n n. v... 5731‘):
u.
maxi-3‘7
huh-32?."
I"

«a.

:53:
u- v-

'4' ~ '0.

...--.~m- 0....
Au“. "mm.“

155; '
may}! c
#11 s

a .q-m:
1.

a
s
I

vow-u
mm

~
u.“

own

:7, '.
‘1!A!"_?;
7-, u.

a;‘-

2:. “£1 ,
NANNY

,.... a“.
' de-r,.,
”Vt-1 ‘

.1

"l‘ - h“ a“ ‘
’25:: 5*“: 1
big}??? 2 2'

z» '15}
y

.
n s 1”) .’
t: g“,

 

HHIHJIIIHHIIIUlWillllllmllliJIUIUIIIHllllilllilli '

293 01046 0511

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

NEGOTIATION IN A HETEROGENOUS HIGH SCHOOL
BIOLOGY CLASSROOM: IMPLICATIONS FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS

presented by

Marcia K. Fetters

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. _degreein Education

MZ/W

Major professor

Date_November 14 , 1994

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State.
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOXtoromovotNoehockodﬁunywn-cord.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton date duo.

DATE DuE' DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wm

MSU loAn Nthnattvo Adm/Emu Opportunity Institution
mm:

ﬂ

NEGOTIATION IN A HETEROGENOUS HIGH SCHOOL
BIOLOGY CLASSROOM: IMPLICATIONS FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS
By

Marcia K. Fetters

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1 994

ABSTRACT

NEGOTIATION IN A HETEROGENEOUS HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSROOM:
INIPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS

By

Marcia K. Fetters

This study tells the stories of three Special education students: Josh, Carl and Heidi,
included in a heterogeneous high school biology class. To understand how special
education students develop scientiﬁc understanding, students' interactions in whole class
and small groups were observed daily over a semester. The stories describe the Students as
engaging in complex negotiations with their teacher, with their peers, and with science as
they sought productive roles for themselves in the classroom community. The cases
illustrate some of the issues that arise when students learn science in heterogeneous
classes.

This study provides insight into the barriers that these special education students
faced in developing science understanding and literacy. These Students had to learn
overcome or compensate for their learning disabilities. It shows how the students used
some of their skills and assets to overcome some of these barriers. The biology class in
this study highlights some of the strategies that can be used to make science accessible to a
wider variety of students. This study also highlights some of the dilemmas that face the
science education and special education communities as they learn how to support students
in a mixed-ability classroom. These two communities do not have a long history of
working with each other and need to learn how to work together to support students. This
type of collaboration takes a great deal of time and resources. We have limited knowledge
about the best strategies and techniques for supporting students in a mixed-ability

classroom.

Josh, Carl, and Heidi, who in another setting might not have received science
instruction at all, clearly beneﬁted in some ways from their inclusion in their science class.
Yet even with good teachers making well-informed efforts, they also experienced
frustration and failure. AS these cases illustrate there are still many barriers to achieving

scientiﬁc literacy for all students.

Copyright by
Marcia Kay Fetters
1994

Dedication

In memory of my grandmothers:
Florence Fetters and Lilah Hoskins.
From from these two women
I learned to love books and knowledge,
to take risks and follow my dreams,

and the rewards gained from serving others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Larry, all of the members of the “Ramsey” High School Science Group, and
high school staff I give my ardent thanks. Your trust, willingness to take risks, support
and guidance made this study possible.

Throughout this study and my doctoral program, I have received support,
encouragement and guidance from the members of my committee. I wish to thank Dr.
Charles Anderson, a true mentor in the richest sense of the word, without his patience,
guidance and support this dissertation would not have been written. I am grateful to Dr.
Kathleen Roth and Dr. Cheryl Rosaen for helping me ﬁnd my own voice as I moved
through the doctoral program and in the shaping and writing of this study. Dr. Thomas
Bird and Dr. Clarence Suelter have provided guidance in exploring and examining the
alternatives and implications for this study. To all my committee members -- thank you for
providing steady and constant support and guidance throughout my doctoral program.

To the science and special education faculty and present and former graduate
Students at Michigan State University: You have supported and encouraged me as I learned
to walk between and within two ﬁelds of study that do not normally interact. Together I
think we are learning how to explore the complexities of inclusive classrooms.

When I made the decision to pursue my doctoral degree I had the encouragement
and support of my friends at Berkley High School. You encouraged me to pursue my
dreams. I hope as you read this study you will realize that though I moved away, how
much the lessons that I learned while at Berkley have inﬂuenced me as an educator and

researcher.

vi

Many friends have provided encouragement, love and understanding as I have
made my way through the doctoral program, so many of you have touched my life and
made in richer by your presence. In particular I would like to thank: Paul Vellom, Lynne
Cavazos and Patricia Smith for your friendship and support -- without your presence in my
life writing this study would have been a much heavier burden; Jean Beland and Tena
Harrington for helping with the editing and formatting of this work.

To Wallace and Rosanne Fry, since we met, you and your children, Christopher,
Matthew and Kathleen, have been an important part of my life. You have been my anchors
through the best and most painful times of my life. You have given me the very precious
gift of your love.

Finally my parents -— Franklin and Muriel Fetters -- thank you for your
unconditional and abundant love and support throughout my life. You have taught me to
take risks and given me the skills and freedom to follow my dreams. Your lives provide a

model for me, and help me keep focused on the important things in life.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................... 1
Deﬁnition of Situation ................................................................... 2
Student Profiles ........................................................................... 4
Josh ............................................................................... 5
Carl ................................................................................ 6
Heidi .............................................................................. 7
Purpose of this Study .................................................................... 9
Discussion of Research Questions ..................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature .......................................................................... l9
Reform Efforts and Political Implications ............................................. 20
Movement Toward Inclusive Classrooms ........................... 20
Implications for Science Literacy ..................................... 22
Classroom Culture and Norms ......................................................... 25
Mr. L's Class ............................................................................. 26
Understanding ............................................................................ 27
Engagement ............................................................................... 28
Role Negotiation .......................................................................... 29
Classroom Discourse .................................................................... 29
Role of Cooperative Learning ........................................................... 31
Discussion of Research Questions ..................................................... 32
Signiﬁcance of This Study .............................................................. 38
CHAPTER 3
Methods ............................................................................................. 40
Setting ..................................................................................... 4O
Ramsey High School ........................................................... 40
Mr. L's Class .................................................................... 41
Data Collection ................................................................... 43
Data Analysis .................................................................... 43
Negotiation with Teacher ................................................................ 46
Nature of the role ....................................................... 46
Process of negotiation that leads to role ............................. 47
Negotiation with Peers ................................................................... 48
Nature of the role ....................................................... 49
Process of negotiation that leads to role ............................. 50
Negotiation with Science Content and Classroom Science Community ........... 50
Nature of the role ....................................................... 52
Process of negotiation that leads to role ............................. 52
Consequences for Engagement ......................................................... 53
Consequences for Understanding ...................................................... 55
Understanding of the nature and origins of scientiﬁc
knowledge ............................................................... 56
Skills and ability to participate in scientiﬁc inquiry ................. 57

viii

Understanding of ideas that are associated directly with

laboratory activities or students' personal experiences ............. 58
Understanding of ideas based on sequences of activities or
theoretical reasoning ................................................... 59
Summary .................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 4
The Case of Josh .................................................................................. 62
Introduction ............................................................................... 62
Who is Josh? .............................................................................. 62
Josh's Story - Finding and creating a role in a science class ........................ 66
Josh's Story - Finding and creating a different role in a science class ............. 72
Discussion of Research Questions ..................................................... 82
Consequences for Engagement ......................................................... 92
Consequences for Understanding ...................................................... 97
Skills and ability to participate in scientiﬁc inquiry ................. 98
Understanding of ideas that are associated directly with
laboratory activities or students' personal experiences ............. 99
Understanding of ideas based on sequences of activities or
theoretical reasoning ................................................... 100
Summary .................................................................................. 103
CHAPTER 5
The Case of Carl ................................................................................... 105
Introduction ............................................................................... 105
Who is Carl? .............................................................................. 105
Carl’s Story -- Finding and creating a role in a science class ....................... 109
Carl’s story -- Modification of a role ................................................... 118
Discussion of Research Questions ..................................................... 121
Consequences for Engagement ......................................................... 129
Consequences for Understanding ...................................................... 133
Summary .................................................................................. 140
CHAPTER 6
The Case of Heidi ................................................................................. 141
Introduction ............................................................................... 141
Who is Heidi? ............................................................................. 141
Heidi's Story - Finding and creating a role in a science class ....................... 144
Heidi’s story -- Modiﬁcation of a role ................................................. 151
Discussion of Research Questions ..................................................... 156
Consequences for Engagement ......................................................... 162
Consequences for Understanding ...................................................... 166
Summary .................................................................................. 173
CHAPTER 7
Implications of the Study ......................................................................... 175
Overview .................................................................................. 175
Negotiation with Teachers ............................................................... 176
Negotiation with Peers ................................................................... 178
Negotiation with Content ................................................................ 181
Implications for Engagement ............................................................ 183
Implications for Understanding ......................................................... 184
Implications for Teaching Practice ..................................................... 189
Implications for Policy in Science Education and Special Education ............... 192

Implications for Teacher Education .................................................... 193

Conclusion ................................................................................ 194
APPENDD( A
ROLES IN CLASSROOMS ..................................................................... 196
APPENDIX B
ROLES IN SMALL GROUPS .................................................................. 199
APPENDIX C
ROLES WITH SCIENCE ........................................................................ 202
APPENDIX D
CODING SCHEME .............................................................................. 204
APPENDIX E
BENCHMARKS .................................................................................. 208
APPENDIX F
ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 213

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Basic Structure of Learning Environments That Fit the Term Scaﬁ'old
Figure 2 Mr. L's Classroom

Figure 3 Data Analysis Scheme

Figure 4 Josh's Needs - Beginning of Semester
Figure 5 Josh's Needs - Abstract Concepts
Figure 6 Class Activities and Josh's Roles
Figure 7 Carl's Needs - Beginning of Semester
Figure 8 Class Activities and Carl's Roles
Figure 8 Heidi's Needs - Beginning of Semester
Figure 9 Heidi's Needs - Abstract Concepts
Figure 10 Class Activities and Heidi's Roles

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Background

Special education and other academically at-risk students are currently the focus of
two national reforms in education. The ﬁrst reform comes from the Special education
community, where current educational reform efforts call for the mainstreaming or
inclusion of special education students and academically at-risk students into mixed-ability
classes. There is increased pressure from a wide variety of sources for schools to move
toward mixed ability classes (Gamoran, 1992; Hastings, 1992; Wheelock, 1992). For
those interested in Special education this reform raises many questions about what types
of experience the Special education student is having in the general education courses and
how the individual learning styles and needs of the student are being addressed.

The second reform comes from the science education community. Advances in
science and technology have led to a rapidly changing world; to be competitive in a world
market it is important for citizens to be scientiﬁcally literate. These advances have placed
increased pressure on science educators to focus not on science for the elite but on
“science for all.” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). The
American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science for all Americans
deﬁnes a scientiﬁcally literate person as one who is:

...aware that science, mathematics and technology are interdependent human

enterprises with strengths and limitations; understands key concepts and principles

of science; is familiar with the natural world and recognizes both its diversity and

unity; and uses scientiﬁc knowledge and scientiﬁc ways of thinking for individual
and social purposes. (pp. 4)

For science educators these reform efforts raise questions like: What does it mean to be
scientiﬁcally literate? Who is included in the “science for all?” Does it really mean all?
Responding to these questions adequately requires better understanding of science
classrooms and how they are affected by the inclusion of special education students. One

of the goals of this dissertation is to add to the development of that understanding.

Definition of Situation

This study took place in a heterogeneous tenth grade biology class. Three Special
education students were included in a class of 24 students. This class was taught by a
high school biology teacher, with the assistance of a science education doctoral student
who also documented class activities. The class was taught using a conceptual change
model of instruction. To understand how special education students developed scientiﬁc
understanding, students were observed daily -- working during both whole group and
small group activities over a one-semester period. Daily ﬁeld notes and videotape of
large class discussion were used to document class participation. Videotape of one small
group and audio tapes of the 2 other small groups were used to help document
interactions in small groups. Most small groups were composed of one special education
student and three general education students. Student work (including journals) was
collected from the special education Students and the other members of their small group.
The study also made use of student interviews and ﬁeld notes taken on individual
conversations held with students prior to class or after class, and conversations with
parents and other teachers. Through the use of these data sources I hope to give the
reader a richer understanding of what it means for a student who is a member of a mixed-
ability classroom where the reform efforts of both special education and science education
meet.

This mixed-ability classroom was more than just a combination of special
education and general education students. Special education and science education

communities both have long dynamic traditions. In mixed-ability classrooms they meet

and form hybrid communities for both students and teachers. These new communities are
subject to a complex mix of expectations based on students' and teachers' previous
experiences in both Special education and science classrooms. They have some of the
characteristics of both the special education and science communities, but they pose
challenges that are unique to these new settings.

For instance, special education students coming from special pull-out programs or
resource rooms are often accustomed to a great deal of one-on-one time with a teacher;
science teachers are more accustomed to working with larger classes and therefore
provide less individualized instruction for students. Special education teachers working
with science teachers in a teaming role generally work one-on-one with students and
could support the students in this need, but may not be comfortable with the complexity
or range of science concepts typical of most high school biology courses. In a mixed-
ability classroom special education teachers often support all the students in the class, not
just the special education students. This alters the pattern of interaction and role
negotiations for both students and teachers, and raises questions about how new patterns
of interaction between students and teachers are formed in a mixed-ability classroom.

When including special education and academically at—risk students in a biology
class with college--bound students, there are several types of diversity in the class. This
diversity is both social and cognitive in nature. Socially, special education students have
often been separated in the early grades into different classrooms. Classiﬁcation of
special education students also often falls along socio-economic lines (Stainback &
Stainback, 1984), with lower (and middle) class students more frequently classiﬁed as
special education than their more afﬂuent counterparts. Bringing these students together
in a class and having them work together in small groups means bridging several different
kinds of social barriers. How do students negotiate role in a small group? How does this

inﬂuence student engagement in a science classroom?

A mixed-ability classroom also has greater cognitive diversity than general
education courses that are geared toward either vocational or higher education goals. In
the past it was common for college--bound students to take biology and other “advanced”
science classes, while other less academically successful Students took “general science”
or applied science classes. The cognitive requirements, including reading and writing, in
these courses traditionally varied greatly depending on the teacher’s perception of student
ability (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Howe & Miramontes, 1992). Placing all types of
students in the same class means that teachers must now deal with a wider range of
abilities in a single class. Some special education and academically at-risk students have
limitations that restrict their ability to participate fully in some classroom activities. How
do these limitations impact the way a biology teacher views the science content, class
activities and student assessment, which in turn inﬂuences students' experiences in the
class?

To explore these questions this study focused on the experience of three special
education students and their peers in a mixed-ability biology class. By taking a close look
at how these students interacted in the class with the teacher and with their peers, we gain
insight into how they made sense of the science content. This provides another way of
looking at some of the barriers that all students face in varying degrees in developing

science understanding.

Student Proﬁles

Following is a brief description of the three students and their small groups.
These descriptions are provided as condensed, initial examples of the types of analysis
that will be used in the case studies. The case studies developed in the dissertation have
supporting evidence for the observations with richer descriptions of the students, the
members of their small group, their activities and the process of negotiation with the

teacher, their peers and with the classroom science community and content.

.Insh

The ﬁrst case is Josh's story: Josh was a learning disabled student who struggled
with reading and writing at grade level. Josh's records indicated reading and writing
skills at the grade 5-6 level. Special education teachers and his records indicate that
Josh had difﬁculty processing verbal information and following verbal directions.

J osh'S records also showed that he was classiﬁed as emotionally impaired, with low
self-esteem and a very short attention span. Josh’s small group was composed of
three people: Josh; Sarah (an academically at-risk student); and Carry (an
academically motivated “A-B” student). Josh's small group is illustrative of the range
of cognitive diversity that can be found in a mixed-ability classroom.

Josh tended to cycle between being very involved in science class to being very
withdrawn. Josh was often an active member in class discussion and an active
member of his small group. Josh was very good at bringing in his knowledge about
other topics and relating them to topics in whole class discussions or in small group
work. When he was able to do this he usually stayed involved with the activity and
would assimilate new information. This new information would become part of his
repertoire and he would use it in future class discussions and on tests.

Josh often felt that material was too difﬁcult and that he couldn't learn it, then he
chose not to enter into class activities, and would withdraw intellectually and
physically from class activities. Josh demonstrated this withdrawal in large class
activities by staring at his desk or doodling. If Josh had been part of a special pull-out
program where there were fewer students, these coping strategies may not have been
so effective. It is more likely that an instructor could have pulled him back into the
discussion.

Josh was a fringe member of his small group. The other members of his group
would listen to his suggestions and include him in conversations when he was on

task. If Josh did not feel comfortable with the topic or activity he would often try to

change the topic. Sometimes Josh would wander away from his group. His group
went on with their work without him, and did not try to bring him back to the activity.
Chapter 4 tells Josh's story and how he negotiated a role and science understanding in
this mixed-ability classroom.

Car!

The second case study is the story of Carl: Carl was a learning disabled student
who had difﬁculties with writing. Carl's records indicated reading and writing skills
at the grade 5-6 level. Special education teachers and his records indicate that Carl
had difﬁculty processing verbal information. He paid close attention to class
discussion and was an active member of his small group, often suggesting ways of
solving problems. Carl’s small group was composed of four members: Carl; Joan
(an all around “A” student); Judy (a student who struggled with school, bordering on
academically at-risk); and Tammy (an “A - B” student in most classes who had a
history of struggling in math and science). Carl's group is also indicative of a group
with greater cognitive diversity than you would normally ﬁnd in a homogeneous
classroom.

Carl would often refer the small group back to something that was mentioned in
the whole class discussion. Carl rarely participated in large group discussion and
would most often seek out explanations or clariﬁcation from fellow students.
Antidotal evidence in Carl's records and from other teachers indicated a history of
difﬁculty communicating with most adults. Carl seemed hesitant to ask the teacher
and researcher for help or explanation, but would listen closely when the teacher or
researcher came to the small group. Audio-tape of small group discussions indicate
that he would prompt other members of the group to go get the teacher or researcher.
When he was absent for a day his group was very conscientious about bringing him

up—to-date on the previous day's activity, and helped him write up laboratory reports.

Carl accepted that he could not write well, and was comfortable with not doing
well on tests or other individual writing assignments. When given the opportunity to
discuss his test with the teacher (and possibly gain additional points if he could
demonstrate that he understood the concepts) Carl chose to keep his original score.
Evidence from audio-tape often indicated that Carl had a much deeper understanding
of the science concepts than he demonstrated in large class settings or in his written
work. Chapter 5 tells Carl's story and how he negotiated a role and science
understanding in this mixed-ability biology classroom.

33.1111

The ﬁnal case study is the story of Heidi: Heidi was a learning disabled student
with difﬁculties in reading and writing. Heidi's records indicated reading and writing
skills at the grade 4-5 level. Heidi engaged successfully in class discussion and
worked well in her small group. Heidi’s small group was composed of four students:
Heidi; Chad (an academically at-risk student, with a high truancy rate, and several
problems with the legal system); Todd (an all around “A” student, who excelled in the
ﬁne arts); and Jared (an “A” student who was very interested in science and
mathematics).

As with the other small groups this group had a wide range of cognitive ability.
While each of the other groups also had social diversity to the extent of students who
had little or no history working together or being in the same class, this small group
also differed widely in backgrounds and experiences. Todd and Jared both came
from families where there was a great deal of parental involvement and support.
Heidi's mother wanted to be supportive of Heidi but often expressed her frustration in
not knowing how to support Heidi. Chad had very little interaction with his parents,
they were not responsive to calls from the teacher or other school staff.

Heidi often volunteered in class discussion, and would bring ideas that were

discussed in her small group to the whole class discussion and vice versa. When her

small group asked her to take on recording duties She would agree, but only after
saying, "You know I don't write well." Because of her willingness to help the group,
she often got the job of getting lab materials and helping with clean-up while other
members of her group ﬁnished writing up the laboratory or prepared for the group
presentation. Heidi rarely took a leadership role in her small group and accepted most
roles that were suggested.

When Heidi found the material difﬁcult to understand, she was persistent in
asking for clariﬁcation from both the teachers and her small group. She often would
not trust the explanation of her small group and ask the teacher or researcher for
conﬁrmation. Heidi rarely did well on quizzes or tests. She would often go into tests
fairly conﬁdent in her understanding. When asked right after the test how she thought
she did she usually responded in an up—beat and positive manner. After getting her
score she was frustrated that she hadn't done better. Follow-up interviews with her
indicated that she often did not have a good understanding of the concepts. Chapter 6
tells Heidi's story and how she negotiated a role and science understanding in this
mixed-ability biology class.

These descriptions illustrate some of the barriers and dilemmas faced by special
education students and their teachers. We want students to engage in science and achieve
understanding of science concepts, but they can do this only by successfully negotiating a
role in a classroom community that is different and complex, not only to them, but also to
their peers and teachers. We can help them be successful in meeting this challenge only if
we understand how they approach and understand their situation.

Originally this dissertation was going to tell the stories of ﬁve Special education
students in this class but one of the realities of working with special education and
academically at-risk Students at the high school level is that these students often move and
switch schools, move from traditional high schools to alternative education settings or

drop out of school. By examining a school setting it is difﬁcult or impossible to tell the

stories of these students. In this regard, the students described in the study are survivors
of the system -- though they face many barriers in the classroom they are still in a
traditional school setting. They are typical of the type of student that all teachers work

with on a day to day basis.

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of this study was to develop a richer understanding of how special
education and academically at-risk students experience a mixed ability high school biology
class. It adds to the growing literature concerned with special education inclusion issues.
The stories of special education and acadenrically at-risk students in a mixed-ability
classroom, by necessity, also include the experiences of the other students in the class,
thereby adding to the understanding of how all students make sense of science.

Speciﬁcally this study examines student negotiation within three contexts:

' ti ° Hi ndit R r ntati es

How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing understanding?

Ne ggg'agon with Beers
How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with his/her peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?

N ti ti ° 'enc nt r ommuni
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that affect a special
education/at-risk student's ability to negotiate his/her roles in a school science
community? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What are
the implications for developing scientiﬁc understanding?

Four concepts play a critical role in my research questions and dissertation:
negotiation, role, engagement, and understanding. The movement toward mixed-ability
classrooms creates a classroom community that combines Special education or
academically at-risk students with general education students. General education teachers

teach these classes, sometimes with the support of a special education teacher. The

creation of these new communities in turn leads to the need for the negotiation of new

10

roles for students and for teachers. This study focuses on the process that special
education and academically at-risk students use to negotiate their roles in a mixed-ability
high school biology science class and their implications for student engagement and
understanding.

By examining individual Special education and academically at-risk Students in
classrooms we gain information about all students. We learn how they negotiate their
roles in the classroom with teachers and with their peers. We also gather insight into how
these negotiations inﬂuence student engagement in the class and a Student's ability to
move toward scientiﬁc literacy and understanding.

Reaching this level of science literacy or understanding requires student
participation or engagement in a range of science activities. The word "engagement" can
mean a wide variety of things depending on the context. This study draws on the work
on student engagement by Newmann et al (Newmann, 1992). They deﬁne and describe
engagement in the following way:

We deﬁne student engagement in academic work as the student's
psychological investment in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, or
mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to
promote. This deﬁnition requires elaboration and clariﬁcation on several points.

Engagement involves psychological investment in learning,
comprehending, or mastering knowledge, skills and crafts, not simply a
commitment to complete assigned tasks or to acquire symbols of high
performance such as grades or social approval. Students may complete academic
work and perform well without being engaged in the mastery of a topic, skill or
craft. (pp. 12)

It is this level or type of engagement that is necessary to develop the type of
understanding necessary to become scientiﬁcally literate. Science literacy as deﬁned by
our national reform efforts calls for a depth understanding beyond the memorization of
facts or the completion of “cookbook” lab activities.

Scientiﬁc literacy calls for depth of understanding that allows individuals to use
scientiﬁc concepts in real world settings, to be able to apply these concepts in new and

different situations. This type of understanding moves past the "mastery" view of

understanding where it was often adequate for students to be able to repeat or report their

ll

understanding verbally or in written work. It calls for students to be able to apply their
knowledge in multiple contexts and be able to demonstrate their understanding in multiple
ways. This level of understanding is quite different from what was expected and
rewarded in the past. It is a level of understanding that we assumed our students would
develop if they learned and mastered the terminology, rules and algorithms associated
with science.

Research on student ideas and understanding in math and science (Anderson &
Roth, 1989; Ball, 1990; Eichinger, Anderson, Palincsar, and David, 1991; Lampert,
1990; Lee & Anderson, 1992) demonstrate in variety of ways that mastery of information
does not lead to understanding. It is often possible for students to be very successful in
science and math classes without truly understanding the concepts or their implications for
day to day life. We are asking students to look beyond the terminology, rules, and
algorithms of the science and be able to use their knowledge to describe events in the real
world. Sheila Tobias (Tobias, 1992) talks about it in terms of "breaking the science
barrier."

Science literacy calls for students to be able to reﬂect on their knowledge;
including, how they came to “know” something, and recognizing the strengths and
limitations of their understanding. Students who are scientiﬁcally literate are able to
explain how they came to "understand" something and to be able to defend their ideas and
interpretations. If students are able to reﬂect on how they come to understand something
and know how to use scientiﬁc concepts in real world settings they should also be able to
construct new understanding by taking into consideration new information and building
on their previous knowledge, to shape and modify new explanations. We want students
to be able to explain how or why two or more laboratory exercises or concepts are linked
to form the larger picture.

This study draws on constructivist and social constructivist theories of learning.

Science learning does not occur with a student working in isolation, but with the student

12

engaging as a member of a community of learners who are using their past experiences
and knowledge to learn how to use the intellectual tools or as Science for All Americans
calls them the -- “habits of mind” used by the science community to construct their

understanding of the world around them.

Discussion of Research Questions

The research questions in this dissertation focus on the experiences of special
education students in a mixed ability classroom. Speciﬁcally this dissertation examines
how three students negotiated their roles or identities in relation to the teacher, peers and
science content. This study examines how classroom experiences with teachers and peers
combined with past experience and life outside the classroom overlapped and intersected
to inﬂuence their engagement in the class. The questions in this study focus on the
students experiences in this class, their level and type of engagement, the range of
classroom discourse and their written products. By examining these questions it is
possible to gain insight into the view of science these student are forming and how they
develop understanding of science concepts.

' R r
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing understanding?

This set of questions focuses on the process and form of the negotiation that goes
on between teachers, who are the representatives of adult authority in the classroom, and
students. It is a process of negotiation toward a Shared agenda for the class and about the
roles that students play as members of a mixed-ability classroom. Part of the negotiation
process is inﬂuenced by the role of the teacher as a representative or authority ﬁgure in
both the school culture or structure and as a representative of the science community.

How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their role with a teacher in

a high school science class? The negotiation in a mixed-ability high school class is very

13

different from the role negotiation in a special pull-out program with a special education
teacher. Often in this type of setting instruction is individualized and the teacher and
students take on roles closer in nature to a tutor and tutee. It is also different from the
negotiation in a tracked science class where there is often limited cognitive and
sociological diversity.

The process of negotiation between teachers and students varies from individual to
individual, and is inﬂuenced by a wide variety of factors in a mixed-ability high school
science class. All students negotiate their roles in the classroom. Sometimes though the
process of negotiation gets hidden during the day to day operations of the class. There
are some aspects of this negotiation process between special education/at-risk students
that brings this process back out into the open.

There are many different roles that students can take in a science classroom.
Often students will take on several different roles during a single class period. Some
students have very different roles depending on if the activity is whole class or small
group. Other students seem to keep similar roles regardless of the setting or context.
Appendix A provides examples of some of the possible roles that students could
negotiate with the teacher during class discussion and small group work. These are roles
that students negotiate in the class with the teacher and are inﬂuenced by their peers. By
examining how Special education students negotiate their role in the class and the impact
that this has on student engagement, we are provided a window for examining factors that
inﬂuence the engagement of other students.

As many studies describe (Eckert, 1989; MacLeod, 1987; Willis, 1981) students
often deﬁne their identities in social settings outside of the structure of school. These
identities often lead them to behaviors which are considered inappropriate in a regular
classroom setting. When special education students or at—risk students burst out in class
(or in their small groups) they are often giving us an indication of how many of our

students are feeling, but they are doing so in ways that bring them negative attention and

14

do not readily alert the teacher or their peers to the struggles they are having with the
material. Special education and at risk students' outbursts in class sometimes revealed an
openness (or what some might call a naiveté or honesty) that is usually hidden in other
students.

Through the examination of video and audio tapes of classroom discussion and
small group work different behavior patterns of individual students emerge. I looked for:
What types of events precede an out-burst from a student? What types of activities or
discussions prompt a student who is usually quiet or reserved to enter the conversation?
How does this provide an image of how other students are experiencing these events?
How does the student behavior give us an insight into how they view the purpose of
school? What role does this view of school play in their willingness to engage in
classroom activities? To examine the pattern of classroom discussion, the work of
sociolinguists/anthropologist such as Shirley Brice-Heath and Claude Steele (Heath,
1983; Steele, 1992) helps provide insight into student/teacher negotiations. Does the
pattern of interaction between student and teacher change when there is a switch from
large group discussion to when students are working in small groups and the teacher
stops by to check on the group?

Often students and teachers use similar words and patterns of conversation when
dealing with each other, but use them in very different ways. For example, the teacher in
this study really wanted students to come up with their own research questions and
Strategies for pursuing the questions, and asked the students genuine questions for
clariﬁcation, but students often perceived them as questions to which there was a "right"
answer, and were sometimes hesitant to put forward their ideas. When there was little
response from the class, the teacher posed possible questions or strategies for pursuing
questions; and students quickly latched on to the teacher's questions or strategies. The
teacher's questions then drove student experimentation. Other times the students readily

posed questions, and it was these questions that were pursued by the class. When

15

students are posing and pursuing their own questions and interests they are more likely to
move toward student engagement as deﬁned by Newmann (Newmann, 1992).
Ne getrg' tiQn with Peers

How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they

negotiate their roles with his/her peers? What are the implications for student

engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?

Special education students and academically at-risk students are often isolated
from other students early in their education careers. When special education and at-risk
students are placed in a mixed ability classroom all students in the class need to learn how
to communicate with each other across cultural, social and cognitive barriers. What are
some of the barriers that Special education and academically at-risk students face in a
mixed-ability classroom? There is a rich history of sociological work (Eckert, 1989;
MacLeod, 1987; Willis, 1981) that describe different social categories of adolescents.
Most of these Studies describe life outside the classroom. They provide insights into the
social dynamics and barriers which students bring to the classroom setting.
This study looks at what happens when the classroom context forces students to

work with each other. How do conﬂicting agendas and priorities of peers inﬂuence a
student's ability to engage in class activities and discussion? When faced with these
conﬂicting agendas and priorities, how do students react? What actions do they take?
Sociologists talk about adolescents isolating themselves in a variety of ways. For
example, Eckert and MacLeod both discuss how high school students stake out certain
areas of a school and the community as their “turf.” What is the parallel in the classroom?
What are the parallels between the role a student plays in large groups' activities versus
the role a student plays in small group settings? By examining how special education
Students negotiate their role in the class and the impact that this has on student engagement

we are provided a window for examining factors that inﬂuence the engagement of other

students.

16

The roles negotiated in a small group can be very Similar to the roles negotiated
in the whole class setting except that with a small number of participants, the dynamics of
the role change some and students will often take on several different roles in a short
period of time. Since there are fewer participants in a small group this also means that
special education or at-risk students have access to more of the roles, and more
opportunities to negotiate their role. Appendix B provides examples of some of the
possible roles that students could negotiate in this class with their peers during class
discussion and small group work. These are roles that students negotiate in the class with
their peers and might be inﬂuenced by the teacher.

The work of Eckert and MacLeod discusses the social categories of high school
students in out of school or classroom settings and helps provide a context for the
discussion of the roles which students could adopt or be assigned in this classroom.

How are these paralleled in the roles that students take when assigned to work in small
groups? Steele (1992) and Ogbu (1988) describe the patterns of interaction between
races. Are there, or what are the, parallel patterns of interaction between students of
varied backgrounds and cognitive ability found in a heterogeneous classroom?
' tion 't ien t nt r i
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that affect a special
education/at—risk student ’s ability to negotiate his/her roles in a school science
community? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What are
the implications for developing scientiﬁc understanding?

A description of student negotiation with science content or community must
include a deﬁnition of scientiﬁc understanding or literacy. The negotiation process looks
very different depending on how the teacher and students deﬁne what it means to learn
science. Science learning could be deﬁned as the mastery of facts or skills. This
deﬁnition of science learning is one that many special education and at-risk students come
to a science class with. Students often will say things like, "I'm not good at science, I

can't do it, it's too hard." Special education and at-risk students often do not see that

17

science has any connection to their own lives. They often see science as a set of facts to
be memorized, or a set of procedures to be followed. They see science as far removed
from them, and therefore something that they do not need, except as a graduation
requirement. This attitude toward science is justiﬁed based on most students' experiences
in science. In the past when special education students were placed predominately in
special pull-out programs they often encountered science as a set of workbooks or tasks
that they needed to complete and pass a test over. This attitude toward science instruction
for these students is changing.

Several factors inﬂuence special education or at-risk students' ability and
willingness to engage in science learning. Many of these are directly tied to how they
view themselves as learners and how they view science. Appendix C describes some of
the roles that students might take in relation to science content or a classroom science
community. On any given day or with any given topic a student may take on one or a
combination of several roles. It is often difﬁcult to assess what is going on in the
student's mind, so a teacher may not have a clear indication of how a student is viewing
a concept or task. Each student experiences a science class in slightly or vastly different
ways depending on their background, expectations, interests and abilities. How they
view themselves as a learner or member of a science classroom community has a direct
impact on their level of engagement.

One of the main barriers for special education students in a high school science
class is the students' perceptions of themselves as learners, and as members of the science
classroom community. This is difﬁcult for special education students, since even
academically successful students often view science as hard and difﬁcult. Special
education students start building an image of themselves as science learners early in their
school experience. Students are prompted to adopt strategies that allow them to " get by"
in a class. How do we encourage special education students to believe that they can

understand science, that there could be a place for them in the science community and that

18

science is relevant to their lives? Motivation researchers have focused a great deal of their
efforts at examining student disposition toward school and science and behavioral patterns
that inﬂuence student behavior. The Literature Review of this dissertation will highlight
some of these studies and their implications for special education students.

Many of the dilemmas faced by special education and at-risk students are not
unique to these students. Many high school students experience these dilemmas to a
lesser degree, but the characteristics are often magniﬁed for special education students.
There are parallels between the experiences that special education students have at the high
school level with what many college students feel during introductory science classes. It
is the feeling of alienation from science and the science community that prompts college
students to abandon science for other disciplines (Tobias, 1990). By examining what
types of barriers special education students face, we can anticipate barriers that all

students have in developing science understanding.

Signiﬁcance of This Study

These case studies presented illustrate the difﬁculty of the issues that arise when
students learn science in mixed ability classes. Josh, Carl, and Heidi, who in another
setting might not have received science instruction at all, clearly beneﬁted in some ways
from their inclusion in these science classes. Yet even with good teachers making well-
informed efforts to help, they also experienced frustration and failure. AS these cases
illustrate there are still may barriers we must surmount to achieve the goal of true scientiﬁc
literacy for all students. This study also provides insight into how all students negotiate

their role in a classroom and shape the agenda of a class.

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature

The biology class described in this study cannot be described as merely the
combination of special education students and general education students. This classroom
is a setting where both the reform movements of science education community and the
reform movements of special education community met. The blending of these two
education communities created a hybrid community that had characteristics of each of the
communities yet had many aspects that were unique to this setting. Analyzing this mixed-
ability high school biology class and the special education students who were members of
this class meant that the literature review must draw on the established bodies of literature
from Special education and science education. Since this community was also a hybrid of
these two communities and had similarities to other communities, the literature review
reﬂects this broader deﬁnition of community and learning.

The purpose of this review of the literature is to position this study in relation to
previous and current work in the ﬁelds of special education and science education and to
describe or deﬁne the conceptual tools that are used to analyze the data and develop the
case studies. This literature review outlines some key reform and policy issues in both
the special education and science education communities, including implications for
teachers and students like the three target students of this study. Another goal of this
literature review is to deﬁne and clarify some of the terms and phrases that are used in the
research questions and throughout this study. One of the dilemmas we face in educational

research is the use of words and phrases that are commonly used in everyday language.

19

20

In the education community we use these words both in their informal ways but also
sometimes in very formal or speciﬁc ways. This literature review is organized into ﬁve

sections:

Reform Efforts and Political Implications

Culture of Mixed-Ability Classrooms

Negotiation with the High School and its Representatives
Negotiation with Peers

Negotiation with Science Content or Community

Reform Efforts and Political Implications

Both special education and science education ﬁelds are facing a wide variety of
reform efforts. Inherent in each of these reform movements are internal debates about the
difference between equal access to knowledge and equal opportunities to learn. Tied into
these debates is a discussion of the purposes of school. The special education community
is struggling with what it means to be inclusive and the educational goals of inclusion.
The science education community is struggling with what does it mean to be scientiﬁcally
literate, what level of understanding of which topics are essential for science literacy, and

how science literacy can be made accessible to all Americans.

Mo en T r n i r

A review of the literature reveals a shift in policy during the 1970’s and 1980's
toward more inclusive classrooms and the uniﬁcation or merger of special education and
regular education. AS of the 1987 school year over 4.4 million students or approximately
11% of the total public school enrollment were certiﬁed handicapped under the provisions
of Public Law 94-142, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act, enacted in 1975,
(Gartner & Lipsky, 1987). After over a decade of experience with the implementation of
this law, several studies illuminated grave moral and ethical concerns regarding the
efﬁcacy of segregating handicapped students from their peers, the diminishing of
academic expectations and requirements in their behalf and the ever increasing costs of

these services. As a result many professionals, extremely dissatisﬁed with the ways that

21

policies of the Special Education Law (PL 94-142) have been implemented called for the
dissolution of the dual system of special education and general education that presently
exists. They argued for the need to merge these two entities in public schools and
universities (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Sapon-Shevin, 1988; Stainback & Stainbeck,
1984; Will, 1986). Many of the special education teachers at Ramsey High School
worked with the special education faculty at a near by university and were part of
conversations around these issues. They brought those conversations back to Ramsey
and initiated them with content teachers in the building. This set the stage for evaluating
current practice for special education students.

