such topics 

as monsoon cycles and archeological studies because they informed her study in a 

broader manner.

Ideas About Theories Versus Laws

The distinction between theories and laws is one of the most commonly confused 

aspects about the nature of science. Schwartz et al. define the difference between 

theories and laws:

Theories and laws are different kinds of scientific knowledge. Laws 

describe relationships, observed or perceived, of phenomena in 

nature. Theories are inferred explanations for natural phenomena 

and mechanisms for relationships among natural phenomena. 

Hypotheses in science may lead to either theories or laws with the 

accumulation of substantial supporting evidence and acceptance 

in the scientific community. Theories and laws do not progress into 

one and another, in the hierarchical sense, for they are distinctly and 

functionally different types of knowledge (p. 613).

In other words, laws describe a relationship, while theories provide an explanation for 

that relationship. For example, if we drop a pen on the Earth, it will always fall to the 

ground. This could be referred to as the law of gravitation. But if we want to explain 

why the pen falls to the ground, we must invoke a theory. This does not imply that 

for every theory there is a corresponding law. For example, the theory that dinosaurs

became extinct because of a meteorite impact does not have a corollary law that says, 

“Dinosaurs will always die out when there is a meteorite impact.”

Most of the Fellows held the view that laws were simply no more than widely accepted 

and solidified forms of theories. At the start of the program Sandra wrote, “The 

difference between scientific theory and law is simply a function of the number of 

times a theory has been tested.” Similarly, Nathan wrote, “A law is a well-established 

theory that can be taken as a fact,” and Wanda wrote, “If theories were more defined 

and proven or observed, they would become laws.” Their idea was that laws were simply 
86

outgrowths of theories, with laws being theories that had stood the test of time and were 

now known to be definitely true. 

Among some Fellows at the beginning of the program, however, there did appear to 

be some understanding of differences in nature between theories and laws. Beth, for 

example, wrote, “Although scientific theories and scientific laws are closely related, 

there may be a subtle difference between them.” In a second statement, although she 

identified laws and theories as being accepted as “true,” she appeared to understand 

some of their differences: “Both theories and laws are well-tested ideas accepted as 

true by the scientific community; however, scientific laws are usually more concise 

than theories.” At the end of the program, Beth said:

In order to develop scientific knowledge, we must be able to 

rely on some guiding principles. In my opinion, [there is] very 

little [difference between a scientific theory and a scientific 

law]. However, the term scientific law may imply some stronger 

mathematical development of principles that can be used to 

calculate quantities.

One can see the development during the program of Beth’s ideas on the differences 

between laws and theories. Her last sentence in the above quote about a “stronger 

mathematical development” is on the right track. 

Some of the Fellows recognized that scientists use theories to inform working 

experiments and hypotheses on an ongoing basis through time. For example, 

Tamara wrote, “Theories are useful tools for explaining occurrences, for developing 

experiments to test the theories, and for understanding the history of a particular 

area of research.”

Most of the Fellows appeared to recognize that theories change with new information. 

Beth understood the recursive nature of theories in that experiments can influence 

the theories upon which they are based, as revealed in this passage: “There exists a 

two-way road between experimentation and theory formulation.” Jessica, too, noted, 

“I think scientific theories change over time.” 

At the beginning of the program Crystal wrote, “The laws don’t change, and they 

are factual,” while Wanda added, “Theories are more fluid, more changing, than 

laws,” which is not what distinguishes them. However, Wanda did seem to grasp 

that theories could change with new constructions over time, when she recognized, 

“Changing theories reveal the history of science.” 

Even at the end of the program, however, some Fellows’ ideas did not change and 

others did on the difference between a law and a theory. For instance, for these same 

two Fellows, Crystal said, “[Newton’s law] cannot be disputed, and there is only 

one set of laws to describe one phenomenon.” Wanda’s ideas were changing but still 

had some contradictions within them: “Laws are not debated as much as theories. 

Theories are less accepted as truth than laws.” Wanda still saw laws as “truth,” not 

as our best construction of a relationship of what we observe or perceive about 

nature. Other Fellows were mid-way along the continuum from thinking of laws as 

unchanging truths to thinking of them as “relationships, observed or perceived, of 

phenomenon in nature.”

Social and Cultural Influences on Scientific Knowledge

Since scientists from different cultures have differing experiences and perspectives, 

they will bring in different interpretations to scientific data. At the beginning of the 

program, most of the Fellows did not believe that knowledge was socially constructed 

but instead accepted it as a “testable truth” that is the same for all individuals and that 

does not change between different cultures or societies. Sandra exemplified this when 

she wrote, “The social sciences...entail the study of behavior and thought through 
87

history and geographical settings [and] are unable to exact the scientific method in its 

purest form.” In other words, to her, social and cultural phenomena only contaminate 

the pureness and objectiveness of science and objectiveness is a virtue.

