An Exploration of Pre-Service Science Teachers' Noticing Skills

Abstract

Science teachers must attentively engage with students' perspectives, uncover underlying reasons, and shape instructional strategies in a dynamic classroom setting. These practices, which are called noticing skills, play a crucial role in students' science learning. Hence, examining the current level of noticing skills of pre-service science teachers is necessary to provide effective support for their development. Therefore, this study employed a basic qualitative research design to investigate the noticing skills of 11 fourth-year pre-service science teachers enrolled in a state university in Turkey. The data collected from pre-service teachers, including their lesson plans, student artifacts generated during their internships, and responses to open-ended questions, were analyzed using content analysis techniques. The results showed that pre-service teachers generally obtained the artifacts they thought reflected the students' understanding of the relevant science subject through activities that required students to remember what was explained in the lesson. Moreover, the results revealed that pre-service teachers tended to attend to the accuracy of student artifacts rather than the students' scientific reasoning and thought. Finally, the results showed that pre-service teachers analyzed student artifacts from a superficial perspective of whether the content was learned, without attempting to uncover the underlying reasoning behind the student artifacts.

Keywords

• Noticing skills
• pre-service science teachers
• teacher education
• student artefacts

FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ FARK ETME BECERİLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin sürekli değişim içerisindeki karmaşık sınıf ortamlarında öğrencilerin fen ile ilgili düşüncelerine katılım göstermeleri, bu düşüncelerin altında yatan gerekçeleri ortaya çıkarmak için analiz etmeleri ve analiz sonuçlarına göre öğretimlerini planlamaları gerekmektedir. Fark etme becerisi olarak isimlendirilen bu uygulamalar öğrencilerin fen öğrenmeleri açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu sebeple fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bu becerilerini geliştirmeleri için gerekli desteğin sağlanması gerekmektedir. Ancak bu desteğin etkili bir şekilde sağlanabilmesi için ilk olarak fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fark etme becerilerinin mevcut durumları keşfedilmelidir. Bu sebeple bu çalışmada temel nitel araştırma deseni kullanılarak Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim görmekte olan 11 dördüncü sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adayının fark etme becerileri araştırılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının hazırladıkları ders planları, staj uygulamaları sırasında elde ettikleri öğrenci ürünleri ve açık uçlu sorulara verdikleri yanıtlar aracılığıyla elde edilen veriler içerik analiziyle incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları öğretmen adaylarının öğrencilerin ilgili fen konusunda anlayışlarını yansıttıklarını düşündükleri ürünlere genellikle öğrencilerin derste anlatılanları hatırlamalarını gerektiren etkinlikler aracılığıyla ulaştıklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca bulgular öğretmen adaylarının bu ürünlerde çoğunlukla öğrencilerin fen ile ilgili düşünceleri yerine ürünlerin doğruluğu veya yanlışlığına odaklandıklarını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Son olarak bulgular öğretmen adaylarının öğrenci ürünlerini yüzeysel olarak öğrenmiş/öğrenmemiş perspektifinden analiz ettiklerini ve öğrenci ürünlerinin altında yatan gerekçeleri ortaya çıkarmaya yönelik girişimlerde bulunmadıklarını göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• fark etme becerileri
• fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları
• öğretmen yetiştirme
• öğrenci ürünleri

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, L. W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
2. Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical capacity for formative assessment through analyses of student answers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 125-141.
3. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83-93.
4. Barth-Cohen, L. A., Little, A. J., & Abrahamson, D. (2018). Building reflective practices in a pre-service math and science teacher education course that focuses on qualitative video analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(2), 83-101.
5. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
6. Blomberg, G., Stürmer, K., & Seidel, T. (2011). How pre-service teachers observe teaching on video: Effects of viewers’ teaching subjects and the subject of the video. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1131-1140.
7. Chan, K. K. H., Xu, L., Cooper, R., Berry, A., & van Driel, J. H. (2021). Teacher noticing in science education: Do you see what I see? Studies in Science Education, 57(1), 1-44.
8. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745-770.

9. Dede, E., & Özdemir, E. (2022). Matematik eğitiminde fark etme becerisi üzerine yapılan araştırmaların bibliyometrik analizi. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(36), 1547-1571.
10. Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73.
11. Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016). Teachers' formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: Findings from a four-year intervention study. Instructional Science, 44(3), 267–291.
12. Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, identifying, interpreting, and responding to students’ Ideas: Teacher candidates’ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 365–388.
13. İnaltun, H. (2023). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fark etme becerilerini ölçmeye yönelik bir aracın tasarlanması. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 13(2), 174-217.
14. Kang, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers' ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863-895.
15. König, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., Adleff, A. K., Yang, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Teacher noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research designs, and findings on learning to notice. Educational Research Review, 36.
16. Lam, D. S. H., & Chan, K. K. H. (2020). Characterising pre-service secondary science teachers’ noticing of different forms of evidence of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 576-597.
17. Lineback, J. E. (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419-460.
18. Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to students' ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 282-294.
19. Luna, M. J., Selmer, S. J., & Rye, J. A. (2018). Teachers’ noticing of students’ thinking in science through classroom artifacts: In what ways are science and engineering practices evident? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(2), 148-172.
20. Lyon, E. G. (2011). Beliefs, practices, and reflection: Exploring a science teacher’s classroom assessment through the assessment triangle model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 417-435.
21. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
22. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
23. Meschede, N., Fiebranz, A., Möller, K., & Steffensky, M. (2017). Teachers' professional vision, pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs: On its relation and differences between pre-service and in-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 158-170.
24. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
25. Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. ASCD.
26. Murray, S. A., Huie, R., Lewis, R., Balicki, S., Clinchot, M., Banks, G., Talanquer, V. & Sevian, H. (2020). Teachers’ noticing, interpreting, and acting on students’ chemical ideas in written work. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3478-3489.
27. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
28. Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Engaging students in guided science inquiry discussions: Elementary teachers’ oral strategies. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 747-765.
29. Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the “get it or don’t” conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247-255.
30. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84.
31. Russ, R. S., & Luna, M. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284-314.
32. Saylan, A., Armagan, F. Ö., & Bektas, O. (2016). The relationship between pre-service science teachers' epistemological beliefs and preferences for creating a constructivist learning environment. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 251-267.
33. Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 259-267.
34. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
35. Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383–395). Lawrence Erlbaum. Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. Routledge.
36. Steffensky, M., Gold, B., Holdynski, M., & Möller, K. (2015). Professional vision of classroom management and learning support in science classrooms—Does professional vision differ across general and content-specific classroom interactions? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 351-368.
37. Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers’ assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585–609.
38. Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students' understanding of inquiry: What do prospective science teachers notice? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 189-208.
39. Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (2013). Developing a theory of ambitious early-career teacher practice. American Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 574-615.
40. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596.
41. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3-34). Routledge.
42. Yükseköğretim Kurumu. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programı. Ankara.
43. Zummo, L., Hauser, M., & Carlson, J. (2022). Science teacher noticing via video annotation: Links between complexity and knowledge-based reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33(7), 744-763.