The faculty of Ramsey High School were examining and assessing their
instructional practices in relation to special education students. Their concern went
beyond those students identiﬁed as special education; they were also interested in those
students not identiﬁed as Special education and therefore examined their practice of
tracking students in many of the content areas. Anne Wheelock (Wheelock, 1992)
identiﬁed seven common goals for school districts as they begin the process of
untracking. These goals included:

- Releasing intelligence rather than quantifying it

' Nurturing effort rather than deﬁning ability

0 Building strengths rather than sorting according to weakness

0 Developing dispositions and skills necessary for lifelong learning across all

areas of knowledge rather than imparting particular information in a given
subject area

- Balancing concepts with meaningful content

- Building on students’ aspirations rather than circumscribing their dreams

0 Recognizing students as members of a learning community rather than as

products of an assembly line. (pp. 7)
Many of these characteristics of reform could be seen in the ways that special education
teachers at Ramsey High School worked with students and with the work of the subject
matter teachers. At the classroom level these reforms could also be seen in the way Mr. L
chose which science concepts to focus on, how he chose to structure the instruction and

his interest and implementation of alternative forms of assessment. Speciﬁcs about how

these characteristics were woven into instruction will be elaborated on in the case studies.

22

i ' r ' ' r

The science and science education communities placed emphasis on quality
science for Q students. In this ever changing, and technologically complex society the
need for all citizens to be scientiﬁcally literate, so that they may be informed decision
makers became a priority for the science community (American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1989; Mullis & Jenkins, 1988; National Science Teachers
Association, 1991). This was a shift in goals for both students and teachers. The
American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science for all Americans
deﬁned a scientiﬁcally literate person as one who is:

...aware that science, mathematics and technology are interdependent
human enterprises with strengths and limitations; understands key
concepts and principles of science; is familiar with the natural world and
recognizes both its diversity and unity; and uses scientiﬁc knowledge and
scientiﬁc ways of thinking for individual and social purposes. (pp. 4)

In one sense one of the goals became asking students to take on some of the
characteristics of the science community where individuals of that community can often
trace the development of an idea or ﬁeld of study. Several authors have provided us with
glimpses into science laboratories and the types of conversations and activities that occur
in these settings (Keller, 1983; Labaree, 1989; Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Sailor, 1989;
Sayre, 1975; Twaweek, 1988). These images of how scientists work individually and as
a community provide a wider range of what it means to "do" science than traditionally
seen in science classrooms. One of the goals of the reform effort is to help students
develop a scientiﬁc world view, AAAS (American Association for The Advancement of
Science, 1993) describes a scientiﬁc world view in the following way:

A scientiﬁc world view is not something that working scientists spend a
lot of time discussing. They just do science. But underlying their work
are several beliefs that are not always held by nonscientists. One is that by
working together over time, people can in fact ﬁgure out how the world
works. Another is that the universe is a uniﬁed system and knowledge
gained from studying one part of it can often be applied to other parts.

Still another is that knowledge is both stable and subject to change. (Page
5)

23

One of the ways that these reforms differ from earlier reforms is the focus on science for
Q students. The goals described by AAAS in many ways have been articulated before in
science education reform. In the past these goals directed toward those students who had
the interest and potential for going on into science careers. The concept of science literacy
has been in the literature since the 1950's, it was taken as a serious charge in the late 50's
and early 60's. It was during this time that the need for all students to become
scientiﬁcally literate also started to gain momentum (DeBoer, 1991). Many of the reform
efforts of the 60's were based on helping students learn about, and practice scientiﬁc
inquiry. This led to courses at the high school level which were highly specialized, and
the science content was often too abstract for the average student. These types of courses
did not lend themselves to all students. This lead to a wide range of science course
options for student to take depending on the abilities and interests (Powell, Farrar, &
Cohen, 1985).

Along with these reform efforts came a push for schooling to be more relevant to
students day to day lives, which for science meant a greater emphasis on science's role in
society. This emphasis led to the science-technology-society curriculum reform focus of
the 70's and 80's. When enacted at the classroom level the science content portion of this
triad was usually under-represented. Science test scores on standardized tests dropped
signiﬁcantly. The foundations science education reforms called for by Science for All
Americans and Benchmarks (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1989; American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1993) can be traced back
to these earlier reform efforts, with a focus on quality science instruction, which is
accessible to all students.

One way of engaging students in the science content is to structure the class so
that student generated questions are pursued. The national reforms call for situations
where students take more ownership in their learning, and for the movement toward

teaching real-world applications for science learning. This type of movement in

24

curriculum encourages more students to participate in classroom activities, but it raised a
different set of problems for students.

Adoption of this type of curriculum presupposes that students will be willing to
put forward their own questions and ideas. Many special education and academically at-
risk students have low self esteem as learners; they are often hesitant to draw attention to
themselves in class. They are often very hesitant to put forward their ideas, nor will they
strongly lobby for their ideas in small group settings. These methods of instruction also
often call for students to use outside sources to help answer questions in class, ﬁnding
and having access to these sources sometimes further limits their ability to participate and
isolates them from the science classroom community. Since many special education
students have limited experience in writing, and often have limited reading and writing
abilities, a classroom focus on student generated experiments and their resulting
laboratory reports or research papers add aspects of performance stress.

Student generated questions are not the only way of fostering student engagement,
there are many other strategies and teaching styles that will promote this. Elizabeth Cohen
(Cohen, 1986) describes types of cooperative learning activities that foster engagement.

...Tasks that are varied do not allow students to make simple unidimensional

comparisons with each other. If tasks are carefully deﬁned as requiring multiple

abilities, different children will have a chance at excelling at different tasks. This
will allow low status children to develop some favorable expectations for

intellectual competence. (Pg. 150)

Other examples of this type of engagement can be found frequently in conceptual
change research, and in social linguistic research. A common thread in these situations
though is sufﬁcient student willingness and background in the topic to start to work with
the problem (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). What

are the dilemmas that a teacher faces when a student has neither the willingness nor

background to participate in a science classroom community?

25

Classroom Culture and Norms

In mixed-ability classrooms the special education and general education
community meet and form hybrid communities for both students and teachers. These
new communities are subject to a complex mix of expectations based on students' and
teachers' previous experiences in both special education and science classrooms. They
have some of the characteristics of both the Special education and science communities,
but they pose challenges which are unique to these new settings. When including special
education and academically at-risk students in a biology class with college bound students
there are several types of diversity in the class. This diversity is both social and cognitive
in nature. Socially, these students are often separated in the early grades into different
classrooms. Heidi, Carl and Josh had each been identiﬁed for special education services
early in the elementary grades and had been members of resource or Special education
classes. The cognitive requirements, including reading and writing, in these courses
traditionally varied greatly depending on the teacher’s perception of student ability
(Persell, 1977).

Placing all types of students in the same class means that teachers must now deal
with a wider range of abilities in a single class. Some special education and academically
at-risk students have limitations which restrict their ability to fully participate in some
classroom activities. Some of these limitations are tied to the student's learning disability.
In the case of the three students described in this dissertation this includes their limitations
in reading, writing and processing verbal information. Some of the limitations that these
students faced were also tied to their previous experiences in school and in particular in
science classes. All three of these students were identiﬁed as learning disabled early in
their elementary experience. At the time of identiﬁcation they were pulled out of the
regular class setting and placed in resource rooms where they could receive more
individualized instruction. The level of precision and the wide use of the term learning

disabled is one of the dilemmas facing the special education community (Rothstein, 1990;

26

Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Shriner, 1992). Another source of debate is the beneﬁts of
placement of these students in separate classes for support is the source of a great deal of
debate in the special education community (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989).

One of the main barriers for special education students in a high school science
class is the students' perceptions of themselves as learners, and as members of the science
classroom community. Even academically successful students often view science as hard
and difﬁcult, often these feelings are magniﬁed for special education students. These
feelings of alienation from science are not unlike those barriers faced by African American
students in schools (Delpit, 1988; Heath, 1983; Heath, 1986; Ogbu, 1988; Steele, 1992)
or students from lower socio-economic levels (Eckert, 1989; MacLeod, 1987).
Classiﬁcation of special education students also often falls along socio-economic lines
(Stainback & Stainbeck, 1984) with lower (and middle) class students more frequently
classiﬁed as special education than their more afﬂuent counterparts (Howe & Miramontes,
1992). The classroom in this study was inﬂuenced by both the reforms in special

education intersected with changes in science education policy and curriculum.

Mr. L's Class

Mr. L's class was a place where the reforms of special education and science
education met. At the beginning of the school year this class started off with 24 students.
Five of these students were identiﬁed as special education. Mr. L participated actively in
both reform movements. Over the last 5 years there had been a dramatic reduction in the
number of concepts and amount of vocabulary that were introduced in his class and that
students were expected to learn. He had moved scientiﬁc inquiry from a topic covered in
September to the context for exploring most of the concepts in the course. There was a
shift in his class from a survey course in biology to a class where students explored in
depth a few set of key concepts. Students had a voice in deciding how these concepts

would be explored and their questions inﬂuenced the depth of that exploration.

27

To describe the culture and norms of Mr. L's classroom, it is necessary to
understand the underlying assumptions and beliefs that drive decisions about instructional
practice. This includes working deﬁnitions of understanding, engagement, role

negotiation, classroom discourse and cooperative learning.

Understanding

For this study, science learning draws on constructivist and social constructivist
theories of learning. Science learning does not occur with a student working in isolation,
but with the student participating as a member of a community of learners who are using
their past experiences and knowledge to learn how to use the intellectual tools or what
Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989)
calls -- “habits of mind” used by the science community to understand the world around
them.

It is not adequate nor sufﬁcient for students to be able to recite facts or deﬁnitions.
The Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives (Michigan Department of Education, 1991)
States three major things students should be able to do with their science knowledge: 1)
Students Should be able to reﬂect on their knowledge, construct new knowledge and use
their knowledge. 2) Students need to know how to use their knowledge to explain things
in day to day life. 3) Students should be able to use their knowledge to make
predications, and to design procedures and control variables to test their predications.

This can be seen in Mr. L's class in the way that he choose and structured the
activities in the class. Students were encouraged and expected to participate in whole
class discussion bringing in their personal experiences and making connections. One
function of student journals was to provide students with another place for them to
develop and demonstrate their understanding. The use of essay tests and the option of
having a follow-up interview after a test were also designed to provide students with

opportunities to demonstrate the depth of their understanding.

28

Engagement

To reach the level and type of understanding desired calls for a level of
engagement in classroom activities and the learning process that is deeper than those
normally associated with classroom participation. Mr. L wanted his students engaged in
learning in ways parallel to those described by Newmann et. al (Newmann, 1992). They
defme and describe engagement in the following way:

We deﬁne student engagement in academic work as the student’s
psychological investment in and eﬁort directed toward learning, understanding,
or mastering the knowledge skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to
promote. This deﬁnition requires elaboration and clariﬁcation on several points.

Engagement involves psychological investment in learning,
comprehending, or mastering knowledge, skills and crafts, not simply a
commitment to complete assigned tasks or to acquire symbols of high
performance such as grades or social approval. Students may complete academic
work and perform well without being engaged in the mastery of a topic, skill or
craft. (pp. 12)

This level of engagement is different from what is often expected from high school
students. For a student to be able to make this level of psychological investment they
must feel comfortable and be capable of making the investment. Maslow (Maslow, 1943)
describes a hierarchy of needs that are necessary for life. The satisfaction of higher needs
is dependent on satisfaction of lower needs. Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, from
lowest to highest, are:

0 Survival (hunger, thirst)

0 Safety (fear of strangers, desire for comfort)

' Belonging (desire for respect and recognition)

0 Esteem (desire for respect and recognition)

0 Knowledge (desire for understanding)

0 Beauty (desire for aesthetically pleasing)

0 Self-actualization (desire to reach full potential)

Satisfaction of lower needs leads to the next higher level of motivation.

(Adapted from A. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological

Review, 50 (1943), pp. 370 - 396, Copyright 1943 by the American

Psychological Association).
The type of engagement necessary for students to develop scientiﬁc literacy is strongly
tied to the satisfaction of belonging, esteem and knowledge, with the goal of attaining the

last need of self actualization. To be able to address that last need, there needs to be a

29

series of negotiations which occur between the teacher, the students and the science
content. The types of alternative assessment used in Mr. L's class and the heavy
emphasis on cooperative learning were implemented and developed to promote and

encourage this type of engagement for all students.

Role Negotiation

In any set of negotiations a person takes on a set of roles and stances toward the
people involved in the negotiations and the topic of the negotiation. Jackson (Jackson,
1966) describes the negotiation process as a series of decisions based on predicted
outcomes and level of comfort which leads to a role or stance. Biddle (Biddle, 1979)
described the process of role negotiation and role theory in psychological terms of need.
In this classroom and study, role negotiation is used to describe the process that a student
uses to create a niche or attitude toward the classroom activities (both large and small
group) and the science content. The majority of class time for these students was spent in
classroom or small group discussion. The textbook was used primarily as a reference
point or for reinforcement of ideas. To understand what kinds of experiences the students
were having it is necessary to understand some of the nature and goals of those

conversations.

Classroom Discourse

Courtney Cazden and Jay Lemke (Cazden, 1986; Lemke, 1990) both provide
insight into the role of discussion/discourse in the classroom. They provide examples of
different types of discourse in large group discussion and in small group discussion, and
the role these forms of discourse have on student learning. Teachers and students
together actively shape the type of discussion in the class. Each have ways of controlling
the discussion. Lemke describes the types of talk that occur in a science class, and how
the teacher can shape the discussion to allow students access to the science community or

to deny students that opportunity. Developing activities and shaping the student's

30

experiences in a classroom to promote this type of discussion can be difﬁcult, but

researchers and teachers are working on developing strategies to use in the classroom

(Eichinger, Anderson, Palincsar, & David, 1991; Palincsar, Anderson, & David, 1993;

Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1990; Rosebury, Warren, E, & Hudicourt-Barnes,

1992).

Cazden discusses the role of scaffolding in classroom discourse and presents the

following diagram (From Pearson and Gallagher (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) ) to

represent successful scaffolded learning.

PROPORTION OF
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR TASK
COMP ETION

    
  

JO

 

ALL ACI-IER RESPONSIBILITY ALL STUDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\e GUIDED PRACTICE

INSTRUCTION
MODELING
DEMONSTRATION
ETC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRACTICE OR
APPLICATION

 

Figure 1 Basic Structure of Learning Environments
That Fit the Term Scaffold

J. Campione in (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) pp. 337.

In Mr. L's class students were constantly asked to move along the continuum and

accept greater responsibility for their learning for each of the concept areas. Each new

 

31

concept area began with some sort of instruction, modeling or demonstration by Mr. L.
Students were then encouraged to explore the concept and developing explanations or
testing their ideas, with support of the teacher and the other members of their small group.
The essay tests which were given at the end of each unit called for students to be able to
use and apply their knowledge in multiple ways. Any student who did not do well on the
essay exams had the opportunity to come in for a follow-up interview with the teacher --
if they could demonstrate that they understood the material more than was evidenced on
their exam they earned additional points on the exam. It was the responsibility of the
student to make the appointment for the follow-up interviews and they were conducted
before school, at lunch time, or after school. Throughout the instructional units students
worked in COOperative groups to work through the ideas. An emphasis on building

shared knowledge played a large role in Mr. L's class and at Ramsey High School.

Role of Cooperative Learning
The teachers in this school believed in creating a learning community and
emphasized the role of cooperative learning in their classrooms. In this respect, their
work has been inﬂuenced by Elizabeth Cohen (Cohen, 1986), whose work was
particularly helpful since she addresses the special needs in multi-ability classrooms. She
discussed a variety of tasks like: discussion, manipulation, visual representation, long-
term projects, interaction with community members, dramatization, construction, and
experimentation, all of which can be used in a classroom to promote the active
engagement of all students. Cohen described the nature of cooperative learning tasks as:
...Tasks that are varied do not allow students to make simple unidimensional
comparisons with each other. If tasks are carefully deﬁned as requiring multiple
abilities, different children will have a chance at excelling at different tasks. This
will allow low status children to develop some favorable expectations for
intellectual competence. (Cohen, 1986, pp. 150)
These are the types of tasks that Mr. L tried to develop for his students. Most of the

activities that Mr. L assigned the students or encouraged the students to design drew on

32

all the different abilities and skills that students brought to the class. He tried to structure
both class discussions and small group work to take advantages of the diversity in the
class. In mixed ability classrooms the focus on this type of task helps students during

both large and small group instruction.

Discussion of Research Questions

N t'tin 'h i la ' R reenttive
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing understanding?

This set of questions focuses on the process and form of the negotiation that goes
on between teachers, who are the representatives of adult authority in the classroom, and
students. Part of the negotiation process is inﬂuenced by the role of the teacher as a
representative or authority ﬁgure in both the school culture or structure and as a
representative of the science community. A student's willingness to negotiate with the
teacher and interact with the concepts and the ideas that the teacher introduces shapes their
engagement in the class and ultimately the type of understanding that they are able to
develop.

Eckert (Eckert, 1989) describes how the social categories are shaped in the high
school setting, and how this Shapes a student's identity. She focused her work on two
groups of students that she identiﬁed as "Jocks" and "Burnouts." "Jocks" are students
who are usually successful in school, and view the school as a safe and comfortable place
to be. "Burnouts" are students who are not all that successful in school; they do not ﬁnd
school to be all that comfortable a place to be. They place more of their identity in outside
of school settings. The three Special education students described in this study take on
characteristics of both of these communities. All three of these students were involved in
school activities and participated in extra curricular school activities. All three of these
students had also experienced isolation and failure in the school setting. In many ways

they had developed the lower aspirations typical of "Burnouts" and looked for ways of

33

ﬁnding satisfaction and support separate from their membership in the school community.
Josh, in particular, often became engaged in an activity only if he could see how the
content connected with his day to day life.

Special education students often have the same types of attitudes and dispositions
toward school that MacLeod (MacLeod, 1987) describes as common in low - income
neighborhoods. Special education students often have the same leveled or lowered
expectations for the future as described by youth from these communities. MacLeod
points out that we have several examples of young people who came from low income
neighborhoods and achieved great levels of income and success, we don't often hear of
their classmates who went on to reproduce the culture in which they were raised. It has
recently become common for celebrities and others in positions of power and inﬂuence to
describe how they succeeded in spite of their learning disabilities. The reality for most
special education students is that their learning disabilities will limit their career and life
choices.

Another important fact in the negotiation between students and the teacher is the
student's view of how teachers or classes operate. The view that the students had of the
school inﬂuenced their negotiation with the teacher in this study. Early in their education
careers, when these students were in specialized classes the student to teacher ratio was
much small and students had more one on one interaction with the teacher. This changes
when the students become part of a larger class. In smaller classes teachers notice more
quickly when a student is struggling with the material and provides support often before
the student has asked for help. Most high school teachers expect students to be able to
recognize when they don't understand something and ask the teacher for help. These are
norms that are developed gradually for students in general education courses, and not
always speciﬁcally addressed when special education students are being prepared to be

mainstreamed. Special education Students have a wider variety of roles open to them in a

34

larger class. The roles they have access to, choose or are assigned can vary greatly with

the class dynamics and the content.

Wcaﬁon and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with their peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?

All three of these students described previous science classes or their study of
science topics as a series of worksheets and vocabulary terms. When presented with a
class that asked open-ended questions and where students, as a group, inﬂuenced the
pace and to a lesser extent, the content of the course was a very different experience for
them. Learning how to work with their peers to help shape the course was a new set of
negotiations that the students had to learn.

Special education students and academically at-risk students are often isolated
early in their education careers. When special education and at-risk students are placed in
a mixed ability classroom all students in the class need to learn how to communicate with
each other across cultural, social and cognitive barriers. There is a rich history of
sociological work like that of Willis, Eckert, and MacLeod (Eckert, 1989; MacLeod,
1987; Willis, 1981) which describes different social categories of adolescents. Most of
these types of studies describe life outside of the classroom. They provide us with
insights into the social dynamics and barriers which students bring to the classroom
setting and glimpses into how these shape the interactions within the classroom. Eckert
and MacLeod both discuss how high school students stake out certain areas of a school
and the community as their “turf.” What is the parallel in the classroom? What are the
parallels between the roles a student plays in large group activities and the roles a student
plays in small group settings?

Eckert (Eckert, 1989) describes the inﬂuence of academic tracking on the
development of social networks. Steele and Ogbu (Ogbu, 1988; Ogbu, 1992; Steele,

1992) describe the patterns of interaction between races. They both describe how

35

patterns of conversation and interaction styles vary the impact of these variations on the
negotiations that occur on a day to day basis in the community and in the work setting.
One of the goals of this study will be to explore if there are, or what are the parallel
patterns of interaction between students of varied backgrounds and cognitive ability found
in a heterogeneous classroom?

Students negotiate their roles with their peers in a wide variety of settings. One of
the areas where it is easiest to observe this negotiation process is within the small group
setting. There is no evidence which supports the view that placing low ability students in
homogeneous groups is effective (Slavin, 1990). There is a growing literature base that
indicates that low-ability students beneﬁt from heterogeneous groups and classrooms (Dar
& Resh, 1986; Kerckhoff, 1986). The kinds of activities and experiences that students
have in these small groups can have a great impact on what beneﬁts they receive from
placement in heterogeneous settings. Just having students working together does not
magically take away the problems, nor does it mean that they will magically start working
together in cooperative, supportive ways.

One of the dilemmas of students working in cooperative learning groups relates
back to the status problems and the student's view of themself as a learner. Elizabeth
Cohen (Cohen, 1994) emphasizes the need of teachers to be familiar with the status
hierarchy issues that inﬂuence participation in small group activities and engagement. The
inﬂuence of several different levels or types of Status, including academic, social class,
race, ethnic group and gender, must be considered in planning activities and while
monitoring the work in small groups. This leads to a hard set of decisions that a teacher
must make while planning and during the implementation of a lesson or unit. Part of the
decision making that a teacher must use is what concepts or topics lend themselves best to

cooperative learning activities and take advantage of the multiple abilities in a small group.

36

N no it ien 0e rmm
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations which affect a special
education/at-risk student ’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science
community? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing scienttﬁc understanding?
Many studies describe different kinds of science class and activities (Cusick,
1983; Powell, et al., 1985). These studies describe how courses can be organized and
the types of activities students are engaged in. In many cases the students are asked to
duplicate earlier work of scientists. We have fewer glimpses into science classrooms
where students feel like they are working like scientists. The following transcript comes
from an interview of 3 students in a 5th grade class taught by Kathleen Roth. The
students are talking about what they think scientists do.
Tiffany - Scientists do experiments to ﬁnd answers to question.

Student 1 - That's what we did

Student 2 - They have discussions with other scientists about what they think and
then they add to their ideas.

Student 1 - That's what we did.

Tiffany - Different scientists can do different experiences and add to their
evidence.

Student 2 - We found evidence too just like scientists,... because we are

scientists!

(Michigan Partnership for New Education, 1992)

There are not many students who would make this last claim. Most students view
science as something to be learned or studied, not as something that they "do." These
students display an ownership and a pride in the experiments that they did and what they
learned from the experiments. For the above three Students science was accessible, but
not all students feel this way about science.

Students bring a wide variety of conceptions about the nature of science with them
to the classroom. Their conceptions of the nature of science have a direct impact on the

willingness to engage in the science content and classroom science community. Strike

and Posner (Strike & Posner, 1992) describe how learners might choose solutions to

37

problems that are not consistent with how the science community would tackle the
problem, but makes good rationale sense for the individual student. They describe two
hypothetical students who are doing poorly in physics. One of these students (John)
copes by spending a great deal of time memorizing formulas. "As a consequence, he is
able to do better on tests, but he understands very little of what he is learning." (pp.
161). The other hypothetical student (Jean) they describe is a student who is struggling
with self-esteem issues. She copes in the class by devaluing the science content.
"Perhaps they (views of physics) help some people make better widgets, but for someone
who is not interested in a technical career, there is little reason to be concerned about it."
(pp. 162). It is this second viewpoint that is more consistent with special education
students at the high school level. They often lack the incentive or cognitive abilities to
adapt as John did.

Lee and Anderson (Lee & Anderson, 1992) identify four major patterns of task
engagement: a) Intrinsically Motivated to Learn Science, b) Motivated to Learn Science,
c) Task Avoidance, (1) Active Task Resistance. As part of these patterns of task
engagement they identify four goal clusters in middle science classrooms: a)
understanding, b) fact acquisition, c) ego—social, and d) work avoidant (pp. 593). This
article presented four case studies of students to illustrate patterns of task engagements
and related factors. Students were interviewed prior to a unit on kinetic molecular theory
and after the unit.

Lee and Anderson's four case studies also present four different goal orientations.
In the ﬁrst case study the student (Jason) stated "to use science to understand the world"
as his ﬁrst priority in science class. After the unit Jason placed even greater emphasis on
this goal. Jason was described "intrinsically motivated to learn science" and demonstrated
consistent success during the unit. In the second case study the student (Sara) ranked
ego—social goals higher than "to use science to understand the world" prior to instruction.

After instruction Sara placed understanding as her top priority. Sarah was described as

38

"motivated to learn science." Generally Sara was successful during the unit, with some
instances of failure. In the third case study the student (Kim) ranked ego-social goals as
her primary goals in science class. Out of a list of ten goals, Kim gave "to make sense of
scientiﬁcally correct ideas" the lowest rating. Kim was described as an example of "task
avoidance," who made little advance in science understanding during the unit. The fourth
case study presented in this article is the case study of Nora. Nora placed ego-social as
her ﬁrst priority and work avoidance as her second goal in class. She gave "to use
science to understand the world" and "to make sense of scientiﬁcally correct ideas" the
lowest rankings. These goals remained her lowest ranking after instruction. Nora was
described as an example of "active task resistance" who constantly failed to develop
scientiﬁc understanding. In the four case studies presented in this paper each of the
students initially reported a positive attitude toward science. This study illustrates that a
positive attitude toward science does not necessarily lead to engagement in science class
activities, nor achievement (pp. 596-7).

The three case studies presented in this dissertation provide three different views
Of this biology class. One of the things that all three case studies have in common is that
all three students had learning disabilities that inﬂuenced their participation in the class.
Each of these students came to the class with some common history in school and in
science classes, but they held very different views of school and their role in the school.
By looking at their experiences and the experiences of the members of the small groups, I
hope to develop a fuller picture of the dynamics of a mixed - ability high school biology

class.

Significance of This Study

This study bridges two education communities that have long and well
documented histories. Both special education and science education are currently engaged
in extensive reforms. They have each had to react and adapt to the changing nature and

needs of society. Current reform efforts in each of these disciplines has led to the mixed-

39

ability classroom described in this study. The number and variety of mixed-ability
classrooms grows each year. Thus science teachers are responsible for students
representing a wider range of cognitive abilities. Since this type of classroom has a
shorter history there is a lack of literature or research in this type of setting.

This study adds to the literature in science education by focusing on the
characteristics and needs of a population that have been underrepresented in previous
studies. It adds a focus on cooperative learning in heterogeneous settings and issues
related to science content to the special education and adds to the growing inclusion

literature base.

CHAPTER 3
Methods

Setting
Ramsey High School

This study took place in a heterogeneous tenth grade biology class in Ramsey.
Ramsey was formerly a rural area that had become a suburban city in the midwest.
Ramsey was a predominantly white, middle and working class community. A small, but
growing number of minority students are moving to Ramsey from a nearby large city.
Ramsey is made up of a variety of socioeconomic levels, ranging from homes in the 200
thousand dollar range to trailer parks and economy level apartments.

The science teachers at Ramsey High School had a long term working relationship
with science education faculty and graduate students from a near-by university for several
years. In 1988 this relationship strengthened and became more formalized across the
school when Ramsey High School agreed to work with the university as a Professional
Development School. The teachers in this school believed in creating a learning
community and emphasized the role of inquiry, cooperative learning, and writing in their
classrooms. Teachers and students together actively shaped the discussions and the
content in the class. Developing activities and shaping the students' experiences in a
classroom to promote this type of discussion can be difﬁcult. The science teachers at
Ramsey High School were among the ﬁrst groups at the school to organize formal after
school discussions to help facilitate and support each other in their efforts to reform their
teaching practice. In a typical year the science teachers and their university partners
discussed strategies and dilemmas associated with: cooperative learning, alternate or
authentic forms of assessment, integration of life and physical science, content
organization, the use of case studies, and meeting the needs of diverse learners (both

advanced students and at—risk learners).

4O

41

This dedication to inquiry into practice lead to major changes in how the teachers
of this school viewed their role. This type of inquiry took a great deal of time and the
dedication of all involved. The need for time to think about and support each other in the
change process prompted a group of teachers to develop a plan to change the school
schedule to get more time for collaboration. In the fall of 1989 this plan was implemented
with the support of the school board and the community. Twenty minutes were added
onto each school day, but on Wednesdays students reported to school at 11:30. This
allowed the teachers to meet from 7:30 until 10:30 to discuss their practice (with 10:30 to
11:30 used for planning time and lunch). Over the years Wednesday morning time was
organized in a variety of ways as the needs of the school changed. On most weeks there
was some time for groups like the science teachers and their university partners to meet.
This innovative use of time, plus many other innovations have brought national attention

to Ramsey High School.

Mr. L's Class

This study was conducted in Mr. L's ﬁrst hour Biology class during the fall
semester of 1992. Three Special education students (Josh, Carl and Heidi) were included
in a class of 24 students. This class was taught by Mr. L, using a conceptual change
model of instruction, with the assistance of a science education doctoral student who also
documented class activities. The class was also supported on a consulting basis by a
Special education teacher. This classroom was divided into two main work areas: a)
lecture/discussion area and b) a laboratory area. The following diagram illustrates the
classroom arrangement where Josh, Carl and Heidi sat and worked in both the class

setting and in the laboratory setting.

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Storage
m @ ..... m
’ t
/
Door to Courtyard 2
Door to Hall 9'
i
I
J C
Plains _.
H Lab Table Cabinets
E J
A uarium _.
3‘ | :1 El :1
Bee shelf :l . I l ‘ H
Bookshelf
Overhead
Pr 6 a .r Teacher's Desk
Chalkboard Office Door
- Ill/IIIIIIIA
J = Josh
C = Carl
H = Heidi

Figure 2 Mr. L's Classroom

43

Data Collection

To understand how special education students develop scientiﬁc understanding,
students were observed daily -- during both large group and small group activities over a
one semester period. Daily ﬁeld notes and videotape of large class discussion were used
to document class participation. Videotape of one small group and audio tape of the 2
other small groups were used to help document the interactions in small groups. Most
small groups were composed of one special education or academically at-risk student and
three general education students. Student work (including journals) was collected from
the special education students and the other members of their small group. The study also
made use of student interviews and ﬁeld notes taken on individual conversations held
with students prior to class or after class, and conversations with parents and other

teachers.

Data Analysis

This study develops case studies of Josh, Carl and Heidi. These case studies tell
how these three students participated in the negotiation processes outlined in the three
research questions. These three students are members of a larger class and also members
of three different small groups. The nature of the social context therefore dictates that
some of the stories of other members of the class and in particular the other members of
their small group also need to be told. To develop these case Studies data collection and
analysis focused primarily on the activities of these three students during whole class
activities and small group activities over a one semester period. Data collection and
analysis in this study also included examination of their written work and student
interviews to document evidence of patterns in quantity and quality of student
participation in large class and small group activities.

The three sets of research questions described earlier provided the framework for
developing the case studies. The case studies tell the stories of how these three students

experienced high school biology. This included how they negotiated their role(s) with the

44

teacher, their peers and with the science content/community and the implications of these
negotiations for their engagement and development of understanding. Each of the case
studies begins with a short description of the student. This description included
something about their learning styles and general behavioral patterns. These descriptions
were based on information that comes from the student’s ﬁles, student interviews, and
discussions with special education and general education teachers who previously had
them in class or had them in class during the time of this study or had worked with them
in extra—curricular activities. The case studies then tell the story of each student's
experience across the semester. The concluding section of each case study examines the
student's behaviors in relation to the three research questions, and includes a discussion
of the implications for engagement and understanding. The implications for engagement
and understanding are not included in the general discussion of each of the research
questions. This discussion is addressed in a separate section of each of the case studies.
By the end of the period of data collection each of the students had settled into
some kind of role or relationship with the teacher, their peers and with the science content
and science classroom community. These roles were the product of negotiations (often
implicit and unconscious) between the student and the teacher, and their peers. These
negotiations had important implications for the students' engagement and understanding.

The following diagram was used to develop the coding schemes used for data analysis.

45

 

Data Analysis

 

 

 

 

How am I going to

know it when I see
it?

9 What am I

I looking for?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Negottatron ct Role-'3;

 

     

. ”Sequences for k
-' Engagment and

 

u Arie/w 'v. A §‘. v

 

 

      

 

r.

2:} Consequences for
' Engagment and

 

Figure 3 Data Analysis Scheme

46

Negotiation with Teacher

By examining classroom transcripts and ﬁeld notes of large class discussions,
patterns of behavior between the students and the teacher were identiﬁed. For example,
at the beginning of the year: How did the student respond to the teacher’s questions? Did
the student ask for clariﬁcation? Did the student pose new or related questions to the
teacher? Did this pattern remain the same throughout the semester or did it change? If it
changed -- How did it change and why did it change?

When developing the case studies I examined how the students interacted with the
teacher, both during large class discussions and when the teacher stopped by their small
group. In any set of negotiations a person takes on a set of roles and stances toward the
people involved in the negotiations and the topic of the negotiation. In this classroom and
study, role negotiation is used to describe the process that a student uses to create a niche
or attitude toward the classroom activities (both large and small group) and the science
content. To understand what kinds of experiences the students were having it is

necessary to understand some of the nature and goals of those conversations.

N r t r

As discussed in an earlier section there are many different roles that a student can
take in a science classroom and students will often take on several different roles during a
single class period. Appendix A provides a list and brief descriptions of some of the roles
that were open to students as they negotiated a role with the teacher in the whole class
setting. These roles were used during the initial coding process. During the data analysis
I looked for episodes and exemplars of behaviors or characteristics that help develop and
clarify the descriptions of the roles that these students took.

Data from the ﬁeld notes, videotapes and audio tapes was used to look for patterns
or changes in patterns of interactions between the students and the teacher. In particular

episodes that indicated a willingness to volunteer in class, or share ideas in the small

47

group when the teacher stopped by the small group were examined. I also looked for
evidence of the students asking for help or soliciting advice/support from the teacher,
either in a large group setting or on an individual basis. The implications of these
behavior patterns on a student's ability to develop scientiﬁc understanding or to participate
in the classroom science community were examined.

The data was examined looking for evidence of student willingness to accept a
leadership role from the teacher. When called on by the teacher, was the student willing
to answer questions and provide elaboration, even when they were not sure of their
answers? Were the students able or willing to help facilitate class or small group
discussions? Was the student asked to assist other students in the class? If asked, was
the student able to assist other students in the class? When or do special education and at-
risk students inﬂuence the direction of a class discussion? What roles do the three special

education students highlighted in these case Studies actually take on or have access to?

Pr ' ti r
Students are usually not just assigned a role, nor do they usually just arbitrarily
choose a role. The role(s) which students take in a science classroom are negotiated
through a variety of moves on the part of the students, their peers and the teacher. This
process of negotiation is important to understanding how or why students take on certain
roles and inﬂuences their engagement in the class and their ability to develop
understanding. To exarrrine this negotiation process I divided each class period into small
group and large group activities, each of these activities were further divided down into
episodes based on student behavior. When examining the video tape and notes for each
of these activities I looked primarily for evidence of three types of episodes:
~ episodes where students' or the teacher's actions offered up new role
possibilities (For example: How did the student react when the teacher
directed a question to him or her? Did they respond to the question? Did the

student ask other questions or offer explanations to the teacher?)

0 episodes where students' or the teacher's actions closed off role possibilities
(For example: Did the student dismiss the topic or activity as irrelevant and

48

not engage in the activity? Did the teacher pose higher order questions to the
special education student or were these questions posed only to the “better”
students?
0 episodes where students or the teacher failed to take notice of role possibilities
(For example: Was the student focusing on the mechanics of writing a
laboratory report at the expense of engaging with the content? Was there
something in the student’s past experiences that the teacher could have used to
help the student engage in the material?)
In examining these episodes I looked for shifts in student behavior in the large group
setting and duty or activity in small group settings. I looked for verbal and physical clues
such as body language that indicated levels of sincerity of an invitation to change roles.
Similar evidence was used to identify time that students were discouraged from trying to

take on a new role or position in the group. These types of episodes form a picture of

how roles shift or fail to shift over a period of time.

Negotiation with Peers

Data from the ﬁeld notes, video tapes, audio tapes, and interviews were used to
look for patterns or changes in patterns between the students and their peers in a small
group. Appendix B provides a list and a brief descriptions of some of the roles that were
open to students as they negotiated a role with their peers in the whole class setting.
These roles were used during the initial coding process. During the data analysis I looked
for episodes and exemplars of behaviors or characteristics that help develop and clarify
the descriptions of the roles that these students took. In particular, evidence of student
willingness to participate in the small group activities and discussions, and for evidence
for the level and type of participation were examined. For example, was the student
willing to put forward ideas or suggestions and were the student's ideas or suggestions
listened to and respected by other group members, or was the student taking on or given
menial jobs (like gathering materials) to do in the group.

There is a parallel set of patterns to those between the teacher and student to look

for within the small groups. Students interactions with their peers, both during large

49

class discussions and during small group activities were examined. I used data from the
ﬁeld notes, video tapes and audio tapes to look for patterns or changes in patterns in-
between the students and their peers. Supporting evidence was gained from interviews
and journal entries. I looked for willingness to volunteer ideas with their peers either in
the large class setting and particularly in their small groups. I also looked for evidence of
the students asking for help or soliciting advice or support from their peers, either in a
large group setting or on an individual basis. These behavior patterns impact a student's
ability to develop scientiﬁc understanding or to participate in the classroom science

community.