Jose gave particularly strong views about how culture and societal influences are 

not a part of science when he wrote, “Science transcends national and cultural 

boundaries; it is independent of social, political, philosophical, or religious values, 

as well as intellectual norms of any culture.” He went on to confirm his endorsement 

of science’s objectivity by asserting, “Science, by itself, is just a body of knowledge, 

hopefully as objective as can possibly be attained, about the universe, reality, the 

world around us, etc.” Jose saw socially and culturally based influences and differences 

in human opinion and experiences as factors that do not play a role in science and 

that are to be avoided.

There were, however, some notable exceptions to those views. Rebecca understood 

that science is not independent of such influences. She revealed this when she wrote, 

“Science has historically reflected social and cultural values and still does today.” 

Wanda wrote in response to one of the questions, “I don’t feel that I am able to answer 

this question without bias since I am under the influence of culture, but I do believe 

that our thoughts influence our interpretations.”

As is common among those grounded in the science culture, most of the Fellows 

described science in the language of objectivity, testability, and provability, indicating 

that there was one set answer for each question and that there must be “right” and 

“wrong” answers to scientific questions. Nathan stated, “They [his students] already 

have an idea how these things work out. So you kind of have to erase the incorrect 

knowledge and hopefully replace it with the correct knowledge” (Nathan interview, 

2/15/05). He recognized that students had preconceived ideas about knowledge, but 

he did not necessarily recognize that there might be partial truths in these ideas that 

can be used, rather than replaced. 

Crystal on the other hand recognized the possibility of alternate, supportable 

constructions of the same phenomenon. She wrote, “What goes for the general public 

also goes for scientists in that two people can look at the exact same thing and see 

something totally different (sic).” Wanda recognized that there could be several equally 

valid approaches to a problem. She wrote, “Every question may be approached from 

different directions with some approaches having different conclusions than others.” 

At the end of the program, there were not as many statements on social and cultural 

effects on science from the final VNOS questionnaire. Nathan stated, “Different 

conclusions can be derived from the same set of data in this example because 

different scientists have different previous experiences and contexts in which to put 

new information.” Therefore, Nathan could see that scientists might interpret data 

differently. Elsewhere in the same VNOS questionnaire, Nathan wrote, “Experiments 

carried out in different cultures should produce the same result.” This is an apparent 

contradiction that signifies that both types of ideas are present in their minds at the 

same time and that they have not had a chance for discourse and time to resolve 

them. Interestingly, no one mentioned that scientists might ask different research

questions depending on their gender or culture. 

Creativity

During the first month of the project, ideas on creativity varied considerably from 

one GK−12 Fellow to another. For instance, Tamara acknowledged, “Scientists must 

use their creativity and imagination at every stage of the process.” Tamara also gave 

a practical metaphor for science: “Science is like cooking—there are guidelines

and accepted ways of conducting research but there is always room for creativity 

and change.” In contrast, Wanda thought scientists “are encouraged to use their 

imaginations during the planning and design of experiments and during the analysis 

of the data but not during the collection of the data.” 
88

Four months into the grant, at the end of the teaching and learning course, Rebecca 

commented as follows in our teaching questionnaire: “I think the process of science 

is explorative and creative in nature and can best be taught in a ‘hands-on’ manner 

when possible and always in a ‘minds-on’ fashion.” By the end of the program 

Rebecca commented: 

Scientists must use creativity at ALL stages of experimentation and 

investigation. When I am designing an experiment I try to imagine 

every potential variable and outcome so that I can control for as 

many things as possible. During data collection, things can break 

or not work as I had planned. I then have to be creative to discover 

the problem and fix or work around it. Finally, interpretation is all 

about creativity. If you can’t imagine possibilities, you can’t really 

do meaningful science (and I imagine it wouldn’t be much fun). 

(VNOS, April 2005)

It’s obvious that Rebecca has experienced these issues in her research. When one visits 

her classroom, one can see her self-confidence because she knows the science and 

wants to share that understanding of both the process and content of science.

One year into the project, some other Fellows mentioned creativity in their writing. 

For instance, Crystal wrote, “Every graduate student has to be creative in their own 

research projects to find innovative ways to answer the question that they have 

put forth.” Jessica addressed creativity when she wrote, “Method development 

is a very creative process that can be imagined spontaneously, in dreams, or as 

epiphanies.” Nathan agreed with the others: “Imagination is apparent in all stages of 

experiments.... If scientists cannot use their imaginations, then how will new theories

and ideas be offered and then developed?” These Fellows may have had creativity in 

mind since the beginning of the project.

By the end of the program, every GK−12 Fellow wrote about the importance of 

creativity in science. For instance, Nathan wrote, “All the fundamental ideas we know 

in science were once someone’s ‘crazy ideas’ (creative thoughts).”

