Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher's practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change

Abstract

The conversations of elementary school students in the classroom of Sister M. Gertrude Hennessey have captured the attention of science educators, scientists, and cognitive psychologists. Research studies documenting student outcomes have been presented in professional journals and at professional meetings. While there are many unique aspects of learning that the students in this classroom exhibit during conversations with one another and their teacher, the extraordinary performance of these students inevitably raises the question: How does Sister Gertrude do it? What are significant components of her instruction that support the student outcomes reported in studies of her students? In this article, we provide a detailed account of her instruction, an account that can help us understand how she facilitates conceptual change learning through a carefully chosen set of learning goals. Through instruction that established these learning goals, Sister facilitated a learning environment in which students spoke about their ideas, offered justifications for ideas, recognized the limitations of an idea, and negotiated knowledge claims in ways similar to some of those in the scientific community. In presenting this case study, we are conscious of the implications that answers to our questions about Sister Gertrude's instruction could have for other teachers as well. In other words, we are interested in whether the learning that takes place in Sister's classroom is the product of a unique and singular environment, or whether the instructional principles she uses, once incorporated into the practices of other teachers, might result in similar student outcomes. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:738–760, 1999.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.