N r r

As discussed in an earlier section there are many different roles that a student can
take in a science classroom and students will often take on several different roles during a
single class period. During the data analysis I looked for episodes and exemplars of
behaviors or characteristics that would help develop and clarify the descriptions are these
roles. What does a student who is taking on one of the roles actually do during a small
group activity? For example: When (or do) special education and at-risk students
inﬂuence the agenda of the small group? Did the student set the tone and decide on work
priorities for the small group? How did the student respond to other student’s questions?
Did the student ask for clariﬁcation? Did the student pose new or related questions or
strategies to the small group? Did the student volunteer an opinion on how things should?
Did the student volunteer to report back to the whole class? Did this pattern remain the
same throughout the semester or did it change? If it changed -- How did it change and
why did it change? What roles do the three special education students highlighted in these

case studies actually take on or have access to?

50

Pr ces ' ' r

The role(s) which students take in a science classroom are negotiated through a
variety of moves on the part of the students, their peers and the teacher. This process of
negotiation is important in understanding how or why students take on certain roles and
inﬂuences their engagement in the class and their ability to develop understanding. To
examine this negotiation process I placed particular emphasis on three parallel types of
episodes:

- episodes where students' or peers' actions offered up new role possibilities
(For example: What types of activities or tasks did the student volunteer for or
was asked to do during small group work? What kinds of information did the
student volunteer or was solicited from the members of his small group?)

0 episodes where students' or peers' actions closed off role possibilities (For
example: Did the student refuse to do some tasks or participate in some
conversations? Was the student excluded from some activities or
conversations?)

0 episodes where Students or their peers failed to take notice of role possibilities
(For example: Did the student fail to recognize when he or she had some
information or skills that could help the small group? Did the student’s peers
make assumptions about the student’s ability that excluded them from some of
the activities or conversations?)

In examining these episodes I looked for shifts in student behavior in the large group
setting and duty or activity in small group settings. I looked for verbal and physical clues
such as body language that indicated levels of sincerity of an invitation to change roles.
Similar evidence was used to identify time that students were discouraged from trying to

take on a new role or position in the group. These types of episodes form a picture of

how roles shift, or fail to shift over a period of time.

Negotiation with Science Content and Classroom Science Community

The process a student uses to negotiate a role and the role that a student negotiates
in the class, both with the teacher and with peers, directly impacts how and what type of
science understanding a student develops. Appendix C provides a list and brief

descriptions of some of the roles that were open to students as they interacted with the

51

science content and the classroom science community. These roles were used during the
initial coding process. During the data analysis I looked for episodes and exemplars of
behaviors or characteristics that help develop and clarify the descriptions of the roles that
these students took. It inﬂuences how much access a student has to activities which can
promote/develop understanding. By examining the video and audio tape and ﬁeld notes,
plus their written work, I wanted to portray a picture how these students developed
science understanding and the nature of that understanding. I looked for evidence of
science understanding in quality of their responses to questions when called on in whole
class discussions, in their conversations with peers. For example I looked for: How did
they respond to questions? What kinds of questions did they answer? What kinds of
questions did they ask? Did they ask for clariﬁcation? Did they provide clariﬁcation to
other members of their group? What kind of understanding was reﬂected in their written
work? Did these patterns remain the same throughout the semester or did they change? If
they changed -- How did they change and why did they change?

I also wanted to understand how, or whether, their disabilities affected their
learning. Many special education students have great difﬁculty writing and reading. By
examining student's written work I wanted to see how or if the level of understanding
demonstrated during discussion is paralleled in their written work. Some students have
very short attention spans, short memories or become easily frustrated, examining their
classroom interactions and written work provided insight into how this inﬂuenced their
ability to develop scientiﬁc understanding.

When developing the case studies I examined how the students interacted with the
science content. I used data from the ﬁeld notes, videotapes and audio tapes to look for
patterns or changes in patterns in willingness to engage in the activities. In particular I
looked for willingness and the quality of their responses when they volunteered in class,
or shared ideas in the small group. Did the students see connections to things in their day

to day lives, or to topics they might have studied in other classes? What implications did

52

these behavior patterns have on a student's ability to develop scientiﬁc understanding or

to participate in the classroom science community?

N r o r

AS discussed in an earlier section there are many different roles that a student can
take in a science classroom and students will often take on several different roles during a
single class period. During the data analysis I looked for episodes and exemplars of
behaviors or characteristics that helped develop and clarify the descriptions are these
roles. Were the students curious about the world around them? What kinds of questions
did they have? What kind of views did the students have of science? What connections
did they see for science in day-to-day life? What kinds of science Skills did they have or
value? What does a student who is taking on one of the roles actually do during a class?
What roles do the three special education students highlighted in these case studies

actually take on or have access to?

Pr e ' ' n that le r 1
Students are usually not just assigned a role, nor do they usually just arbitrarily
choose a role. The role(s) which students take in a science classroom are negotiated
through a variety of moves on the part of the students, their peers and the teacher. This
process of negotiation is important to understanding how or why students take on certain
roles and inﬂuences their engagement in the class and their ability to develop
understanding. To examine this negotiation process I placed particular emphasis on three
types of episode that parallel those discussed during negotiation with the teacher and with
their peers:
0 episodes where students' actions offered up new role possibilities (For
example: Were there topics that the student initially identiﬁed as “weird” or
“silly” that they later found interesting?)
- episodes where students' actions closed off role possibilities (For example:
Were there topics that the student dismissed and could not be encouraged to

engage with? Did the student’s learning disabilities prevent him or her from
engaging with the material?)

53

0 episodes where students failed to take notice of role possibilities (For
example: How did the level of engagement of the student’s peers inﬂuence
their willingness or reluctance to engage in the material? Were there topics or
concepts where smaller portions or a lower level of understanding were
attainable but were dismissed by the student?)

These types of episodes form a picture of how roles shift or fail to shift over a period of

time.

Consequences for Engagement

The goals of this biology class and the activities that the students participated in
were designed to develop science literacy or understanding. This goal depended on a
sustained level of student participation or engagement. The word "engagement" can
mean a wide variety of things depending on the context. This study draws on the work
on student engagement by Newmann et al (Newmann, 1992). They deﬁne and describe
engagement in the following way:

We deﬁne student engagement in academic work as the student's
psychological investment in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, or
mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academic work is intended to
promote. This defrnition requires elaboration and clariﬁcation on several points.

Engagement involves psychological investment in learning,
comprehending, or mastering knowledge, skills and crafts, not simply a
commitment to complete assigned tasks or to acquire symbols of high
performance such as grades or social approval. Students may complete academic
work and perform well without being engaged in the mastery of a topic, skill or
craft. (pp. 12)

It is this level or type of engagement that is necessary to develop the type of
understanding necessary to become scientiﬁcally literate.

In many ways it is very difﬁcult to analyze engagement and understanding for
special education students. How do you judge students' level of "psychological
investment?" Just completing an assignment does not necessarily indicate engagement.
Yet for some special education students who have difﬁculty with written expression this
could be a good indicator of commitment or engagement. To examine the level of student

engagement and understanding, I looked at student written work both in journals and on

tests. For example, in examining the written work I looked for evidence that students

54

tried to respond to the questions, or if they had any notes or diagrams which represented
portions of the discussion. I examined their written work to see if what they had written
down was in their words, copied from some else's notes or a combination of the two. I
looked for parallels between their written work and their participation in large group
discussions and the discussions which they held in their small groups. I also looked to
see what other resources the students used to develop understanding. By examining the
episodes described earlier I looked for evidence of engagement and understanding: Did
they ask follow up questions in their small group? Did they ask questions in large group
settings? What kinds of questions did they ask? Were they procedural questions or
questions about the concepts? How was the teacher used as a resource?

When coding for engagement the following categories were used: uninvolved-
passive; avoidant; observer; marginal participant; central participant. A student behavior
was coded as “uninvolved-passive” if a student did not pay attention to what happened
during the activity, the student did not try to change the agenda of the group but would
not participate when encouraged to get involved. A student coded as “avoidant” was a
student who used a variety of strategies to avoid getting involved in the activity, including
aggressive behavior. A student coded as an “observer” paid attention to what was
happening but did not get involved in the activity or discussion. A “marginal participant”
was a student who paid attention to the activity or discussion and occasionally enters in,
but involvement was not sustained. A “central participant” was a student who spent a
majority of the time involved in the activity or discussion.

The consequences for engagement and understanding, as they are inﬂuenced by
negotiation with peers, parallels that of the process of negotiation with the teacher. It is
very difﬁcult to place ownership of the consequences within the context of the classroom
on just the teacher or just peers, it is the interaction between forces that inﬂuences
engagement and understanding. How does the role that a student adopts in regard to

science content and the science classroom community inﬂuence their engagement and

55

ability to develop understanding? In many ways the role that a student adopts indicates
their disposition to engage in science concepts and therefore their ability to develop
understanding. To examine the level of student engagement I looked at student written
work both in journals and on tests, I will also look to see what other resources the
students used to develop understanding. An example of the coding scheme and a sample
coding record that was used for engagement and understanding is included in Appendix
D.

Consequences for Understanding

To examine the level of student understanding I looked at student written work
both in journals and on tests. How did they respond to the questions? What do these
responses tell us about their level of understanding? To document level student
understanding I also examined their responses during class discussion and during
conversations in their small groups. Many of these students cannot or do not express
their understanding in writing, verbal evidence is how they demonstrate their
understanding. Speciﬁcally I looked to see how or if students change their concepts
based on the activities. Did students add to their knowledge base? What kinds of
changes occurred in student understanding?

The class discussed many important ideas during the course of the semester, more
than can be proﬁtably be analyzed for this dissertation. For each student, therefore, I
have selected four types of understanding that were important to the teacher and that are
recognized as important by national science education initiatives such as Project 2061 .
They are as follows:

0 Understanding of the nature and origins of scientiﬁc knowledge

0 Skills and ability to participate in scientiﬁc inquiry

0 Understanding of ideas that are associated directly with laboratory activities or
students' personal experiences.

0 Understanding of ideas based on sequences of activities or theoretical
reasoning.

56

Science literacy as deﬁned by our national reform efforts, calls for a depth of
understanding beyond the memorization of facts or the completion of “cookbook” lab
activities. Each of these categories of understanding are discussed below, as well as an
explanation for how I analyzed Josh's, Carl's and Heidi's understanding in each

category.

rst ' he r a ' ' sci nti kn wled

The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks for
Scientiﬁc Literacy (American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1993) is
used as a Standard for describing the types of understanding necessary for science
literacy. They state one of the goals of science literacy is the development of a scientiﬁc
world view. AAAS describes a scientiﬁc world view as:

A scientiﬁc world view is not something that working scientists Spend a lot of

time discussing. They just do science. But underlying their work are several

beliefs that are not always held by nonscientists. One is that by working together

over time, people can in fact ﬁgure out how the world works. Another is that the

universe is a uniﬁed system and knowledge gained from studying one part of it

can often be applied to other parts. Still another is that knowledge is both stable

and subject to change. (pp. 5)
This concept was one of the underlying principles of this class and the teacher's style of
teaching. The teacher wanted students to explore ideas and design experiments. I looked
for evidence of student understanding of the nature and origins of science knowledge in
student journal entries, their laboratory reports, and by using video tape and audio tape,
looking for evidence that students could reﬂect on their science knowledge. I looked for
evidence that students understood that a group of people working together could develop

comprehensive explanations, and that explanations developed in one area could be applied

to other areas or ﬁelds.

57

2111 III .. . "E' .

The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks for
Scientiﬁc Literacy (American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1993) is
used as a standard for describing the types of understanding necessary for science
literacy. They state one of the goals of science literacy is the ability to participate in
scientiﬁc inquiry. AAAS describes scientiﬁc inquiry as:

Scientiﬁc inquiry is more complex than popular conceptions would have it. It is,

for instance, a more subtle and demanding process than the naive idea of "making

a great many careful observations and then organizing them. It is far more ﬂexible

than the rigid sequence of steps commonly depicted in textbooks as "the scientiﬁc

method.” It is much more than just "doing experiments," and it is not conﬁned to
laboratories. More imaginations and inventiveness are involved in scientiﬁc
inquiry than many people realize, yet sooner or later strict logic and empirical
evidence must have their day. Individual investigators working alone sometimes
make great discoveries, but the steady advancement of science depends on the

enterprise as a whole. (pp. 9)

This concept was another of the underlying principles of this class and the
teachers style of teaching. It is this underlying principle that structure much of the small
group work asked of students. The teacher wanted students to explore ideas and design
experiments. He valued students working together and exploring issues. I looked for
evidence of student understanding of the skills necessary to participate in scientiﬁc inquiry
in student journal entries, their laboratory reports, and by using videotape and audio tape
to examine episodes where students were given the opportunity and were encouraged to
be creative or try something new, and to build off of each others ideas. I examined how
they approached a problem and for evidence of their ability to construct scientiﬁc
knowledge. Were they looking for "the right" answer or were they willing to explore

alternatives. What kinds of questions they were asking of the teacher, their peers and in

their journals?

58

-I.'rs I. I 1.‘ o I 'I It Ire I- o I e I 're ’h IIIrI I I- ti 'i Ir -I nt'

perﬁnal emerieneee
Helping students develop an understanding of the nature of science and develop
scientiﬁc inquiry Skills provided the context for the other topics covered in this class. If
you isolate the goals of this biology class from those that are not tied explicitly to nature
of science and scientiﬁc inquiry goals the goal areas associated directly with laboratory
activities or students' personal experiences include the following: Structure of Matter,
Cells, and The Flow of Matter and Energy. A complete list of the benchmarks identiﬁed
as goals for this class that were tied directly to laboratory activities or students' personal
experiences can be found in Appendix E. This list was too extensive for data analysis,
the following subset and portions of these benchmarks were used in the data analysis:
M

Atoms are made of a positive nucleus surrounded by negative electrons. Atoms
form bonds to other atoms by transferring or sharing electrons. (pp. 80)

ﬁlls

All living things are composed of cells, from just one to millions, whose details
usually are visible only through a microscope. Different body tissues and
organs are made up of different kinds of cells. (pp. 112)

F l M r r
Food provides the fuel and the building materials for all organisms. Plants use
the energy from light to make sugars from carbon dioxide and water. This food
can be used immediately or stored for later use. Organisms that eat plants break
down the plant structures to produce the materials and energy they need to
survive. Then they are consumed by other organisms. (pp. 120)

Energy can change from one form to another in living things. Almost all food
energy comes originally from sunlight. (pp. 120)

These benchmarks were tied to laboratory activities or events and information that
the students in this class had previous experience with prior to this class. Some of these
were benchmarks which AAAS identiﬁed as goals for grades 6 through 8, others for
grades 9 through 12. These ideas were used during class discussion and small group
discussion as building blocks to develop greater understanding about these topic areas. I
looked for evidence of student understanding of these concepts in student journal entries,

their laboratory reports, student interviews and by using video tape and audio tape. I

59

examined episodes where students were given the opportunity explore and use these ideas
and to build greater understanding by building off of each others ideas and applying these
ideas to related concepts. The student's ﬁnal exams were also used for examining their
scientiﬁc understanding. I was interested in whether the Students were able to retain
information learned during a unit, or if they had been able to use later topics to expand

their understanding.
rst in ' a ase n s nc 'vitie rth reti a rea onin

Many of the concepts addressed in the class relied on students being able to
develop their understanding and make connections across a sequence of activities or
through links to several other topic areas including the following: Structure of Matter,
Cells, Heredity, and The Flow of Matter and Energy. A complete list of the benchmarks
identiﬁed as goals for this class that were tied directly to laboratory activities or students'
personal experiences can be found in Appendix E. This list was too extensive for data
analysis, the following subset or portion of these benchmarks were used in the data
analysis:

W

The conﬁguration of atoms in a molecule determines the molecule’s properties.
Shapes are particularly important in how large molecules interact with others.

(PP- 81)
Celts

Cells in multicellular organisms perform some special functions that others do
not. (pp. 113)

The work of the cell is carried out by the many different types of molecules it
assembles, mostly proteins. The function of each protein

molecule depends on its speciﬁc sequence of amino acids and the shape

the chain takes is a consequence of attractions between the chain’s parts. (pp.
1 14)

Most cells function best within a narrow range of temperature and acidity. At
very low temperatures, reaction rates are too slow. High temperatures and/or
extremes of acidity can irreversibly change the structure of most protein
molecules. (pp. 114)

A living cell is composed of a small number of chemical elements mainly
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur. Carbon,

60

because of its small size and four available bonding electrons, can join to other
carbon atoms in chains and rings to form large and complex molecules. (pp.

1 14)

The ﬂew Qt Matter M Energy

The chemical elements that make up the molecules of living things pass through
food webs and are combined and recombined in different ways. At each link in
a food web, some energy is stored in newly made structures but much is
dissipated into the environment as heat. Continual input of energy from sunlight
keeps the process going. (pp. 121)

These benchmarks were concepts that built on a sequence of activities or
theoretical reasoning. Some of these were benchmarks which AAAS identiﬁed as goals
for grades 6 through 8, others for grades 9 though 12. Often these ideas were later used
during class discussion and small group as a focus for discussion. I looked for evidence
of student understanding of these concepts in student journal entries, their laboratory
reports, interviews and by using video tape and audio tape to examine episodes where
students were given the opportunity to explore and develop these ideas and to build
greater understanding by building off of each others ideas and relate these ideas to other

concepts or topics.

Summary

The data collection methods used in this study provided an opportunity for a wide
range of studies and analysis strategies. Since all of the data sources were available from
the entire semester period it became crucial for data management to focus on a limited
number of concepts and events in the class. The ﬁrst dilemma faced was deciding what
class activities or concepts would best characterize the variety of experiences students had
in this class. Another dilemma was deciding what to focus on and developing coding and
analysis schemes that could be used consistently with each student and in each small
group across activities and concepts. The three research questions provided the context

and rationale for making many of these decisions. The data source is extensive and rich

61

enough to tell many other stories. The cases which follow provide a glimpse into these

three students experiences in a mixed-ability high school biology class.

CHAPTER 4
The Case of Josh

Introduction

The ﬁrst case is the story of Josh. Each of the case studies in this dissertation will
follow a similar pattern. The case studies will begin with a short description of the
Student. Most of the information in this section comes from the student's ﬁle, student
interviews and informal conversations, parent discussions, and conversations with past or
current teachers, video and audio tape records and ﬁeld notes. The cases will then shift to
a classroom focus and how the student interacted in large and small group settings
roughly in chronological order of the semester. The data for this portion of the case study
came from the data sources and analysis described in Chapter 3. The case will then move
on to a discussion of the three research questions in light of each students story, and

concludes with a discussion of the implications for engagement and understanding.

Who is Josh?

Josh was a learning disabled student, who struggled with reading and writing at
grade level. Josh was identiﬁed as learning disabled in the ﬁrst grade, shortly after
identiﬁcation he was placed in a special education resource class where he received
additional support. As a ninth grader at the junior high Josh had been included in a few
general education classes on a trial basis, but received most of his instruction in the
special education resource room. At the time of this study Josh was a tenth grader. At
the end of the ninth grade Josh was reading at the fourth grade level and writing at the
third grade level. He also had difﬁculties in processing verbal information. His math
skills were at approximately grade level. He had been tutored in note-taking skills, but

62

63

most of his former special education teachers did not believe that his skills were adequate
for most classes. Josh was also classiﬁed as emotionally impaired, with low self-esteem
and a history of depression. AS a seventh grader Josh was identiﬁed as having an
attention deﬁcit disorder, he was on medication for this disorder for a short period of time
(6 months) after the diagnosis but then went off medication.

Josh was very open and friendly with both adults and with his peers. Throughout
his records you ﬁnd notations from teachers and other professionals that described Josh
as friendly and cooperative, or quotes like, “works well with others.” Most of Josh’s
teachers described him as a “nice kid.” When asked about his work habits his teachers
provided a range of responses. Following is a sample of these responses:

He tries, but

Verbally he’s pretty good, but his writing is another thing.
He rarely turns anything in.

He’s passing, but barely.

He’s pretty quiet - doesn’t cause trouble.

Gives up too quick -- he could do the work if he tried.
Seems like he is in his own little world most of the time.

Josh’s small group was composed of three people: Josh; Sarah (an academically
at-risk student); and Carry (an academically motivated “A—B” student). In the biology
class in this study it was common for there to be three or four students who came to class
early to ask questions, ﬁnish up homework, read or talk with the instructors. Josh often
came into the class early in the morning. He spent the time before class started, talking
with any of the adults in the room or any other students who came in early to work or
“kill time.” Josh was a member of the junior varsity football and basketball teams. That
he was respected by his peers on the teams was evident by the interactions in the hall and
during informal conversations during class.

Josh was a student who had a natural curiosity about the world around him and

was willing to try to develop explanations for events. It was common for Josh to start a

64

conversation with one of the teachers before school with a statement like, “You know that
stuff we were talking about yesterday, that’s kinda like isn’t it?” Josh’s curiosity and
willingness to explore ideas also meant that he was more comfortable in a science class
that focused on real-world problems. This willingness to explore ideas provided Josh
with a good foundation for participation in this biology class, especially at the beginning
of the year when many of the questions and activities dealt with things that he could
encounter in day-today life.

Josh's short attention span presented problems for him in the large class setting
and in the small group work. It meant that he sometimes had difﬁculty staying with a
conversation or task long enough for it to become interesting to him. At the beginning of
the term this was not a huge problem for him because the students were investigating real
life problems and these topics were immediately interesting to Josh. His short attention
span became more problematic when the concepts were more complex and took several
class periods to develop or more abstract and not tied directly to observable phenomena.

Part of his disengagement during these topics can be tied to his need to see, use,
or application of the ideas, but even topics which he was interested in caused him
difﬁculties when they were developed over an extended period of time. This pattern was
most observable during the last part of the semester with the unit on energy conversions.
Josh had a lot of ideas that he volunteered in class discussions, but his attentive behavior
was inconsistent and varied greatly from day to day. Josh acted interested and was an
active member of his group during the activities connected to this concept, but he was not
able to take the information that was discussed in the large class setting and apply it to the
activities, he did not make the connections to what he had volunteered in the discussion to
the activities. Nor could he seem to focus on the follow-up discussions. He often came
back to his small group and said things like, "Those guys over there are doing something

real neat with their stuff." Yet when the small groups were presenting their results his

65

head was often down, he was not always making eye contact with the speakers, he
sometimes was reading a magazine during the discussions or doodling in his notebook.

Josh was accustomed to frequent positive feedback, when he didn’t get it he went
in search of it. Even as he moved from his own small group to the other small groups, he
was working on the presented problem and presenting his ideas to the new group. If the
new group listened to his ideas and tried to use it he stayed at that table. When that didn't
happen he often wandered to another group. It appeared that he was looking for
conﬁrmation of his ideas. When it came time for the students to report their results he
was usually willing to state his ideas to the whole class. He usually received conﬁrmation
and reinforcement of his ideas as he moved around the room. Josh remained willing to
participate like this on a daily basis for 3—4 weeks into the ﬁrst semester when the focus of
the class was on developing problem solving Skills with common materials.

During the time of this study J osh's parents had almost no involvement with the
school. They did not respond to mid-term reports or return phone calls, and when
reached by phone the conversations were usually short. Conversations with previous
teachers indicate that they did not usually attend parent-teacher conferences, and when
they did have a meeting with the teachers they rarely talked about what they could do to
help Josh, but rather talked about what Josh or the teachers did or did not do. Josh’s
parents interacted a little more openly with the Special education staff members. Some of
their calls were returned, and if there was a major family crisis (as when his grandfather
was gravely ill) his parents alerted the school through the special education staff. During
meetings with teachers, Josh's parents voiced concerns about the school's duty or
obligation to help and work with Josh. It did not appear to Josh's junior high or high
school teachers that Josh was getting support from his parents in learning how to
negotiate his role in an educational setting.

This is in marked contrast to how Josh talked about his parent’s involvement in

helping him ﬁnd an after-school job. Early one morning before school, Josh told the

66

other students in the room about how his father had done a mock interview with him to
help him get ready for the job interview, and promised him a car when he turned 16, if he
still had the job, so that he could get to work easier. Josh’s parents did not act as strong
motivation for Josh to engage in biology class, or to complete assigned work. The level
of Josh’s engagement was tied more to his interests and his willingness to interact with

the teachers, his peers and the content.

Josh's Story - Finding and creating a role in a science class

At the beginning of the semester Josh routinely participated in class activities and
discussions, often Showing evidence of the type of engagement described by Newmann et
a1 (Newmann, 1992). He often volunteered answers in whole class settings, and offered
ideas or suggestions in his small group. When his answer wasn't immediately accepted
by the members of his small group he re-introduced the idea and adapted it based on his
groups discussion. A great deal of the time during the ﬁrst 5 weeks of school was spent
in small groups exploring questions and working on problems. Josh was willing to ﬁght
for his ideas and did not feel strongly about needing to agree with his group. The
beginning of the semester offered Josh a great deal of opportunity to use his strengths.
His learning and emotional disabilities sometimes limited his ability to communicate his
understanding, but they did not limit his participation either in small group or large group
activities.

At the beginning of the year the focus was on helping students develop and reﬁne
their problem solving skills, practice their observational skills, and to get comfortable
with writing in science in ways that might have been very different from what they had
experienced in the past. During the ﬁrst week of school the students were given a live
earthworm, some damp paper towel, a hand lens and a toothpick. The students were

asked to determine which end was the head of the animal. They were asked to write

67

down their observations about the worm and provide justiﬁcation for their claims.

Following is a short transcript from Josh's small group.

Carry

September 10

Carry I’ll get the paper towel. You (Josh and Sarah) get the worm.

Sarah I’m not going to get the worm! Worms are gross..I’ll get the other stuff

Josh I’ll get it.

Carry Put it (the worm) down here.

Josh 'It'hat’s got to be the head (as he pokes at the worm). It’s pulling the rest of
r .

Carry We don’t know that yet.

Sarah Look the other end moves too.

Josh But that end (his guess of the head) is bigger. That’s the head.

Sarah I can’t see any difference. OH...watch out it’s getting away!

(Carry ﬂips the end of the paper towel over the worm and moves away
from the edge of the table. The worm stayed inside the folded paper towel
and didn ’t appear to want to come out.)

Carry Look it’s hiding. How can we tell which end is which if it won’t come
out. We need some paper to get this down.

Sarah I’ve got some -- What should I put down?

Carry The worm likes it dark.

Josh That’s not our question. Which end is the head? How does dark help us?
I think it is still the big end.

Carry Let’s poke it and see if one end moves more than the other (she then taps
the worm on both ends. It appears that the end Josh has pointed to moves
more).

Josh See I told you -- That’s the head.

Sarah Should I write that down?

Josh Yeah

No - we don’t know for sure yet.

68

(Josh starts to look around to see what the other groups are doing as Carry
dictates to Sarah what should be written down. Josh wandered over to the
table next to them and starts a conversation with the other group. Neither
Carry or Sarah called him back, but proceed to write down observations.
Josh did not return to his small group during the activity except at the end
to pick up his pencil before returning to his desk. When it came time to
report their results Carry reported for their group. When the teacher called
for other observations from the clas -- Josh volunteered, “The head
moves more. ”)

AS the above transcript and follow-up description demonstrates Josh started out
the year willing to participate in science activities. He was willing to throw out his ideas
about worms and how his group might go about solving this problem. Josh was satisﬁed
that he knew the answer to the problem. When Carry wanted to continue to test things
and did not immediately adopt Josh's explanation, he wandered over to another group to
see what they were doing. When he wandered over to the other group he proposed his
idea again, they tried a few things to see what the worm would do and listed it as one of
the things they had tried.

One of the dominating features of this biology class that separates it from other
more traditional biology classes is the emphasis on students generating ideas and then
testing them. The teacher often introduced a topic or idea and then asked students to
brainstorm ways that the class could represent the idea in a different way, or explore and
test the idea. Suggestions brought up by the students then were usually discussed in a
whole class discussion or students were asked to design the tests in their small groups.

The following conversation is an example of an activity that originated in a whole
class discussion that occurred approximately 4 weeks into the semester. The students
were asked to go back in their small groups and take the class brainstormed list of
characteristics of living things, choose one of these characteristics and design a test that
could be used to see if yeast was alive. In earlier conversations Josh had talked to the
members a little bit about not understanding why they had to know so much about yeast.
Josh appeared Skeptical about the need to understand or know about yeast, but he did

have a background in thinking about things that were living or non-living. He was

69

willing to participate in the activity and contributed to the small and whole class
discussions. One of the members of his small group, Carry, was less interested in this
topic and was uncomfortable with the organization of the class. The following

conversation happened as soon as the students got back to their table.

September 28

Carry This is stupid. I hate this class!

Sarah Why? What’s the matter?

Carry Why don’t they just tell us what they want us to know? I liked last year
better.

Josh I didn’t. I don’t think this is so bad.

Carry Last year all we had to do was answer the questions in the book or on the
worksheet and we were done. It was easy.

Sarah It was boring. I like the stuff we are doing in here.

Josh Yeah.. at least we are doing something. I hated last year.

Carry But last year we learned stuff and had a test over it and we were done. We
started talking about living things the ﬁrst day of class and we’re still
talking about it. This class goes too slow. We’re not learning anything.

Josh I like this. I don’t think it moves Slow.

Sarah Yeah! This is fun -- I like doing things.

Carry I like doing things too - but last year was easier. All we had to do was
follow directions. How are we supposed to know how to test our idea? I
looked it up -- yeast is alive. Why do we have to prove it?

Sarah I don’t know -- maybe so we’ll remember it.

Josh Maybe your book was wrong -- things change.

Carry The book wasn’t wrong. We’re just wasting time doing this. We could
be learning other things. This class is too easy.

Josh Maybe, but I still don’t think it’s that bad.

Carry OOhhh --- let’s just do it and get it over with. Let’s do “breathing.”

(Students started to plan their lab set up)

70

Josh held his own in this conversation, not letting Carry talk him into dismissing the
class. At the time of this conversation Josh was suggesting things they could do and was
willing to put some of his ideas out for discussion. Josh valued working with members
of his small group. Students were asked to write a minimum of three journal entries a
week. To help them with this assignment they were given a list of possible topics they
could use for writing journal entries. Shortly before the above conversation, Josh wrote
in his journal:

“Working in groups helps me because I get to hear the great ideas that I might

never think of. It also helps me to better understand how other people learn and

understand the materials assigned for that day.”
Mr. L put a great of emphasis on students working together in their groups and talking
about how this was similar to ways that scientists worked together to try and ﬁgure out
problems. Early in the semester he spent a large portion of a class period describing how
scientists often worked together on projects or sought the advice of other scientists when
working on a problem. He also talked about the importance of being able to communicate
about both the process of working on a problem and the results of an experiment or set of
experiments.

Josh was also willing to believe that “this way of learning science” might be easier
for him. During an interview mid-way through the semester Josh was asked to compare
science this year with science classes in the past. During this interview he said:

“This is better, there isn’t always just one right answer. We get to test things out.

The writing is hard, I liked the multiple choice tests better, then I could guess.

But I can do some of this stuff and last year I was lost.”

The transcript from September 28th and the quote from Josh’s mid-semester interview
provide insight into the negotiation process that was occurring with the teachers of this
class. He did not view the teacher as the major sources of facts or information. He

recognized the teacher's role as providing opportunities for students to ﬁgure things out

for themselves.

71

Josh was very good at bringing in his knowledge about other topics and relating

them to topics in whole class discussions or in small group work. Sometimes these were

things that Josh learned in previous years, sometimes it was something that he had

learned outside school. Josh talked about his past experience during both large and small

group activities. During one of the large class discussions about whether or not yeast is

alive one of the students questioned whether something could be stored like yeast is, in

small packages, and still be alive. After all it wasn’t getting any light, there was no food,

and the whole list of things that had been discussed as signs of life were not present when

you poured the yeast out of the bag. The following transcript comes from that whole

class discussion:

October 4

Mr. L.

Tom

Mr. L.

Josh
Mr. L.

Heather
Mr. L.
Josh

Sarah

Mr. L.

OK - So one of our questions is: Can something that is stored in a
package like yeast still be alive? It’s a good question...What do you
think? Anyone?...

I think so. I have an aquarium and I buy brine Shrimp in a small bottle and
mix it with water and salt and in a few days they are swimming around.

Has anyone else seen what Tom is talking about? We can set some brine
shrimp up to look at if you would be interested. Who wants to set this up?

(a couple of hands are raised)
OK - so we’ll set that up tomorrow. Other ideas or suggestions? Josh?

Seeds are kept in packages and only grow when you plant them.

That’s a good point. What do the rest of you think? (there is a chorus of
yes’s and no’s) Heather?

Seeds aren’t alive - only the plants that come from them are.
What do you say about that Josh?

I think seeds are alive. There is a date on the package they have to be used
by - after that they die and plants won’t grow. So they must be alive.

But that could be a spoil date like with milk. Milk’s not alive it just comes
from something that was alive. Maybe seeds are the same.

OK - so it seems like we can’t come to agreement about this. How are we
going to test it?

72

(The next 10 minutes of the class were spent discussing the pros and cons
of various tests.)

The above transcript is an example of one of the times that Josh was willing to put
forward his ideas in the whole class setting, even though he still had some doubts about
his answer. One of the patterns that emerged over the term was that when Josh was able
relate the topic to something he knew about he appeared to stay involved with the activity
and assimilated new information, he used the new information in his small group
discussions and in his written work.

One of the things that the class decided to try was bromothymol blue -- to see if
the seeds gave off any C02. After letting the test tubes sit over the weekend the students
could see that radish seeds did give off at least a small amount of C02. When it came
time for the test on this material the students were asked to identify some tests that could
be used to tell if something was alive. Josh used the seed and bromothymol blue test as

evidence.

Josh's Story - Finding and creating a different role in a science class

As the term progressed the concepts became more abstract and Josh appeared to
have difﬁculty seeing how they related to his life. He often said things in his small group
like, "This is dumb. When are we ever going to use this?" Josh appeared to ﬁnd many
of the concepts introduced during the later part of the semester (cells, atomic structure,
biochemistry, photosynthesis and respiration) difﬁcult and not connected to anything in
his life. As the concepts became more abstract and the types of activities Shifted to deal
with these abstract ideas, Josh’s learning and emotional disabilities seemed to start to play
a larger role in his participation in class. The periods of time that he did not appear to be
participating in the whole class discussion started to grow in duration. His notes, which
were never extensive, became even more fragmented. His responses to essay questions
on tests became shorter or were missing. His journal responses were rarely about the

topics covered in class, but about personal observations about the general working of the

73

class or his study habits. His special education resource teacher believed that Josh’s short
attention span was a major factor in how he approached class activities and the kinds of
understanding he could develop, especially with complex concepts.

There was also a change in the way that Josh interacted with his small group. He
was not able or willing to stay with a conversation or task for an extended period of time.
For Josh to be actively involved with his small group negotiation about what needed to be
done and how the task would be approached had to occur very early in the conversation.
If he did not have an idea what was supposed to be done when he went back to his small
group, or if he didn't have a suggestion to bring to the conversation, he withdrew from
the group. Josh often physically stood back away from the table and would pace back
and forth or delay getting back to his small group by sharpening his pencil several times
during the class period or stopping by other small groups to talk to someone about work
or sports.

As long as Josh had an idea that he wanted to put up for discussion, or a clear idea
of what he could do, or if Carry or Sarah asked him to do something he stayed and
worked with his group, if this didn't happen he often wandered away from the group to
talk with someone at another table. This pattern was established early in the term and did
not vary much throughout the semester. As the topics in biology got more abstract Josh
appeared to withdraw from the small group work and class discussions. As ﬁrst semester
progressed Josh participated less frequently in content discussions and tried to shift the
agenda of the class or his small group to social issues. A set of activities around different
kinds of cells and cell structures was the ﬁrst topic that Josh started to withdraw from on
a consistent basis.

Early on during these activities students were asked to look through a microscope
at a variety of different prepared slides and samples of pond water and to draw what they
saw. Josh appeared overwhelmed by the task. He wasn’t sure what to draw or how to

draw it. He was very frustrated when he couldn’t make it look “right.” The laboratory

74

paper that he turned in for the activity on the ﬁrst day is torn in areas where he repeatedly
erased what he had done. During this activity Carry and Sarah shared one microscope
while Josh used a second microscope. On subsequent days his lab paper is very neat --
but his drawings are almost identical to Carry’s. Field notes and videotapes record that he
spent very little time looking in the microscope but that he got materials for Carry and
Sarah to look at, and then after Carry and Sarah made their drawings he took the slide,
put it on his microscope, glanced at it -- without ever really focusing in on it, then
borrowed either Sarah or Carry’s diagram and reproduced it in his notes. Josh's
difﬁculties with this lab might have been attributed to his inability to concentrate and
focus his attention on the activity or might have beed tied to his learning disabilities.
Many students had a hard time understanding what they were seeing under a microscope
and had difﬁculty transferring what they saw in a microscope to paper.

When Josh felt that material was too difﬁcult and that he couldn't learn it, he
appeared to withdraw intellectually and physically from class activities. Josh
demonstrated this withdrawal in large class activities by staring at his desk or doodling.
Most of these drawings were a great deal more complex and detailed than any drawings
that were asked for during a laboratory activity. The main difference between the tasks
was that Josh considered some ideas too weird or foreign to deserve consideration.

When he had doubts about the validity of the topics he complained about the activity of
the topic to his small group or entered in conversations with students who were
complaining about the work. He appeared more willing to participate when he viewed the
topic as familiar and comfortable. During these topics he defended the topic or the activity
and said things like, "This isn't that bad" or "It's kind of like when ...' Similar to his
conversation with Carry on September 28th that was presented earlier. The following
quote comes from Josh’s journal in mid-December. The students were asked to respond
to the questions: What is the best way for you to learn something?

“I work best when I have a clear mind because I can concentrate more on the
subject and not get distracted by things or get distracted by things just to stop

75

doing the task at hand. I also work best when I am interested in the subject and
want to learn as much as possible about that subject.”