Challenges

Using the CHAT as a theoretical frame, we searched for contradictions or challenges 

in what the Fellows stated. We searched for contradictions because we can learn from 

them how to improve the flow of the subjects (the GK−12 Fellows) to their objects

(to learn about teaching and learning and about science) and toward their outcomes

(becoming professional scientists with an evolving understanding of teaching and 

learning and of science). 

The two strongest sets of contradictions or challenges were concerning the ideas on 

the nature of science and epistemology and on the interactions between the teachers 

and the Fellows. We will discuss each of them in turn, with evidence to support our 

claim of the presence of contradictions.

Nature of Science and Epistemology

The strongest challenge or contradiction of the Fellows was that they espoused the 

ideas that science is a series of facts and that truth can be achieved through science. 

Rebecca, from the beginning, did not do this, and Nathan tended to change in this 

direction. This goes beyond our Fellows and those in the comparison group, as most 

people, including scientists, tend to talk this way. At least scientists, however, know 

that science does change as we learn more. As we gather more data, we continue to 

reanalyze and develop new hypotheses and test them. It is as if we want others to 

think science is fact so that science will have a higher authority of knowledge. Also, 

even though scientists within their research groups tend to discuss science tentatively, 
89

in oral presentations they can present their findings more forcefully as the “truth.” 

Scientists also may feel that they need to defend their conclusions as “fact” because 

some groups may assault science on the basis of its perceived weaknesses (i.e., that 

science is open-minded on the nature of truth).

In an attempt to understand these contradictions or challenges, we compared Fellows’ 

views on the nature of science at three different stages: at the beginning of the 

program, midway through the program, and near the end of the program. Their views 

are presented in the following charts:

Quotes on the Nature of Science From the Start of the Program

GK−12 Fellow Representative Quote (source)

Crystal The scientific knowledge is based on observations that are 

concrete and can be taken to be factual. (VNOS)

Jessica The process of science is the process of coming to conclusions 

with repeatable results. (Teaching survey)

Latoya Learning is a process. One can find science in everything. 

(Teaching survey)

Nathan Science is defined as a study to obtain systematic knowledge. I 

believe science is exploring or attempting to explain something 

unknown using a governing set of rules. (VNOS)

Rebecca Science is a method of thought in which ideas may be disproved 

but never truly proven.... Creativity and observation are very 

important, and the hypothesis, experiment, data, results’ model is 

not really an effective definition of science. (VNOS)

Tamara Science is a study of the natural world. (VNOS)

Wanda Physics and biology are more based on tangible, observable, and 

quantifiable events or objects, whereas philosophy and religion 

are based on conscious and subconscious thought. (VNOS)

Quotes on the Nature of Science After the Course on Teaching and 

Learning or Midway During the Program

K−12 Fellow Representative Quote (source)

Beth I believe that science is universal, but I also believe that the 

pursuit of scientific knowledge can be restricted by social and 

cultural values.... [Science is always true because] nature holds 

those answers not humans.... Since science answers solely to 

nature, the only way to test the accuracy of scientific ideas is to 

test them in nature. (VNOS)

Crystal Science has to do with inquiry and experimentation.... What 

makes science different is that it is factual with few discrepancies 

once the facts have been proven. (VNOS)

Jessica The process of science is the...coming to conclusions with 

repeatable results. (Teaching survey)

Latoya Science is different because it is mostly based on physical proof 

and can be quantitatively tested. (VNOS)

Nathan Science is the attempt to gain understanding of the unknown.... 

An experiment is the instrument used to gain further 

understanding. (VNOS)

Rebecca Science differs from other disciplines of inquiry in that it requires 

a hypothesis to be repeatedly tested and these tests to produce 

alike results. (VNOS)
90

K−12 Fellow Representative Quote (source)

Tamara Science is, in theory, different from other disciplines of inquiry

in that it is based on repeatable experiments and falsifiable 

hypotheses. (VNOS)

Wanda The science I describe is different from other disciplines of 

inquiry in that scientific disciplines seek the observable and 

measurable truth under stated conditions whereas other 

disciplines of inquiry focus on questions to which answers are 

often opinions or un-testable theories. (VNOS)

Quotes on the Nature of Science from the End of the Program

GK−12 Fellow Representative Quote (source)

Beth Theories can be modified as we learn more and more. If 

continued experimental results contradict a theory, then the theory 

must be thrown out. (VNOS)

Crystal Science differs from other disciplines in its requirement for 

observable proof. (VNOS)

Jessica Science is different than other disciplines because experiments 

are used to verify ideas. (VNOS)

Kisha Science also has the potential to get a definitive answer 

supported by data (VNOS)

Latoya Science is the process of observing one’s surroundings, asking a 

question about why certain things occur, and trying to conduct 

experiments to resolve the question and later explain one’s 

findings of the pros and cons of that finding. (VNOS)

Nathan Science is the attempt to learn or better understand something 

that is not yet understood. Rather than relying on faith or opinions, 

science creates laws using facts found through experiments. 

