Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Tomlinson’s explanation of Artful Teaching and her 2017 expansion of this concept The Five Key Elements of Differentiation provide the theoretical framework of this examination of the need for science investigations in elementary schools. The Artful Teaching framework uses an equilateral triangle with vertices labeled The Teacher, The Student, and The Content illustrating the need to incorporate these components when designing lessons. The Five Key Elements of Differentiation show essential elements of the environment, curriculum, assessment, instruction, and leadership and management as approaches to ensure artful teaching. This article examines how elementary schoolteachers can and should create interesting science investigation for students. A Moon Study unit provides an example of combining the five key elements of differentiation, artful teaching, and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to create a first grade unit that encompasses reading, writing, science concepts, student readiness levels, and respectful tasks to assist students in participating in inquiry-based science exploration.

Keywords

best practices teacher education differentiation inquiry-based science instruction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appleton

(2008). Elementary science teaching. In Abell

S. K.

Lederman

N. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493-535). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cavas

(2012). The meaning of and need for inquiry-based education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(1), 4-6.

Charney

R. S.

(2002). Teaching children to care: Classroom management for ethical and academic growth, K-8. Turners Fall, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

Cotabish

Dailey

Hughes

Robinson

(2011). The effects of a STEM professional development intervention on elementary teachers’ science process skills. Research in the Schools, 18(2), 16-25. doi:10.1111/ssm.12023

Davis

E. A.

Petish

Smithey

(2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76, 607-651. doi:10.3102/00346543076004607

Dewey

(1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Dewey

(1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company. doi:10.1037/10903-000

Dewey

(1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

10.

Ginns

I. S.

Watters

J. J.

(1995). An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 205-222. doi:101002/tea3660320209

11.

Goddard

R. D.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

W. K.

(2001). A multi-level examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3-16.

12.

Johnson

Ahtee

(2006). Comparing primary student teachers’ attitude, subject knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge needs in physics activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 503-512. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.015

13.

Keeley

(2008). Science formative assessment: 75 practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

14.

Kim

K. H.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

B. A.

Feng

Stambaugh

Bland

(2012). Three years of science instruction in Title I schools among K-3 students. Research in Science Education, 42, 813-829. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9218-5

15.

Kleickmann

Trobst

Jonen

Vehmeyer

Moller

(2016). The effects of expert scaffolding in elementary science professional development on teachers’ beliefs and motivation, instructional practices, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 21-42. doi:10.1037/edu0000041

16.

Kohn

(2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

17.

Linn

M. C.

Eylon

B. S.

(2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In Alexander

P. A.

Winne

P. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Little

C. A.

Paul

K. A.

(2011). In J. VanTassel-Baska & C. A. Little (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high-ability learners (2nd ed., pp. 413-436). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

19.

Loughran

Mulhall

Berry

(2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1301-1320. doi:10.1080/09500690802187009

20.

McGee

C. D.

(1999). A multi-age/multi-ability classroom in action. In Whitford

B. L.

Jones

(Eds.), Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lessons from Kentucky (pp. 49-70). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

21.

McGee

C. D.

(2011). Plants alive! In M. B. Imbeau (Ed.), Parallel curriculum units for grades K-5 (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

22.

Minner

D. D.

Levy

A. J.

Century

(2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347

23.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards for states, by states. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18290

24.

Piaget

J. C.

(2002). The psychology of intelligence: Routledge classics. New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Robins

Dailey

Hughes

Cotabish

(2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 189-213. doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799

26.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: Generalized and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. doi:10.1037/h0092976.

27.

Shymansky

J. A.

Wang

T. L.

Annetta

L. A.

Yore

L. D.

Everett

S. A.

(2010). How much professional development is needed to effect positive gains in K-6 student achievement on high states science tests? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 1-19. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9265-9

28.

The Star Child Team. (1995). The moon as viewed from Earth (Adapted from The Young Oxford Book of Astronomy, Simon and Jacqueline Mitton). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question3.html

29.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

30.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

31.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2017). Understanding differentiated instruction (Quick reference guide). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

32.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Imbeau

M. B.

(2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

33.

Tuan

H. L.

Chin

C. C.

Tsai

C. C.

Cheng

(2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 541-566. doi:10.1007/s10763-004-6827-8

34.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

35.

Watson

Ecken

(2003). Learning to trust: Transforming difficult elementary classrooms through developmental discipline. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Artful Teaching and Science Investigations: A Perfect Match

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References