Josh often started out interested and engaged in an activity but then started to fade
out as it came time to write up the results or discuss conclusions that could be drawn from
the activities. Josh worked with his group in deciding how to set up the experiment and
helped get the materials around and set up, but when it came time to record the results he
often wandered to other tables or went back to his desk and read a magazine or other
homework. In mid-November a set of tests were set up to detect some of the nutrients
and other compounds that can be found in different types of food. Students tested
samples of food for: sugar (both complex and glucose), protein, fat, starch, Vitamin C,
and Chloride ions. Students were told that a variety of foods would be available, and
they were invited to bring in additional samples from home to test. Josh really got
involved in running these tests on the food, and asked some good questions of his small
group. He was assertive in defending his ideas, as can be seen in the following

transcript:

November 7

(The students were examining the results of some of the tests they had run. One of
the “foods ” that they examined were Vitamin C tablets. The students had predicted a
positive test for Vitamin C, but they also had positive results for sugar and for starch,
which they had not predicted. They were checking over their results so see which
test(s) they thought they should re-run. They had been warned about contamination
and the possible need to repeat the tests to conﬁrm results.)

Carry I think we’d better re-do the Vitamin C tablets.

Sarah Why? It showed the vitamin C.

Carry Yeah -- but it showed sugar and starch too. The dish must of been dirty.

Josh I don’t think so. I think it’s OK. Maybe Vitamin C isn’t just Vitamin C.

Carry What do you mean?

Josh Maybe the pills have something else in them. You know like aspirin. If
you leave it in you mouth for very long it tastes like shit.

Sarah Yuck! That is grossl!

Josh

Carry

Sarah

Cany

76

What’s aspirin got to do with Vitamin C tablets?

Maybe they get the vitamin C from lemons and it’s so sour you have to
add sugar so that you can eat them. Do diabetics eat vitamins?

Sure they do. ..... But they might be special ones. Let’s ask Mr. L.
when he comes over. So... that might explain the sugar, but we still have
the starch test.

Maybe they have starch too.

Let’s re-do the tests to see if we get the same results then try to explain
why.

(The students got the materials to re-do the tests and got the same results as they did
the ﬁrst time.)

Josh

Carry
Sarah
Josh

Carry

See..told ya.
But we’ve got to put down our reasons. So why would it be positive?
The pulp in the orange juice turned black too. Maybe it’s like that.

I don’t think there is pulp in the pills - that’s dumb. Maybe it’s like ﬂour.
It just holds the pills together.

Oh..I don’t care -- let’s just write it down and clean things up.

As the activity shifted to Show how there was a parallel between food and

different types of tissues and cells Josh was less involved in the activity. It did not matter

to Josh that it involved running the same tests and using the evidence gained from the ﬁrst

part of the activity to make predictions and draw conclusions for the second part of the

activity. Josh dutifully helped Sarah and Carry run each of the tests but when it came to

discussing what should go in the lab write up he was reluctant to enter the conversation,

as the following transcript shows.

November 13

Carry

Josh

Carry

OK -- so were are supposed to relate these results to what we got when we
tested the food. Let’s start with starch.

Starch turned black.

That was just the test. What were the things that were positive (Carry and
Sarah start ﬂipping through their notes. Josh does not have many notes. )

77

Sarah Here it is! The potato, bread, crackers, orange juice, soup, and vitamin C.

Carry Right. So how is that related to tissues and cells?

Josh It’s food.

(Mr. L has stopped by the table and was listening in)

Carry We’re lost...

Mr. L. So where did the food come from?

Sarah Plants and animals.

Mr. L. Think through the foods and see if you can trace what they are made of
and where they come from. How might the tests might be related to
tissues and cells?

(Mr. L walks away from the group.)

Josh This is lame. Food is food.

Carry Come on we’re running out of time. OK let’s take bread. It is ﬂour, and
sugar, water, salt. Are there eggs in bread?

Sarah I think 50..

Josh Who cares... it’s just bread. Bread is bread - it ain’t got anything to do
with this other stuff.

(Carry and Sarah go on thinking through and listing ingredients and where they come

from. Josh listens for a while then wanders over to another group and around the

room. Carry and Sarah ﬁnished the writeup. Josh never turned in the second part of

this lab.)
As Josh withdrew there was an increase in the number of times during small group
activities that he said things like: “This is so fake.” or “This is stupid.” As he disengaged
from the class he lost the connections that were being built between the ideas and
activities. It seemed as if he started to view each day as an unlinked set of events that
must be endured.

As the term progressed and the concepts became more abstract, Josh withdraw

from the class activities on a more consistent basis. If he missed an assignment or was
absent he rarely tried to ﬁnd out what he missed or try to make up the work, he just went

on to the next activity. When confronted about missing work by the teacher Josh often

promised, “I’ll turn it in tomorrow.” When his absences meant that he needed to make up

78

a lab or a test he set appointments with the teacher, but often missed these appointments.
Josh doubted the usefulness of this kind of science in his life and future, he also doubted
his ability to understand the science concepts. An example of this can be seen in the
following journal entry about differences in the molecular structure of proteins, lipids and
carbohydrates. Students were asked to write down three things they learned and why it
might be important to know about this topic.

Today we learned about proteens, fat and starch. Three things I lemed is they are

all made of molecules, we are made up them and we eat them. I guess we need to

know this cuss its going to be on the test.
Throughout the semester there were examples in Josh’s writing and in his discussion with
the members of his small group that he really wasn’t sure he could “do” science. In his
writing it showed up as partial answers that when prompted by his peers or by the teacher
he could usually elaborate on. He often stopped writing after one or two sentences, and it
took encouragement from someone else to get him to follow through on his answers.

The pattern was consistent in his conversations. He often threw out an idea or
question for discussion, and waited to see if anyone else thought it was valid before
elaborating on it. This is not a great deal different from the way most people enter and
participate in a conversation, but Josh’s questions or ideas were usually limited to just a
few words, so unless his other group members or a teacher asked him to elaborate it was
difﬁcult to see how the comment was relevant to the current discussion. When his ideas
were not immediately picked up on by the teacher or the members of his small group he
disengaged from the conversation or activity. He did not act in ways that encouraged
others to bring him back into the conversation.

As the concepts became more abstract Josh’s interaction with the members of his
small group changed. Josh often wandered away from his group, or worked in the lab
on his own. His group went on with their work without him, and did not try to bring him
back to the activity. Activities and discussions that were designed to link ideas from

previous days had no sense or meaning for him. An example of this can be found in a

79

brief transcript from a biochemistry lab. Students had studied atoms and how atoms form
bonds. They had looked at molecular models of a: carbohydrate, protein and lipid. For
this lab they were asked to build a model of glucose, then bond their molecule with one
from another group to demonstrate dehydration synthesis, break them apart by modeling
hydrolysis and diagram the process they used. They were referred to a diagram in the

book that might help them.
November 19

Carry I’ll start putting together the carbons, you (Josh and Sarah) get the oxygen
and hydrogen counted and start putting them together.

Josh What do we need?

Carry The oxygen and hydrogen.

Sarah The red ones and the yellow ones.

Josh oh -- how many?

Carry It’s right there -- just count them. I think it’s six and twelve.

Sarah We need sticks and springs too -- for the bonds. Find “twelve yellow
ones” and put sticks in them.
(Sarah had counted out six oxygen and had started attaching a hydrogen to
each one. Josh is still looking for and sorting out the “yellow ones.”)

Carry OK -- I have the ring done. Give me an “OH.”

Josh What’s an “OH?”

Sarah A red one and a yellow one hooked together. Here give this one to her
(Carry)-

Carry I need another stick too.

Josh It’s got one.

Carry Another one -- so I can attach it.

Josh There are no more holes. How are you going to put it on?

Carry Not the hydrogen. The carbon and oxygen form a bond. Like we did on
the board yesterday.

Josh oh -- here (Josh hands her a stick. Sarah is laying out more O-H sets)

80

Carry OK now we just have to attach the rest of the hydrogens.
(Josh handed her twelve hydrogens with sticks.)

Carry We only need six.

Josh You said twelve before.

Carry We already used six -- see?

Josh What should I do with the rest?

Sarah Take them apart -- we don’t need them.

Josh Oh -- I give up. This is dumb! These aren’t real anyway!

The class had spent several days prior to this lab talking about the structure of atoms and
talking about different kinds of bonds. They had drawn both covalent and ionic bonds.
Josh had the diagrams from the board written down in his notebook. He was not able to
connect the drawing he had, with the molecular models or with the words hydrogen,
carbon and oxygen.

As the semester progressed and the topics became more abstract Josh withdrew
from the class more and more. Another pattern that started to emerge over the semester
was a decrease in preparedness for class. At the beginning of the school year he always
brought his book, paper and a pencil to class. By the end of the semester he rarely
brought his book and borrowed a pencil and paper almost everyday ﬁ'om the teacher or a
member of his small group. At the end of the semester Josh talked mostly about his after
school job in a fast food restaurant, and basketball. When Sarah and Carry tried to get
him to help in the small group activities he wandered over to another table and talked to
them about basketball or out of school plans.

In his small group Josh became a fringe member of the group; the other members
of his group listened to his suggestions and included him in conversations only when he
was on task Josh often tried to change the topic away from the science concepts to

school activities like sports, or out-of-school activities like his part time job or a weekend

81

party. When he made these moves in the conversation Sarah picked up on the off-task
topic. Carry was the one who tried to refocus the conversation on the task at hand.
Following is a brief transcript of one such conversation. The students were given
objectives that they were responsible for teaching the class. Josh's small group was
struggling with the following objective: Be able to detect from samples of living tissues

various substances such as: starch, simple sugar, glucose, protein, vitamin C, salt, fats

and oils.

Carry OK -- so we have to be able to explain how to test for these things.

Josh Isn’t that in our labs?

Carry Yeah, but we have to be able to explain it.

Josh Oh

Sarah OK - Well glucose used that tape, it turned green.

Josh I thought we cooked the sugar one.

Carry That was for the simple sugar. Glucose was test-tape.

Josh Those colors were neat. That orange was almost like puke.

Sarah Oh yuck! That’s gross.

Josh Well it did!

Sarah That’s disgusting!

Josh So is life? Did you hear about that kid in Lansing that got shot last week?

Sarah Yeah, Micki knew the guy.

Carry So what!? We’ve got to get these done and make our poster. OK we’ve
got the tests for glucose and simple sugar. What did we do for vitamin C?

Sarah Wasn’t that those drops?

Carry Drops of what? Look it up. You (to Josh) go get the paper for the poster,

we can start putting some of this stuff down on it.

In the example Carry was assigning Josh one of the roles that is common for special
education Students to be assigned to in a heterogeneous group that of a “go-fer.” This

role in the group is to gather the necessary materials for the lab or activity, not to

82

participate in the discussions. This was a very different from the role which Josh had
negotiated at the beginning of the year. Carry had made a bid during the worm activity to
assign Josh this role. During that activity he agreed to go and get the worm, but he also
was forceful in sharing his ideas and thoughts. Later in the semester he was no longer

sharing his thoughts or ideas with his small group or the larger class on a regular basis.

Discussion of Research Questions
The case study of Josh presents two quite different patterns of negotiation with the
high school and its representatives, his peers and with science content. There is the
pattern of negotiation that he used when he was interested in the material and cOuld make
connections with real world problems and there is the pattern of negotiation that he used
when he did not see connections between the concepts discussed and his day to day life.
In addressing each of the research questions I will discuss each of these patterns. In
Chapter 1 I introduced three research questions that have guided this work.
e "nw't H' l 'tRer nta'
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing understanding?
W
How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with their peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?
i ' n t r
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that aﬁect a special
education/at—risk student ’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science

community? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What are
the implications for developing scientiﬁc understanding?

For Josh the most inﬂuential of these forms of negotiation was his negotiation with the
science content or community. His negotiation in this area seemed to direct his
negotiation with the school and its representatives and with his peers, so the discussion of

the research questions will begin with a discussion of this negotiation. Likewise it is the

83

culmination of each of these types of negotiation that in the end determines the level of
engagement and understanding which is developed, so this chapter will conclude with a

discussion of the consequences of Josh's negotiations for engagement and understanding.

What are thte coriditigns, cha’rzctrct’eristizngnd limitations that affect a special
education/at-risk student ’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science
community?

When Josh was curious about a topic or felt that he had something to contribute to
the conversation he was a willing participant in both large class and small group activities.
It was during these times that Josh was willing to make the psychological investment in
the class that led to developing understanding; at other times he went through the motions
but was not truly engaged in learning. J osh's negotiation with the science content and
science community was tied to his negotiation with the teachers and with his peers.
Josh’s ability to negotiate with the science content or science community directly
inﬂuenced the ways in which he negotiated with the teacher and with his peers.

When Josh found the material interesting to him, or if Josh could see how the
material related to his day to day life, his low attention span appeared to be less of an
issue than when the material was abstract or complex. When Josh could make a
connection to the material he could think of a variety of options or strategies for working
on the problem or other options to add to a discussion. One example of this illustrated in
the transcript from September 28th when Josh suggested to Carry that the book she had
looked at might have been wrong.

If the activity or discussion went on for a prolonged period Of time Josh faded in
and out, others in his small group may have also been fading in and out, but through his
posture and comments Josh's changes were more apparent than the other members of his
group. In general during a class discussion Josh stopped trying to take notes after ten to

ﬁfteen minutes, and started looking around the room or out the window. Sometimes he

would re-enter the conversation at a later time during the hour -- other times that signaled

84

the end of his participation in the whole group activity. If he found the topic interesting
the periods of time when he was not engaged were shorter in duration. If he found the
topic interesting he returned to the group within a minute or two of walking away. When
he was disengaged from the activity he spent time with other groups or went back to his
desk and started something else, or wandered around the room looking at the displays
until he was prompted to return to his group.

This pattern was adequate for initiating and sustaining his negotiations with the
teachers and his peers. It was also adequate for developing understanding of some
concepts. His interest in learning and his relative lack of concern about avoiding mistakes
in front of his peers made him willing to be an active participant, and his ability to ﬁnd
connections between the content of the class and daily life meant that he had important
ideas to contribute. Under these circumstances, he was often listened to, and respected,
by the teacher, and he was an active participant in class discussions. Josh's contribution
on October 4th where he made a comparison between yeast and seeds is one example of
this participation. These were situations in which Josh's strengths as a student were more
important than his weaknesses. This pattern changed when the material became more
complex.

Traditionally students have learned science inquiry as a set of rules and steps
known as “the scientiﬁc method.” Mr. L did not teach the class in this way. In Mr. L's
class the scientiﬁc method was one of the underlying themes that ran through the course
that students learned through experience. Students were encouraged to ask questions and
develop ways of exploring these questions. In this type of setting, Josh was able to move
past repetition of these steps and procedures and was able to bring to use his imagination
and inventiveness that is a major aspect of scientiﬁc inquiry.

Examples of Josh's imagination and inventiveness can be found in transcripts of
his small group work, excerpts from class discussion and in his writing. Josh had

difﬁculty with writing and often wrote only the minimum required. When asked to write

85

about topics he usually wrote about his feelings or reactions to a discussion. When Josh
could make connections to the concepts he was willing to write about them. One example
from early in the term comes from a discussion about yeast. The students were asked to
write a journal entry stating whether or not they had enough evidence to decide whether or
not yeast was alive. If they felt more evidence was needed they were asked to propose
other experiments that could/should be done. In response to this question Josh wrote:

I think that we Should perform two more experiments. One, we should send yeast

out into space and see if it can survive but if it is alive we know it can’t survive

without air. Two, we should feed it to a person then see if its alive when we
disect the person that ate the yeast. Then that would support our hypothesis.

There are no weaknesses in our proof.

This response indicates a level of interaction with the material that is missing later in the
semester when the topic switched to cells and the ﬂow of matter and energy
(photosynthesis and respiration). These topics also had aspects that Josh found
interesting, but it appeared that since they took several class periods to develop, he was
unable to make those day-to-day connections or link it to his experiences or interests on a
consistent basis. During these units Josh rarely wrote journal entries and those that he
wrote were about personal feelings and about feeling alienated from the class. The
following entry is the only entry he wrote during the unit on photosynthesis. For this
entry students were asked to write why plants need sunlight. Josh wrote: It keeps them
green. This journal question was asked toward the end of the unit shortly before the test.
Most students in the class wrote responses that were 3/4 to 1 1/2 pages long. When
asked a similar question on the test Josh left the question blank.

When Josh could not make personal connections to the material, the periods of
time that he did not participate in the conversations or activities lengthened. When Josh
perceived the material as complex and abstract his interaction and negotiation with the
science content and science community changed. When it became more difﬁcult for him

to enter back into conversations and activities, he began to doubt his ability to make a

contribution. When asked about this in the interview he said:

86

Josh -- Science is hard. Some of the stuff I can do. Like at the beginning of the
year. But this stuff is too hard. I hated this stuff a couple years ago when
we had it too. It just don't make no sense. It's not like you can' see it
anyway so what's the big deal.

Interviewer -- You said you liked the stuff at the beginning of the year, it was
easier -— how was it easier?

Josh - You could see that stuff, and it was... you know stuff that's around us
everyday.

Interviewer -- You said you could see stuff, and that it is around you -- had you
ever looked at yeast before.

Josh -- No but it's around us all the time.

Interviewer -- How is that different from the onion and leaf cells we've been
looking at?

Josh -- You can make or do Stuff with yeast. That was fun. You know it's real,
not like the stuff we're doing now. I'm just not good at this -- it's too
hard. Sarah tried to explain it to me again the other day, but we ran out of
time.

Interviewer -- Could Mr. L or I help you some more with it? We'd both be glad
to help you anytime.

Josh -- No, I wouldn't understand anyway. Carry's good at this stuff. We got
our labs done. It's not like I'll ever use this stuff anyway.

Josh’s low self-esteem lead him to withdraw from the teacher and from his peers when he
was having difﬁculty with the material instead of demanding or soliciting support from
the teacher or his peers, as was his pattern when he could make connections. In previous
topics when Josh was confused he came into class early and asked questions, or kept
asking Carry and Sarah questions until he understood the material.

Josh got caught in a vicious cycle. When Josh could not see connections between
concepts or implications of the activity or discussion in his daily life he did not participate
in the activity or discussion. When he did not participate in the activity or discussion, he
missed opportunities to make connections and therefore saw no reason to enter back into
the discussion. Periodically this pattern could be broken as demonstrated during a

discussion on cellular reproduction.

87

In this instance the teacher had tied the class discussion of cellular reproduction to
something the Josh could relate to - eggs. The class had been talking about the
fertilization process and had seen a movie that showed sperm entering an egg and the
development of the embryo. During the class discussion Mr. L asked the students how
could birds eggs become fertilized with their hard shells, a lively debate followed for 10 --
15 minutes. At the end of the hour students were asked to consider what they had heard
during the hour and to write their guess in journals. Josh wrote the following response:

When you asked how are eggs ﬁterlized I thought that you were crazy but it was

interesting so I am going to say that eggs are ﬁterlized by roosters sitting on them

and the egg absorbs what it needs.
Josh often felt that the questions being asked during the latter half of the semester were
"crazy" and therefore not often worth consideration.

Josh’s difﬁculty in processing verbal information caused problems for him when
the science concepts became complex and abstract. Many of these topics involved longer
more detailed explanations from Mr. L to set up the concept and set the stage for students
to explore different aspects of the concept in the laboratory setting. Since Josh had
difﬁculty taking notes and synthesizing this information, when it came time to go back
into the lab he wasn't sure what they were supposed to do or why they were doing it.

Josh had many of the typical problems that all students have in understanding the
biology text, but while others beneﬁted from clariﬁcation during class discussions or
teacher explanations, Josh appeared to only able to beneﬁt from these instructional
approaches in marginal ways. Sometimes instead of providing clariﬁcation these
discussions and explanations seemed only to further confuse Josh. Josh verbally
signaled when he was getting frustrated with a topic, concept or activity. Some of his
frustration with the concepts was evident on November 19th when the students were
working with the molecular models. When he could not ﬁgure out what he was supposed

to do or why it was important he said, "Oh -- I give up this is dumb! These aren’t real

anyway!".

88

Josh often left the class believing that he had understood the class discussion only
to realize later that he had missed important information. One example of this came from
Josh’s journal written after the quiz on molecular structure and bonding, he wrote:

Today I learned that when you go over what going to be on the test the next day,

that you think that you know it and go home with the feeling that you know it and

you can’t wait to take it thats when you realize that you don’t know anything
about it except the stuff that you memerize.
Josh often believed that he had done everything in his power to participate in class

discussion and help his small group, but some ideas in science were just too "crazy" to be

important.

' ithHi 'tsR r n ie
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher?

Josh actively negotiated with the teacher when the topics were something that
interested him or that he could see had connections to the real world. Josh asked
questions of the teacher during large class settings, when the teacher stopped by the small
group, or before school if he had a question or wanted clariﬁcation. He was willing to
defend his opinion to the teacher and his peers. An example of this type of interaction
was shown in the transcript of October 4th when Josh made a comparison between yeast
and seeds.

When the topic or activity had more to do with day to day experience or was less
abstract, Josh took an active role in the class. Josh was willing to participate in large
class discussions during these topics with a guess and when pushed for clariﬁcation
provided it. The transcripts of the large class discussions and the transcripts of his small
group work show that he used the information that he gained during those interactions.
When he participated in these conversations and activities his level of understanding could
be seen in his journals, laboratory reports and tests/quizzes. During this time period Josh

routinely turned in his work and it was average or above average in quality, Josh was

successful in negotiating a role with the teacher and meeting the demands of the course.

89

When the concepts became more complex and were more abstract or were not
topics that Josh could connect to his day-to-day life or experiences the patterns of
negotiation that were established earlier in the term seemed to break down. Under these
circumstances, Josh's weaknesses became much more apparent and that altered the nature
of his interaction with the teacher and his participation in class discussions. During large
class discussion Josh rarely made eye contact with the teacher, but would instead spend
most of the discussion with his eyes focused on his paper or off to the side of the class.
From the front of the room it often looked as if Josh was taking notes, but in reality his
"notes" were drawings of cars or pages of doodling.

When Josh did interact with the teachers the questions that Josh pursued with the
teachers were more procedural in nature. Josh's morning conversations with the teachers
moved from questions about content of the class and questions coming from his curiosity
to questions that were procedural in nature, such as: What were we supposed to read last
night?; When is due? Along with the change in the types of questions that Josh was
asking there was a change in the quality and quantity of the written work that he turned in.
He wrote fewer journal entries and left more unanswered on quizzes or tests. One of the
options that Mr. L provided all students who did not feel that they had done their best on a
test was an opportunity to come in and have an interview of the topic for additional
points. While during earlier units if he felt that the test did not reﬂect his understanding of
the material Josh scheduled an appointment with the teacher so that he could take a post-
test interview to gain additional points and Show what he understood, during later units he
did not make these appointments. When asked if he wanted to come in for an interview
with some of the later units, he avoided the question, said he was too busy and didn't
have the time, or when pressed on the issue said things like, "No, I didn't understand it

and it wouldn't help to come in."

9O

Wwaﬁon and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with their peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?

Josh was successful in his negotiations with his small group. Unlike some
special education students who are ostracized by members of their small group, Josh was
an accepted member of his small group in most instances. When he was on task his
views were listened to and considered by the members of his small group. His comments
were not automatically dismissed by Carry and Sarah as unimportant. Josh’s ideas were
discussed among the members of his group then rejected, modiﬁed or adopted as part of
the group explanation. This is very different from the description that will be presented in

Heidi’s case study. Most of the time it was Josh who decided when and how he would

participate with his small group.

At the beginning of the semester when the class was solving real-world problems

Josh took an active role in working on the problems. He initiated several of the

conversations and proposed ideas for exploring the problem. This pattern changed when

the science concepts became more abstract. The beginning of this shift can be found in
the food lab when the tests moved from testing certain foods to making the connection to
tissues and cells. When the activity was testing food to see what it was made up of Josh
was an active member of his small group. When it came time to use that information to
draw conclusions about tissues and cells he faded out of the conversations. It is difﬁcult
to ﬁnd examples of Josh's conversations during some of the more complex or abstract
topics. He was very quiet, or he wandered away from his small group, sometimes his
voice could be picked up in other small groups but often the video tape shows that he is
wandering from table to table or has gone back to his desk and is looking at a magazine.

When he Stayed with his small group there was a shift in Josh’s behavior pattern
in the small group. Instead of initiating the conversation Josh spent most of his time

listening or copying down what Carry and Sarah had written down. He was still actively

working with them most of the time, but he was not leading the conversations nor

91

participating in them to the level that he did when the class was working on real world
problems. AS mentioned earlier this shift is not directly tied to the time in the semester but
to the topics. Josh reverted to being a full participating member of his group initiating the
conversation and suggesting strategies when the students were working on different types
of energy conversions.

His laboratory reports did not always reﬂect this change in his negotiations in his
small group. The laboratory reports reﬂect more of Carry and Sarah’s understanding than
Josh’s understanding. Carry and Sarah were always willing to share what they had
written down with Josh. This is not meant to imply that Josh only copied down the
answers. Josh tried to make sense of the material and sometimes asked questions, but he
usually failed to ask the type of questions that could have helped him develop a deep
understanding of some of the concepts. He asked the members of his group procedural
questions about where or how to write something down. In a laboratory exercise where
students were asked to draw several different examples of types of tissue he asked them
to tell him again what it was that he was drawing and where did it come from. The
underlying question students were suppose to be exploring was how different types and
different jobs and their structure was tied to this function. Other students in the class
were looking at the samples and trying to ﬁgure out why they needed to look like that to
do their job.

Josh made some very logical personal decisions when the science concepts
became complex and abstract. If he could not see a connection to his day to day life Josh
chose not to invest all of his energy during class into trying to understand the material.
Instead he devoted part of his time to making connections with other students in the class.
As described by Eckert (Eckert, 1989) Josh was placing more emphasis in deﬁning his
identity in out-of-school than in classroom settings. It is doubtful that Josh was

conscious of this shift. When students were asked to write about why they thought it was

92

important to learn about protein synthesis and cellular reproduction Josh wrote the
following:
I would like to know more about protein synthesis and cell reproduction because I
don’t understand it to the point where I could explain it so someone who doesn’t
know what they do or how and why they do it.
Josh recognized that he did not understand protein synthesis or cellular reproduction well
enough to explain it to someone else, but he also avoided the topic of the question of why
is it important to understand these concepts. In this entry he provided his opinion of his
level of understanding. Further evidence of Josh’s understanding or lack of

understanding can be found in his journal entries and on his tests. Josh failed the test

over this unit and did not schedule an appointment to come in and discuss his test.

Consequences for Engagement

In Chapter 2 I provided a brief description of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. One
way of looking at this hierarchy of needs is to think of these not in the terms of a
hierarchy but as a set of overlapping and interlinking ovals. The background or
underlying circle could represent student safety, if students don't feel safe this would
color or inﬂuence all of their other interactions. In the center of this circle are three
interlocking circles representing: knowledge, belonging and esteem. Over these three
interlocking ovals is another oval that represents a student's "comfort zone" that indicates
what needs are priorities for the student. A student’s “comfort zone” inﬂuences their
participation in a class and ultimately on their engagement and opportunity to develop
understanding. The placement of a comfort zone for a student means that this is the
domain where the student places a great priority for fulﬁllment of that need, not
necessarily the fulﬁllment of the need. A diagram representing Josh at the beginning of

the semester might look like this:

93

 
 

Knowledge

 

" r’.- ......

  

Belonging Esteem

   

Figure 4 Josh's Needs - Beginning of Semester

It was more important for Josh to “ﬁgure things out” than to be accepted by his peers. He
was willing to take chances where he might be wrong to work on the problem. He was
also willing to share his ideas in the large class setting. Close connection to one particular
group was never really a priority to Josh during the semester. Even as he wandered from
group to group when not engaged in the activity there was not a particular group that he
wanted to or needed to join. Josh appeared to wander to other groups for two main
reasons when he was really interested in a topic. He appeared to wander if his group
wasn't listening to him and he wanted to be listened to by someone/anyone or when he
thought someone at another table was doing something more interesting than what his

small group wanted to do.

94

As the concepts become more complex and abstract over the term, a diagram

which represented Josh’s needs might look something like this:

 
 

Knowledge

      

Belonging Esteem

Figure 5 Josh's Needs - Abstract Concepts

He did not believe that he could understand many of the concepts or activities in class, nor
could he see their usefulness. His school records indicate that his short attention span
also meant that he was often incapable of building the connections between ideas. If he
could have seen the connections it might have enabled him to see the usefulness of the
knowledge. Josh was unable to understand to the level of sophistication of his peers,
such as Carry, most of the topics taught during the later portion of the semester. When
the need for “knowledge” that Josh exhibited at the beginning of the semester was no
longer accessible to him, he shifted to behaviors that allowed him to maintain his self-
esteem. Since Josh had a history of struggling with low self-esteem, the goals that he set

for himself were minimal. During instruction in complex concepts this also became an

95

indicator of his level of engagement. He displayed little or no psychological investment in
the content or activities.

The following table gives a brief description of the ﬂow of concepts and themes
and Josh’s level of participation in large and small group activities. When coding for
engagement the following categories were used: uninvolved-passive; avoidant; observer;
marginal participant; central participant. A student coded as “uninvolved-passive” is a
student who does not pay attention to what is happening during the activity, the student
does not try to change the agenda of the group but will not appear to participate when
encouraged to get involved. A student coded as “avoidant” is a student who will use a
variety of strategies to avoid getting involved in the activity, including aggressive
behavior. A student coded as an “observer” appears pays attention to what is happening
but does not participate in the activity or discussion. A “marginal participant” is a student
who is paying attention to the activity or discussion and occasionally enters in, but
involvement is not sustained. A “central participant” is a student who spends a majority
of the time involved in the activity or discussion. A more detailed description of the

topics and activities can be found in Appendix F.

   

ate

 

96

oprc

 

Role or fevel of n
Engagement

 

   

9/8 - 9/15

The Nature of Science and
Problem Solving Techniques

central or marginal
participant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

9/16 - 10/8 Characteristics of Living Things central or marginal
and Using the Tools of Science participant
(metric system & microscope)
Microscope - uninvolved
passive
10/12 - Cell Theory observer or uninvolved
1 1/14 passive
11/5 - Cell Processes including central or marginal
11/ 17 Structure and Function participant
11/ 18 - Atomic Structure, Biochemistry, observer or uninvolved
12/ 18 Chemical and Physical Change passive or avoidant
1/5 - 1/ 15 Energy Transformations - marginal participant or
Including Introduction to observer
Photosynthesis
1/19 - 1/22 Diffusion/OsmosiS/Hypertonic/ marginal participant or
Hypotonic/Isotonic observer
1/25 - 1/27 Photosynthesis and Respiration observer or uninvolved

   

 

 

 

Figure 6 Class Activities and Josh's Roles

passive or avoidant

 

 

97

As can be seen in this table Josh’s level of engagement varied from topic to topic
and within topics. Josh was a student for whom the content and his perceptions of the
content were a major inﬂuencing factor on his engagement. If Josh did not have previous
experience with the content or if he could not see how the content ﬁt into his daily life he

was reluctant to get involved.

Consequences for Understanding
r i the r ' ' ' t'

Using the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks
for Scientiﬁc Literacy (American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1993) as
a standard for describing the types of understanding necessary for science literacy Josh
demonstrated the most expertise in the area of the Nature of Science. Josh had a good
understanding of the “scientiﬁc world view.” AAAS describes a scientiﬁc world view as:

A scientiﬁc world view is not something that working scientists spend a lot of

time discussing. They just do science. But underlying their work are several

beliefs that are not always held by nonscientists. One is that by working together
over time, people can in fact ﬁgure out how the world works. Another is that the
universe is a uniﬁed system and knowledge gained from studying one part of it
can often be applied to other parts. Still another is that knowledge is both stable

and subject to change. (pp. 5)

Josh believed that people working together could ﬁgure out things, as he wrote in the
journal, he liked working in small groups because he got to hear ideas that he never
would have thought of, and he liked working on problems with someone else. Josh also
accepted that knowledge was stable but could also change. His Statement to Carry that the
book could have been wrong is evidence of his belief. Evidence of Josh’s development
of a scientiﬁc world view is most apparent in his conversations with his small group, and
in his earlier laboratory reports and tests that dealt heavily on real life problem solving.

Josh chose to have his ﬁnal exam for the semester read to him. Josh and I went

into the science ofﬁce and as I read the questions and options for the multiple choice

portion of the test Josh darkened in his responses on the computer scoring sheet. There

98

were 91 multiple choice questions on the test. During questions that dealt with the nature

of science and problem solving techniques Josh worked quickly and accurately. Of these

questions he answered 8 of the 10 correctly.

 

Josh also demonstrated a good understanding of scientiﬁc inquiry. One of the
things that Josh continued to struggle with was aspects of a uniﬁed system. He tried to
make connections between science concepts and his day to day life, but he did not see the
connections between the more abstract or complex science concepts. Josh’s
understanding of the nature of scientiﬁc inquiry is beyond the traditional view of scientiﬁc
inquiry most students have.

One of the main goals of this biology class was for students to gain a better
understanding of the nature of science and science inquiry. An example of J osh's
understanding of the nature of scientiﬁc inquiry can be seen in a response from his ﬁrst
test in this class. The students were given a problem which had not been discussed in
class. (Josh's answers are in italic.)

PROBLEM: How are the zebra Mussels getting into the Great Lakes? Zebra

Mussels (Small ocean clam-like creatures) appeared in Lake Erie and the St. Claire

River (which are connected to the ocean by the St. Lawrence Seaway) and started
plugging up water inlets to large city water systems. (10 pts. possible/ 10 points

earned

A scientist guesses that W
W

and tests it by W

l . l l l '51 l . 5 he I l

The results were All at me Zebm Myesele glut were [QM tamed bright red, there
MLQQIQIIM.

CONCLUSION: Zebra Meseele get 11' re the Greet Lgkes by me St, ngrenee

_’! 1 II I' I..' U'I .‘I I U .. ' I..I.I I.I.I I 31 PI I 1'
Josh was able to take the information that was given in the description of the problem and

build off of that information to ask questions that could be tested and pose a possible

99

solution to his question. As will be seen in the other cases not all students were able to
use the information given in the problem to pose questions which could be tested.
I r 4.1.4: .I ldf I t I ar 4‘ IC'Itdd'rctl l ith I I IratI Ii 'v'ti I LA;
r nen
During the unit on energy transformations Josh was able to show an
understanding of the structure of matter that was missing earlier in the term when he was
putting together molecular models. The following example comes from the test on energy
transformation which was the last main topic of the semester:

Alcohol has stored chemical energy. Where in an alcohol molecule is the energy
stored and what two kinds of energy show up if you burn the alcohol? (3 pts.

possible/ 3 points earned)
(1' ' er i H"! ' th I 4.4 r h! Al I 'nr'a .4 Hr Ii I.
t I re ‘ t

Evidence of this level of understanding is missing from earlier topics which were
disconnected from J osh's day to day life or were more abstract. In previous science
classes alcohol burners were used on a regular basis. Alcohol burners were also used
occasionally in this biology class. This level of detail is also in marked contrast to the
discussion of a similar subject in his small group when the students were putting together
molecular models of glucose, at that time to him the bonds were just “sticks.” Josh and
the other students in class had past experience drawing models of atoms but the
connection between this task and chemical bonding was missing for Josh.

For Josh it was very important to have previous experience with a topic or he
needed to be able to see connections to his day to day life. Evidence of Josh’s
understanding of topics such as these can be found on his ﬁnal exam. Josh answered all
5 questions that dealt with the characteristics of living things correctly. On the
microscope portion of the exam Josh answered 3 of the 5 questions correctly. These
scores were at or above the class average. On this portion of the test Josh sometimes
knew the answer right away and marked it, other times he paused for a moment and then

marked an answer. Another example of Josh’s ability to develop and demonstrate

100

understanding of a topic when it was related to his personal experiences came from the
essay/problem section of his ﬁnal exam. He was given the following problem:

98. If 13.7 ml of water is heated from 17 degrees C to 43 degrees C when an alcohol
burner is placed under it, how many heat calories were given off by the alcohol?

SHOW YOUR WORK! Mm

 

 

 

 

Response:
4
-4 26
13
-17 13.7 [ 356.2 heat calories ]
26 182
178
O
260
O
356
2

Like many high school students who are weight conscious Josh was familiar with the
term calorie and curious about what the word actually meant. Josh was able to combine
that interest and his work with his small group that determined the calorie content of
several different food samples and demonstrate his understanding of these ideas.

There is little evidence from transcripts of class or small group work or from Josh’s
written work to support stating that Josh had reached a level of understanding consistent

with scientiﬁc literacy of these concept areas.

M, 41-4.1: , 4:4- ,4‘ ,d, ., A, ,g , (A m;- , p, ,-,l 1 ,1,
At the beginning of the semester Josh liked that the class pushed for
understanding and did not emphasize memorization of material. As the concepts became
more abstract this same feature that he liked about the class earlier was a source of
discomfort for him. On the day that he took the test on photosynthesis he wrote the
following entry in his journal:
“On this test I predict that I will earn an B because I thought I knew what was
going to be on the test but when it came down to taking it I don’t know as much
as I thought I did. I guess that because when I read the book I don’t understand

anything or can put what I think I understand down on a piece of paper. You say
understanding it is how you learn things and I agree with that but trying to

101

remember what you understand is harder than just memorizing what is on the tests

and quizzes.”

Josh had less success in developing an understanding of the concepts of: the
structure of matter, the ﬂow of matter and energy, cells and heredity. On the remaining
sections of the multiple choice part of the exam which covered cells and energy
transformation, Josh averaged between 40 and 50% correct answers. The class average
for these sections was 75 to 80% correct. On this set of questions Josh guessed quite
often. He sometimes ruled out one or two of the choices but he was rarely conﬁdent of
his response. Josh’s level of understanding of each of these areas varied, for example he
was able to develop a deeper understanding of energy transformation than he was of cells.

The following three questions come from Josh’s ﬁnal exam:

92. State the modern cell theory. MM
Response: all living mings bet/e celLs, eells reprgdeee.

94. Diagram the ATP - ADP cycle and include where energy comes from, where it is
used, and what is happening with the phosphate groups. 4 get gt 5 pgintg,

Response:
ATP) lose
\ ATP =A-T~T®

lose energy
which goes
to
(ADP) 1 reproduction
2 growth &repair
E 3 muscle cont.

ans 4 resperation

energy from
food

102

97. Diagram a cell and show all of the substances that must enter and leave the cell to
keep it alive. Then, tell what the two curved arrows in§_'_de your cell represent.
Finally, list three activities cells engage in to maintain life. 11mm

Response:

 

At one level these three answers seem to demonstrate a moderate level of understanding.
In examining Josh’s class notes this represents more of his ability to recall phrases and
diagrams than his understanding. This above diagram was drawn for students on a daily
basis for students and used as a reference point for class discussion for a two week
period, and was used as a reference point for other follow-up discussions. Another
example of this comes from Josh’s ﬁnal exam.