Science also contains opinions and theories, but they are based 

on the current knowledge available to us, and I think the opinions 

in science are more readily changed than those in religion.... 

Science creates laws using facts found through experiments. 

Science also contains opinions and theories, but they are based 

on the current knowledge available to us, and I think the opinions 

in science are more readily changed than those in religion. 

(VNOS)

Rebecca Science is a process of inquiry in which ideas are (usually) 

testable and results are (or should be) repeatable. Science differs 

from other disciplines in that there is not an absolute “truth” and 

matters are not taken on faith. (VNOS)

Tamara Science is different from other disciplines in that hypotheses can 

be specifically tested and compared to alternative hypotheses.... 

Science is not a static discipline. (VNOS)

Wanda Science is a discipline based on inquiry that is addressed in a 

process that involves hypotheses that are useful for mathematical 

interpretation of observations (with or without manipulations) and 

are useful for identifying possible explanations. (VNOS)

Quotes on the Nature of Science After the Course on Teaching and 

Learning or Midway During the Program (continued)
91

There are various types of contradictions addressed in these three tables: (1) 

Sometimes there is a contradiction between what a Fellow says at one point and what 

the Fellow says at another point in the same questionnaire, (2) sometimes there is 

a contradiction between what different Fellows express, (3) sometimes the Fellows’ 

ideas change with time or ideas are not fully resolved within the Fellows (they are still 

pondering them), and (4) sometimes there is a contradiction between what scientists 

and social scientists think about science and what the Fellows think.

Interactions Between GK−12 Fellows and GK−12 Teachers

During their three-year tenure in the program, the Fellows had differing experiences 

in working with teachers. There were always some teachers with whom they worked 

very well and others with whom they did not work as well. In the previous part of 

this chapter and much of the monograph we have described much of the positive 

interactions. Here we discuss some of the challenges.

In some ways, the challenges were part of the learning for the Fellows, as they came 

to understand that there are different types of teachers in K−12 schools. At the same 

time, it may work better in the future to have a more select group of teachers and have 

the Fellows remain with each teacher for an entire year. 

Some of the Fellows noticed that their participating GK−12 Teachers were not 

industrious, while others were first- or second-year teachers too overwhelmed with 

work to be able to work well with the Fellow. In the latter case, the situations were 

not truly in the teachers’ control but were more a reflection of the difficulties that 

they were facing. There were some first- and second-year teachers, however, who 

worked out very well. One thing that this indicates is that there is a great need for 

better instruments to assess which teachers would benefit the most from professional 

development. 

Another major issue was control of the classroom. In some cases, the Fellows were 

not permitted the time to do much teaching. As Rebecca reported about one of her 

teachers, “I felt like it was no partnership at all, and I brought nothing to the picture 

because I wasn’t allowed to do anything.” She would work very hard on lessons for 

this participating teacher, but the teacher did not value these lessons and would cut or 

cancel her lesson at the last minute. 

In other cases, the exact opposite problem occurred—the teachers left the Fellows to 

fend for themselves teaching alone in the classroom. As Nathan reported:

More than half of the teachers I have worked with have left the 

classroom at one point or another (beyond just using the restroom). 

They should be involved in every activity or lesson. On the days 

when the Fellow has prepared a lesson or activity, the co-teachers 

sometimes feel like they are on vacation. (Nathan’s end-of-year 

questionnaire, 4/22/05)

Here, Nathan revealed a problem that Fellows sometimes faced: that the teachers saw 

this as an opportunity to give up the classroom instead of co-teaching. It was easier 

for these teachers to turn over the classroom to the Fellows and simply vacate the 

premises or have their minds on something else.

Wanda added that there were some teachers who understood and embraced the 

concept of co-teaching, while there were others who did not. She stated:

The first teacher I worked with, she loved the co-teaching. I could 

talk about something, and she could come in and talk about 

something, and that would make me think about this, and I would 

talk about it. So that worked—but some teachers don’t work that 

way. (Wanda interview 2/4/05)
92

In her statement, she explained that while some teachers worked well with Fellows 

and enjoyed the co-teaching, others did not. It depended on the individual and on the 

personality matches.

Despite doing our best at matching GK−12 Fellows with GK−12 Teachers, it was hard 

to predict what matches would work out well. There really is an element of art, skill, 

and luck to the matching process. Instruments developed by researchers to assess 

teachers’ readiness to learn from professional development will be very useful for 

situations like matching practicing teachers with GK−12 Fellows. It would also be 

useful to have instruments to know which GK−12 Fellows are ready to learn from the 

experience of teaching.

Even though one of us interviewed 9 of the 25 GK−12 Teachers in the first and second 

years of the program, the topic of co-teaching only came up once. In that instance, 

the teacher was trying to work with the Fellow so that there would be productive coteaching. We should note that in these nine interviews we did not specifically ask the 

GK−12 Teachers about co-teaching, as it did not really surface as a strong concern with 

the GK−12 Fellows until the end of the program. It may have been that the teachers 

would be able to legitimately tell another side to the story had we asked them. 

