Purpose: This lesson establishes the importance of quality curriculum materials that support effective teaching and student learning.

Overview: Pre-service teachers read an article and then compare and contrast three models of science teaching presented in the article: Didactic, Discovery, and Conceptual Change. Pre-service teachers then identify characteristics of effective teaching, as discussed in the article and brainstorm a list of features they would want to see in curriculum materials that would support teachers in using these effective techniques.

When and How to Use This Lesson: This lesson fits well towards the beginning of the course when topics such as conceptual change teaching, models of science teaching, curriculum materials, or general overviews of teaching practice are introduced. Activity #1 involves pre-service teachers in reading and discussing an article that describes the challenges of teachers using different science teaching models (didactic, discovery, and conceptual change) and focuses on the role science curriculum materials play in supporting teacher talk and student learning in each model. Instructors who have already covered models of science teaching or have introduced conceptual change in another format, may be able to shorten Activity #1 to focus just on the curriculum materials aspects of the article and then move directly to Activity #2.

Activity #3 connects to other material related to the role and use of standards and benchmarks in science education. Depending on the structure of the course, instructors may wish to spend more or less time on the standards introduction aspect of this activity.

1. To introduce the important role that curriculum materials play in supporting effective teacher practice and student learning.
2. To help pre-service teachers begin thinking about the many functions and qualities of good science curriculum materials.

Activity #1 45 minutes Establish Unit Purpose

The Need for High Quality

Curriculum Materials to Support

Effective Teaching & Student Learning

Activity #2 20 minutes Problematize Unit

Problem #1: Finding High Elicit Student (Pre-Service

Quality Curriculum Materials Teacher) Ideas

Activity #3 10 minutes Introduce Criteria

Introduction to Project 2061 and the Establish Unit Purpose

Evaluating Curriculum Materials Criteria

Roth, K. J., Anderson, C. W., and Smith, E. L. (1987). Curriculum materials, teacher talk and student learning: case studies in fifth grade science teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (6) 527-548.

Large poster paper and pens or other materials for recording group brainstorming sessions.

1. Pre-service teachers may feel that their curriculum materials should and will provide them with everything they will need to teach science well. For many, the idea that curriculum materials may not be effective, sufficient, or of a quality high enough to support student learning is an unsettling idea.
2. Pre-service teachers may feel that as teachers they have to know all science content, all possible student preconceptions, and all possible ways of supporting student learning. They may not realize, since few materials really do this, that good curriculum materials should provide teachers with some content background, possible student preconceptions, and suggested methods for supporting student learning. While they may have to make smart and strategic adaptations to curriculum materials, they should learn to expect materials to support them rather than seeing shortcomings of materials as weaknesses of themselves as teachers.

Note: There are many formats for facilitating large and small group discussions. The formats listed below are suggestions. The questions are provided to guide discussions and lesson content.

1. Assign the article for pre-service teachers to read before class. During reading, pre-service teachers should focus on identifying the three models of science teaching, examining how the curriculum materials either supported or failed to support teachers, and identifying characteristics of good curriculum materials that help students change conceptual understanding.
2. During class, have pre-service teachers discuss the article in small groups. Each group should:
1. identify the types of learning (didactic, discovery, conceptual change).
2. identify the types of learning, the role of the student, the role of the teacher, and the learning outcomes for each model.
3. identify the strengths and weaknesses of each model.
4. identify the role of curriculum materials in each model.
5. identify characteristics of curriculum materials that would support learning in each model.
3. In a whole-group discussion, have the small groups report back on what they decided during their small group discussions. The instructor should:
1. bring out the qualities of the conceptual change models that are unique to the conceptual change model and not simply a marriage of the didactic and discovery models.
2. emphasize ways in which the article text shows that curriculum materials either supported or failed to support teacher practice and student learning.

Note: There are many formats for facilitating group discussions and group brainstorm sessions. These questions are provided to guide such sessions rather than prescribe certain formats or techniques. Material inside brackets [ ] provides an example of the types of responses possible or an intended direction for the discussion.

1. Consider the article by Roth, Anderson, & Smith (1987). In a group format, discuss:
1. What role did the curriculum materials play in each of the cases? [example: the conventional light and seeing text presented many isolated facts and did not address commonly held naïve conceptions]
2. What are some important kinds of classroom talk that promote conceptual change learning?
3. How might high quality materials support teachers in fostering these types of conversations with students in the classroom?
4. What should the materials supply versus what should the teacher already know? Are there ways that materials can support teachers in teaching science?
2. Using a group brainstorming procedure, have pre-service teachers brainstorm a list of characteristics that they think all high quality curriculum materials should have to support teacher practice and student learning.
1. During the brainstorming, encourage pre-service teachers to consider the role that curriculum materials play [ex: provide commonly held student preconceptions] versus what the teacher should be expected to bring to the lessons [ex: effective classroom management].
2. Encourage pre-service teachers to consider not just what they want to make teaching easier [ex: easily obtainable materials], but also what they need to support student learning [ex: techniques for supporting student thinking].
3. Be sure to keep a record of the generated list for later reference.

1. Introduce AAAS Project 2061. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a group of scientists and science educators working on improving science teaching and learning. The group is called Project 2061 and is named after the year of the next return of Haley's Comet.
2. Introduce Science For All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy. These documents, along with the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards, have helped science educators, schools, districts, and states focus science instruction on specified learning goals. (This introduction is intended not to be a comprehensive treatment of standards and benchmarks, but rather a connection to material that most instructors already use covering the importance of the role and use of these documents in science education.)
3. Introduce Project 2061 Evaluating Curriculum Materials Criteria. Emphasize that these criteria are useful as one way of evaluating how well curriculum materials support teacher practice and student learning. Either pass out copies of the Project 2061 Evaluating Curriculum Materials Criteria or, if possible, show either overheads or a projection of the web-page for the whole class to see.
4. Group Discussion Questions:
1. What categories does the Project 2061 criteria include that might support some of the characteristics of effective classroom talk that we identified in the Roth, Anderson, and Smith (1987) article and in earlier discussions? [Ex: Category II: Eliciting and Responding to Student Misconceptions]
2. What similarities and differences do you notice between these categories/criteria and the class brainstormed list?
5. End discussion with a preview and unit purpose statement about how the course will return frequently to these criteria to examine how they support teacher practice and student learning in the classroom and how teachers can use the criteria to evaluate, and if necessary modify the curriculum materials available.