95. Write out the general formula for cellular respiration and the general formula for
photosynthesis. (NOTE: You can use words or symbols) Mtg,

 

Response:
C02 ----> chlorophyll ----> C6H1206
H20 Light 02

One example of Josh's depth of understanding can be seen in his response or
absence of response from other sample items from tests on these topics. The following
example comes from the test on the structure of matter. This question deals with the same

topic that Josh faded out on during the food laboratory.

103

Name three major families of organic molecules found in living cells/tissues.
After each, name the ORGANIC units that make them up. (6 pts. possible/O

points earned)

.amilvf ' pm
a.
b. no response given

If Josh missed a question like this on a unit test, he also usually missed it on the ﬁnal
exam. Here is the parallel question on the ﬁnal exam.

96. Name the three families of organic compounds found in living cells and after
each, tell what organic units form chains to make them up. 0 get of 6 mints.

Response: (nQne given)

Josh was fairly involved in the activities that dealt with energy transformation, but when it
came to linking those ideas, Josh could not make the connections.

93. State the Law of Conservation of Energy and give an example to support your
statement. MAME;

Response: (nette giyem
It is questionable whether Josh was capable of developing that level of understanding for
these more abstract and complex concepts with his learning disabilities regardless of
teaching style or technique. One of the questions that those who are working with the
AAAS Benchmarks document must continue to wrestle with is: Can these be, or are they,

truly the benchmarks for all students or are modiﬁcations necessary?

Summary

When Josh could make a connection to the material from his day-to-day life or his
past experiences he paid close attention to class discussion and asked the teachers
questions during class and in other less formal settings. When he could make those
connections he worked with his small group on the problem, sometimes even taking on a

leadership role in the small group. He pushed and asked questions until he understood

104

the concepts. When he could not make those connections he withdrew from large class
activities, small group activities and discussions and doubted his ability to ever
understand the content. Josh’s beliefs about his ability to understand the material became
a self-fulﬁlling prophecy.

This case study of Josh provides insight into some of our at—risk students and
some of the characteristics that make science literacy less accessible for them. In many
ways Josh is typical of many of these students and of all students. Complex and abstract
concepts are something that everyone struggles at one time or another with during their
schooling and in day to day life, sometimes our strengths are not adequate to help us
develop more than superﬁcial explanations. One thing that does differentiate Josh from
some people though was his ability to negotiate successfully with authority ﬁgures and
with his peers. As will be seen with the case studies of Carl and Heidi not all students are
as successful in negotiation in these areas. Difﬁculties in negotiation with the teacher and
with peers can play a major part in a student’s ability to engage in activities and develop

understanding.

CHAPTER 5
The Case of Carl

Introduction

The second case is the story of Carl. Like Josh's story, this case study will begin
with a short description of Carl. Most of the information in this section comes from the
student's ﬁle, student interviews and informal conversations, parent discussions, and
conversations with past or current teachers, video and audio tape records and ﬁeld notes.
The case then shifts to a classroom focus and how Carl interacted in large and small group
settings roughly in chronological order of the semester. The data for this portion of the
case study came from the data sources and analysis described in Chapter 3. The case will
then move on to a discussion of the three research questions in light of Carl's story,
concluding with a discussion of the implications for Carl's engagement and

understanding.

Who is Carl?

Carl was a learning disabled student who had difﬁculties with processing verbal
information, reading and writing. Carl was identiﬁed as learning disabled in the spring of
second grade, at the beginning of third grade he was placed in a special education
resource room where he received additional support. Carl and Josh attended different
elementary schools and were in many of the same classes through middle school and
junior high. Carl was included in two regular education courses on a trial basis in the
eighth grade, with placement in an additional course during ninth grade. His placement in
each of these classes was on a temporary basis with most of his time spent in a special
education resource class, and with the special education teacher responsible for grading

his work and assigning his grades.

105

106

At the time of this study Carl was a tenth grader. He and his parents had
requested complete inclusion, with advisory support and tutoring from the special
education teachers at the high school, when Carl moved from the junior high to the high
school. At the time of this study Carl was reading and writing at the third grade level.
Carl's math skills were tested at the fourth or ﬁfth grade level. Carl was a skilled artist,
with numerous comments in his records to his skills. Carl had difﬁculties in processing
verbal information. He had been tutored in note-taking skills, but a majority of his former
special education teachers did not believe that his skills were adequate for most classes.

Carl was very open and friendly with his peers, but was hesitant to interact with
teachers. His records indicate that he had a long history of avoiding interactions with
teachers and one-on—one interactions with adults. Throughout his records you ﬁnd
notations from teachers and other professionals that describe Carl as shy, cooperative and
a hard worker. Most of Carl’s teachers described him as a “hard worker.” When asked
about his work habits in other classes his teachers provided a range of responses.
Following is a sample of these responses:

He works really hard....

He’s REALLY quiet

He’s hard to get to know, never know what is going on with him.

Always turns in all his work...but it’s not always complete

Really struggles with the writing and doesn’t respond to questions.

He’s doing OK - nothing spectacular but OK.

He gives it his all -- but it’s not easy for him.

He appeared to pay close attention to class discussion and was an active, but often
quiet member, of his small group. He often entered the conversation by suggesting ways
of solving problems. Carl’s small group was composed of four members: Carl; Joan

(an all around “A” student); Judy (a student who struggled with school, bordering on

107

academically at-risk); and Tammy (an “A - B” student in most classes who had a history
of struggling in math and science).

Unlike Josh and Heidi who often came into the class early to talk with friends or
ask the teachers questions, Carl usually came into the classroom just before the bell rang.
Carl spent his time before school in one of three areas: at his locker (located just outside
of the biology classroom) talking with friends; in the cafeteria area talking with friends; or
in the gym. Carl was a member of the junior varsity football and baseball teams. Carl
was respected by his peers on the teams and most other students; evidence of this comes
from his interactions with peers in the hall and during informal conversations during
class.

There is evidence in the video and audio tape that Carl had a curiosity about the
world in the way that he asked questions. Unlike Josh who worked at creating
explanations, Carl felt that the explanations were out there and he wanted someone to
provide them. Evidence from this come in the type of questions that Carl and Josh asked.
Josh often asked questions that began with phrases like: "What if..." or "How about
trying..." Carl's questions often began with phrases like: "What did the (teacher or
book) say about..." Carl appeared to believe that there were “right” answers for
everything, and was often frustrated when he perceived a lack of structure in an
assignment. It seemed to be only marginally important for Carl that the material be
closely tied to real world problems. He contributed to small group conversations more
often and in a more forceful way when the concept was something he was familiar with,
but he was willing to interact with his small group regardless of the complexity or
abstractness of the ideas.

Carl seemed to listen very closely during class discussion, but he appeared to have
trouble taking notes. This is consistent with the notes in his ﬁles that documented his
difﬁculty transferring verbal information to written form. Carl seemed to rely on Joan

and Tammy’s notes to help him through the term. He asked them if he could borrow their

108

notes after class, or he spent part of the small group activity time copying notes. Early in
the term Carl appeared to try and take notes on a daily basis and used Joan and Tammy’s
notes to supplement what he had written down. As the semester progressed and there

were some extended class discussions on complex or abstract topics, he often gave up all
pretense of taking notes. His class notes during these topics exactly match Joan’s notes.

Carl also worked closely with his small group members when writing up
laboratory exercises. Students were encouraged to work together on the assignments and
help each other as they worked on laboratory reports and discuss their conclusions but
they were asked to do individual write-ups. At the beginning of the term his reports were
somewhat similar to his partners, but his conclusions lacked some of the depth and
understanding that could be seen in J oan's laboratory write-ups. By the end of the
semester most of the laboratory write-ups of this small group were very similar to Joan’s
wording. This was not unexpected, but raised some questions about the engagement and
level of understanding in the small group when Carl, Judy and Tammy continued to
struggle with individual writing assessments. His writing difﬁculties and hesitance to talk
with adults limited his ability to communicate his understanding to the teacher, but they
did not limit his participation in his small group.

Carl accepted that he could not write well, and was resigned to not doing well on
tests or other individual writing assignments. Further evidence of these patterns were
also found in his interview. Carl was asked how this science class compared to other
science classes he had in the past:

Interviewer What are some other ways that this class is different from other science
classes you've had?

Carl There is a lot of writing in this class.

Interviewer Do you think this is a good change or a bad change?
Carl It's OK for some people -- but I don't like it.
Interviewer Why?

Carl I'm not good at it. It's hard.

109

Interviewer What could we do to help you with it?
Carl Nothing -- Joan and Tammy help me with stuff.

Interviewer What about on tests?

Carl I don't know. I do OK on labs -- I think I'll pass the class.

Interviewer Could we help you with the tests? Read it to you? Write things out for
you?

Carl No -- I'm doing OK.

When given the opportunity to discuss his test with the teacher (and possibly gain
additional points if he could demonstrate that he understood the concepts), Carl chose to
keep his original score. Carl often avoided interaction with adults. Evidence from audio-
tape from the small group often indicated that Carl had a much deeper understanding of
the science concepts than he demonstrated in large class settings or in his written work.
During the time of this study, Carl's parents were very active in his schooling.
They often corresponded with the teacher via the mid-term reports, and initiated phone
calls when they did not feel that Carl was bringing home work often enough. Carl's
parents attended each conference and came with thoughtful questions. They asked several

of Carl's teachers about ways to work with the teachers to help Carl in his classes.

Carl’s Story -- Finding and creating a role in a science class

At the beginning of the semester Carl routinely participated in the activities in his
small group but responded in whole class discussions only when called on and then the
most common response was, “I don’t know.” This pattern remained constant throughout
the semester. Carl never volunteered to enter whole class discussions. During his small
group work Carl often demonstrated the type of engagement described by Newmann et al
(Newmann, 1992). There is evidence from the audio-tape showing that Carl was often
willing to ﬁght for his answers, and that he pushed the members of his small group to
explain things to him. He was not content just to get the "right answers" written down.

A great deal of the time during the ﬁrst 5 weeks of school was spent in small groups

110

exploring questions and working on problems. This allowed Carl abundant opportunities
to negotiate a role in his small group. Carl was willing to ﬁght for his ideas within the
small group, but he was always cautious about doing so. The opinions of his group
members were very important to him.

At the beginning of the year the focus was on helping students develop and reﬁne
their problem solving skills, practice their observational skills, and to get comfortable
with using writing in science in ways that might have been very different from what they
had experienced in the past. During the ﬁrst week of school the students were given a
live earthworm, some damp paper towel, a hand lens and a toothpick. The students were
asked to determine which end was the head of the animal. They were asked to write
down their observations about the worm and provide justiﬁcation for their claims.

Following is a short transcript from Carl's small group.

September 10
Joan This is weird! I can’t believe we have to watch a worm and he’s telling us
to be careful with them.
Jenny I hate worms! They’re gross.

Tammy Where did he say we were suppose to get them from?

Carl I’ll get it. They’re in the back. Someone go get the wet paper towel and
other stuff -- I think its on the counter over there.

Tammy OK

Joan I’ll get some paper so we can get this written down.

(Carl goes to get the worm while Tammy gets the other materials and Joan
gets her notebook. Tammy spread the paper in the center of the table and
Carl put the worm in the center of the paper.)

Carl Look at the worm move! I tried to ﬁnd an active one -- look at it go.
That’s probably the head -- look at the direction that it’s going.

Jenny That makes sense but how do we write it down.

Joan I wrote down the head end leads the worm.

Tammy

Joan

Carl

Tammy
Jenny

Carl

Joan

111

But look -- it just went the other way when you (Carl) tapped it’s nose.
So it doesn’t always lead it - the worm can back up too.

OK so I’ll say “most of the time” the head leads the worm. (she adds to
her statement) What else can we say?

Give me the magnifying glass - let’s see if we can ﬁnd eyes. Eyes are
always on the head.

Do worms have eyes? They live in dirt -- why would they need eyes?
All animals have eyes.

I don’t see anything that looks like eyes. Either they are REALLY small
or Tammy’s right and they don’t have em.

I have an idea - worms live in dirt. I bet it hates being out in the light.
Let’s make it a tunnel and see if it goes to it. The end that leads it to the
dark is the head. That other group over there had their worm covered up
-- let’s try it.

(The group then went on to decide to make two “tunnels” one at each end
of the worm. At the end of the time they had down ﬁve descriptions of the
head end of the worm:

The head end usually leads the worm

The head likes darkness

The head is more sensitive when you touch it.
The head is darker than the rest of the worm
The head moves left and right more than the tail.

Joan reported the groups ﬁndings during the large class discussion and
dealt with the teachers follow-up questions. None of her small group
members added to her responses.)

As the above transcript and follow-up description demonstrates, Carl started out

the year willing to participate in science activities within his small group. During the large

class discussion he did not take ownership of those things which he had tested; he was

comfortable letting Joan doing the reporting. When the small groups were asked to report

back their results Carl prompted Joan to do the reporting. He offered suggestions on

what she could say. He rejected her claim that he could or should do the talking. He

was willing to throw out his ideas about worms and how his group might go about

solving this problem. Joan and others in the small group were aware of what other

112

groups were trying but they did not wander away to see what exactly others were doing --
they used other groups to verify that they were on the right track and doing similar things.

Carl often referred the small group back to something that was discussed in the
whole class discussion. Carl rarely participated in large group discussion and sought out
explanations or clariﬁcation from fellow students. He seemed hesitant to ask the teachers
for help or explanation, but listened closely when a teacher came to the small group.
Audio-tape of small group discussions indicate that he prompted other members of the
group to go get the teacher. When he was absent for a day his group was very conscious
about bringing him up—to-date on the previous day's activity, and helped him write up
laboratory reports.

Carl could also be considered a “content technician.” Carl was very good at
remembering and processing science vocabulary and concepts; his dilemma came in
demonstrating this knowledge in writing. He could often recall studying topics in
previous years and use that information to enter his small group discussion, then build on
that repertoire during a unit. One example of how Carl helped his small group can be
seen in his group's conversation about drawing models of atoms and representations of
chemical bonding.

Students were asked to draw a hydrogen atom, an oxygen atom, a chlorine atom
and a sodium atom. They needed to use the periodic table and identify how many
protons, neutrons and electrons each atom had, and show how the electrons were
arranged in their orbits. When they had done this and had it checked by a teacher they
were to make a diagram showing how hydrogen and oxygen bonded to form water and

how sodium and chlorine bonded to form salt.

Joan OK -- hydrogen is 1. So it has one proton, one electron and one neutron.
Carl No it doesn’t. It doesn’t have a neutron.

Judy Yes it does. Protons always equal neutrons.

113

Carl No it doesn’t. Protons equal electrons. Protons are positive, electrons are
negative. You have to know the mass to know how many neutrons there
are.

Tammy Are you sure?

Carl Get the teacher. I know I’m righ -- we had to do this last year. We did
the whole periodic table.

Joan We didn’t do that.
Carl My class did -- it was boring.
Judy I think he’s right. Let’s do oxygen -- then ask.

Joan OK -- If you (Carl) think you know how to do it -- you draw ‘em. I’ll go
get help.

Carl was able to back up his opinion and was a contributing member of his small group.
Diagrams such as the ones that Joan asked him to do were one of the things he often
agreed to help with. In other group projects that required drawing and writing Carl often
took the lead in doing the drawing with Tammy’s help and Joan took the main
responsibility for writing, with help from Judy.

Carl could translate his background information to a limited extent to other types
of laboratory work. He was often frustrated when pressed by the teacher to come up with
his own questions, or asked to develop an experiment. When students were presented
with this type of activity, and then sent back to work in their small groups Carl often said
things such as: "This is a waste... why doesn't he just tell what he wants us to do!" or
"How are we supposed to ﬁgure this out -- he's the teacher, he should know." When he
got frustrated about this he often faded out of the small group conversations. During
some of these types of activities he was silent throughout the period. Videotape shows
that he did not wander away from the group but his voice is not found on the audio tapes
and the only references that were heard was of one of his group members asking him to
go and get something or to add something to the poster. Carl was a very talented artist,

when he was not involved in deciding what should go on the posters, he focused on the

114

mechanical act of putting it on the poster. There is a marked difference in the calligraphy
on the posters between the activities when Carl was an active member of the conversation
and when he focused on poster production. If Carl was involved in the conversation his
drawings and lettering on the poster are less precise or artistic than when he was given the
information and his energy was concentrated on creating the poster.
When the group was asked to make a presentation to the class and told it would be
a group grade and that they needed to make sure that everyone in the group had a part of
the presentation, Carl’s presentation was always the shortest and most procedural in
nature. One example of this can be seen in a class presentation given by his group on
October 29th. On this particular day Judy is not a member of the small group.
Students were asked to make a concept map of what had been covered so far during the
semester. Tammy volunteered the group to be next. Joan carried their poster; when they
got to the front of the room, Carl took it from her and held it up for the class to see. Carl
handed Joan a pointer.
Joan We have cells connected to biology because that's what this is all about.
Then we've got the lego lab, cell structure and cell theory around the cells
-- off the lego lab we have blueprint.

Mr. L. OK say so how are -- you are saying off of this we have this -- how are
they connected?

Joan Off the cells to the lego lab that is an example. We had to use directions to
build the legos and there are instructions in the nucleus for building cells.

Cell theory was our conclusion of our experiments with cells. Cell
structure was parts of cells and we have the types of cell structure like cell
membrane, cell wall, cytoplasm and chloroplasts.

Mr. L. OK someone else from the group?

Tammy One of our questions was how do cells live and reproduce and we have
observations, hypothesis, experiment and conclusions and we have that
down. After experiment we have control and experimental factors and
what we did. After observations we have metrics lab and microscope.
With metric lab with have make observations with accuracy. Also with
observation we have the senses: sight, sound, touch, smell and how we
used those. Off microscope we have slides. We have wet mount and dry
mount and that we looked at cells, we also have the kinds of scopes like
scanning and electron and dissecting. We looked at pond water...

115

Mr. L. Why don't we have someone else pick it up there.

(Joan takes the poster from Carl - he is hesitant to pass it over and to take
the pointer. When he has the pointer he stops and stares at the poster for a
few moments and Tammy and Joan point out the area of the map that

hasn 't been discussed yet. The class is getting restless as he tried to ﬁnd
the area and start his description.)

Carl The cell does things like: reproduction, excretion, breathe, eat, react to
environmental change. We did the yeast lab ..... it's just you know ....a
lab.

St. 1 I have a question. You have all your signs of life next to the pond water.
Was it connected to anything else?

Carl Yeah I guess anything that is alive. (Carl is very nervous and looking
down at the ﬂoor and occasionally at Joan to see if she will step in.) We
got yeast, animals...

Joan It goes with anything connected to cells, so things like the pond water, and
yeast.

St. 1 He (Mr. L) made me ask.
St. 2 Continue.

Carl That's it.

Joan That's all of it.

Mr. L. Anyone else have any other questions? (no response) OK -- who wants
to go next?

This episode is consistent with each presentation that Carl’s group made in front of the
class. He held the poster, and took the last section of the explanation and deferred
questions to Joan or Tammy. When pressed for an answer he said, “I don’t know...”
dropped his gaze to the ﬂoor, and waited for a member of his group to pick up the
question.

Shortly after this presentation Carl wrote the following entry in his journal:

Working in a group helps me understand what we are doing. It also helps me
because if I don’t understand something I can ask them and they help.

Carl’s group did work with him and help him with the material. Joan often let him copy

down her class notes and offered to make him copies of her notes when he didn't have

116

time to get everything written down. For some of the laboratory reports, students were
asked to work together on setting up the experiment and making observations but they
were asked to write individual conclusions. Joan, Judy and Tammy allowed Carl to copy
their conclusions. On seven different laboratory reports this was detected by Mr. L, and
Carl received no credit or a reduced number of points for his conclusion. Mr. L had a
discussion with Carl about this the ﬁrst time it was detected. Mr. L offered to help Carl
write up his own conclusions before or after school. Carl’s special education resource
teacher also offered her support, as did I. All of our offers were rejected, and Carl
continued to copy his conclusions from other students or did not include a conclusion in
his reports.

For Carl, one of the best things about this biology class was the small group
work. During an interview mid-way through the semester Carl was asked to compare
science this year with science classes in the past. During the interview he said:

“I like some of the things this year a lot better. Last year we had a lot of

homework and vocabulary that we had to memorize. This year we do things like

labs a lot more. I don’t have to think as hard -- my group helps me. Last year we
went really fast through things and learned a lot. This year things are slower and
we do more stuff. Last year though the tests were easier -- we had mostly

multiple choice and I did OK. I can’t pass Mr. L’s tests. They are too hard —- I

don’t know what to write down.”

When asked what would help him in the class or what changes he would like to
see made in the class he said:

“We should have multiple choice questions or more tests over small amounts of
material. (pause) Maybe we should take our tests in our small groups. It’s not
fair -- we work together and then have to take the tests alone.”

Carl wanted clear, precise answers. Therefore inquiry laboratory exercises often
left him frustrated. At the beginning of the school year most of the students experienced
some frustration when asked to design a laboratory experiment. But over time most of
the class got past this frustration and accepted it as part of biology. Carl continued to be
frustrated at the end of the semester, when the task was focused on design.

An example of this can be seen when he was working with his small group to

design a boat, and a way of propelling the boat across the width of a pizza pan, without

117

touching it, or any of their direct actions moving it (like blowing on it). This lab occurred
near the end of the ﬁrst semester. The topic of unit was energy conversions. Students
were given a pizza pan, and told there were a lot of different materials at the back of the
room to use, and how they did it was up to them. In the back of the room there were
alcohol burners, ﬂasks, Styrofoam, paper, card board, pins, small sticks, straws, tin foil,
and modeling clay. They were also told that if they didn’t ﬁnd what they needed to ask,

and we’d try to ﬁnd it for them.

January 7
Judy So what kind of boat should we make?
Joan I think we need a paddle boat or a sail boat.

Carl I know how to make a paddle boat if we have a milk carton, and rubber
bands back there.

Tammy I remember seeing that kind of boat. But will it work on a pizza pan?
Carl Why not?

Tammy It’s not deep enough.

Carl Well let’s try. A sail boat won’t work -- how would we push it? We can’t
blow on it. I’ll go ﬁnd some stuff to make a paddle boat. (Carl leaves to
get materials)

Joan You’re right (Tammy). It’s got to be sail boat -- a pizza pan is too

shallow. To move fast the boats got to be light too. Go get some
Styrofoam we can put a stick into it with a sail.

Judy How are we going to move it?

(Carl returned with some cardboard and rubber bands. He demonstrates
how to twist up the board in the rubber band and make it spin.)

Joan We’re making a sail boat. (She then explained how she and Tammy had
discussed what they needed to do as Tammy returned with materials).

Carl I don’t think that’s right, I think we’re doing it wrong. Go get the teacher
(to Judy) -- let’s ﬁnd out the right way to do this. (Judy leaves)

Tammy I don’t think there is a “right way.” I think it’s up to us.

Carl There is always a “right way.” Let’s ﬁnd out what he wants. I’ll go see
what they’re doing. (referring to another small group)

118

Carl rarely moved away from his idea that there was one “right way” of doing everything.
He relied on past knowledge for the answers or sought out answers from the teacher or

other peers. He rarely tried to develop or work out his own new solutions to a problem.

Carl’s story -- Modiﬁcation of a role

In large class discussions Carl sometimes answered questions when called on, but
never volunteered responses. He often sat quietly during class discussion and refused to
answer when called on in class, or said, “I don’t know.” even when he did have
something he could contribute. Carl was usually quiet and withdrawn during large class
activities but was more engaged during small group work. There was a shift in Carl’s
behavior in his small group when the small group activity was preceded by an extended
class discussion or lecture about the material. This shift may have been tied to Carl’s
learning disabilities. Carl had a difﬁcult time processing verbal information and
difﬁculties in writing. The combination of these two difﬁculties made note taking in class
extremely problematic.

If an extended class discussion or lecture proceeded a small group activity, Carl
spent a great deal of the time that his small group was working on a problem, copying
loan or Tammy’s class notes. He could be pressed to participate in the activity and once
involved in the activity he did the tasks assigned to him, but as soon as he was done
doing what had been asked of him he went back to copying notes. Unlike Josh who gave
up trying to understand the material, Carl believed that if he just got it written down he
would be OK and he could read it and understand it later. The complexity or abstractness
of the concepts being covered did not detour Carl from believing that he could understand
so he did not give up. He altered his role in the small group so that he could get down the
notes. This led to him taking a less active role in the small group limiting his access to
conversations that might have helped clarify concepts for him.

Carl recognized his problems with note taking. In a journal entry that asked

students to write about what they thought they could do to do better in class, Carl wrote:

119

I can improve my note taking by learning how to take notes without writing
everything. I need to get the main point. I can take better notes by asking for help
and listening to the hole thing then write down notes.
It is unclear from Carl’s entry who he planned on asking to help him learn how to take
notes. If, during the time of this study, he asked for help with note taking it was from his
peers, his parents or someone not associated with the school system.

In mid-December when the students were asked to respond to the question: What
is the best way for you to learn something? Carl wrote the following response:

I learn best when I work with someone. That way when I’m loss someone can

help me. IfI can describe it to someone I know I know it. I gotta here things lots

of times. I’ve got to see things, I don’t remember what I here very good.
This response demonstrated Carl's understanding of his limitations, and knew what was
most beneﬁcial to him. Carl had a good relationship with the members of his small
group, he appeared to trust them enough to risk ﬁghting for his own ideas. He relied on
their help and he rarely did things that he believed would jeopardize his relationship with
them. This included backing down from ﬁghting for his own ideas if the discussion was
prolonged. In these cases he appeared to accept the views of others or prompted his small
group to ﬁnd out the “right” answer from the teacher.

Carl’s belief there was a right answer to everything showed up in his small
group's discussion of the food laboratory. The students were examining the results of
some of the tests they had run. One of the “foods” that they examined was Vitamin C
tablets. Like the rest of the students in the class, Carl’s small group had predicted a
positive test for Vitamin C, but they also received positive results for sugar and for starch,
which they had not predicted. The group was checking over their results so see which
test(s) they thought they should re-run. The class had been warned about contamination

and the possible need to repeat the tests to conﬁrm results.

120

November 7

Joan This is weird. We got positive results for sugar and starch with the vitamin
C. Guess we had better re-do the tests. I’ll go get the stuff.

(The students re-did the tests and got the same results that they had gotten the ﬁrst
time.)

Tammy Did we goof again? This is the same thing we got last time.

Carl We did it right. I washed everything really good -- so it can’t be wrong this
. time.

Judy But the bottles says it’s vitamin C.

Joan Let’s see what some of the other groups got.

Carl I’m going to go get the bottle -- I bet there is other stuff in it. It can’t just be
vitamin C. You (Tammy) go get the teacher. If all the other groups got it, or
the bottle lists more than vitamin C, and the teacher says it’s possible then we
will KNOW we are right.

Carl’s belief that there were “right” answers and his need for veriﬁcation from a couple
sources is consistent with his behavior throughout the semester. This belief that there
were right answers also caused him to lose his patience with some of the class
discussions. There was evidence that Carl lost his patience when Mr. L posed questions
to the class like: What do you think would happen if ...? After a class discussion with
this form of questioning Carl appeared frustrated with the class. When the students
moved back to their small groups Carl said things like, “Why doesn’t he just tell us what
we need to know so we can get on with it?”

As the semester progressed Carl stopped writing journal entries. He also started
leaving more blanks on his tests. He continued to help his group but he stopped doing
most individual writing. When Mr. L asked him to come in so they could talk about the
work that he was missing Carl did not come to the meeting. Mr. L also called Carl’s '
parents to discuss the lack of work that was turned in. They asked for a list of what was
missing and said they would work with him and get the assignments turned in. Carl

turned in a few of the assignments but never did make up all of the work. His answers

121

on his tests remained short or were missing. Several of the assignments that Carl turned
in late, were worded exactly like either loan or Tammy’s work. Other assignments that
should have been a page or two long were only 3 or 4 sentences.

Carl began the semester avoiding contact with the teacher and the researcher, and
this pattern remained consistent throughout the semester. He also began the semester
working closely with his small group, and this relationship strengthened throughout the
semester. Members of this small group were very supportive of each other, always

willing to help each other get caught up with work missed, or provide explanations.

Discussion of Research Questions
The case study of Carl presented two quite different patterns of negotiation with
the high school and its representatives and his peers and therefore with the science
content. The pattern of negotiation that he used when dealing with the teacher(s) was
quite different from the pattern of negotiation that he used within his small group. In
Chapter 1 I introduced three research questions that have guided this work.
. ti . . . t r
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing understanding?
r
How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with their peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?
' ' n o
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that aﬁect a special
education/at-risk student’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science

community? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What are
the implications for developing scientiﬁc understanding?

For Carl the most striking of these forms of negotiation was his negotiation or lack of
negotiation with the teacher. His negotiation in this area inﬂuenced his negotiation with

his peers and with the science content, so the discussion of the research questions begins

122

with a discussion of this negotiation. Likewise it was the culmination of each of these
types of negotiation that in the end determined the level of engagement and understanding
that Carl developed, so this chapter concludes with a discussion of the consequences of

Carl's negotiations for engagement and understanding.

N ' tion with i h it Re resentatives
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher?

Carl did not actively negotiate with the teacher during the term. He avoided
contact and interaction with the teacher. When Mr. L stopped by Carl’ 8 small group Carl
did not ask questions; he prompted others to ask the questions before the teacher came
over. Sometimes he wandered off to get materials when a teacher stopped by to check on
the group. This behavior is not uncommon for special education students who have been
in pull-out programs. Often in these classes students are given a workbook to use for a
topic; as they complete a workbook they are given another one. Interaction with the
teacher usually meant additional work so students learned how to look busy so they were
not given additional work.

Carl’s negotiations with the teacher were also negotiations with written text. Carl
had two main purposes for writing: taking or copying notes that he could study at a later
time and the writing that was to be turned in to the teacher. Since Carl had difﬁculty with
writing and processing verbal information so that it could be written down, Carl appeared
to lack the conﬁdence or motivation to regularly write original text. Learning to
communicate through writing is one of the underlying goals of this science class. Carl’s
tendency to copy others' work brought him in direct conﬂict with Mr. L on several
occasions. Sometimes the confrontation was held before or after class, sometimes it was
a written comment on a laboratory report such as, “This is Joan’s wording - what did me
think happened?” During the verbal confrontations Carl was non-responsive, he looked
down toward the ﬂoor, and appeared to try to put physical distance between himself and

the teacher. In regards to his writing, Carl's desire to do things like other students in the

123

class and a desire to pass the class appeared to compensate for the desire to avoid
interaction with the teacher.

When the topic or activity had more to do with day-to-day experience or was less
abstract, Carl had an easier time taking notes in class. During these topics he wrote more
in his journals, laboratory reports and tests/quizzes. During the ﬁrst term of the semester
Carl turned in most of his work. It was not always complete, but there was more there
than was missing. When he was turning in work like this, there were fewer
confrontations with the teacher.

In many ways, like Josh, Carl had more difﬁculty when the concepts became
more complex and were more abstract. The patterns of negotiation that were established
earlier in the term changed. Under these circumstances, Carl's learning disabilities with
reading and writing became much more apparent and altered the nature of his interaction
with the teacher. Relying on the members of his small group to help him develop the
level of understanding needed for the written work or to respond to questions directed at
him during class discussions was less effective than it was earlier in the semester. During
large class discussion Carl rarely made eye contact teacher, but instead spent most of the
discussion with his eyes focused on his paper or off to the side of the class. This pattern
was consistent throughout the semester. It often looked from the front of the room as if
Carl was taking notes, but in reality his "notes" was often homework for other classes or
sketches of cars or other objects.

Carl did not seek out the teacher with questions. If he was absent and needed to
make up work he got all of this information from the members of his small group.
During the time period when Carl did not appear to be able to grasp or work with the
concepts his confrontations with the teacher about work or lack of work became more
common. Several options for support were offered to Carl so that he could do better in
the class, those options that increased his interaction with his peers, he usually accepted

and implemented, those options that called for him to interact with the adults were

124

rejected; for example, Carl never took the opportunity to make up points on his test by
having an interview with the teacher. By avoiding contact with adults and other resources
available to him, Carl limited his options for negotiation with his peers.
Negggg' tign with Peer;
How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with their peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?

Carl was successful in his negotiations with his small group. Unlike some special
education students who are ostracized by members of their small group, Carl was an
accepted and valued member of his small group. When he entered a conversation his
views were listened to and considered by all the members of his small group. His
comments were valued by Joan, Judy and Tammy. Carl’s ideas were discussed among
the members of group then modiﬁed or adopted as part of the group explanation. This is
very different from the description that will be presented in Heidi’s case study. Carl was
a consistent member of his group and his group was very protective of him, always
willing to help and support him when they felt he was struggling with the material.

At the beginning of the semester when the class was dealing with solving real
world problems Carl took an active role in working on the problems. He initiated several
of the conversations and proposed ideas for exploring the problem. This pattern changed
in minimal ways when the content became more complex or abstract since Carl then spent
more time copying class notes from Joan or Tammy. It is difﬁcult to ﬁnd examples of
Carl’s conversations during some of the more complex or abstract topics, because he
spent most of the time copying down information. He was very quiet during some of
these activities but video tape shows that he did not wander away from his small group.

Instead of being a full participating member of the conversation, Carl spent most
of his time listening or copying down what Joan, Judy or Tammy had written down. He
was still actively working with them most of the time, but he was not leading the

conversations nor participating in them to the level that he did when he did not feel the

125

need to copy notes. As mentioned earlier, this shift is not directly tied to the time in the
semester but to the length of class discussion or lecture before the shift to small group
work. Carl reverted to being a full participating member of his group initiating the
conversation and suggesting strategies when he felt he didn’t need to copy down notes.

His laboratory reports do not always reﬂect this change in his negotiations in his
small group. The laboratory reports reﬂect the group understanding rather than an
individual's understanding. The members of Carl's group were always willing to share
what they had written down with him. This is not meant to imply that Carl only copied
down the answers. Carl tried to make sense of the material and asked questions, but he
appeared to struggle with writing down the essence of the conversation. He often used
the words of the members of his group as his own, which raises some question about his
level of understanding.

Carl seemed to devote a lot of energy to making personal connections with other
students in his small group, always asking about life outside of class, the status of mutual
friends, etc.. One of the disadvantages of Carl’s small group was that they spent so much
time supporting each other that they rarely pushed each other’s thinking. It was rare to
ﬁnd the members of a group having a prolonged disagreement about what should be done
or how to do a task. The transcript of January 7th where students were designing the
boat was one of the tensest conversations the group had during the semester.

During the time of this study Carl's appeared to place a lot of his energy into his
relationships with his peers. One of his counselors described Carl's efforts during the
time of this study as "trying to pass." Carl had spent many years in special pull-out
programs. During the time of this study Carl was in all "regular" education classes. He
did not like to associate with other special education students. He avoided low-track
classes. The activities that he chose, both in school and out of school appeared to be
based on his peers who were involved, not the adults or the content. As described by

Eckert (Eckert, 1989). Carl’s main identity was shaped by his peers and his out-of-

126

school activities. The pattern of negotiation that Carl used with the teacher and with his
peers had a direct impact on his negotiation with the science content.
' t' ' ien e te r m i
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that aﬁect a special
education/at—risk student ’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science
community?

Unlike Josh who needed to be interested in a topic before he was willing to
participate in a discussion or activity and therefore negotiation with the science content or
community, Carl consistently participated in conversations and small group activities.
Participation in the conversation, though, did not indicate negotiation with the science
content or community. Carl went through the motions of doing the work, but there are
few indications that he ever found the topics interesting or compelling. In late October
students were asked to write a journal entry summarizing what had been learned so far
during the semester. Carl wrote the following response:

In the begening of the year we did problem solving. Then we did yeast labs to

ﬁnd out if yeast is living and it is. Then we did a metrics lab and measured

different things. Then we used microscopes to study pond water and all kinds of
cells. Then we did a lego lab.
Carl seemed to view learning as completing a series of activities. The only indication of
what he learned was his statement that yeast was alive. Carl never appeared to make the
psychological investment in the class that led to developing understanding; he went
through the motions but it was not clear if he was engaged in the learning process.

Another example of the level of Carl’s view of the science content can be found in
his journal entry on November 30th. At the time of this entry students had spent
approximately two weeks on this speciﬁc topic. This topic built off the previous topic of
cell structures and functions. Students had spent a great deal of time looking at the
different characteristics of different kinds of tissues. These discussions had been linked
to the characteristics and needs of all living things. The students were asked to write
about why they thought it might be important to them personally to know about organic

molecules. Carl wrote:

127

Organic molecules are important because in explanes protenins, lipids,
carbohydretes and simple sugers.

This entry lacks the depth of entries written by other students in the class. Students were
encouraged to write down everything they knew and any connections they could make.
The average length of this journal entry for other students in the class was a half to a
whole page, with a few students writing two to three pages. Carl's negotiation with the
science content and science community was tied to his pattern of negotiation with the
teachers and with his peers. Carl’s negotiation with the science content or science
community was directly inﬂuenced the ways that he negotiated with the teacher and with
his peers.

If the class discussion went on for a prolonged period of time, Carl appeared to
fade in and out with his participation. Carl's attention seemed to start to wander after 10
to 15 minutes. At that time he would put down his pencil, start ﬂipping through his
notebook, start doing homework from another class or start to sketch something. Once
Carl shifted his focus it was rare for him shift back to the class discussion, he moved
from one activity to another. When the discussion concluded and students were sent back
to their small groups to work, he raised questions with the members of his small group.
If there was not small group activity for that day he asked one of them for their notes so
he could copy them later in the day or that night.

This pattern was adequate for initiating and sustaining his negotiations with his
peers, but it limited what those negotiations could be about. It was also adequate for
developing understanding of some concepts. His marginal interest in learning and his
concern about avoiding mistakes in front of his peers made him a marginal participant in
intellectual conversations. A great deal of Carl's time was spent copying down other's
notes, or asking procedural questions. When the other members of his group disagreed
about how to proceed he usually took Joan's side of the argument. One day when
Tammy complained about this pattern Carl said, "She's the one who gets "A's" all the

time." The ways that he chose to negotiate with his group often limited his ability to ﬁnd

128

connections between the content of the class and daily life. These interactions did little to
challenge Carl's limited view of the science content and community.