Later, in the third year of the program, we specifically and directly asked four of the 

Fellows and four of the GK−12 Teachers supervising three of them about co-teaching, 

so our answers were more extensive. In some cases, GK−12 Teachers reported 

frustration with not knowing exactly what role the Fellows were expected to take. 

As one of them said, “The one thing I would like to mention is I was unsure of how 

much [the Fellow] was supposed to actually do.” This teacher was uncertain what role 

the Fellow should have in the classroom. Therefore, better communication between 

the directors of the GK−12 program who make the placements with the teachers and 

the school system in advance might help. One Fellow suggested having the applicants 

for the GK−12 Teachers write short essays to answer questions such as:

1. What would you like to contribute to your K−8 classroom?

2. What do you feel that you can bring to the partnership with the GK−12 Fellow?

3. What and how would you want the Fellow to teach in your classroom?

4. How do you feel about the Fellow teaching some of your classes?

Besides doing science workshops in the summer for the GK−12 Teachers, we could 

include workshops on co-teaching18,19 as well. This might prove helpful in other 

GK−12 programs.

Some of the Fellows expressed a preference for having teacher assignments be for an 

entire school year, especially provided there is careful matching. This would allow for 

the program to be more selective in choosing teachers, as fewer teachers would be 

required. Nathan stated, “I would actually increase the screening process at both the 

Teacher and Fellow level.” Here, he recommended screening not only GK−12 Teachers 

but also GK−12 Fellows in order to be fair and improve matching. In our program for 

the third year, three of our nine Fellows did get to work with one teacher for an entire 

year, and it was very productive.

GK−12 Fellows’ Learning From Writing This 

Monograph

In the process of writing and reflecting on their experiences in the K−8 schools, it 

should help the GK−12 Fellows to move along the continuum towards understanding

the nature of teaching and the nature of science. Mary Budd Rowe reminded us that 

John Dewey did not say that we learn by doing but that “we learn by doing and by 

thinking about what we’re doing.”20 That is what we want to encourage in our GK−12 

Fellows. This monograph should help other GK−12 Fellows here and elsewhere learn 
93

the ropes of teaching in K−12 and how their ideas on the nature of science and on 

the teaching and learning of science may change through the experience. Some of 

the Fellows may be able to use their SERVE chapter as a chapter in their doctoral 

dissertations. Their major professors recognize that there has been scholarly work that 

they have done in the K−8 schools and that this should be part of the doctoral record.

Reflections by a Pre-Service Science Teacher

A pre-service science teacher and pre-intern, Giselle Marsh, worked on coding the 

GK−12 Fellows’ initial and midway comments for the analysis of the data from this 

evaluation. She noted that some of the Fellows’ ideas on science had changed from 

their initial entries to their mid-way writings. After Giselle sorted the data using the 

QSR software program, she wrote in her summary:

At the beginning of the project when each Fellow wrote about his/

her views on science, the classroom and teaching, each response 

seemed so “stuffy.” It was as if they were writing a term paper for 

Albert Einstein. It was not until later assignments that I could see 

the Fellows making connections between science, education, and the 

students. The Fellows have really developed and become more open 

to the educational aspect of science.

Giselle found that reading the Fellows’ ideas on teaching, assessment, discipline, and 

the nature of science helped her get ready for her teaching internship. She reflected on 

her own ideas while she read the ideas of the Fellows and discussed contrasting ideas 

with one of us. It helped her as a pre-service teacher prepare herself for teaching.

Fellows’ Learning Through Participating in Research

Another advantage of our evaluation was the learning that the Fellows gained from 

participating in our research. By having a chance to reflect on their practice and by 

being able to think about their GK−12 experiences, they were able to deepen their 

understandings about science teaching. Wanda revealed this learning when she noted:

The types of questions that were asked during the study gave me 

insight about the kind of assessment that is done in the [science 

education] field and also enriched my GK−12 experience by causing 

me to analyze and reflect on the GK−12 experiences and how the 

GK−12 experiences influenced my thinking. Writing the monograph 

and reading the chapters of others was also important for reflection. 

