By the following month, the preservice teachers requested information on strategies
for assessing their own students’ NOS conceptions. Kelly stated ‘We need some way
to find out whether our students are understanding NOS’. Angela replied ‘Yes, it
seems that there is nothing really developed to assess NOS. We have to kind of
figure out what they know by listening to them’. They wondered how they would
1380 V. L. Akerson et al.
Downloaded by [Chiang Mai University] at 14:04 07 April 2015
know whether their elementary students would begin to understand NOS, and to
what levels. This request provides evidence that they were seeking to expand their
shared repertoire beyond teaching strategies to assessment strategies. We decided to
emphasize NOS assessments in upcoming focus group meetings. Madge and
Phyllis shared a website they had discovered that had many NOS activities for students.
Madge stated ‘There is a great website that has NOS activities from Berkeley!
If you want more activities you should check into it!’ Angela noted that she was able to
fit NOS into the content area of electricity. She shared ‘I can see how I can connect
NOS into the content by embedding certain aspects into investigations, like having
the students think about inferring that magnetism can connect through some insulators,
but electricity cannot from their observations’. She recognized through feedback
on her teaching observation that she held a misunderstanding of scientific theories,
and requested more support in developing her understandings, as well as teaching
to students. She said ‘I found out that I was using the term “theory” in the wrong
way when I got [your] feedback. I am really glad for the chance to improve my understanding
so I can help my students’. Requests for support for improving NOS teaching
further illustrate the components of mutual engagement and joint enterprise.
The following week’s discussion focussed on learning of content as well as learning of
NOS, which is further evidence of mutual engagement and joint enterprise. Madge and
Phyllis discussed the importance of thinking about the nature of science learning as well
as learning the nature of science. We have to use language that first and second graders
can understand, and still teach about nature of science. They spoke about using terminology
appropriate to the students’ understandings vs. using scientific terms, but still
helping students develop conceptual understanding. Holly commiserated about her continued
efforts of embedding NOS in the electricity unit and how she struggled with connecting
it to the content. She said ‘I am having a hard time connecting NOS to electricity.
It seems difficult’. Kelly enthusiastically talked about her FOSS Models and Design unit
and how it connected well to NOS. She shared ‘Scientific models is a great way to teach
about NOS—basically it connects every NOS aspect with a little tweaking’. This distinction
between NOS embedded into electricity content vs. the models and design unit
prompted a discussion about how to embed NOS into different science content areas,
further developing the shared repertoire for NOS teaching.
In the final focus group meeting, the teachers talked about how they felt they were
ready to ‘do their own stuff, even though FOSS is very good’. Angela enjoyed the
FOSS electricity unit, and thought it was easily adaptable to including NOS. She said
‘My students really seemed to love the electricity unit, and I was able to embed NOS
into the unit through conversations and the word wall’. However, Holly, who taught
from the same FOSS unit, found it difficult to embed NOS