AIM

Learning theory research has a number of implications for science teaching and professional development for teachers (for an overview, see Banilower, Cohen, Pasley, & Weiss, 2010). One is the importance of surface learners’ initial ideas, both so they are aware of their own thinking and to provide direction for instruction. Another implication is the importance of engaging students intellectually with evidence about a phenomenon. This evidence could force learners to challenge their existing thinking and/or help them develop new ideas about how the world works. A third implication is that learners need structured opportunities to make sense of new ideas, for example, by drawing connections between the activity and the conclusions or between what they are learning and other ideas they already understand.

The AIM materials were designed with these principles in mind. The investigations follow a guided-inquiry pedagogical structure, and include four main features:

1. Purpose and Key Question: The purpose and key question provide focus and motivation for the investigation.
2. What Do We Think?:  The “What Do We Think?” question posed at the beginning of the investigation helps to surface learners’ prior knowledge on the content to be addressed.
3. Activity: Each activity is designed to allow students to gather evidence that supports the development of and, as appropriate, counter common misconceptions related to the targeted ideas.
4. Making Sense: The Making Sense questions help learners make meaning of the target ideas by encouraging them to reflect on how the evidence collected in the activity relates to their prior ideas and to connect the evidence to key question.

In this process, the data in the investigations serve as the authority on the topic rather than the facilitator, and requires participants to be intellectually active in their learning. This approach also models the nature of science—science is not a collection of “facts” but rather a dynamic body of knowledge that changes as new evidence is gathered.

In addition to engaging with the instructional materials using a guided-inquiry structure to learn about force and motion content, participants spend time during the PD learning about learning-theory based science pedagogy, also using a guided-inquiry structure. On Day 2, participants are asked to reflect on how the workshop has facilitated their learning of the science content as a way of eliciting their initial ideas about effective science instruction. On subsequent days, participants engage with additional examples and terminology for talking about key elements of effective instruction. They are given an opportunity to apply these ideas to a written vignette of instruction, using specific examples from the vignette as evidence for their claims. A fishbowl discussion with the facilitator offers additional opportunities for participants to consider the instructional decisions made during the PD. Participants are also given time to raise concerns about implementing this pedagogy, and consider solutions with the group. Finally, the workshop provides another opportunity for sense making, having participants apply the ideas about effective instruction by analyzing a classroom video.

In addition, to support teachers in transferring this knowledge to the classroom, the teacher versions of the instructional materials include educative “surrounds” that:

• specify target ideas and corresponding misconceptions for each investigation;
• describe how each investigation can lead learners to generate the evidence used to develop/support the target ideas and highlight aspects of the investigation where particular focus is needed; and
• identify specific challenges, solutions and implementation strategies relevant to particular events/steps within each investigation.