I found reading my responses from the beginning of the program 

and comparing them to my responses and thoughts at the end of the 

program to be helpful in my understanding of what I have gained 

from the program. (Wanda, personal communication, 6/23/05)

In the above passage, she notes how it was advantageous to see how she had developed 

as a result of the program. By having her initial thoughts recorded, she could have a 

reference point with which to compare her current understandings. She also indicates 

that she has learned about the type of research conducted in science education and 

the types of questions asked. Other Fellows expressed similar sentiments. When one 

of us asked Rebecca if she felt that she had benefited from the research that we did, she 

replied “Yeah! I feel like I’ve learned a lot. I’ve gotten a much better feel—I’ve gotten 

a lot more confident in my research.” She went on to explain how talking about her 

teaching and research allowed her to understand how her teaching was informing her 

research. Without this study, she says she would not have thought about and come to 

understand this connection.
94

Summary of Final Evaluation

We have seen progress on our GK−12 Fellows’ ideas on teaching, learning, and 

assessment. The Fellows learned how difficult assessment is, how children of different 

ages learn differently, how to focus on the big picture rather than small details, and 

how one can learn even when one needs to teach out of field. They also learned 

generally about the nature of children and schools so that they can be better informed 

in the future should they become involved in outreach to K−12 education from their 

science professions.

Having the special course for them in their first semester in the program was critical 

for getting them to think differently about teaching and learning. Most GK−12 

programs do not offer such a course as this, and we think it is crucial. 

Where there was less progress was on the Fellows’ ideas on the nature of science. It is 

not too surprising, however, because that was not a primary focus of our program, 

but determining what factors influence science graduate students to change their 

ideas about the nature of science has become an area or research. Bell, Blair, Crawford, 

and Lederman (2003) point out that practicing scientists think that their junior 

research associates will pick up the nature of science “by osmosis” and that it does not 

need to be addressed.21 However, Bell et al. believe osmosis alone is not sufficient to 

teach people about the nature of science.21

Bell et al. note that by providing “forced dissonance as epistemic demand” or the 

“demands that a project makes on a student to draw on his or her views about the 

relationship between data and knowledge to make progress on the project,” we might 

be able to assist learners through this dissonance that they may feel.21 

As our program comes close to the end, a number of our Fellows have spoken about 

the desire to stay involved in education once they finish their doctoral degrees, 

whether it is through becoming a university faculty member or other approaches. 

Wanda spoke with one of us about her change in career goal. Originally she had 

planned to pursue a career as an industrial scientist but now was considering a career 

as an academic scientist because of her desire to stay more involved in teaching. One 

thing that is certain is that they will influence the culture of teaching wherever they 

go. We think of them as seed crystals, spreading the knowledge that they have learned 

about teaching and learning as they move forward in their careers. 

Acknowledgments

We thank two individuals who did much of the sorting of the qualitative data from 

the VNOS and the teaching survey: Giselle Marsh, who was a pre-service science 

teacher and now is a practicing science teacher, and Jordan Rogers, who was an 

honors chemistry freshman student. We also acknowledge the help of Lisa Upham for 

her editorial help in finalizing not only this chapter but also this entire monograph 

and of Jeremy Twachtman, an honors chemistry freshman student who assisted with 

videotaping the GK−12 Fellows’ classrooms. Jeremy and Jordan also helped with 

the interviews with some of the GK−12 Fellows and those science graduate students 

in the comparison group. We also thank Helena M. Safron and Matthew Busch for 

transcribing a number of the audiotapes.

References

1. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of 

science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of 

science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

2. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin 

(Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.
95

3. Engeström, Y., Miettinen R., & Punamäki, E. L. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

4. Engeström, Y. (2001). Center for activity theory and developmental work research. Retrieved on 

August 31, 2003, from www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity.

5. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American 

Journal of Sociology, 98, 1−29.

6. Sewell, W. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell & L. Hunt (Eds.), Beyond the 

cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (pp. 35−61). Berkeley: University 

of California Press.

7. GEMS, Great Explorations in Mathematics and Science, Lawrence Hall of Science. (2004). 

Retrieved on August 8, 2004, from www.lhsgems.org/gemsathome.html.

8. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

9. NSF (2005). NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K−12 Education. Retrieved on March 28, 2005, 

from www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5472&org=EHR&from=home.

10. Gabel, D. L., & Bunce, D. M. (1994). Research on problem solving: Chemistry. In D. L. Gabel 

(Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 301−326). New York: Macmillan 

Publishing.

11. Ward, C. R., & Herron, J. D. (1980). Helping students understand formal chemical concepts. 

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(5), 387−400.

12. Geologic Education Outreach (2005). Retrieved on May 10, 2005, from www.uwo.ca/earth/

outreach/volcanoactivities.html.

13. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring 

into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20−43). Washington, DC: American Association 

for the Advancement of Science.

14. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science 

questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of 

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

15. Field-tested learning assessment guide for science, mathematics, engineering and technology 

instructors. (2004). Retrieved on August 8, 2004, from www.flaguide.org/tools/diagnostic/

views_of_nature_questionnaire.php.

16. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2005). “But what do scientists say?” Scientists’ views on the 

nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher 

Education, Colorado Springs, CO.

17. QSR, Qualitative Analysis Software and 

Services (2005). Retrieved on June 12, 

2005, from www.qsrinternational.com. 

18. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the 

elbow of another: Learning to teach by 

coteaching New York: Peter Lang.

19. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (Eds.) (2005). 