Traditionally students learned science inquiry as a set of rules and steps known as
“the scientiﬁc method.” Carl maintained a belief that science was just a set of these steps
and procedures and was rarely able to bring to use an imagination and inventiveness that
is a big part of scientiﬁc inquiry. The students were asked to write a journal entry stating
whether or not they had enough evidence to decide whether or not yeast was alive. If
they felt more evidence was needed they were asked to propose other experiments that
could/should be done. In response to this question Carl wrote:

"We’ve know everything we need to know. Yeast is alive."

This response indicated a level of interaction and interest in the content which Carl
maintained throughout the semester. He lacked the curiosity about the world that
characterized and inﬂuenced J osh’s view of science. When class discussion or lectures
went on for extended periods of time, he faded out of the conversations, and relied on his
small group to tell him what was important. When the material became complex and
abstract Carl’s interaction and negotiation with the science content and science community
changed and he focused on trying to get things written down. It was more difﬁcult for
him to enter back into conversations and activities in his small group so he made few
contributions to the discussion in his small group and started doing more procedural
tasks.

Carl was often paying closer attention to the class conversation than was evident
by his participation in his small group or his written work. A journal entry that illustrates
how Carl was personalizing and interacting with the science content can be seen in his
journal entry about how chicken eggs get fertilized. Carl wrote:

I think a egg is fertalized by the roosters sperm. The rooster puts the sperm in the

chicken and then the sperm ﬁnd the egg. The egg is fertilized before the shell is
formed.

129

This is one of the few examples of writing that reﬂect Carl’s interactions with the science
content. There was no small group discussion or activity on this day. Students were
asked to write this entry at the end of the period and turn it in as they left the class.

Carl’s difﬁculty in processing verbal information and writing caused problems for
him when processing complex or abstract information when it was presented in the text
book. Like Josh, Carl had many of the typical problems that all students have in
understanding the text, but while others beneﬁted from clariﬁcation during class
discussions or teacher explanations, Carl was only able to beneﬁt from these instructional
approaches in marginal ways. Sometimes instead of providing clariﬁcation these
discussions and explanations only further confused Carl, and he had to rely on the
members of his small group to provide clariﬁcation.

Like Josh, Carl often left the class believing that he had understood the material
only to realize later that he had missed important information. One example of this comes
from Carl’s journal written after the quiz on atoms and molecules, he wrote:

I thought the test was hard but not to hard. It made me think hard but I forgot

some stuff. The test was over everything we studied. I had good notes but they

didn’t help me on the test. I think I should have studied a little more. I

understand mostly everything but I forgot what I studie.

Carl received 37 points out of a possible 56 points on this test.

Consequences for Engagement

In Chapter 2 I provided a brief description of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. One
way of looking at this hierarchy of needs it to think of these not in the terms of a hierarchy
but as a set of overlapping and inter-linking ovals, the background or underlying circle
could represent student safety, if students don't feel safe this would color or inﬂuence all
of their other interactions. In the center of this circle are three interlocking circles
representing: knowledge, belonging and esteem. Over these three interlocking ovals is
another oval that represents a student's "comfort zone" that indicates what needs are

priorities for the student. A student’s “comfort zone” inﬂuences their participation in a

130

class and ultimately on their engagement and opportunity to develop understanding. The
placement of a comfort zone for a student means that this is the domain where the student
places a great priority for fulﬁllment of that need, not necessarily the fulﬁllment of the
need. A diagram representing Carl at the beginning of the semester might look like this:

 
   

Knowledge

      

 

Belonging Esteem

Figure 7 Carl's Needs - Beginning of Semester

This diagram did not change much during the semester. Carl’s attention and energy in the
class appeared to focus belonging to a group and maintaining his self-esteem. Carl
seemed to lack the curiosity that pushed Josh to ﬁnd out answers, and risk alienating the
members of his small group.

The following table gives a brief description of the ﬂow of concepts and themes
and a summary of Carl’s level of participation in large and small group activities. When
coding for engagement the following categories were used: uninvolved-passive; avoidant;
observer; marginal participant; central participant. A student coded as “uninvolved-

passive” is a student who does not pay attention to what is happening during the activity,

131

the student does not try to change the agenda of the group but will not appear to
participate when encouraged to get involved. A student coded as “avoidant” is a student
who will use a variety of strategies to avoid getting involved in the activity, including
aggressive behavior. A student coded as an “observer” appears to pay attention to what is
happening but does not participate in the activity or discussion. A “marginal participant”
is a student who is paying attention to the activity or discussion and occasionally enters
in, but involvement is not sustained. A “central participant” is a student who spends a
majority of the time involved in the activity or discussion. A more detailed description of

the topics and activities can be found in Appendix F.

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tate 7 oprc ”o e or 5 :ve 0
Engagement
9/8 - 9/15 The Nature of Science and central or marginal
Problem Solving Techniques participant
9/16 - 10/8 Characteristics of Living Things central or marginal
and Using the Tools of Science participant
(metric system & microscope)
10/12 - Cell Theory marginal participant
1 1/ 14
11/5 - 11/17 Cell Processes including Structure central or marginal
and Function participant
i
l
11/18 - Atomic Structure, Biochemistry, marginal participant or
12/ 18 Chemical and Physical Change observer
1/5 - 1/15 Energy Transformations - marginal participant or
Including Introduction to central participant
Photosynthesis
ll
1/19 - 1/22 Diffusion/Osmosis/Hypertonic/ marginal participant or
Hypotonic/Isotonic observer

 

 

 

Photosynthesis and Respiration

Figure 8 Class Activities and Carl's Roles

 

marginal participant or
observer

133

As can be seen in this table Carl’s level of engagement remained somewhat constant
from topic to topic and within topics. Carl was a student for whom the interactions within
his small group was the major inﬂuencing factor on his engagement. If the members of his
small group didn’t get engaged fully in the activity and just went through the motions, that
became Carl’s pattern.

Consequences for Understanding
r t ' r ri i i n ' w

Using the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks
for Scientiﬁc Literacy (American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1993) as
a standard for describing the types of understanding necessary for science literacy, Carl
never developed a strong sense of the Nature of Science. Carl had a strong belief that
people working together could ﬁgure out things -- as he wrote in the journal, he liked
working in small groups because they helped him understand things. Carl believed that
knowledge was stable, but there is little evidence that he believed that knowledge could
also change.

Carl did not want any special treatment while taking the ﬁnal exam. He was told
the test could be read to him, he could take it in the resource room, or if he did not ﬁnish
during the hour he could come in at a later time and ﬁnish his test. He did not select any
of these options. There were 91 multiple choice questions on the test. During questions
that dealt with the nature of science and problem solving techniques he answered 7 of the
10 correctly.
51H! ll'l' .. . . .2. .

Carl maintained a traditional view of scientiﬁc inquiry. He could recite the
sections of “scientiﬁc meth ” and when questioned would tell you that a hypothesis was
' “an educated guess.” There is no evidence that Carl recognized the role of curiosity and
creativity in working on problems. Like Josh, Carl also did not understand the

signiﬁcance and importance of a uniﬁed system. He would try to make connections to

134

things in his day to day life, but struggled when it came to making connections between
abstract or complex ideas.

One of the main goals of this biology class is for students to gain a better
understanding of the nature of science and science inquiry. An example of Carl's
understanding of the nature of scientiﬁc inquiry can be seen in a response from his ﬁrst
test in this class. The students were given a problem which had not been discussed in
class. (Carl's answers are in italic.)

PROBLEM: How are the zebra Mussels getting into the Great Lakes? Zebra

Mussels (Small ocean clam-like creatures) appeared in Lake Erie and the St. Claire

River (which are connected to the ocean by the St. Lawrence Seaway) and started

plugging up water inlets to large city water systems. (10 pts.)

A scientist guesses that br M e im 'n t awa int

and tests it by th'ng Q beeper Qn them Md lacking them with redgr,
The results were you eeiitd [glle them mm rgr.
CONCLUSION: khrg Mmele get into the take by mimmihg

Carl's response indicates a general understanding of the scientiﬁc process but lacks the
sophistication and detail of Josh's response.

-I.’ 444,: I IzI- I (7" ISO IteI Iirc w' nartoI Ictivitie ors .I.’ t

There is little evidence that Carl tried to make connections between science
concepts and his day to day life, or see the connections between the more abstract or
complex science concepts. Carl viewed science class as a series of activities, but it is
unclear that he saw the connections between the ideas. When Car! got involved in the
activities he was able to develop understanding. This occurred more frequently during the
early part of the semester. On questions on the ﬁnal exam that dealt with the

characteristics of living things Carl answered 4 of the 5 questions correctly. On the

135

microscope portion of the exam Carl answered 4 of the 5 questions correctly. These
scores were at or above the class average. Each of these topics were covered early in the
semester.

During the unit on energy transformations Carl, like Josh, was able to show a
better understanding of the structure of matter than during the discussions of the use of
the molecular models and the topics of the chemical reactions and biochemical molecules.
The following example comes from the test on energy transformation:

Alcohol has stored chemical energy. Where in an alcohol molecule is the energy

stored and what two kinds of energy show up if you burn the alcohol? (3 pts.

possible/2 pts. earned)
r ar ' um 1
Carl responded to the part of the question which he had previous and day-to-day
experience with. Carl could have given the same answer to this question prior to
instruction on energy transformation. The same could be said of his response to a
question on the ﬁnal exam which dealt with the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Following is the question and Carl’s response:

93. State the Law of Conservation of Energy and give an example to support your

statement. Magritte.

ReSPonse: WW

Carl had been able to accurately describe his understanding of the structure of the atom
during the small group discussion that was presented earlier. He had mastered the steps
of representing each of the elements on the periodic table, yet he had difﬁculty connecting
this skill to understanding how chemical bonds form.

Carl’s level of engagement was not tied directly to his need to see how new
information ﬁt into his day-to-day life. Carl’s engagement in an activity was tied more to
the level of engagement of his small group. Evidence of this can be seen in his lack of
response to the ﬁnal exam question dealing with calculating the number of calories given

off by alcohol.

136

98. If 13.7 ml of water is heated from 17 degrees C to 43 degrees C when an alcohol
burner is placed under it, how many heat calories were given off by the alcohol?
SHOW YOUR WORK! Mm

Response: (he respghee given)
Carl’s small group had run through this set of activities very quickly. Carl, Judy and

Tammy ran most of the tests and took down the data, then reported the numbers to Joan
who did all of the calculations. Carl's records indicate that he was capable of the
mathematics required to do this question. During his small group's work on this topic he
was not involved in doing the calculations -- so when it came time to do similar
calculations on the test he did not appear to be able to do them. In this small group the
only student who answered this question was Joan.

Carl’s unwillingness to engage in negotiation with the science content and explore
these issues in depth with the teacher or his peers limited his ability to develop
understanding. None of the members of Carl’s small group appeared to have the
psychological investment in learning the science concepts that Newmann states as criteria
for engagement. The level of engagement of the members of Carl's small group made it
questionable whether Carl was capable of developing understanding consistent with
(science literacy considering learning disabilities and regardless of teaching style or
technique.

1.!.’ I.1.I .' I IeIn II 'I I .'I ..' r e I I "1' I heIr ' I 'I. nin

Like Josh, Carl had difﬁculty developing understanding that was tied to a series of
class discussions or laboratory activities. Carl succeeded most often in gaining
information about more complex areas when the material was covered over and over and
used in multiple ways. That he was able to gain information through this technique can

be seen in his response to the question about what is needed to keep a cell alive.

137

97. Diagram a cell and show all of the substances that must enter and leave the cell to
keep it alive. Then, tell what the two curved arrows mate your cell represent.
Finally, list three activities cells engage in to maintain life. MM

     

Response:
AA
is O me
Let _Q2
H29 ﬂZQ
v_it._Q heat
9.3
ML.

 
  
 

What is not clear from Carl’s response was what he understood about this diagram. The
diagram shows that he could reproduce something which was put on the board many
times during the semester, but it does not give a great deal of insight into Carl’s
understanding about cells. At one level these three answers seem to demonstrate a
moderate level of understanding. In examining Carl’s class notes this represents more of
his ability to recall phrases and diagrams than his understanding. This above diagram
was drawn for students on a daily basis for students and used as a reference point for
class discussion for a two week period, and was used as a reference point for other
follow-up discussions. A little more evidence of Carl’s understanding or lack of
understanding can be seen in his response to the ﬁnal exam question that asked about cell
theory.

92. State the modern cell theory. 1W
ReSPonse Wile

138

Similar to the diagram above, the three main parts of the cell theory were discussed on a
daily basis for a two week period. Another example of Carl’s ability to duplicate
drawings can be seen in his response to the following question from his ﬁnal exam.

94. Diagram the ATP - ADP cycle and include where energy comes from, where it is
used, and what is happening with the phosphate groups. 3 get gt 5 mints.

Response:

ATP)

The class had discussed that photosynthesis and respiration were complimentary
reactions, that the products of one were the reactants of the other. Carl translated this
information into the following response on his ﬁnal exam.

95. Write out the general formula for cellular respiration and the general formula for
photosynthesis. (NOTE: You can use words or symbols) 9_getgf_LQmint§t

Response:

Photos nthesis

 

Respiration

139

Carl had difﬁculty in developing an understanding of the concepts of: the structure of
matter, the ﬂow of matter and energy, cells and heredity. There is little evidence from
transcripts of class or small group work or from Carl’s written work to support stating
that Carl had reached a level of understanding consistent with scientiﬁc literacy of these
concept areas. On the remainder of the multiple choice part of the exam which covered
these concepts Carl averaged between 30 and 40% correct answers. The class average
for these sections was 75 to 80% correct. Evidence of Carl's lack of understanding can
be seen in his response or absence of response from sample items from tests on these
topics. The following example comes from the test on the structure of matter.

Name three major families of organic molecules found in living cells/tissues.
After each, name the ORGANIC units that make them up. (6 pts possible/ 2 points

earned)
Emily u_nit
a. amino acid
b. lipids fats
sugers

Unlike Josh, who was consistent between unit tests and the ﬁnal exam, Carl’s ﬁnal exam
showed an increased level of understanding of the major concepts. On the parallel
question on his ﬁnal Carl wrote:

96. Name the three families of organic compounds found in living cells and after
each, tell what organic units form chains to make them up. Mm.

Response: W

C)“ r '-

Carl still lacked an understanding of the concept, but his response does indicate that he
had more of the pieces than he had when taking the unit test. Carl really struggled with

the concepts in this class that called for students to make connections between activities

140

and a series of class discussion. There is little evidence from transcripts of class or small
group work or from Carl’s written work to support stating that he had reached a level of

understanding consistent with scientiﬁc literacy of these concept areas.

Summary

Carl’s level of involvement in this class was tied directly to the involvement of his
small group. When Carl’s group got involved in a activity or topic Carl was involved.
He worked with his small group on the problem, sometimes even taking on a leadership
role in the small group. He pushed and asked questions until he thought the task was
done. When his small group did not get engaged in the activity, Carl did not get
involved. The teacher had only marginal impact on Carl’s level of engagement in the
class.

This case study of Carl provides insight into some of our at-risk students and
some of the characteristics that make science literacy less accessible for them. In many
ways Carl is typical of many special education at-risk students who avoid negotiation with
adults. Unlike Josh who was able to negotiate successfully with authority ﬁgures, Carl
was able to only negotiate with his peers. Difﬁculties in negotiation with the teacher and
with peers can play a major part in any student’s ability to engage in activities and develop

understanding, regardless of learning style and ability.

CHAPTER 6

The Case of Heidi

Introduction

The ﬁnal case study is the story of Heidi. The case study begins with a short
description of Heidi. Most of the information in this section comes from the student's
ﬁle, student interviews and informal conversations, parent discussions, and conversations
with past or current teachers, video and audio tape records and ﬁeld notes. The case then
shifts to a classroom focus and how Heidi interacted in large and small group settings
roughly in chronological order of the semester. The data for this portion of the case study
came from the data sources and analysis described in Chapter 3. The case will then move
on to a discussion of the three research questions in light of Heidi's story, concluding

with a discussion of the implications for Heidi's engagement and understanding.

Who is Heidi?

Heidi was a learning disabled student with difﬁculties in reading and writing at
grade level. Heidi was identiﬁed as learning disabled in the second grade. Shortly after
identiﬁcation she was placed in a special education resource class where she received
additional support. As a ninth grader at the junior high Heidi had been included in a few
general education classes on a trial basis, but received most of her instruction in the
special education resource room. At the time of this study Heidi was a tenth grader. At
the end of the ninth grade Heidi was reading and writing at the third grade level. Heidi
had difﬁculty in processing verbal information. She had been tutored in note-taking
skills, but most of her former special education teachers did not believe that her skills
were adequate for most classes. Heidi was also classiﬁed as emotionally impaired. A

few of Heidi's records described her as a student with low self concept and a "short

141

142

temper." Other records indicated that Heidi was easily aggravated and had a history of
violent outbursts against other students. Heidi had a history of being confrontational with
teachers and peers, that brought her to the attention of school administration and
counselors several times a year.

In spite of this history, during the time of this study Heidi engaged successfully in
class discussion and worked well in her small group. Heidi was very open and willing to
interact with both adults and with her peers. She seemed to want, and sometimes
demanded attention from adults and from her peers. Throughout her records you ﬁnd
notations from teachers and other professionals that described Heidi as open and
cooperative, or quotes like, “gets along well with other students.” Most of Heidi’s
teachers described her as an “intense kid.” When asked about her work habits in other
classes her teachers provided a range of responses. Following is a sample of these
responses:

She is trying, but .....

She can hold her own in an argument.

She’s too hard on herself.

She can get pretty aggressive.

She gets all her work in.

She really struggles with reading.
Hard to tell what is going on with her.

Heidi’s small group was composed of four students: Heidi; Chad (an
academically at-risk student, with a high truancy rate, and several problems with the legal
system); Todd (an all around “A” student, who excelled in the ﬁne arts); and Jared (an
“A” student who was very interested in science and mathematics). In the biology class in
this study it was common for there to be three or four students who came to class early
(20 to 30 minutes before school) to ask questions, ﬁnish up homework, read or talk with
the teacher or researcher. Like Josh, Heidi often came into the class early in the morning.

She spent the time before class talking with any of the adults in the room or any other

143

students who came in early to work or “kill time.” One of Heidi’s best friends was deaf.
Heidi had learned sign language and it was common for both of these students to be in the
classroom before school having a conversation. Sometimes Mr. L (who also knew sign
language) entered their conversations before class.

Like Josh, Heidi had a curiosity about the world around her and was interested in
developing explanations. She was willing to play with ideas and didn’t always demand to
know the “right” answers. What she did demand though, of the members of her small
group and of the teacher, were detailed explanations. If Heidi still had questions after an
explanation was made she continued to pursue those questions until she was satisﬁed
with her understanding. Heidi had a persistence in her need to understand that Josh are
Carl did not possess. This sometimes caused conﬂict when others wanted to move on to
the next topic. Heidi’s curiosity and willingness to explore ideas also meant that she was
more comfortable in a science class that focused on real-world problems. This
willingness to explore ideas and persistent need to understand provided Heidi with a good
foundation for participation in this biology class, especially at the beginning of the year
when many of the questions and activities dealt with things she could encounter in day-to-
day life and for which she could develop adequate explanations.

Heidi often volunteered in class discussion, and brought ideas that were discussed
in her small group to the whole class discussion and vice versa. When her small group
asked her to take on recording duties she agreed, but only after saying, "You know I
don't write well." Because of her willingness to help the group, she often got the job of
getting lab materials and helping with clean-up while other members of her group ﬁnished
writing up the laboratory or prepared for the group presentation. Heidi was very good at
setting up the laboratory apparatus and had the skills needed to perform experiments. She
was methodical in following directions. She was conﬁdent of her ability to do well in

laboratory settings.

144

Heidi seemed to need frequent positive feedback, and she demanded it from the
teachers and from the members of her small group. Heidi frequently left her small group
to bring the teacher or researcher over to the table to verify information. She did this on
her own initiative, not at the direction of the other members of her small group. Further
evidence of her need for feedback comes from the audio tapes of her small group where
several times during each class period she asked members of her group questions like:
Like this?; Is this OK?; Is this all right?; Could you read this and see if I've got it all?.
These are questions that were commonly heard in transcripts of small groups, but Heidi's
frequency of asking these questions was higher than other students in the class. She did
not appear to have a good image of herself as a learner so she needed feedback before she
moved on. Once Heidi got feedback she got right back into the conversation or activity.
Heidi regularly took on the group spokesperson role when it came time to share the
results of small group work with the class. She represented the views of the group and
her own views during these presentation. Heidi frequently volunteered her ideas during
class discussions. Heidi usually offered her views in abbreviated terms, but when
encouraged was usually willing to elaborate.

Heidi's parents were active participants in her schooling, though not quite as
active as Carl's parents. They responded to the mid-term reports, returned phone calls,
attended parent-teacher conferences and looked for ways of getting more involved in
Heidi's education. Both Heidi and Carl had parents who tried to be advocates for them in
the school system. Their parents seemed to view their child's education as a joint venture

between parents and the school.

Heidi's Story - Finding and creating a role in a science class

At the beginning of the semester Heidi routinely participated in class activities and
discussions. Often showing evidence of the type of engagement described by Newsman
et a1 (Newmann, 1992). A great deal of the time during the ﬁrst 5 weeks of school was

spent in small groups exploring questions and working on problems. Heidi was willing

145

to ﬁght for her ideas and did not feel strongly about needing to agree with her group, but
became angry if she felt that Chad, Todd and Jared were not giving her ideas adequate
attention. The beginning of the semester offered Heidi a great deal of opportunity to use
her strengths. Her learning and emotional disabilities sometimes got in the way of her
ability of communicating her understanding in productive ways, but they did not limit her
participation either in small group or large group activities.

At the beginning of the year the focus was on helping students develop and reﬁne
their problem solving skills, practice their observational skills, and to get comfortable
with using writing in science in ways that might have been very different from what they
had experienced in the past. During the ﬁrst week of school the students were given a
live earthworm, some damp paper towel, a hand lens and a toothpick. The students were
asked to determine which end was the head of the animal. They were asked to write
down their observations‘about the worm and provide justiﬁcation for their claims.

Following is a short transcript from Heidi's small group.

September 10
Heidi I’ll get the worm. We’ll need paper towel and the other stuff too.
Todd I’ll get the paper towel.
Jared I think the other stuffs back on the counter. I’ll get it.
Chad Anyone got some paper and a pencil I can borrow?
Jared Yeah, just rip some out of my notebook.

Todd There’s a pen on my desk (Points to where he was sitting.)
Heidi Here’s the worm - it’s pretty active. (Puts the worm down on the paper
that Todd as put on the table.)

Chad Let’s go ﬁshin!
Heidi 'Ihat’s mean!

Jared Well it’s headed in that direction -- so that’s probably the head.

Todd

Chad
Heidi

Todd
Jared
Heidi

Todd
Chad
Heidi
Jared

Todd

Jared

Todd

Heidi

146

I’ll take notes. OK so we can say that the heads is the end the directs the
worm.

Let’s stab it and see what it does.
Don’t you dare! Mr. L said to just “tickle” it. Be careful! ( To Chad)
(Chad pokes at both ends of the worm)

I think you’re right ( to Jared) that end moved away from him (Chad)
quicker.

Looks like that end moves, stops, then the rest of the worm moves up.
Does it ever do that with the other end?

Nope -- He’s right -- that’s what it’s doing. Do you have that written
down?

Yeah -- just a minute -- OK I’ve got it.
We could spin it around and see if it gets dizzy.
That’s dumb.

Let’s ﬂip it over and see how it gets right side up. Like this..( rolls worm
over - and the rest of the group watches the worm right itself - they
repeated this several times.) See that end always rolls ﬁrst -- let’s write it
down.

OK -- got it. What else?

(The group went on to test ideas related to light and dark environments,.
Then the teacher told them they had just a couple minutes to wrap up.)

OK - so do you ( To Todd) have everything written down?

Yeah it’s right here -- but I don’t want to report it -- I did the writing
someone else can report.

I’ll do it -- give me the paper so I can see if I can read your writing. .....
Yeah I’ll do this I think I can read it all.

(Heidi volunteered her group ’3 response ﬁrst when Mr. L called for
reports. She went through what was written -- and elaborated when
questioned. The other members of her small group did not add to her
descriptions when given the option.)

This transcript and the follow-up description demonstrated Heidi’s level of participation in

both her small group and in large class settings. She entered these conversations

147

expecting and wanting to be considered an equal. The tension between Heidi and Chad
that was suggested in this transcript escalated at times during the semester.

Once the tension escalated to a dangerous level. Chad had missed several days of
school and came back as his group was recording the results of a set of tests to see if
yeast was alive. One of the tests involved collecting a sample of the gas that yeast
produces. The gas was collected in an inverted test tube and the students were getting
ready to test it with a glowing splint to see if the gas was carbon dioxide or oxygen.
Chad grabbed the test tube away from Heidi, turned it over, took a whiff and said, “It’s
just air.” Todd and Jared just looked at Chad as if they couldn’t believe that he had done
that. Heidi aggressively confronted him out about messing things up. Chad called her a
bitch, then took the glowing splint and tried to burn her with it. When questioned about
the incident they both reported having “got into it” during the summer. When pressed for
details both Chad and Heidi talked about a long history of confrontations that occurred in
school and out of school. Chad and Heidi had a tenuous relationship at the best of times,
at the worst it was a hostile relationship.

At the time of this incident Chad also provided a glimpse of the struggle that at-
risk and special education students have with science concepts. When I pulled Chad out
in the hall I asked him why he had tipped over the test tube. He said, “We did this last
year in IPS. This is stupid, I’m not working with that bitch.” When I asked him if he
knew why we were looking for carbon dioxide this time he said, “N 0, but we did this last
year.!” I asked, “With yeast?” He said, “No, but we’ve done this before!” He was not
connecting the fact that we were looking for evidence of life with the yeast. He saw no
purpose for doing this activity. He did not see the glowing splint test as a tool that could
be used in multiple settings. Chad had done the activity before, he knew the results, and
didn’t know why we were doing it again.

When asked during an interview to compare this science class with science classes

that she had in the past, Heidi said the following:

148

This is different -- I think that I like this better. Here we are always doing
something. Last year we did a lot of worksheets and stuff like that. I like
doing things. Sometimes here we get to be ourselves -- we have to make
our own decisions. I like that.
Heidi really valued working with her small group. In her journal she wrote:
Working in a small group is really good. That way if you don’t
understand something someone can explain it. You can also divide up the
work and you don’t have to do everything.
When asked to elaborate on this during her mid-term interview Heidi talked about getting
ideas from her group members. She also talked about how important it was for her to
listen when others were talking so that she could learn.

Heidi could usually report what is happening in the experiment, but was not
always able to apply the knowledge she gained in the laboratory to the broader context of
the science concept. She often did not see connections between concepts discussed in
class and laboratory activities. In her small group work Heidi often volunteered an
opinion on how things should be done when asked, or volunteered to report back to the
whole class. She did not necessarily add constructive comments, but was very open with
her opinions. When the small group activity was procedural in nature where students
were asked to set up the laboratory in a speciﬁc way and collect speciﬁc data, Heidi often
accepted or tried to take a leadership role in her small group. Heidi rarely took a cognitive
leadership role in her small group and accepted most roles and tasks that were suggested.
This can be seen in an excerpt from an interview done with Heidi about half way through
the semester.

Interviewer Do you like working in a small group?
Heidi Yeah -- It’s great. Jared and Todd are really nice. Chad is a creep.
Interviewer Why do you say that?

Heidi Jared and Todd listen to me and help me. Chad just goofs off. But
he’s not here much anyway.

Interviewer How do Todd and Jared help you?

149

Heidi They tell me what to write down, and explain things. They let me do
things, like set things up and talk during our report to the class. Chad
just hits me. He’s a creep.

Interviewer Do you ever explain things to Todd and Jared?

Heidi Not really -- they’re smart.

Chad missed quite a bit of school so it was usually just the three of them, Heidi, Todd
and Jared, working together. Heidi talked a bit about Chad and how things get “messed
up” when he is there. The other group members have also talked about how hard it is to
get things done when he was there. Since Chad missed a lot of school he usually did not
know what was going on, but when he came back he was a vocal member of the group.

Like Josh, Heidi found the material covered during the ﬁrst part of the semester
easier to work with and understand. Heidi's level of participation was strongly
inﬂuenced by her ability to make sense of the material. The concepts did not have to be
intrinsically interesting to her for her to try to make sense of the material. She tried very
hard to make sense of the material throughout the semester. She did not appear to fade
out of the conversations like Josh and Carl did during the more difﬁcult topics. She did
not start doodling or doing other homework. Her gaze didn't leave the teacher but you
could see in her body language during class discussions when she was starting to get
frustrated. She sat up straighter in her chair, or would sigh and ﬂop against the back of
her chair.

Heidi had a consistent behavior pattern when she perceived the material as too
abstract or complex. She put down her pencil from taking notes, then picked it up,
started writing again, crossed it out, ﬂipped to a new page of paper, wrote a few words,
crossed them out, put down her pencil and pushed her notebook to the front edge of her
desk, crossed her arms and leaned back in her desk. She looked like she was still paying
attention to the discussion but she did not appear to know how to write notes about it.
This pattern was ﬁrst observed mid-October during a class discussion about what it meant

for something to be a "theory." Parts of this conversation went on over a two--day

150

period, and it indicated a behavior pattern that became more common as the semester
progressed.

At the beginning of the semester when Heidi found the material difﬁcult to
understand, she was persistent in asking for clariﬁcation from both the teachers and her
small group. One example of this comes from a class discussion and a follow-up
conversation with her small group that addressed the question: How does yeast make

bread rise? The following excerpt is from the class discussion:

September 16

Mr. L.

OK - So I think we all agree that it is yeast that makes bread raise.
Everyone comfortable with that? (most heads in the room are nodding the
afﬁrmative) OK so how or why does yeast do that? Anyone? (Heidi and
a couple other students have their hands up) ..... Heidi?

Heidi Yeast might expand when it gets warm. When you bake bread you have
to let it stand in a warm place for a long time while it raises.

Mr. L. OK -- so it might be the heat. What do you mean when you say the yeast
expands?

Heidi It could be like a balloon. You know... like if you take a helium balloon
outside in the winter it shrinks and when you bring it inside it puffs back
up. Maybe when they package the yeast they freeze dry it and when you
put it in warm water and a warm place it puffs up again.

Mr. L. That's an interesting guess. Anyone else got a different idea?

St. 1 Maybe it reacts like the baking soda and vinegar did in the raison lab and
makes bubbles and those bubbles make the bread raise.

St. 2 Yeah, bread looks like it's all made up of little bubbles.

Heidi That could be the individual yeast's.

St. 1 You don't put in that much yeast to make all those bubbles.

Heidi How do you know? Yeast is pretty small, a package might have enough if
they got real big.

St. 4 But the bubbles are small not big -- otherwise the bread would have to
look like Swiss cheese.

Mr. L. OK -- so maybe yeast gives off small bubbles. What are those bubbles

made of?

151

St. 3 Air

Mr. L. What do you mean by "air?" Room air like we have here or one of the
gases that makes up our air?

St. 3 I don't know -- just air.

Mr. L. How could we test it to see what kind of gas is given off?

Heidi Do you mean the gas inside the yeast or the gas yeast might give off?
Mr. L. The gas they give off.

Heidi Oh...but what about the heat idea?

St. 2 Maybe yeast gives off more bubbles when it's warm and less when it's
cold.

Mr. L. OK so let's list the things we want to test. (goes to chalk board and
begins to write) First we want to ﬁnd out what gas the yeast gives off,
and we need to know how temperature affects the number of bubbles it
gives off... what else do we need to know?

(Mr. L waits for a couple minutes and there were no additional responses)
OK why don't you head back to the lab (and their small groups) and
decide how we could test these things and see if you can come up with the
things that we should test.
Heidi pushed to see how her ideas of heat were related to the discussion. She had ﬁrst
brought up heat and thought the idea had been rejected by the teacher and the class but
then saw heat coming back into the conversation and she wasn't sure if this was different
from her idea or still her idea so she pushed for clariﬁcation and got it. The nature of

Heidi's participation and her persistence in demanding clariﬁcation changed when

concepts became more abstract or complex.

Heidi’s story -- Modification of a role

As the term progressed the concepts became more abstract and less connected to
everyday experiences. Heidi had difﬁculty dealing with the complexity. As the concepts
became more abstract and the types of activities shifted to deal with these abstract ideas

Heidi’s learning and emotional disabilities started to play a larger role in her participation

152

in class. Heidi's participation in large class discussion nearly ceased. The pattern
described earlier of pushing away her notebook and putting down her pencil became
almost a daily event. The number of pages of notes that she had during the second half of
the semester is less than half than she had during the ﬁrst half of the semester, while Todd
and Jared from her small group had roughly twice as many notes for the second half of
the semester than they had during the ﬁrst part of the semester.

As the material became more complex, Heidi also started seeking additional
conﬁrmation from the teacher. Before writing a conclusion for a laboratory activity she
checked with Todd or Jared and asked them if they had checked out their conclusions
with the teacher. If they reported that they had not checked it out she would still write it
down, but then say, "I'm going to go ask him if this is enough." She also periodically
brought her laboratory reports in before school and asked one of the teachers to read
through it to see if it was right. This was a change from earlier in the semester when she
had conﬁdence in her answers. Earlier in the semester she rarely asked the teacher for
conﬁrmation about her answers. She always asked the members of her small group, but
as the term progressed and the ideas became more complex she seemed to want or need
additional support and feedback. Where Carl recognized how his learning style
inﬂuenced and sometimes limited his access to class discussions and developing
understanding, Heidi gave no indication of this knowledge about herself.

Heidi struggled on quizzes and tests. She often went into tests fairly conﬁdent in
her understanding. When asked right after the test how she thought she did, she usually
responded in an up-beat and positive manner. After getting her score she was frustrated
that she hadn't done better. On the day that she took one of the tests in early November
Heidi wrote in her journal:

The test was okay, some parts were easy, some hard. I think it went over

everything we have talk about. When I study for the test I used my notes and
book I understand almost everything, it just get confusing that all.

153

The following day after she had gotten back her test and found out that she had failed it,
she wrote:

On this last test I got an E. I don’t know how I got an B. At the beginning of

year you said if we did all our work and really tried the tests ‘d be easy. I did all

my work and studied my notes but I ﬂunked. I don’t understand!
Periodically, Heidi’s frustration led to disruptive classroom behavior. She talked with the
teacher after he had gone over this test. She did not understand why some of her answers
were wrong. One of the questions that she thought she had answered correctly was her
description of how proteins are made. The question on the test was: In words or with
symbols describe how amino acids bond to form proteins. Heidi wrote:

I don’t remember what is what, but I know that two yellow and 1 red make water.

You take the model a part and you take 1 yellow, 1 red and hook it to the model.

That how I understand it. Then they look like dogs.
She could not see how her explanation was different from the one shared in class. The
words and actions she used to convey her frustration were often things like: “This is
stupid!” or “This is boring.” Depending on the context this seemed to mean, “I don’t
understand.” or “I’m confused.” Often the same concept or idea that would prompt one
of Heidi's outbursts in class became the source of a question the following morning
before class. Heidi regularly came in after a test for an interview throughout the semester.
When the concepts were more concrete in nature she was usually able to demonstrate
greater understanding than was apparent from her test. During these interviews she
elaborated on her written responses and could bring in other examples of the concept. As
the concepts became more abstract and complex, follow-up interviews with her indicated
that she often did not have a good understanding of the concepts. During interviews on
these concepts she usually repeated what she had originally written down, or she used
phrases similar to Todd or Jared's responses. When probed further about these
responses she could not elaborate on her ideas or thoughts.

Heidi’s role in her small group also underwent changes as the concepts became

more abstract. She continued to volunteer to do parts of the activity but she volunteered

154

for more of the “lab technician” jobs of gathering materials, setting up the equipment,
timing events, and cleaning up. She left the conversations and decision making about
ideas that should be included in the conclusion to Todd and Jared. She always asked
them to explain what they meant in their writing, and she copied down their work and
sometimes put it in her words, but she rarely participated in the conversations that
developed the explanations. When asked one day why she didn’t ask Jared or Todd to
help her with the clean-up of a particularly large and messy set up she said, “I can do this
and give them time to think and argue about the conclusion. If they helped with this we
wouldn’t have time to ﬁnish. I can do this.”

Heidi’s view of herself as a learner began to change as the concepts became more
abstract and complex. An example of this can be seen in a description and transcript from
a lab near the end of the semester. The students were studying cell membranes and the
process of osmosis. They ﬁlled dialysis tubing with a mixture of glucose, and starch
solution. This was placed in a beaker that contained water, iodine and glucose test-tape.
Students were advised to tie the tubing tightly so that it could not leak, and to wash it off
before putting it in the beaker. They were looking to see if starch or glucose or both
could pass through the dialysis tubing. Students were cautioned to be careful, because it
would become obvious if they weren’t. They were also told they would be sharing the
results with the rest of the class. Each small group was supposed to make two set ups so
that the class could check for reliability of the results.

Heidi and Chad prepared one of the set-ups and Jared and Todd prepared the other
set-up. Todd and Jared had not tied the tubing tightly and when placed in the beaker a
thin stream of black streamed from the end of the tubing as the starch escaped into the
iodine solution. The set-up that Heidi and Chad prepared did not leak. The test-tape in
the beaker started turning green, indicating that glucose had passed through the

membrane, but the water did not turn darker, so they concluded that starch had not come

155

through the membrane. Following is part of the conversation at their table as they looked

at their results.

January 19

Jared
Heidi
Chad
Todd

Heidi

Jared
Heidi

Well the test-tape is green so the glucose came out.

Yeah -- ours turned green too.

But the starch didn’t because the water isn’t turning black.

Our is sort of turning. Maybe some starch can get out.

(Heidi takes a close look at their beaker)

No it’s not. You did it wrong. It’s coming out the end. Yours is leaking.
Did you twist it like they said or just tie it?

I don’t know. We just did it.

And you guys thought WE were the dummies! We did it right -- you
screwed it up!

(She then called over the teacher for conﬁrmation - after getting
conﬁrmation she repeated her statement loudly so that the whole class
could hear her.)

You guys thought we were the dummies -- but WE did it right!

