Curiosity and Principles in Carbon TIME Classrooms Wendy R. Johnson, Charles W. (Andy) Anderson, Michigan State University, Department of Teacher Education Hannah K. Miller, Johnson State College/Northern Vermont University, Education Department Research Questions Curiosity-Oriented Discourse Video Analysis Principle-Oriented Discourse Video Analysis Content Principles Precision Scale The NRC Framework (2011) describes three-dimensional learning as building on students’ natural curiosity to explain scientific phenomena through deep engagement with science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and application of crosscutting concepts. However, discourse in many classrooms is not conducive to these goals. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) implementation documents contend that “By centering science education on phenomena that students are motivated to explain, the focus of learning shifts from learning about a topic to figuring out why or how something happens” (Achieve, 2016). Supporting students in figuring out phenomena requires scaffolding both curiosity and principled-based reasoning. How do teachers scaffold curiosity about phenomena and principle-based reasoning in Carbon TIME classrooms? How are students positioned in classrooms in terms of developing and using scientific knowledge and practices? Ms. Nolan Ms. Nolan Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs) The 3Qs are embedded in the context of phenomena and answered through the process tools, slides, and in the context of the investigations. Connections between principles and content is clear and explicit. Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs) Phenomena serve as a context for using principles. The 3Qs are used to identify what is happening in the investigations. In early stages of the instructional model, the content is addressed clearly, and questions remain. Scale (CCCs) Scale is scaffolded through modeling the language during instruction, and during questions in small groups. Precision in Matter & Energy Words Nolan models precise use of language and students have opportunities to use this as well – she directs them to specific scales in instructions, whole class discussion, and in small groups. Category Curiosity-driven discourse in Ms. Nolan’s classroom Teacher’s Purposes Figuring out phenomena Driving question about phenomenon stated repeatedly and explicitly linked to every activity Scaffolding sensemaking through questioning Sophisticated metacommentary integrated conceptual, procedural, and epistemic issues Epistemic Authority Empirical evidence from investigations Scientific models explain atomic molecular scale Student Agency Epistemic agents Ask large number of conceptual questions indicative of sensemaking about the phenomena Teacher’s practices positioned students as epistemic agents responsible for using evidence and models to explain the phenomenon Rigor-Driven Curiosity-Driven Task-Driven Content Principles Precision Scale Data & Analysis Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs) Teacher scaffolds attention to the rules of matter conservation by asking questions and congratulating them for adherence: "Nice work: you didn't destroy any matter." She uses the 3Qs often to guide student ideas. Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs) Ms. C uses the process tools to help students make connections between the modeling and the investigation. She names the connections and the students help by providing agreement or answers to questions. Scale (CCCs) Ms. C is explicit about which spatial scale student evidence comes from when new data emerge throughout the unit: ”What evidence do you have from the atomic-molecular scale?” She names the scale in her prompts. Precision in Matter & Energy Words Ms. C consistently scaffolds precision in matter words: she expects students to use words appropriately and checks on their usage in small group interactions. Ms. Callahan Ms. Callahan Category Rigor-driven discourse in Ms. Callahan’s classroom Teacher’s Purposes Rigorous conceptual understanding No explicit driving questions about phenomena Questioning focused on reviewing information & evaluating students’ knowledge Detailed explanations of key ideas Metacommentary on process of learning Epistemic Authority Teacher’s focus on rigor & assessment made her the authority Empirical evidence central for investigations Student Agency Learning rigorous science concepts Students asked many conceptual questions during small group work; teacher scaffolded their sensemaking Students asked few questions during whole-class discussions; teacher responded with conceptual answers Teacher positioned students as learning rigorous concepts, but sensemaking was done by the teacher Rigor-Driven Curiosity-Driven Task-Driven Participants: Middle and high school classrooms implementing the Carbon TIME curriculum in 2015 – 2016. Data sources: Three videos of lessons from the Systems & Scale Unit in each of the four case study classrooms. Analysis: We employed grounded theory methods to analyze classroom videos using StudioCode software. Codes for the principle-oriented framework come from prior work on student development of principle-oriented discourse (Miller, Johnson, Doherty, Freed & Anderson, 2017). Discussion Content Principles Precision Scale Ms. Apol Ms. Apol Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs) Students are quizzed on the rules. Any focus on the principles in the content of their ideas and questions was replaced with a focus on the atomic-molecular structure of ethanol (context-specific knowledge). Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs) Content about investigations is replaced with focus on procedure; content that is addressed is not used to establish a context for larger guiding principles. Scale (CCCs) Scale is heavily scaffolded through attention to precision with examples: students are quizzed and drilled to show that they have named and memorized examples of scale. Wrong ideas are corrected swiftly by the teacher. Precision in Matter & Energy Words Ms. Apol heavily scaffolds student precision through modeling (her own language) and quizzing. Words are not used in context of phenomena. Category Task-driven discourse in Ms. Apol’s classroom Teacher’s Purposes Learning about science No clear phenomenon or driving question Very procedural directions Questioning focused on facts and vocabulary Metacommentary about procedural issues Epistemic Authority Teacher serves as epistemic authority Student Agency Learning facts and following procedures Students asked very few conceptual questions and the teacher responded with facts or procedures Teacher’s practices positioned students as responsible for following directions and learning correct answers The coding on curiosity revealed that orchestrating curiosity-driven discourse, in which students are epistemic agents who figure out phenomena, is challenging. For example, Nolan’s classroom achieved this by making the driving question central to each activity, emphasizing the role of empirical evidence and scientific models, and using a variety of strategies to support students in answering the driving question. In other classrooms, a clear driving question about phenomena was not established, which positioned students as learners of authoritative knowledge. The coding on principles revealed that teachers struggled to support principle-oriented discourse when they treated principles and scale (CCCs) & context-specific knowledge (DCIs) as separate realms of classroom talk and learning. Teachers Ross and Apol, for example, did not connect the CCCs and the DCIs. Teachers Callahan and Nolan, in contrast, used the phenomena of the investigations (the context-specific knowledge) as a genuine context for using and applying principles and scale (CCCs). Scaffolding the connections between specific phenomena and principles resulted in more successful examples of three-dimensional discourse. NGSS implementation documents state that “Learning to explain phenomena and solve problems is the central reason students engage in the three dimensions of the NGSS” (Achieve, 2016). Our analysis demonstrates that achieving both curiosity-driven and principle-oriented discourse is a considerable and difficult accomplishment. Rigor-Driven Curiosity-Driven Task-Driven Content Principles Precision Scale Principles of Matter and Energy (CCCs) Scaffolding of principles was replaced with scaffolding of "brainstorming" and "procedure." In the introduction to the unit, the Mrs. Ross does not mention principles (rules, 3Qs, etc.) or model the language of principles. Context-Specific Knowledge (DCIs) The teacher scaffolded student ideas in a way that was procedural and void of content. The demo lacked discussion of the main question (why ethanol burns and water doesn't). The content was de-emphasized. Scale (CCCs) Classroom talk stayed at the macroscopic scale; when students brought up the chemical composition of the ethanol, Mr. Ross pivoted away from scale and said “Does that remind you of the test?” Precision in Matter & Energy Words Mr. Ross used the names of the materials they were using (water and ethanol) in the macroscopic scale, but did not invite students to use these words themselves. Mr. Ross Category Task-driven discourse in Mr. Ross’ Classroom Teacher’s Purposes Learning about science Procedural framing (driving question stated once in the middle of an activity) Most questioning focused on sharing ideas or reviewing information (with some instances of sensemaking) Metacommentary on process of learning Epistemic Authority Teacher emphasized role of empirical evidence in science, but his control of who talked and what they shared tended to position him as the ultimate authority Student Agency Participating in activities to learn about science Students asked few conceptual questions to which the teacher responded with facts or concepts Teacher invited students to share ideas, but lacked strategies for orchestrating sensemaking discussions Mr. Ross Rigor-Driven Curiosity-Driven Task-Driven Achieve, Inc. (2016). Using phenomena in NGSS-designed lessons and units. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Using%20Phenomena%20in%20NGSS.pdf Miller, H. K., Johnson, W. R., Doherty, J., Freed, A., & Anderson, C. W. (in preparation). Crosscutting concepts for re- orienting science education. National Research Council (NRC). (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC. This research is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation: A Learning Progression-based System for Promoting Understanding of Carbon-transforming Processes (DRL 1020187), and Sustaining Responsive and Rigorous Teaching Based on Carbon TIME (NSF 1440988 ). Additional support comes from the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, funded by the United States Department of Energy, from Place-based Opportunities for Sustainable Outcomes and High-hopes, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Energy, or the United States Department of Agriculture.