Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to invite readers into a discussion of experiences with and perspectives on creating safer spaces in education. Dialog has been used to demonstrate analytical processes and meaning-making, as well as aspects of “space” in education research. This dialog represents a safe space to share and access insights, experiences, and reactions to the ways in which we can foster safer spaces in education for our students and ourselves.

Douwe Beijaard, PhD, is full professor and director of the Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. His current research themes are the professional identity, quality and development of (beginning) teachers, as well as teachers’ roles in educational innovations.

In order to teach science effectively, teachers need a strong background in science content as well as an understanding of productive methods of teaching. This includes inquiry-based learning that will cultivate conceptual development of science concepts with their students. Furthermore, it is imperative to use student-focused activities in high-needs schools to engage all students, particularly students of color, in the learning process. As a result, faculty from the teachHOUSTON Program and the Department of Physics at the University of Houston produced a Physics by Inquiry course to engage middle school and high school preservice teachers in interactive, inquiry-based teaching pedagogies for physics. This chapter provides an overview of the course. It also highlights the benefits of including such a course in a STEM teacher education program.

After spending three years as a secondary science teacher in an affluent Toronto neighborhood, I was surprisingly hired as a Literacy Teacher in my old school district just north of the city. I did not have a regular classroom; instead I was expected to work with as many teachers as I could within a cluster of elementary and secondary schools to, broadly speaking, pay explicit attention to the role of language in learning within the content areas. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and interpret this part of my educational career by engaging in self-study via personal history; a personal history refers to becoming an accidental teacher educator, by virtue of a unique role as an in-service teacher educator with a language and literacy portfolio. Journals kept over two years reveal that, in many ways, I was a teacher educator before I knew what the term meant and that developing a pedagogy of teacher education with a focus on literacy made me increasingly frustrated with the over-simplified ways in which my school district framed issues of diversity.

This chapter traces the career trajectories of the teachHOUSTON science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers since the inception of the program. It asks whether the National Science Foundation (NSF) investment of millions of dollars in STEM education produced more STEM teachers of high quality for the diverse, urban area. The chapter is filled with descriptive statistics and stories. Two major findings are that the teachHOUSTON program produced double-digit physics teachers when the Greater Houston area had not had a freshly prepared physics teacher in over a decade. Additionally, teachHOUSTON graduates have distinguished themselves by being named recipients of several awards such as beginning teacher of the year awards, district teacher of the year awards, among other distinctions. teachHOUSTON alumni are also serving in a variety of leadership capacities for high-need public school districts. The chapter ends with a discussion of the program's strengths as well as the areas in which it continues to grow. Three new NSF grants allow for continued improvement and transition this work into two additional books proposed in this three-volume series.

This chapter analyzes one teacher educator’s development of a pedagogy of reflection over a period of 25 years. My personal interpretation of the meaning of reflective practice leads to seven principles of a pedagogy of reflection that focus on relationship, listening, metacognition, modeling, and learning from experience. Justification of my pedagogy of reflection includes an account of books that influenced my development as a teacher educator and the insights gained from living and teaching in a different culture. Excerpts from and discussion of the work of two preservice teachers illustrate my pedagogy of reflection and emphasize the importance of replying supportively to each individual who shows awareness of the unique learning process involved in becoming a teacher. The research methodology of Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices supported the development of my pedagogy of reflection and helped me to overcome the conditions that can constrain that development.

Collaborations between faculty from the teachHOUSTON program and physics department have led to an increase in the number of highly qualified physics teachers produced by the University of Houston. Faculty were able to systematically build the physics teacher preparation program through the following endeavors: streamlined degree plans, a physics inquiry course, an internship program, a scholarship program, and induction activities for the first three years of their teaching degrees. This has resulted in preparing approximately three physics teachers annually. Prior to this collaboration, the University had not produced any physics teacher graduates in the previous decade.

teachHOUSTON is a university-based secondary STEM teacher preparation program that addresses the critical need for highly qualified STEM teachers in Texas and across the country. STEM teachers are prepared through early and ongoing field-based teaching experiences and rigorous research-based instruction that integrates content and pedagogy provided by faculty members who have extensive teaching experience in public schools. teachHOUSTON serves the fourth largest city in the United States, along with its satellite communities and has many noteworthy features which are mapped in this chapter. Particular attention is paid to inquiry-based learning, student-centered instruction, and culturally responsive pedagogy as well as the improvements in the program based on the collaboration between physics and teachHOUSTON faculty.

Arnold Arons, along with Robert Karplus, can fairly be called one of the founding fathers of U.S. Physics Education Research and a pioneer of inquiry methods of education. The instructional methods advocated by Arons were influenced by the work of Socrates, Plato, Montaigne, Rousseau, Dewey, Whitehead, and Piaget, but are primarily derived from Arons’ epic half century effort to improve introductory science teaching by shutting up and listening carefully to students’ responses to probing Socratic questions on physics, science, and ways of thinking. Arons emphasized: (1) conceptual understanding, (2) operative knowledge, (3) interactive engagement, (4) Socratic dialogue, (5) attention to cognitive development, (6) attention to preconceptions of beginning students, (7) operational definitions, (8) reduction of volume and pace of standard introductory courses, (9) idea first, name afterward, (10) importance of a course “story line,” and (11) science as a liberal art. Most of these are attributes of enlightened inquiry-based learning as described in Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (NRC, 2000).

The purpose of this study was to explore students’ perceptions to changes to the learning environment of their undergraduate physics laboratories, in which their scientific inquiry processes were stimulated.

The activities students engaged in were redesigned to reflect a guided inquiry approach and to acknowledge modern-day advances in science and technology. Further, enhanced guidance was provided for laboratory instructors regarding the nature of scientific inquiry and how to structure students’ inquiry experiences during laboratory sessions. Students’ views were sought regarding their perceptions of the impact of the reforms on the laboratory learning environments, their thinking processes in those environments and their views regarding the reform’s value and appropriateness.

Analyses of quantitative and qualitative data suggested that students responded positively to the reforms implemented. Large effect sizes of between 0.70 and 1.20 suggested significant positive shifts in students’ perceptions of dimensions of their laboratory learning environments. In interviews, students expressed that they had engaged in the cognitive processes of scientific inquiry and suggested that the reforms had stimulated such “inquiry” thinking. However, their perceptions of the value and appropriateness of such inquiry-oriented laboratory learning environments were mixed.

Concerns persist in higher education in relation to the extent of students’ inquiry processes in undergraduate physics laboratories. Reforms to both the activities that students engage in and to instructional strategies are necessary. Raising awareness of the views expressed by students might help inform future reforms that accommodate those views to further enhance similar reforms.