There was no evidence from video tape or audio tape during the semester that Todd or

Jared had ever called Heidi a “dummy” or had intentionally dismissed her ideas. When

Heidi made this outburst in class it raised concerns for the teacher and researcher about

what might have been missed in our observations of this group. From all outward

appearances Heidi’s group seemed to work very well together, but her outburst made us

wonder what we might have missed. When no evidence from video and audio-tape could

be found to explain Heidi’s outburst, Heidi was asked how things were going in her

small group and if things had changed since the November interviews. Heidi reported

that there had been no changes, that she really liked her group and that they worked well

together. She was then asked speciﬁcally about the January 19th lab and her outburst and

156

she said, “Oh... I didn’t mean Todd and Jared they would never say stuff like that. I
meant everyone ...you know... everyone in school knows... you know who’s smart and
who’s dumb. It was nice to know that even the smart ones can goof it up big time!”
Heidi was not reacting to the events of the one activity but instead was expressing her

general belief about herself as a learner.

Discussion of Research Questions
The case study of Heidi presents two slightly different patterns of negotiation.
There was the pattern of negotiation that Heidi used when the material was more concrete
and she and could make connections with real world problems. There was a different
pattern of negotiation that she used when the concepts were more complex and abstract or
when she did not see connections between the concepts discussed and her day to day life.
In addressing each of the research questions each of these patterns will be discussed. In
Chapter 1 I introduced three research questions that have guided this work.
' n ' i ho 'ts R re a '
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What
are the implications for developing understanding?
Neggm' tioh with Peer;
How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they

negotiate their roles with their peers? What are the implications for student
engagement in the class? What are the implications for developing understanding?

i ' t n r m
What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that aﬁect a special
education/at-risk student ’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science
community? What are the implications for student engagement in the class? What are
the implications for developing scientiﬁc understanding?
For Heidi the most inﬂuential of these forms of negotiation was her negotiation with her
small group. The role which she was able to negotiate with her small group inﬂuenced
her negotiation with the teachers and with the science content. Likewise, it is the

culmination of each of these types of negotiation that in the end determines the level of

157

engagement and understanding which is developed, so this chapter concludes with a
discussion of the consequences of Heidi's negotiations for engagement and
understanding.
1 er
How do special education and at-risk students interact in small groups? How do they
negotiate their roles with their peers?

Heidi was successful in her negotiations with her small group. Unlike some
special education students who are ostracized by members of their small group, Heidi was
an accepted member of her small group in most instances. When she was on task her
views were listened to and considered by the members of her small group. Her
comments were not automatically dismissed by Todd and Jared as unimportant. At the
beginning of the semester Heidi’s ideas were discussed among the members of group
then rejected or adopted as part of the group explanation. Toward the end of the semester
Heidi had negotiated a role for herself in the small group but that role usually prevented
her from joining the conversations which developed the group’s explanations. She was
often given or accepted the role of “group spokesperson” and reported the explanation but
rarely helped in its development. She was also given or accepted the role of "go-fer," or
laboratory technician taking responsibility for gathering and setting up the test or
experiment.

At the beginning of the semester when the class was dealing with solving real
world problems Heidi took an active role in working on the problems. Her ideas were
listened to and given consideration. This pattern changed when the science concepts
became more abstract. The beginning of this shift can be found in the beginning of the
yeast experiments, in early October. It was during this set of experiments that Heidi
started having difﬁculty linking and connecting ideas, and the laboratory activities started

to become isolated events.

158

Unlike Josh, Heidi did not wander away from her group when things got
difﬁcult. She was sent away by the members of her group to get the materials that were
needed. She was often excluded from the conversations which shaped her small group's
design of an experiment. After the event she could recount what her group did, but she
did not understand why they did the experiment in that way. When she was not getting
materials or setting things up Heidi spent most of her time listening or copying what Todd
and Jared had written. She was still actively working with them most of the time, but she
was not leading the conversations nor participating in them to the level that she did when
the class was working on real--world problems. As mentioned earlier, with Josh, this
shift is not directly tied to the time in the semester but to the topics.

Heidi’s laboratory reports did not always reﬂect this change in negotiations in her
small group. The laboratory reports reﬂected Todd and Jared’s understanding. Todd and
Jared were always willing to share what they had written down with Heidi. Heidi always
asked questions, but she seemed to lack the ability to process information and make
connections that was needed to ask the type of questions that could have helped her
develop an understanding of some of the concepts. Further evidence of Heidi’s
understanding or lack of understanding can be found in her journal entries and on her
tests. Heidi failed most tests and quizzes even when she scheduled follow-up interviews.

' h ' 't e r n 'v
How do special education and at-risk students negotiate their roles in a science class
with a teacher?

Heidi actively negotiated with the teacher when she was struggling to understand
something. She asked questions and asked for clariﬁcation. Usually she asked for
support in constructive ways; other times the words and actions that she used to negotiate
with the teacher got in the way of her being able to get the support that she needed. Heidi
asked questions of the teacher during large class settings, when the teacher stopped by the
small group or before school if she had a question or wanted clariﬁcation. She was

willing to defend her opinion to the teacher and his peers.

159

Heidi’s negotiations with the teacher were also negotiations with written text.
Heidi had two main purposes for writing: taking or copying notes that she could study at
a later time and the writing that was to be turned in to the teacher. Since Heidi had
difﬁculty with writing and processing verbal information so that it could be written down,
she often struggled when it came to taking class notes. Learning to communicate through
writing is one of the underlying goals of this science class. Heidi’s tendency to copy
others' work and ideas limited the energy she devoted to original work and the ability to
develop understanding.

When the topic or activity had more to do with a day-to-day experience or was
less abstract, Heidi had an easier time taking notes in class. During these topics she wrote
more in her journals, laboratory reports and tests/quizzes. Throughout the semester Heidi
turned in most of her work. It was not always complete, but there was more there than
was missing. When the material was more complex or abstract the quality of the content
of Heidi's writing decreased. The following two journal entries were typical of her
writing in these two situations. The ﬁrst example comes from the discussion of how eggs
get fertilized.

Egg shells are really hard and things can't get through the shell very good. So the

eggs are probably fertilized inside the chicken before the shell gets made. Or the

sperm are really strong like acid and the rooster puts it on the egg after it is laid
and the egg heals it's self like a scab.
The second writing sample comes from the journal entry where students were asked to

write about organic molecules. Heidi wrote:

Organic molecules make up all living things. They are important to know about in
science classes.

When the concepts became more complex and were more abstract the patterns of
negotiation that were established earlier in the term seemed to break down. Under these
circumstances, Heidi's weaknesses became much more apparent and altered the nature of
her interaction with the teacher and her participation in class discussions. During large

class discussion Heidi stopped making eye contact with the teacher, but instead spent

160

most of the time working on homework from other classes, or just staring toward the
front of the room. Her eyes did not follow the movements of the teacher. When Heidi
did interact with the teachers the questions that she pursued were often procedural in
nature. Heidi's morning conversations with the teachers began to focus on questions that
were procedural in nature, such as: What were we supposed to read last night?; When is
.. due?
' it i n nte r mmuni

What are the conditions, characteristics and limitations that affect a special

education/at-risk student ’s ability to negotiate their roles in a school science

community?

When Heidi felt that she had something to contribute to the conversation or was
curious about a topic, she was a willing participant in both large class and small group
activities. It was during these times that Heidi was willing to make the psychological
investment in the class that could have led to developing understanding; at other times she
went through the motions but was not truly engaged in learning. Heidi's negotiation with
her peers and the role that she was able to negotiate in her small group was tied to her
negotiation with the teacher and with the science content and science community.

Heidi took a role in her small group that was comfortable for her and for her
peers. She took a supportive role which helped her small group accomplish their tasks
but did not threaten or push the intellectual conversations in her small group. She often
asked Todd and Jared questions about what was going on, but she rarely disagreed with
them or pushed their thinking about concepts. She and her peers were satisﬁed with the
relationship that had formed. It was productive in it's own way for each of them. Heidi
became an accepted member of a " good group" who was productive and brought
interesting ideas to class discussions, and Todd and Jared did not have to concern
themselves with some of the mechanical or technical aspects of the set-up and clean up of
the activities. Heidi's laboratory reports were of higher quality than they would have
been without Todd and Jared's support, and she gave them the time they needed to

develop good explanations to the activities. They rarely had to be concerned about a three

161

or four way compromise or negotiation about an idea, once Todd and Jared agreed Heidi
and Chad agreed.

If the class discussion went on for a prolonged period of time Heidi had a harder
time staying with the conversation and appeared to get frustrated with the topic or
discussion. Heidi wrote the following journal entry on October 26th:

I think this is fun in away. When we do labs and the whole class talks its fun.

But when one teacher talks the whole hour its really boring. Because its 1st hour

and were not all the way awake and when the teacher talks the whole hour, it

makes you want to go to sleep. I think its intesting talking about cells and

microscopes. Its fun looking at stuff through the microscope. Thats what I think

about this class. Well I also think that all the cell stuff and microscope stuff is

important. The yeast was important too but not as important as the microscope.
Heidi usually tried to listen in class but she got bored or frustrated with the material and
faded and then needed to raise questions with the members of her small group. This
pattern was adequate for initiating and sustaining her negotiations with her peers, but it
limited what those negotiations could be about. It was also adequate for developing
understanding of some concepts, but left other concepts beyond her capacity to
understand.

Traditionally students have learned science inquiry as a set of rules and steps
known as “the scientiﬁc method.” Heidi maintained a belief that science was just a set of
these steps and procedures and was rarely able to bring to use an imagination and
inventiveness that is a big part of scientiﬁc inquiry. She tried to stay involved in the
conversations and was willing to put out ideas, but Heidi lacked the level of curiosity
about the world that characterized and inﬂuence Josh’s view of science. When class
discussion or lectures went on for extended periods of time she faded out of the
conversations, and relied on her small group to tell her what was important. When the
material became complex and abstract Heidi’s interaction and negotiation with the science
content and science community changed and she focused on trying to get things written

down. It was more difﬁcult for her to enter back into conversations and activities in her

small group, nor did Todd and Jared help her make an easy transition back into these

162

conversations so she made fewer contributions to the discussion in her small group and

started doing more procedural tasks.

Consequences for Engagement

In Chapter 2 I discussed a variation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the
implications of a student’s “comfort zone” on their participation in a class and ultimately
on their engagement and opportunity to develop understanding. The placement of a
comfort zone for a student meant that this was the domain where there were greater
opportunities for fulﬁlhnent of that need, not necessarily the fulﬁllment of the need. A
diagram representing Heidi at the beginning of the semester could have been drawn like
this:

     

Knowledge

 

Belonging Esteem

 

Figure 8 Heidi's Needs - Beginning of Semester

163

It was important for Heidi to understand the ideas but it was also very important for her to
belong with her group. At the beginning of the semester she was more willing to risk
having the teacher think less of her if she could understand the ideas and if her small
group continued to work with her. She was willing to take chances in large class settings
that she rarely took with her small group.

As the term progressed and the concepts become more complex and abstract a

diagram which represented Heidi’s needs might have looked something like this:

 
 

Knowledge

   

Esteem

 

Belonging

 

Figure 9 Heidi's Needs - Abstract Concepts

She believed that if she went through the motions of the class she would understand the
ideas; when she ﬁgured out that this was not true she focused more of her energy of

maintaining a good working relationship with her small group.

164

The following table gives a brief description of the ﬂow of concepts and themes
and Heidi’s level of participation in large and small group activities. The coding scheme
is the same which was described in Chapter 3 and summarized in Josh’s case study.
When coding for engagement the following categories were used: uninvolved-passive;

avoidant; observer; marginal participant; central participant.

I ate

165

 

 

'oe or eve o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oprc
Ewement
9/8 - 9/15 The Nature of Science and central or marginal
Problem Solving Techniques participant - conversation
9/ 16 - 10/8 Characteristics of Living Things central or marginal
and Using the Tools of Science participant - conversation
(metric system & microscope)
10/12 - Cell Theory marginal participant -
11/14 setting up activity
11/5 — 11/17 Cell Processes including Structure central or marginal
and Function participant - setting up
activity
I 11/18 - Atomic Structure, Biochemistry, marginal participant or
12/18 Chemical and Physical Change observer - setting up
activity
. 1/5- 1/ 15 Energy Transformations - marginal participant or
i Including Introduction to observer participant -
i Photosynthesis setting up activity
! 1/191/22 Diffusion/Osmosis/Hypertonic/ marginal participant or
Hypotonic/Isotonic observer - setting up
activity
1/25-1/27 Photosynthesis and Respiration marginal participant or

Figure 10 Class Activities and Heidi's Roles

 

 

observer - setting up
activity

166

As can be seen in this table, Heidi’s level of engagement remained somewhat
constant from topic to topic and within topics. For a few topics Heidi periodically took a
central role, in all topics she was willing to take at least a marginal role in the discussion.
Heidi was a student for whom the interactions within her small group was the major
inﬂuencing factor on her type engagement. From mid-October through the rest of the
semester Heidi remained an active, participating member of her small group but there was a
shift in participation in the conversations toward the more mechanical, routine aspects of

the activity.

Consequences for Understanding
r ' re ' i ie ti led

Using the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks
for Scientiﬁc Literacy (American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1993) as
a standard for describing the types of understanding necessary for science literacy, Heidi
never developed a strong sense of the Nature of Science. Heidi had a strong belief that
people working together could ﬁgure out things as she reported in her interview, she liked
working in small groups because they helped her understand things. Heidi believed that
knowledge was stable but there is little evidence that she believed that knowledge could
also change.

Heidi did not want any special treatment while taking the ﬁnal exam. She was
told the test could be read to her, she could take it in the resource room, or if she did not
ﬁnish during the hour she could come in at a later time and ﬁnish her test. She did not
select any of these options. There were 91 multiple choice questions on the test. During
questions that dealt with the nature of science and problem solving techniques she

answered 6 of the 10 correctly.

167

kil ' ' arti i ' ' ti i ui

Heidi maintained a more traditional view of scientiﬁc inquiry. She viewed the
scientiﬁc method as a set of rules and heading for jobs. Evidence for this could be seen in
a transcript from her small group. The students were given hypothetical problems or
observations and asked to develop a test or experiment that could be used in solving the
problem or explaining the observation. Heidi's small group was trying to design a test
that shows how ﬂies can land on the ceiling without falling off. The card they were
working from said: "Flies land on the ceiling without falling off and can stay there for a
long time. How does this happen?" Todd had read the question on the card to Heidi and

Jared (Chad was absent). The following transcript comes from their discussion.

Heidi OK -- so what is on the card is our problem -- right?

Jared Yeah -- sort of. I think we need to reword it though.

Todd Yeah how problem should be -- Why don't ﬂies fall when they land on
the ceiling?

Heidi How is that different from what is on the card?

Jared You expect things to fall from the ceiling and we have to show how ﬂies
are different.

Heidi Oh OK. The next thing we got to put down is observations.

Todd Maybe ﬂies have a sort of glue on their feet.

Heidi How do you observe that?

Todd No that could be one of our hypotheses.

Heidi What do you mean "one" of our hypotheses - you can only have one.

Jared No you can only test one at a time but you can have lots of different
guesses.

Todd Yeah they could also have suction cuplike things on their feet.

Jared Or they could be ﬂapping their wings really fast so we can't see it.

Todd No that doesn't make sense it would take too much energy, and they'd

just land on a different kind of surface.

168

Heidi Observations come next. What do we write down?.... We're doing this
wrong -- ﬁrst we have a problem, then observations, then our guess,
then the experiment and then we write what happened. We've got too
many guesses. This isn't what scientists do to solve a problem.

Like Carl, Heidi did not recognize the role of curiosity and creativity in scientiﬁc inquiry.
Similar to Josh and Carl, Heidi also did not understand the signiﬁcance and importance of
a uniﬁed system. Heidi placed more emphasis on implications for day to day life than
Carl, but it was less of on issue for her than it was for Josh. Heidi tried to make
connections to things in her day to day life, and struggled when it came to making
connections between a series of laboratory activities or class discussions.

One of the main goals of this biology class is for students to gain a better
understanding of the nature of science and science inquiry. An example of Heidi's
understanding of the nature of scientiﬁc inquiry can be seen in a response from her ﬁrst
test in this class. The students were given a problem which had not been discussed in
class. (Heidi's answers are in italic.)

PROBLEM: How are the zebra Mussels getting into the Great Lakes? Zebra

Mussels (Small ocean clam-like creatures) appeared in Lake Erie and the St. Claire

River (which are connected to the ocean by the St. Lawrence Seaway) and started
plugging up water inlets to large city water systems. (10 pts. possible/ 5 points

earned)

A scientist guesses that W
and tests it by W
W

The results were WW

CONCLUSION: WWW

Heidi had a general sense of the steps that are needed to explore a problem but she lacked
the ability to consider multiple options and design an experiment that might eliminate

some of the options.

-I.’ .I.1.I 3 I -Il'I t It” I _I -I 'III" 1' -I.IIrI I I- 'vitie I r..I' t'
W

Like Josh, when Heidi could tie ideas to things in her day-to-day life or directly to
laboratory activities she had a better chance of developing an understanding of the
concepts. When Heidi tied her explanation of the Law of Conservation of Energy to the
boat design activity that her small group did, she gave the teacher insight into her
understanding of the concept and received more points for her answer than she might

otherwise have received.

93. State the Law of Conservation of Energy and give an example to support your

statement. 3 gut gf 4 migts.
Response WWW

II1_' 1I1I In: IIut eI I’ , h’_ll IIIt 'wI I A t ’Illt IHIn't

Further evidence of this pattern can be seen in her response to the ﬁnal exam question that

dealt with calculating the number of calories given off by an alcohol burner.

98. If 13. 7 ml of water is heated from 17 degrees C to 43 degrees C when an alcohol
burner rs placed under it, how many heat calories were given off by the alcohol?

SHOW YOUR WORK! mm

 

 

 

Response:
3 4
4 26
13
-17 13.7 r3562 heat calories J
26 182
178
O
260
0
356
2

Heidi was intrigued by the idea of being able to ﬁgure out how many calories something

had, and understanding the process used to make those calculations. She also asked

170

several questions before class about the difference between food calories that are reported
on cans and boxes and the heat calories that we calculated in class.

Unlike Josh and Carl who were more able to make more sense of the topic when it
was related to energy transformations and tied to a familiar activity, Heidi was not able to
make that transition. The following example comes from the test on energy
transformation:

Alcohol has stored chemical energy. Where in an alcohol molecule is the energy

stored and what two kinds of energy show up if you burn the alcohol? (3 pts.
possible/2 pts. earned)

WWW.
Heidi had past experience with alcohol burners and had memorized information about the
products given off when alcohol was burned but she did not address the questions or talk
about kinds of energy in her answer. There is little evidence that Heidi could make
connections between science concepts and her day to day life, or see the connections
between the more abstract or complex science concepts. Heidi viewed science class as a
series of activities, but it is unclear that she saw the connections between the ideas. There
is little evidence from transcripts of class or small group work or from Heidi’s written
work to support stating the she had reached a level of understanding consistent with
scientiﬁc literacy for a majority of the concepts covered in this class. Further evidence of
this came from the multiple choice portion of her ﬁnal exam. On the ﬁnal exam questions
that dealt with the characteristics of living things Heidi answered 4 of the 5 questions
correctly. On the microscope portion of the exam Heidi answered 4 of the 5 questions

correctly. These scores were at or just below the class average.

-I-'r1I -I '1! I I.’I II. ’I I14I..'1. ’. I I- 'i'_ I t.0 ' ' I MI I '
Heidi had less success in developing an understanding of the concepts of: the
structure of matter, the ﬂow of matter and energy, cells and heredity. Heidi worked very

hard at memorizing information, but when asked to use the information in other settings

171

she had difﬁculty making the transformation. One example of this can been see in her
responses to sample items from tests on these topics. The following example comes from
the test on the structure of matter.

Name three major families of organic molecules found in living cells/tissues.
After each, name the ORGANIC units that make them up. (6 pts. possible/ 6 pts.

earned)

family m
a. protein amino acids
b. lipids fatti acids
c. carbos suger

Heidi had accurately ﬁlled in the chart yet later on the same test when the question asked:
What two ways do our cells use organic molecules? Brieﬂy explain what you mean. (4
pts possibleJ2 points earned) Heidi wrote:

T ' ner .It ort i wih ur els.
On the ﬁnal exam when she was asked a parallel question:

96. Name the three families of organic compounds found 1n living cells and after
each, tell what organic units form chains to make them up. _Q_get_gf_Qmint_s.

Response: ham; eleetcgﬂ, grgtghs
Heidi had memorized things for the unit tests, but was unable to use that same strategy for

her ﬁnal exam. When there was a time lapse between the discussions and lab activities
about a concept Heidi was not able to build connections between ideas and biology class
became a series of phrases and terms to be memorized.

Another example of this comes from the topic of cell structure and function. Like

Josh and Carl, Heidi could reproduce the diagram of the cell.

172

97. Diagram a cell and show all of the substances that must enter and leave the cell to
keep it alive. Then, tell what the two curved arrows inside your cell represent.
Finally, list three activities cells engage in to maintain life. Mm

Response:

 

Yet when it came to related questions about this topic there is little evidence of Heidi’s

understanding of the concepts.

92. State the modern cell theory. 1.011121115211115
Response. W

94. Diagram the ATP- ADP cycle and include where energy comes from, where it is
used, and what 1s happening with the phosphate groups. igeLgLipgmtst

Response:

ATP)
Photosynthesis
P/v PlespirationJ
/ (ADP)
E

E

173

95. Write out the general formula for cellular respiration and the general formula for
photosynthesis. (NOTE: You can use words or symbols) 3 get of IQ ggints.

Response: R s ir ' ni what w ath ea i what w
’Htos _- ‘ i i w ‘nfuc wat O '91-. I 1-1. . I 0__- t _0 . eft
! 1° 1 _

In Heidi’s responses to these questions you can see what diagrams, terms and phrases
that she memorized. There is also evidence of the struggles that she had in linking these
diagrams, terms and phrases into a form that made sense to her, and would help her
develop understanding of these concepts. There is little evidence from transcripts of class
or small group work or from Heidi's written work to support stating that she had reached
a level of understanding consistent with scientiﬁc literacy of these concept areas. On the
remainder of the multiple choice part of the ﬁnal exam which covered cells and energy
transformation Heidi averaged between 20 and 30% correct answers. The class average
for these sections was 75 to 80% correct. The role which Heidi negotiated for herself in
her small group limited her access to developing the kind of understanding called for to

become scientiﬁcally literate.

Summary

Heidi was a member of a well functioning group from all indications. Todd and
Jared were supportive of her and took the time to explain things to Heidi when she asked
questions. In their own way and with Heidi's help they isolated Heidi from the
conversations that could have helped her develop understanding of many of the key
concepts for this biology class. Heidi's small group worked well together and unlike the
members of Carl's group, Jared and Todd were truly engaged in the activities and wanted
to understand what was happening and understand the concepts as they were introduced.
Chad was absent such a large percentage of the time during this semester that he rarely

participated in the conversations. The conversations between Jared and Todd that

174

occurred in Heidi's group could have helped her develop a better understanding of the
concepts if she had participated in them.

This case study of Heidi provides insight into some of our at-risk students and
some of the characteristics that make science literacy less accessible for them. In many
ways Heidi is typical of many of these students and of all students. When Heidi could
make a connection to the material she paid close attention to class discussion and asked
the teachers questions during class and in other less formal settings. When she could
make those connections she worked with her small group on the problem, sometimes
even taking on a leadership role in the small group. She pushed and asked questions until
she had a better chance of understanding the concepts. When she could not make those
connections she withdrew from large class activities, and took a marginal role in small
group activities and discussions. Heidi's performance on her ﬁnal exam closely followed
the pattern and level of understanding seen in earlier tests and backs up observations of
her during small group discussion and large class discussions. Heidi did not leave any
questions on her ﬁnal exam unanswered even if the answer was short and incomplete.
This mirrored her pattern of classroom interactions where she always tried to answer
questions and participate in activities even if that meant taking a marginal role.

Complex and abstract concepts are something that everyone struggles at one time
or another with during their schooling and in day to day life, sometimes our strengths are
not adequate to help us develop more than superﬁcial explanations. Difﬁculties in
negotiation or the lack of negotiation with the teacher and with peers can play a major part

in a student’s ability to engage in activities and develop understanding.

CHAPTER 7
Implications of the Study

Overview

The stories of Josh, Carl and Heidi provide a glimpse into some of the things that
high school students experience in a biology class. In one sense these three students had
a great deal in common with each other and with the other students in their class. These
three students were all in the same biology class and had other classes during the day
together. They had spent several years together in the same classes. They had each been
diagnosed with difﬁculties in reading and writing. Each of them had received and
continued to receive academic support from special education staff within the district.
These were all characteristics that could be found by cross checking their records. Their
records also told a story about what ability tests the students had taken in the past, their IQ
scores, their reading level, the classes they had taken and the short and long term goals
that had been set for each student. This background information provided insight about
what the students came into the class with, but did not give a teacher much information or
insight into how to work with the student to maximize the student’s chance for success in
the class. On the surface these three students look very similar.

What was not seen in the descriptions provided in their records were speciﬁc
details about those traits, habits, skills, and interests that inﬂuenced how these students
interacted with the teachers, their peers and with the science content. For example, all
three students had notes added into their ofﬁcial records from previous years that stated
the student had difﬁculty relating to adults. As could be seen in the three case studies, the
way this played out in the biology class with each of the three students varied greatly.
Josh had a fairly open relationship with the teacher and with the researcher. He felt
comfortable asking questions before class, during class and during small group work.

There was another side of Josh that we saw on rare occasions during the semester where

175

176

he became sarcastic or belligerent with the teacher or peers. Often these outbursts were
tied to something that had occurred in another class or something that had happened
outside of school. Carl was consistent in avoiding direct contact with the teacher and
researcher whenever possible, yet used the members of his small group to get information
from the teacher and relied on the teacher to provide veriﬁcation if there was a dispute in
the school group or if he questioned their answer. Heidi also relied on the teacher to
provide veriﬁcation and asked questions before school, during class and during small
group activities. Sometimes Heidi asked these questions in ways that she received the
kind of help that she wanted and needed, other times she, like Josh, became sarcastic or
belligerent and closed off the conversation.

In this chapter I want to step back from the stories of the individual students to
compare and contrast how each of these students interacted in this biology class, and
discuss the trends which emerged or failed to emerge over the semester. Since these
students were members of both the larger class and smaller working groups this
discussion also reﬂects on the experiences of the other members of the their small
groups. To structure this discussion the same categories are used that were used in the
discussion section of the case studies: Negotiation with Teachers; Negotiation with Peers;
Negotiation with the Science Content; Implications for engagement; and Implications for

Understanding.

Negotiation with Teachers

Josh, Carl and Heidi each had very different patterns when interacting with the
teacher and researcher in the class. Josh not only spent a great deal of time before class in
the room talking with the teacher and researcher about what was happening in the class
and raising questions, but also sharing other things that were happening in his life. Josh
gave the teacher and researcher insight into his interests and into some of the things that

were going on in his life that inﬂuenced his behavior in class. He talked about how

177

things were going in relation to the sports that he played, his job, interactions with his
brother and parents. Part of what came out of these interactions with the teacher and
researcher for Josh was greater access to information and more opportunities to develop
an understanding of topics that he might not otherwise have developed. Through Josh’s
questions the teacher and researcher were able to gain insight into when Josh was
struggling with an idea and what that struggle was about. The teacher and researcher
were also able to support Josh in these struggles, by developing study strategies and
alternatives. Another thing that came out of these interactions was a connection to the
teacher and researcher that may have inﬂuenced Josh’s decision to stay marginally
involved in discussions and activities and not withdraw completely.

Carl did not provide the teacher and researcher with many of these glimpses into
how he was making sense of the biology class. Since Carl regularly came into the class
just as the bell was ringing the teacher and researcher were not given many insights into
what was happening in other parts of his life. - It was difﬁcult for the teacher and
researcher to develop alternative strategies that could be used to help Carl understand the
science content. Carl seemed to work hard at building relationships within his small
group and his peers. Carl appeared to be uncomfortable with the special education
designation and the impacts that had on his relationship with other students. At one point
during this semester he asked the special education teacher to stop pulling him out of
classes to talk to him. He wanted to meet with the special education teacher before or
after school, or communicate with him through notes. Carl's relationship with the
members of his small group usually helped him avoid direct interaction with the teacher
and researcher. If it were not for the audio tapes of his small group we would not have
known that he relied on the teacher as an authority for knowledge and that he had
prompted members of his small group to solicit help from the teacher and researcher.
Unlike Josh and Heidi, who were willing to come in for post-test interviews, Carl did not

take advantage of this option during the semester. Evidence from audio tapes of his small

178

group indicate that he often had a greater understanding of the concepts than was evident
in his written work. This understanding was not recognized at the time Carl was in the
class since audio tapes were not analyzed on a daily basis. Carl’s reluctance to interact
with the teachers during large class settings, small group work and on an individual basis
limited his access to opportunities to develop the type of understanding necessary to be
scientiﬁcally literate.

Heidi was closer in her interactions with teachers to Josh than she was to Carl.
Heidi did not avoid contact with the teachers, in fact just the opposite she solicited and
demanded support. Heidi, like Josh, took advantage of the time before class to ask
questions and also took advantage of the chance to do post-test interviews. Her
willingness to interact with the teachers provided Heidi with more opportunities to get
support as she struggled with some of the main ideas and concepts of this class. Some of
these opportunities were hampered by Heidi’s sometimes abrasive attitude and her
demands for immediate feedback and support. The way which Heidi approached the
teachers sometimes resulted in Heidi getting short abbreviated explanations. If Heidi had
approached her teachers differently, they might have provided more elaborate responses

that may have been more beneﬁcial to her in developing understanding.

Negotiation with Peers

All three of these students actively negotiated, and relied on their peers to help
them succeed in this biology class. The ways in which they interacted with the members
of the small groups differed in some ways but also had some common themes. In each
case the special education student relied on the other members of their small group to help
with writing laboratory reports and producing other written work. All three students
asked for and received explanations about different ideas and concepts from the members

of their small group. All three wrote or talked about (in their interviews) their belief that

179

one of the beneﬁts of small group work is the ability to get ideas from others. Josh, Carl
and Heidi each played different roles in their small group.

When Josh was engaged in an activity or discussion he was willing to take a
leadership role and pose questions and possible strategies that could be used. When Josh
withdrew from the activity or a discussion, he withdrew both mentally and physically
from his group. He would stop making suggestions and adding to the conversation, he
would move to the opposite side of the lab table or wander away to talk with other
members of the class or would go back to his desk. Even during these topics though his
disengagement was not always complete. Sometimes he went back to his desk, but he
appeared to be listening and paying attention to the discussion in his small group and he
would get up walk back to them, interject a comment or two, then go back to his desk.

When Josh could not make a connection with the discussion or activity he was
satisﬁed and willing to take the main responsibility of collecting materials, cleaning up of
the lab and producing the poster or display needed for presentation once he was told what
needed to go on the display. When he was involved in the conversation or activity he
often tried to delegate these duties to another member of his group or he did a smaller
proportion of this type work. Josh was willing to argue for his point of view with the
members of his small group. He trusted the members of his small group enough or was
willing to risk going down in their opinion to push them for explanations or to challenge
their answers. The members of Josh’s small group were willing to debate issues with
each other. Getting the “right” answer was important to them, so was the interaction with
each other that lead to explanations.

Carl relied on his small group in a variety of ways. Like Josh and Heidi, Carl’s
small group helped him with the written work in the class. Unlike Josh and Heidi, Carl
rarely took a leadership or dominate role in his small group. Carl worked with the
members of his small group to develop understanding of the concepts. He also used the

members of his small group to act as intermediaries between himself and the teacher and

180

researcher. While Carl was reluctant to ask the teachers for help he often asked other
members of his small group to bring the teacher or researcher over to their lab table to
clarify or explain something in more depth. Carl was not willing to take the risks with his
small group that Josh or Heidi were willing to make. Carl was willing to take on the
duties of gathering materials and helping with clean up. He was also willing to help
construct the posters for presentation. He was more reluctant than Josh or Heidi to take a
central role in presenting his small group's posters to the whole class. Some of the
strongest words he used with his small group were in his refusal to take a lead in
presenting the posters. It appeared to be more important for Carl to feel like a member of
the group and have his group’s support than it was for him to ﬁnd answers to his
questions. Carl and the other members of his small group were primarily interested in
ﬁnding out what the “right” answer was in the most efﬁcient way possible. As a group,
they rarely challenged or pushed each other for clariﬁcation.

Like Josh and Carl, Heidi relied on the members of her small group to help her
with the written work in the class and to provide clariﬁcation and explanation. Heidi tried
to take a leadership role similar to Josh’s in her small group, but did not have a great deal
of access to this role. Todd and Jared were often willing to argue with each other and
push each other for clariﬁcation and explanation but they were more apt to dismiss
Heidi’s ideas during these discussions. They were willing to stop and spend the time to
explain their explanation to Heidi, they were also willing to describe how they got to the
explanation and why it was correct, but Heidi was usually only allowed minimal access to
the conversations that shaped the explanations. Sometimes Heidi was comfortable with
this role and eagerly took on the jobs that would make Todd and Jared’s work on the
laboratory easier. Other times she resented this exclusion and would try to push her way
into the conversation; those attempts usually were not successful. Heidi was willing to
risk alienation of the members of her small group to enter the conversation, but also

showed a trust in the members of her small group that even if she argued with them or

181

made them aneg she could still count on them to help her with the written work. Heidi
and Carl rarely wandered away from their group to join another, or return to their desks
as Josh did, they remained with their small groups taking most assignments given to them

and thereby ﬁlling a need in their small group.

Negotiation with Content

Josh, Carl and Heidi each took different approaches to their negotiation with the
science content and science community. Josh had a curiosity about the world around him
and a creativity that allowed him to use the classroom setting as a way to explore his
questions. When Josh could not see a connection between the class discussion or the
laboratory activity or something which he had experienced he questioned the importance
of the idea or concept and was less willing to explore related issues. Josh was willing to
engage and wrestle with the science content when he saw connections, if he could not
quickly see these connections he was not willing to look for them. When he did not see
or didn’t look for the connections he withdrew from the science content and he looked for
other ways of participating with members of the class.

Carl's negotiation with the content had to do more with fulﬁlling what was needed
to pass the class. Carl appeared to lack Josh’s belief that the classsroom could be used to
satisfy his curiosity about the world around him. Carl’s heavy reliance on his small
group limited his access to some of the science content. If the other members of his small
group did not ﬁnd a topic interesting, Carl did not pursue what interest he might have had
in the topic. Since Carl relied so much on the members of his small group and raised a lot
of questions with them or did not try very often to direct the conversation it is difﬁcult to
say what kinds of negotiations Carl had with the content. He kept most of these
negotiations internally and did not share much of the process of negotiation with his peers
or with the teacher. Unlike Josh or Heidi who talked through their understanding of the

concepts with their peers or wrote additional questions in their journals Carl did not

182

provide many clues to his questions or struggles with the material. Since Carl struggled
with writing, his journals and other written work only give a marginal view of his
negotiations with the science content. What was evident from his written work and small
group discussions was that Carl came into this class believing that science was made up
of a set of rules and facts, and at the end of the semester he retained that view of science.

Heidi was similar to Josh that she saw the classroom as a way of pursuing her
curiousity about the world around her. However, she sometimes lacked the commitment
to searching for answers or lacked the creativity needed to explore these questions in the
classroom setting. The range of things that Heidi appeared to be curious about was also
smaller than Josh’s range of curiosity. Josh’s curiosity lead him to ask questions that
were most often related to human anatomy and physiology, but questions about energy
and energy transformation were also areas that he was willing to explore. Heidi’s
curiosity was tied more directly to the observable characteristics or functions of the human
body. This limited the topics that she could make connections to and inﬂuenced her
willingness to explore issues in the classroom. One of the factors that greatly inﬂuenced
both Josh and Heidi’s negotiation with the content was their self images and their belief or
lack of belief in their ability to understand the topic or issue.

All three of these students had clear beliefs about their abilities and what material
they could succeed with and what material would be difﬁcult. Josh and Heidi used their
beleifs in making choices about their level of participation in whole class and small group
activities, sometimes this meant that they chose not to interact with the members of the
class. For Heidi, her beliefs about her abilities sometimes caused her to appear to become
frustrated or angry when she did not live up to her expectations. Carl used his knowledge
about himself to decide on how he could modify his role in his small group so that they
would still see him as a valuable member. For many of the topics or concepts the
student's view of their abilities were an accurate assessment (for example the unit on

biochemistry), for other topics or concepts the strategies used in this classroom allowed

183

the students access to information that they previously thought was out of their reach (for

example, cellular reproduction).

Implications for Engagement

Josh’s learning style played a large role in his ability or lack of ability to become
engaged in this biology class. If Josh could see connections between new ideas and his
previous experience or his day to day life, his curiosity and creativity lead him to become
engaged in the conversation or activity to the level of psychological investment that
N ewmann et al used as an indicator of engagement. When the material was more
complex or abstract Josh struggled. If he could not see connections he would easily loose
interest in the topic. It was hard for Josh to develop the connections to the material that
might have helped him become engaged in the topic. There were several times, such as
the activities that dealt with problem solving and energy conversation that Josh
participated in the class activities to a level that was consistent with being engaged. Other
times Josh participated in the class but was not engaged, he went through the motions of
the class but was not invested in learning about the ideas or concepts. This behavior is
parallel in the stories of Carl and Heidi.

Carl and Heidi both participated in the class activities. They dutifully wrote
journal entries and laboratory reports. They worked with and helped their small group do
the activities. They helped their small groups present the results of these experiments and
discussions. Heidi and Carl went through the motions of the class but rarely engaged in
the activities in a meaningful way. They played marginal roles in their small groups.
Sometimes this was a role that they accepted and desired, because it was comfortable and
non-threatening.

Other times their learning disability or learning styles interfered with the task at
hand and the members of their small groups intentionally or unintentionally excluded them

from opportunities for engagement. This is not meant to imply that the other members of

184

the group were engaged in the class. In the case of Carl, his pattern of engagement is
consistent with the members of his small group. Carl’s small group usually went through
the motions of the having a discussion or doing a laboratory activity, but as individuals
and as a group they rarely displayed a psychological investment in developing
understanding. The other members of his group were able to be successful in the class
because they had learning styles and study skills that allowed them to write adequate
laboratory reports and essay tests. In the case of Heidi, Jared and Todd did show
evidence of engagement as described by Newmann. Todd and Jared had similar learning
styles, abilities and interests and these varied dramatically from Heidi’s learning style,
ability and interests. They would often lapse into a discussion pattern that excluded
Heidi. When Heidi asked questions they were willing to explain things to her, but they
used a vocabulary and speech pattern that was very different from the ones used when it

was just the two of them talking.