Teaching together, learning together. New 

York: Peter Lang. 

20. Rowe, M. B. (1978). Wait, wait, wait. School 

Science and Mathematics, 78, 207–216; see 

p. 216.

21. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & 

Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact 

of science apprenticeship program on high 

school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. 

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509; see p. 494.

Martin Balinsky, GK–12 Fellow 

Danielle Sherdan, and Penny 

J. Gilmer at the GK–12 Annual 

Meeting in Arlington, VA in 2005. 

Martin is a Science Education 

graduate student who is doing a 

qualitative study of several of the 

GK–12 Fellows in collaboration 

with Dr. Penny J. Gilmer, the 

internal evaluator.
96

A

access 35–36, 58, 67, 75

activities 3, 23, 26, 32, 34, 36, 41–43, 46, 49–50, 52–53, 57–59, 65, 66–70, 74, 77

adaptability 49

agency 75

application 22, 31, 56, 76

assessment 2, 22, 31, 81–82, 94

attitudes 5, 60

authenticity 75

B

biological science 76

biology 21, 24, 81, 84, 89

C

challenges 2, 24, 52

chemistry 81, 94

child development 2–3

classroom management 49–53, 71

co-teach 69

co-teaching 3, 69, 79

cognition 3

cognitive abilities 82

coherences 74

collaboration 3, 40, 45, 74

communication 3, 4, 25, 30, 49

communities 35, 75

comparison group 76–77, 79, 84, 88, 94

conceptual 40, 82

concept introduction 31, 76

contradictions 74, 86, 88–89, 91

control 49–51, 53, 69, 78, 88

cooperative learning 39, 40, 44– 46, 52, 63

creativity 1, 30, 44, 69, 82–84, 87–88

critical thinking 40, 59

cultural-historical activity theory 74

curriculum 2, 3, 25, 34, 55, 56, 59, 80

D

decision making 40

dinosaurs 85

division of labor 75

E

early experiences 78

education 2, 4–5, 21, 23–25, 29–30, 35– 37, 55, 73–74, 79, 93–94

effective teacher 23, 49, 50, 52–53

effective teaching 21–23

elaboration 22, 76

Index
97

elaboration likelihood model 22

elementary school 46, 57, 70

engagement 22–24, 76

engineering 

2, 74–75

environment 22–23, 29–30, 34–35, 45, 49–50, 52, 56, 65, 74

epistemic demand 94

epistemology 83

evaluation 

52, 74, 76, 93

evolution 85

examples 22, 52, 58

explanation 76, 82, 84–85

exploration 3, 30–31, 46, 52, 65, 76, 82

F

faculty 2–3, 23–25, 34–35, 75–76, 81, 83, 94

faith 90

forced dissonance 

94

formative 

75, 82

G

GEMS 6, 34, 41, 57, 64–68, 75

geology 

29–30, 33, 36, 83

GK-12 Fellows 

3–5, 23, 25, 50, 52, 63–64, 74, 76–83, 88, 92–94

GK-12 program 

3, 21–25, 32, 37, 53, 57, 64, 67, 74–75, 80, 94

GK-12 Teachers 

3–5, 74–77, 82

GK-12 Web site 

77

global marketplace 1

gravity 

33

group activities 

39–40, 69

guidelines 

51, 56, 87

H

habits of mind 3

hands-on 

22, 24, 36, 65, 80, 88

Harry Wong 

52–53

history 

35, 86–87

humor 

50

hypotheses 

25, 84, 86, 88, 90

hypothesis 

43, 51, 83, 89

I

ideas on teaching 77, 79, 94

imagination 

87

innovators 

1

inquiry 

2–4, 22, 24, 32, 37, 50, 52, 58, 59, 65, 80, 84, 89, 90

inquiry-based 

2–3, 24, 32, 34, 40, 43–44, 46, 63

interdependence 

39, 43, 45

invitation 

31, 33, 76
98

K

K-12 students 2, 5, 21, 23

K-8 classrooms 3, 52, 76, 83

L

laboratory 21, 24–25, 30–31, 46, 51–53, 56–57, 59–60, 64–65, 68, 70, 79, 85

laws 83, 85–86, 90

learning 2–4, 21–25, 31–32, 34–36, 39–40, 42, 44–46, 49–53, 55, 57–58, 65, 67–69, 71, 

74–77, 79–82, 84, 88, 93–94

learning cycle 31–32, 34, 52–53, 76

lesson preparation 56

life science 64–65, 67–68, 70

M

management skills 49–50, 53

managers 50

mathematics 1–2, 29, 45, 56, 65, 70, 74–75, 84

matter and energy 69

mentors 49, 53

methodology 4, 79

middle school 63

misconceptions 22, 46

motivation 46

N

nature of knowledge 83

nature of science 67, 74, 76, 83–85, 89, 92, 94

O

objective 24, 87

objectives 2–3, 51–52, 56

objectivity 83, 87

P

para-educators 51

partnership 3, 74

patience 45, 49

physical science 55, 59, 67–70

physics 57–58, 76, 81

prediction 35, 43–44

predictions 41–45, 47

prior knowledge 22, 25, 29–31, 33, 82

problem solving 40, 95

public schools 29

public school system 55, 58

Q

qualitative data 77, 94
99

R

reasoning skills 39

reflection 3

research 21, 24–25, 29, 31–32, 35, 40, 56, 59, 64, 70, 77, 81, 85–88, 94

resources 2–3, 31,–32, 34–35, 41, 45–46, 51, 58–59, 75, 78

roles 39–40, 50, 68

role models 50

routines 49–51

rules 26, 42–43, 75, 89

S

scientific literacy 29

scientific method 51, 83, 87

scientific research 40, 81, 84

security 1

seed crystals 94

self-esteem 39–40, 43

social and cultural influences 83

social and cultural values 87–89

social constructivism 74

social skills 25, 39–40, 45

space science 32, 65, 67, 69

structure 31–32, 50, 53, 75

subjectivity 83

summative 75, 82

symbolic 75

T

teaching 1–4, 21–22, 23–25, 29–32, 34, 36–37, 40, 44, 46, 50, 52–53, 55–57, 59–60, 

64–65, 67, 69–71, 74–85, 88, 92–94

teaching aids 60

teaching philosophies 79

teaching practices 1

teaching strategies 22–24

teaching survey 77, 82, 84

technology 2, 74–75

testability 87

theme-based curricula 32

theories 45, 83, 85–86, 88, 90

theory of structure 74–75

thinking 25, 32, 67, 74, 79, 86, 92

third-grade 64–65

Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1, 29

TIMSS 1, 29

trustworthiness 75

truth 83, 86, 88, 90
100

U

undergraduates 2, 21, 25, 29, 46, 83

undergraduate teaching 2

understanding 22–23, 29–32, 34, 37, 40, 46, 52, 56, 69, 75, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88–89, 92

university 2, 21–25, 29–30, 32, 35, 37, 58, 70, 83, 94


✁

Feedback Form

Science Graduate Students in K-8 Classrooms: Experiences and Reflections

Meeting the needs of educational practitioners is very important to the Southeast Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education @ SERVE. Your feedback on this publication will 

permit us to better assist you. Please help us by providing a brief response to the following:

1. How useful was the information in this publication?

❑ Very useful ❑ Useful ❑ Of little use ❑ Of no use 

2. Please rate the quality of this publication based on the characteristics listed below:

 Excellent Good Fair Poor NA

 Up-to-date ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

 Easy to use ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

 Value to your work ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 

3. How might this publication contribute to your work? Please give specific examples.

4. Would you recommend this publication to your colleagues? ❑ Yes ❑ No

 Comments: 

Please provide the following information to help us better serve you.

Name: 

Occupation/Position: 

School or Organization: 

Preferred Mailing Address: ❑ Home ❑ Work

Phone: Fax: 

E-mail Address: 

Do you work in a district/school with a majority of students who are Title I eligible? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Please mail or fax to:

Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium @ SERVE

1203 Governor’s Square Blvd. Suite 400 ♦ Tallahassee, FL 32301

Fax: 850-671-6010 ♦ Phone: 800-854-0476
PLACE 

STAMP 

HERE

SOUTHEAST EISENHOWER REGIONAL CONSORTIUM @ SERVE

1203 GOVERNOR’S SQUARE BLVD

SUITE 400

TALLAHASSEE FL 32301

TAPE EDGE CLOSED

FOLD ALONG DOTTED LINE

✁

From the Foreword by Kenneth Tobin:

This monograph is timely. For many years university scholars have participated in outreach activities 

with the goal of improving K−12 education. With the advent of a National Science Foundation 

program to fund collaborative projects between K−12 and university scientists, there was a clear need 

for a scholarly publication that described how a project was planned and enacted, explored the 

successes and contradictions, and considered what improvements were necessary. This monograph 

does just that by using a variety of data resources and sociocultural theoretical frames to highlight 

the benefits, contradictions, and directions for the future based on research and evaluation of a 

NSF-funded project from the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K−12 Education program....

The uses of coteaching in this project open the door for each coteacher to learn from the other.... 

What caught my eye in this monograph was the possibility that the coteachers’ goals progressed from 

personal growth and change to collective growth and change in the context of cotaught classes.

A feature of the monograph is its inclusion of practitioner research from a Graduate Teaching 

Fellows in K−12 Education program that made a conscious effort to ascertain what was happening 

and why it was happening. There is considerable merit in participants undertaking research on 

their own practices and, on the basis of what is learned, effecting changes so as to improve the 

quality of enactment.... 

— Kenneth Tobin, Presidential Professor of Urban Education

NSF, Distinguished Teaching Scholar

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York