Implications for Understanding

Josh, Carl and Heidi each developed different kinds and levels of understanding
about the nature of science and the main science concepts that were the goals of this
biology class. One of the struggles in talking about their understanding was that it could
not be isolated from the discussions which have preceded this section on negotiation and
engagement. If the students are not successful in their negotiations with the teachers,
their peers and with the science content or science classroom community then it leads to
problems in engagement. If the students are not engaged in the discussions or class
activities it is highly unlikely that they will develop understanding. If the students feel
they cannot understand the material they have little motivation to enter into negotiations
for new roles with the teachers, their peers and the science content.

A picture that comes to mind is a spiral staircase whose spirals increase in size as

you go up. This staircase is composed of a series of steps that are the different forms of

185

negotiation then there are landings or wider areas in the staircase that represent
understanding. Through a student’s education there are topics that are cycled back to with
greater detail and depth, which leads to a need for more negotiation with the teachers,
peers and the content. An example in this biology class might be cells or energy. There
are periodic breaks in the run of steps in the spiral were negotiations break down and the
students are not engaged in the class. Sometimes these breaks are short and there might
only be one or two steps missing and the student can hold on to the rail, which might
represent their past experiences or events in their day to day life, and pull themselves up
to the next level and develop understanding of an idea or set of concepts, other times there
are too many steps missing and the hand rail is not adequate so the student is stranded on
the staircase with no way of reaching the next landing.

Given this metaphor Josh, Carl and Heidi used different strategies for climbing
this staircase and had very different experiences on this staircase. For Josh the presence
of a sturdy and substantial hand rail was very important in his climb. When he had this to
guide his climb he was willing to negotiate with the teachers, his peers and the science
content and he climbed the stairs with a steady persistence. If this guide was very weak
or missing he stepped more carefully and cautiously or declined opportunities to climb
higher. Josh had an natural curiosity about him that lead him to want to see what was
around the next curve. When he faded in and out of conversations it was as if he was
taking a quick peek and then judge if the handrail was strong enough and then he would
decide to move on or stay put.

There is strong evidence that Josh had a good understanding of many of the
concepts associated with a Scientiﬁc World View and Scientiﬁc Inquiry. The evidence of
his understanding of many of the other concepts in the course is weaker. There is
evidence from writing in journals, laboratory reports and tests of what he could recall or

reproduce, and things that he could explain. A true indication of science literacy would be

186

if we could ask Josh about these topics several years later to see what he remembered
about the course.

The journey that Carl took up this imaginary staircase was quite different from
Josh’s journey. One thing that made Carl’s journey different was that all the way up he
either had to step over the steps representing negotiation with the teacher or step very
lightly on these steps. Carl used the handrail as a guide, but he was not as reliant on it as
Josh. Since the other members of Carl’s small group were intermittent in their
negotiations with the science content and their engagement they were not always reliable
support and they did not encourage Carl’s progress up this staircase leading to
understanding. Sometimes this step of peer negotiation was broader than the other steps
and provided a safe and comfortable place for Carl to stop and rest for a while. Carl
lacked Josh’s curiosity to explore what might be around the next turn.

Carl had a strong belief that there were “right” answers in science. During this
course this translated into a form of understanding about a uniﬁed system. Carl
constantly reminded the members of his small group about the importance of keeping
most of the variables constant, and often sought advice or conﬁrmation from other
groups. Carl came to this class with knowledge about the structure of atoms and the
periodic table that he was able to add to during this course. Like Josh, Carl left this class
with a clearer view of the types of activities that go on within a cell, and how energy can
be changed from one form to another. The same question or concern that was brought up
in the discussion of Josh can be asked of Carl: What information will stay with Carl as he
leaves school? Will Carl be a scientiﬁcally literate adult?

Heidi took a different journey than Josh and Carl took up the spiral staircase.
Heidi believed that she was walking ﬁrmly up the stairs but most of the time she was only
catching a part of each tread. Since she was often only catching part of each tread she
stumbled and fell often as she moved along the staircase. Sometimes the handrail allowed

her to catch herself, other times it was too weak to support her. It is not clear if Heidi had

187

a curiosity about what might be along the next curve in the staircase or if she felt it was
her duty and responsibility to keep moving. Heidi missed many of the landings on her
journey up the staircase, instead she often mistook individual steps as those landings.
When the time came for tests over the material, Heidi usually had not yet reached the
landing, but was resting comfortably a few steps below believing she had already reached
the landing.

Heidi became comfortable with the idea that science knowledge could change over
time. When the semester began Heidi had a clear image of science as a set of rules and
facts, this was modiﬁed some during the semester but it is unclear if she would revert to
those strong images over a longer absence from the class. One of the features of this
class that held Heidi’s interest was the way that one laboratory activity built off the
previous activity and that it was often student questions which prompted the activities.
Like Carl, Heidi relied heavily on the members of her small group. She looked to Todd
and Jared as models of what science was like, in this case this beneﬁted her. The
discussions that Todd and Jared had were often good models of scientiﬁc discussions.
The negative aspect of this situation was that Heidi was only rarely invited to participate in
these discussions. Heidi, like Josh and Carl left this class with a clearer view of the types
of activities that go on within a cell, and how energy can be changed from one form to
another, than she had when she entered the class.

Josh, Carl and Heidi each brought to this class learning disabilites that acted as
barriers for engagment and understanding. Their difﬁculties in reading, and writing and
processing verbal information had a large inﬂuence on their ability to develop scientiﬁc
literacy. Each of these students also brought histories of successes and failures in the
school environment that also inﬂuenced their view of themselves as learners. This
biology class represented one small slice out of each of the students day. They often had
other very legitimate priorities and agendas that they brought to the biology class which

were not tied to engagement and understanding science.

188

Each of these students also brought strengths to this biology class that helped
them overcome some of the barriers they faced in this class. Josh brought his ability to
make connections between the topics in the class and his personal experiences. Josh
brought a willingness to interact with adults that is not common for all teenagers. Josh's
willingness to ﬁght for his ideas and confront his peers also helped him overcome some
of the barriers that he faced in this class. Carl brought his interpersonal skills with his
peers to the class. The members of Carl's small group were genuienly concerned about
his success in the class and supported him whenever they could. Carl also brought his
artistic and graphic skills to the class. These skills helped him demonstrate his
understanding in ways that were not open to him through the written word. Heidi
brought a willingness to help out in whatever way she could for the success of her small
group. She understood that her success in the class was tied to the success of her group.
Her willingness to help prompted the members of her group to support her whenever she
asked for help.

Josh, Carl and Heidi were members of the same biology class, participated in the
same class discussions and worked on the same problems in the laboratory setting yet
they each came away with their own unique understanding of science. Their individual
stories tell us about what they struggled with and how they made sense of some of the
science concepts. Taken as a whole, their stories point out that there is no one universal
answer to how to support special education and at-risk learners in science. No one
looking at the classroom tapes or looking at their written work would say that Josh, Carl
and Heidi had equal opportunities to develop the type understanding open to their peers.
We do not know if Josh, Carl and Heidi would have developed more science
understanding if they had been in a smaller class that was paced or taught differently.
Based on descriptions of their past experiences in these kinds of classes, and some of the
understandings that they brought to this biology class it is questionable what they would

have gained.

189

Implications for Teaching Practice

In this biology class several strategies were used to support learning by all
students. One of the strategies that was most beneﬁcial to the students was the close
match between class discussions and laboratory activities. Most biology classes are
structured around these two types of activities, but in this class the two activities drove
each other. Questions would arise in the laboratory setting that would be the focus of
class discussions, and questions during class discussion turned into occasions to test a
hypothesis or explore a phenomenon. In a traditional biology class, laboratory exercises
are often used as examples or expansion of content covered in lecture or in the text.

The formation of the small heterogeneous groups provided role models and a
variety of skills and talents for solving problems. In this classroom, for these particular
students this strategy worked well, however this is not always the case. The following
year this strategy was less effective for three young men who had more severe emotional
disabilities. When placed in heterogeneous groups these young men made it difﬁcult for
the other members of their small group to work on a problem or hold a discussion, after a
period of deliberation it was decided to pull them from their original groups and form their
own group. When this was done, they had to re-negotiate group norms and roles and
could no longer rely on someone else to do the work. The small groups they previously
worked with worked more efﬁciently and the group of three young men became a
functional working group, often coming up with inventive solutions to problems.

The use of journals and portfolios beneﬁted the students and the teacher. The use
of journals allowed students to ask the teacher questions in a non-public forum. The
journal entries also provided a forum for giving the teacher insight into what the student
was thinking which would not have been visible with traditional writing tasks. The
journals also provided a less formal setting for the teacher to share questions and concerns
with the students. In Carl's case, even though he often wrote very short responses, the

journal entries and the notes the teacher wrote in response were one of the main forms of

190

negotiation between the two. The use of portfolios encouraged students to keep all of
their papers in an organized form. Part of the student's grade was determined by the
completeness and organization of their portfolio. The expectation that students were
keeping a portfolio allowed the teacher to refer back to the notes or activity of a certain
day during class discussions. Students could also go back and look at their notes for
ideas or information during laboratory work and while preparing for tests and quizzes.
There is evidence from their written work and through video and audio tape data that
Josh, Carl and Heidi each used their journals and portfolios to help prepare for tests and
do homework.

Multiple forms of assessment also played an important role in the success of the
students in this classroom. Given a variety of ways that they could demonstrate their
understanding, students had greater opportunities to show what they understood and the
level of their understanding. In particular the use of essay or short answer questions gave
the students a broader forum for addressing the question, and opportunities to link what
they learned in the laboratory setting to these new questions. Another type of assessment
that played a large role in student success was the post-test interview option. Those
students who took advantage of this option were always able to show more understanding
of the concepts than their test had indicated. They were not always able to reach the
desired level of understanding but they were able to demonstrate partial understanding and
be rewarded for this achievement. The focus on group projects and group presentations
also provided the students opportunities to demonstrate their understanding. These
projects and the understanding represented in the posters and presentations indicated a
level of understanding that the special education students would have had difﬁculty
demonstrating if they had worked individually. At the time of this study the teacher still
had students taking all of their tests and quizzes individually. Later in the year, and in
subsequent years, the teacher provided some opportunities for students to work with a

partner or as a small group to take tests. This reinforced the vision of the class as a

191

learning community and was determined by the teacher and the students as a good
assessment alternative.

How to build and use concept maps as a learning strategy was introduced early in
the semester. During the semester students were encouraged to use concept maps as a
way of working through ideas and as a review of concepts. Several times part of the
early morning conversations with Josh and Heidi was based on a concept map they had
worked on the day before or the previous evening. They used their concept maps as a
way of starting the conversation.

Other strategies that were used in this classroom that provided students with
greater access to learning was the teacher's use of the overhead projector to provide notes
during class discussion so that students could both hear and see the ideas. All of the
students in the class knew that both the teacher and researcher were willing to copy and
share their class notes with individuals. Sometimes students took advantage of this
option if they were absent or if they were having trouble taking notes.

The strategies discussed here are strategies which are easily implemented in a
classroom, and appeared to help Josh, Carl and Heidi. They required some additional
time and planning on the part of the teacher, and they called for the student to take
initiative in doing some additional work however they are strategies that did not require
additional training for the teacher. Working in close collaboration with the special
education staff and parents could also be a great help to the teacher in coming to
understand whatkind of learning or emotional disabilities a student has and what the
implications are for their learning. Ideally everyone could work as a team. The teacher
could work with the student so that the student became their own best advocate for what
they needed and what helped them get more from a class. The special education staff and
parents could supply the student and teacher with support and advice. The constraints
inherent in the school environment such as time and resources make it difﬁcult for people

with different types of knowledge and expertise to be able to work together for the beneﬁt

192

of all students. The ideal working relationship is rare because it calls for a wide variety of
communication skills or tools and a time commitment that it is not realistic for any of the
parties involved. The ideal is also rare because in many instances we do not know how to
support these students or what strategies are most helpful; inclusive classrooms with a
high level of accountablity for all students are fairly new types of environments. This
ideal could be seen as a goal that everyone is working toward. It is a goal we can set for
work with all of our students not just those identiﬁed as special education. There are

many students who are not identiﬁed that could beneﬁt from this type of support.

Implications for Policy in Science Education and Special Education

The case studies of Josh, Carl and Heidi raise questions for those who make
policy decisions in science education and special education. The AAAS Benchmarks are
described as the minimal goals for students. Many of the concepts represented in these
benchmarks may be beyond the intellectual ability of some of our students. Is there a
sub-set of these benchmarks that should be considered essential for science literacy? If
so, what are they? The patterns of engagement and understanding represented in the
stories of Josh, Carl and Heidi provide insight into some of the topics that may not be
accessible to all of our students. Many of the struggles that Josh, Carl and Heidi had with
the science content were similar to difﬁculties that other had in the class, but their learning
disabilities prevented them from coping successfully with these struggles and appeared to
deny them access to understanding. The stories of Josh, Carl and Heidi point out the
importance of relating ideas to familiar settings and problems. They also point out the
importance of building off ideas and returning to concepts in a variety of contexts. How
should these ideas about teaching and the strategies that were discussed in the earlier
section be integrated into science education policy documents?

New ways of collaboration between science teachers and special education

teachers must be found and formalized. In previous years Mr. L had worked closely with

193

a special education teacher in a course that was composed primarily of special education
students. This partnership was meaningful for both teachers and through this work they
started to question what was best for students. This inquiry into the needs of students is
what prompted the move to a multi-ability biology class. It was also this close
collaboration that helped Mr. L develop the teaching strategies that he used while planning
the curriculum and during instruction.

The shift to a multi-ability classroom called for new roles for both the science
teacher and the special education teacher. At the same time similar discussions were
occurring in other discipline areas in the high school. There was an increased desire and
demand for special education staff to team with content teachers. This meant that many
special education teachers moved from working with students on an individual basis and
team teaching with one or two content teachers to needing to support more teachers in
different settings. This shift meant that the special education teachers had less time with
individual students and could no longer provide some of the insights about individual
students and their learning styles and preferences that teachers like Mr. L had come to rely
on when working with special education students. The special education teacher no
longer felt like a full member of the team in the classroom, nor did Mr. L feel he was
getting the support that had been available to him in the past. Neither the special
education teacher nor Mr. L felt comfortable with these new roles, but also did not know
what their new roles should look like, and both felt that some students were falling

between the cracks, that in previous years would have received more support.

Implications for Teacher Education

One of the issues that prompted this study were my own experiences in teaching
science classes for special education and academically at-risk students. This was not a
population that my college education had prepared me to teach. I had no knowledge of

what terms like learning disabled or emotionally impaired or any of the other labels that

194

came in the reports meant for my students or for how they learned. I knew that some
things that I did routinely in my teaching practice did not help them learn, but I did not
know what I could do differently. I had the good fortune of having a special education
teacher who taught across the hall from me and was patient with my questions and
frustrations. She talked about the frustration of working in science classes without a
background in science. She talked of feeling as lost as the students. From my
conversations with science teachers and special education teachers at Ramsey High
School I found similar stories.

Science teachers need to know more about how students learn and make sense of
material. They need to know about teaching strategies that can support different learning
styles. They also need to know what kind of support structures are in place within
schools to support students and teachers if they are struggling. Special education teachers
need a broader background in the disciplines. They need to learn how to feel comfortable
asking questions and to explore ideas. Many special education teachers have the same
view of science that many high school students hold: Science is a set of rules and facts.
We set the goal of science literacy for our students, we need to move that goal to our

college courses also as a goal for all of our teachers.

Conclusion

This dissertation has brieﬂy told the stories of three students in a high school
biology class during a one semester period. These three students faced barriers to
learning that other students in their class did not face yet in many ways their attitudes,
beliefs and work habits are identical to any high school student. By examining their
experiences in this biology class we are given insight into the experiences of the other
members of the class. The case studies presented illustrate the difﬁculty of the issues that
arise when students learn science in mixed ability classes. This study provided a context

for examining the experiences of special education students in a mixed-ability classroom.

195

It opens the door for a richer discussion and further examination of questions such as:
What are the realistic goals that we should have for students like Josh, Carl, and Heidi?;
How can teachers support these students as they negotiate their roles in a mixed-ability
classroom?; What kinds of suport and resources do teachers need to support these
students?

The stories that were told in this study provide one view of the class. The data
source is rich enough to tell many other stories about these three students and their peers.
For example, it was difﬁcult during the data analysis done for this study to determine if
the role that Heidi took on in her small group was inﬂuenced more by her leaming
disability or by her gender. This study focused on how the roles a student took in the
class inﬂuenced their ability to develop understanding. Future studies using these data
sources will focus on the inﬂuence of gender on the negotiation process. Another study
might examine what makes a topic or concept seem too abstract or complex for a student
-- what could be done to make these ideas seem accessible to all students.

Josh, Carl, and Heidi, who in another setting might not have received science
instruction at all, clearly beneﬁted in some ways from their inclusion in these science
classes. Yet even with good teachers making well-informed efforts to help, they also
experienced frustration and failure. As these cases illustrate there are still may barriers we
must surmount to achieve the goal of true scientiﬁc literacy for all students. As was
mentioned in the beginning of this dissertation, this study was originally going to tell the
stories of ﬁve students. There are two stories that cannot be told by examining this high
school biology class. These two students left school in the semester and were no longer
part of this learning community. How do we account for or support them if our goal is

science for Q?

APPENDD( A

ROLES IN CLASSROOMS

196

APPENDIX A

ROLES IN CLASSROOMS

Roles that Students Could Negotiate with a Teacher

The following description of roles focuses on possible roles students negotiate with
the teacher during class discussion and during small group work. In the discussion of the
second research question the role negotiation discussed is within a small group and with

peers. The roles for negotiation with a teacher include, but are not limited to:

W: "Supportive Class Leaders” are usually academically
successful students, who other students in the class look to for suggestions or

advice if they are struggling with something in the class or during a lab.
"Supportive class leaders" do not often seek this role in the class but quietly accept
the duties of the role. In a small group setting students look to the “class leaders”
to set the tone and decide on work priorities. They are on time to class and have all
of their materials. It is very rare for special education or at-risk students to have
access to this role in a heterogeneous classroom.

ke o e: "Class spokespeople” are students who can usually be
counted on to offer an answer or opinion when other students are hesitant to speak.
"Class spokespeople” comment openly and freely on both academic and social
issues. "Class spokespeople” readily volunteer. Often the main goal of “class
spokespeOple” is to have the attention of the class and teacher. It is this goal factor
that distinguishes “class spokespeople” from “willing class contributors.” In small
group work “class spokespeople” readily volunteer opinions on how things should
be done. They are usually on time to class and have all of their materials.

Special education and at-risk students who take on this role are often disruptive
in class. They are often frustrated by their inability to understand. The words and
actions they use to convey these emotions are often not deemed acceptable
behavior, but they often are telling us something important about how they are
experiencing something when they say, “This is stupid!” or “This is boring.”
Depending on the context this may mean, “I don’t understand.” or “I’m confused.”

197

If a teacher hears these phrases by one of their students, it is usually responded to,
and a different strategy for conveying the information is tried.

Milingﬁmgghtahutgts: "Willing class contributors” will sometimes volunteer
in class, and will respond in an open responsive way when asked a question.

“Willing Class Contributors” are willing to offer a guess when responding to a
question. In a small group “Willing Class Contributors” will take on whatever jobs
or tasks are assigned, but rarely initiates the activity. They are usually on time to
class and have all of their materials.

Special education and at-risk students who take on this role often sit quietly and
are attentive during class discussion, assuming that the material will become clear
soon, or they accept the fact that this is something too hard for me to understand.
In small groups they will stay out of the discussion, or willingly take on a “go-fer”
role. They become the students who are told to “go get” the materials that are
needed or to “go get” the teacher for help.

WW: “Reluctant Class Contributors” will answer

questions when called on, but rarely volunteer responses. “Reluctant Class
Contributors” are usually quiet and withdrawn both during large class activities and
small group work. They can be pressed to participate in both types of activities,
and once involved in the activity they will do the tasks assigned to them, but
usually do not go beyond the minimal requirements. They usually arrive to class
on time with their materials. They are often very cautious in their actions, they do
not want any attention brought to themselves. This is a common role for special
education students in a heterogeneous classroom.

Special education and at-risk students often choose to withdraw from the class
in a variety of ways. They will often sit quietly during class discussion, and refuse
to answer when called on in class, or say, “I don’t know.” even when they do
have something they could contribute.

' t tri r : “Passive Resistant Contributors” are unwilling to
participate in class or small group activities. When asked a question a typical
response is, “I don’t know.” When pressed for an answer, they will not elaborate.
During large class discussion “Passive Resistant Contributors” will often stare off
into space or doodle on a piece of paper. They will usually bring a paper and pencil
to class, but often neglect to bring their book or other materials. They rarely

198

interrupt the class or small group activity, but they also will try a variety of
strategies so they are not called on to get involved.

Aeriee Register; gr Quteidere: “Active Resistors or Outsiders” are very open about
their desire to not be in the class or part of a small group. They will often disrupt a

class discussion with in appropriate remarks or behaviors. During small group
activities “Active Resistors or Outsiders” will often try to disrupt the activity or
sabotage it in a variety of ways. They will also try to wander from group to group and
interrupt other groups. It is common for these students to often come to class late
without any materials, or to “skip” the class. The often have a high absenteeism rate.
This is a common role for special education and at-risk students.

APPENDD( B

ROLES IN SMALL GROUPS

199

APPENDIX B

ROLES IN SMALL GROUPS

Roles that Students Could Negotiate with Peers
The following description of roles focuses on possible roles students negotiate with
their peers during (primarily) during small group work. The roles for negotiation with

their peers include, but are not limited to:

W: In a small group setting students may look to the
“supportive class leaders” to set the tone and decide on work priorities. If their

small group does not have one of the “class leaders” as a member, then another
student takes on the role of “supportive group leader.” This is the person who
helps set the tone of the group and sets priorities for the tasks. The person is also
the one who will initially assign or suggest tasks to other group members. This is
the person who will make sure that the group has a “product.”

Special education and academically at-risk students will rarely take on this role,
but if pressed into it by other group members will take it on. What they will often
do in this case is become an “activity director" and delegate the higher cognitive
level work to one of the other members.

W: In small group work the “group spokesperson” readily
volunteers an opinion on how things should be done, or volunteers to report back

to the whole class. As in the “class spokesperson” role the “group spokesperson”
does not necessary add constructive comments, but is very Open with their
opinions. If a student has chosen this role, and his/her small group is not attentive
to them they may wander off to another group who will pay attention.

Special education and at-risk students who take on this role can be disruptive in
small group, but a small group can also exert pressure on them that minimizes this
disruption. As in the “class spokesperson” role, they are often frustrated by their
inability to understand. The words and actions they use to convey these emotions
are often not deemed acceptable behavior, but they often are telling their small
group something important about how they are experiencing the activity when they

200

say “This is stupid!”, “You’re crazy.” or “This is boring.” Depending on the
context this may mean, “I don’t understand.” or “I’m confused.” How a small
group responds to a group member when they say things like this shapes future
interactions of the small group, and what roles a special education student or
academically at-risk student is willing to negotiate.

Wi ' r ' tor : "Willing group contributors” will sometimes take an
active role in the small group, and will respond in an open responsive way when
asked a question. "Willing Group Contributors” are willing to offer a guess when
responding to a question. “Willing Group Contributors” will take on what ever
jobs or tasks assigned, but rarely initiates the activity.

Special education and at-risk students who take on this role are often attentive
during small group discussion but will rarely lead or push their agenda during a
discussion. They willingly take on a “go-fer” role. They become the students who
are told to “go get” the materials that are needed or to “go get” the teacher for help.

WWW: “Reluctant Group Contributors” will answer a

question when pressured by the group, but rarely volunteers a response. The
“Reluctant Group Contributors” are usually quiet and withdrawn during small
group work. When pressed to participate, and once are involved in the activity,
they will do the tasks assigned to them, but usually do not go beyond the minimal
requirements. They are often very cautious in their actions, they do not want any
attention brought to themselves. This is a common role for special education
students in a small group.

Special education and at-risk students often choose to withdraw from the class
in a variety of ways. They will often physically separate themselves from the
group activity, and when pressed for an opinion say, “I don’t know.” even when
they do have something they could contribute.

P ’ ' t t ' r : “Passive Resistant Contributors” are unwilling to
participate in small group activities. When asked a question a typical response is,
“I don’t know.” When pressed for an answer, they will not elaborate. During
small group discussion “Passive Resistant Contributors” will often move to the side
of the group, with a fair amount of space between themselves and the rest of the
group. They will stare off into space or doodle on a piece of paper. They rarely

201

interrupt the small group activity, but they also will try a variety of strategies so
they are not called on to get involved.

WW: “Active Resistors or Outsiders” are very open about
their desire to not be part of a small group. During small group activities “Active

Resistors or Outsiders” will often try to disrupt the activity or sabotage it in a
variety of ways. They will also try to wander from group to group and interrupt
other groups. Since they often have a high absenteeism rate, they are never quite
“with” the small group during discussions, and they loose patience with the
discussion since they don’t have a complete picture of what is going on. This is a
common role for academically at-risk students.

APPENDIX C

ROLES WITH SCIENCE

202

APPENDIX C
ROLES WITH SCIENCE

Roles that Students Could Negotiate with Science Content or Science
Classroom Community

The following description of roles focuses on possible roles students negotiate with
the teacher during class discussion and during small group work. In the discussion of the
second research question the role negotiation discussed is within a small group and with
peers. The following descriptions highlight some of the roles or characteristics that a
student might adopt in relation to the science content or science classroom community. The

roles for negotiation with a teacher include, but are not limited to:

W "Questioners" are curious about the world around them, and see school
as one source of information for their questions. In a class discussion or during small
group work they may appear to pull the class or small group "off-task" as they try and
relate the current topic to other topics. They will often look for connections between
topics or concepts. Their drive to understand will often over-ride their need to "ﬁt-in"
with their peers, or reluctance to seek out the teacher.

This role is open to all students in the class. It is also not a role that is strictly a
classroom role. This may be a role that is very natural to the student, and one is part of
their identity but not visible when the student is in a science class. Many of these
students thrive in a classroom where students are encouraged to investigate their own
questions.

Students may have many questions but not vocalize them due to wide variety of
factors. It is only when a student expresses these questions either orally or in writing
that the teacher can usually identify this characteristic. Many special education students
lack the tools or self-conﬁdence to express or investigate these questions and therefore
do not push for explanations in the school setting.

Qghtehtledmigigttg “Content Technicians” are usually very good at remembering
and processing science vocabulary and concepts. They are comfortable answering
questions from a textbook or questions posed by the teacher. They will often recall
studying topics in previous years and use that information to enter a class discussion,

203

then build on that repertoire during a unit. They may or may not translate this expertise
to their laboratory work. This depends on the tightness of the correlation between the
laboratory work and their working deﬁnitions or explanations. They are often
frustrated when pressed by a teacher to come up with their own questions.

These students are often “Good Students” who perform well on written
assignments and participate well in class discussions. This is a role that special
education students often have limited access to due to a wide variety of factors
including, but not limited to, their different learning styles and cognitive limitations.

Wiggles; “Laboratory Technicians” are in many ways similar to the
“Content Technicians.” The “Laboratory Technicians” are very good in a laboratory
setting. They can set up the laboratory apparatus and perform the skills needed to do
experiments. Some of these students are very good at designing experiments or tests to
verify a concept. In a biology class this might include skills like focusing a microscope
and being able to draw the specimen. These students can usually report what is
happening in the experiment, but may not be able to apply the knowledge they gained
in the laboratory to the broader context of the science concept.

These are often students who actively participate in classroom activities, but when it
comes to a test or applying the information in other contexts they have difﬁculty. This
is a role that some special education students will accept or be assigned in a science
classroom. Often these students are very good at solving problems and manipulating
materials that are the skills most needed by a “Laboratory Technician.”

ﬁghtehtSheptiee; ”Content Skeptics” question the usefulness of the material. They
will often ask questions like: “Why do we have to know this? ” or “Where am I ever
going to use this?” As a school survival technique many of these students will also
adopt the “Content Technician” role. The role is open to any student.

Ahiiiwﬂgegtige; “Ability Skeptics” doubt their ability to do, learn or understand
science. They see science as “too hard.” A subject that only “smart” people can do
well at. They often view science in many of the same ways as “Content Technicians”
but cannot or have not mastered those skills and therefore see themselves destined to
fail no matter what they do.

APPENDD( D

CODING SCHEME

204

APPENDIX D

CODING SCHEME
The following categories and abbreviations for student roles were used when coding

episodes during data analysis.
Student Roles for Coding

Whole Class Roles
Supportive Class Leader -- scl
Class Spokesperson -- csc
Willing Class Contributor -- wcc
Reluctant Class Contributor -- rcc
Passive Resistant Contributor -- prc
Active Resistor/Outsider -- arc

Small Group Roles
Supportive Group Leader --sgl
Group Spokesperson -- gs
Willing Group Contributor -- wgg
Passive Resistant Contributor --prg
Active Resistor or Outsider --arg

Roles Associated with Content
Questioner -- q
Content Technician -- ct
Laboratory Technician -- 1t
Content Skeptic -- cs
Ability Skeptic -- as

*********

The following style of chart was used during data analysis to organize the coding for
student roles.

*******

Student:

 

Activi

 

205

The following categories and abbreviations were used for coding student behavior in
terms of engagement and understanding:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engagement
‘ II'ype of Activity Leﬂ or typeTf ature ()7 Outcome

Sgientiﬁg Ace'viee' 5 Engagement Ng gonﬂict

technical - t ° v lv - iv - no conﬂict:

observations - o 25 uninvolved - ncu

patterns - p Mi no conﬂict: leader -

explanations - e ghservet - g ncl

asking questions - q W no conﬂict: follower -

asking for clariﬁcation - mp ncf

c 1 - c
Conﬂict
Qn-_T_as_k, winner - cw
W loser - cl
social organization - s compromise -cc
procedural, non scientiﬁc synthesis - cs
- pro. avoidant - ca
Understanding
Using Scientifi; Constructing Reflecting of
Knowledge Scientific Knowledge Scientific Knowledge
Emgigting - p letetgreting Teggt - it MW
We Bream M '11 CO '0 -
mm are
T ' tiv —
£12

 

 

206

The following style of chart was used during data analysis to organize the coding for
student engagement and understanding.

Date: Topic: Small group or Whole class

E ement '1

. Type of Level] Type a g . onstruc- e ec g
time Activity of of Out- Knowledge ting Sci. on Sci.
min. Engagement come Knowled e Knowled e

 

207

The following chart is from Heidi’s data set and demonstrates how the previous chart was
used.

Date: Septemmrlﬂ Topic: mm Langnunan r
Whglg clﬁe

Heidi En a ement ‘1 e
Type of Level/ Type a . onstruct- e ec ng
time Activity of of Out- Knowledge ing Sci. on Sci.
min. Engagement come Knowled e Knowled e
unm no q
conﬂict

observer no
conﬂict

\0 WQO‘NUI

Nil-l

0|

1
l
1
l
l
l
1

hit-3
“Q

on task-

on task -
soc.

off task

 

APPENDIX E

BENCHMARKS

208

APPENDIX E

BEN CHMARKS

-I.’M.L1.¢f I .I'I- t I ar I I -tIeIdirctl w'thorIt I ' iti or I' t'

germi exeeriehgeg,

These benchmarks are tied to laboratory activities or events and information that the
students in this class had previous experience with prior to this class. Some of these are
benchmarks which AAAS identiﬁed as goals for grades 6 through 8, others for grades 9
through 12. These ideas were used during class discussion and small group discussion as
building blocks to develop greater understanding about these topic areas. The benchmarks
identiﬁed as goals for this biology class that are tied directly to laboratory activities or

students' personal experiences included the following:

ci 'c or Viw

When similar investigations give different results, the scientiﬁc
challenge is to judge whether the differences are trivial or signiﬁcant,
and it often takes further studies to decide. Even with similar results,
scientists may wait until an investigation has been repeated many times
before accepting the results as correct. (pp. 7)

Scientiﬁc knowledge is subject to modiﬁcation as new information
challenges prevailing theories and as a new theory leads to looking at
old observations in a new way. (pp. 7)

Scientists assume that the universe is a vast single system in which the
basic rules are the same everywhere. The rules may range from very
simple to extremely complex, but scientists operate on the belief that the
rules can be discovered by careful, systematic study. (pp. 8)

From time to time, major shifts occur in the scientiﬁc view of how the
world works. More often, however, the changes that take place in the
body of scientiﬁc knowledge are small modiﬁcations of prior
knowledge. Change and continuity are persistent features of science.

(pp. 8)

209

No matter how well one theory ﬁts observations, a new theory might ﬁt them
just as well or better, or might ﬁt a wider range of observations. In science, the
testing, revising, and occasional discarding of theories, new and old, never
ends. This ongoing process leads to an increasingly better understanding of
how things work in the world but not to absolute truth. Evidence for the value
of this approach is given by the improving ability of scientists to offer reliable
explanations and make accurate predictions. (pp. 8)

Scientiﬁg Ihquigg

If more than one variable changes at the same time in an experiment, the
outcome of the experiment may not be clearly attributable to any one of the
variables. It may not always be possible to prevent outside variables from
inﬂuencing the outcome of an investigation (or even to identify all of the
variables), but collaboration among investigators can often lead to research
designs that are able to deal with such situations. (pp. 12)

What people expect to observe often affects what they actually do observe.
Strong beliefs about what should happen in particular circumstances can
prevent them from detecting other results. Scientists know about this danger to
objectivity and take steps to try and avoid it when designing investigations and
examining data. One safeguard is to have different investigators conduct
independent studies of the same questions. (pp. 12)

New ideas in science sometimes spring from unexpected ﬁndings, and they
usually lead to new investigations. (pp. 12)

Investigations are conducted for different reasons, including to explore
new phenomena, to check on previous results, to test how well a theory
predicts, and to compare different theories. (pp. 13)

Hypothesis are widely used in science for choosing what data to pay attention
to what additional data to seek, and for guiding the interpretation of the data
(both new and previously available). (pp. 13)

There are different traditions in science about what is investigated and how, but
they all have in common certain basic beliefs about the value of evidence, logic
and good arguments. And there is agreement that progress in all ﬁelds of
science depends on intelligence, hard work, imagination, and even chance. (pp.
1 3)

W

Atoms are made of a positive nucleus surrounded by negative electrons.
An atom's electron conﬁguration, particularly the outermost electrons,
determines how the atom can interact with other atoms. Atoms form
bonds to other atoms by transferring or sharing electrons. (pp. 80)

210

Cells
All living things are composed of cells, from just one to millions, whose
details usually are visible only through a microscope. Different body
tissues and organs are made up of different kinds of cells. The cells in
similar tissues and organs in other animals are similar to those in human
beings but differ somewhat from cells found in plants. (pp. 112)
Cells continually divide to make more cells for growth and repair,
Various organs and tissues function to serve the needs of cells for food,
air, and waste removal. (pp. 112)

About two thirds of the weight of cells is accounted for by water, which
gives cells many of their properties. (pp. 112)

mm

Food provides the fuel and the building materials for all organisms.
Plants use the energy from light to make sugars from carbon dioxide and
water. This food can be used immediately or stored for later use.
Organisms that eat plants break down the plant structures to produce the
materials and energy they need to survive. Then they are consumed by
other organisms. (pp. 120)

Energy can change from one form to another in living things. Animals

get energy from oxidizing their food releasing some of its energy as heat.
Almost all food energy comes originally from sunlight. (pp. 120)

.III' I -I 1 I 'IIe IIIIIasdns I I I I ‘vitior IIrItr alreasmi .

These benchmarks are concepts that build on a sequence of activities or theoretical
reasoning. Some of these are benchmarks which AAAS identiﬁed as goals for grades 6
through 8, others for grades 9 though 12. Often these ideas were later used during class
discussion and in their small groups as a focus for discussion. I looked for evidence of
student understanding of these concepts in their journal entries, laboratory reports,
interviews and by using video and audio tape to examine episodes where students were
given the opportunity to explore and develop these ideas and to build greater understanding
by building off of each others ideas and relate these ideas to other concepts or topics. The
benchmarks identiﬁed as some of the goals for this class that are based on sequences of

activities or theoretical reasoning included the following:

211

W

When elements are listed in order by the masses of their atoms, the

same sequence of properties appears over and over again in the list. (pp.
80)

Atoms often join with one another in various combinations in distinct
molecules or in repeating three-dimensional crystal patterns. An
enormous variety of biological, chemical, and physical phenomena can
be explained by changes in the arrangement and motion of atoms and
molecules. (pp. 8 1)

The conﬁguration of atoms in a molecule determines the molecule’s
properties. Shapes are particularly important in how large molecules
interact with others. (pp. 81)

The rate of reactions among atoms and molecules depends on how often
they encounter one another, which is affected by the concentration,
pressure, and temperature of the reacting materials. Some atoms and
molecules are highly effective in encouraging the interaction of others.

(1313- 81)

 

Cells

Within the cell are specialized parts for the transport of materials, energy
capture and release, protein building, waste disposal, information
feedback, and even movement. In addition to these basic cellular
functions common to all cells, most cells in multicellular organisms
perform some special functions that others do not. (pp. 113)

The work of the cell is carried out by the many different types of
molecules it assembles, mostly proteins. Protein molecules are long,
usually folded chains made from 20 different kinds of amino-acid
molecules. The function of each protein molecule depends on its speciﬁc
sequence of amino acids and the shape the chain takes is a consequence of
attractions between the chain’s parts. (pp. 114)

The genetic information in DNA molecules provides instructions for
assembling protein molecules. The code used is virtually the same for all
life forms. (pp. 114)

Complex interactions arnoung the different kinds of molecules in the cell
cause distinct cycles of activities, such as growth and division. Cell
behavior can also be affected by molecules from other parts of the
organism or even other organisms. (pp. 114)

Most cells function best within a narrow range of temperature and acidity.
At very low temperatures, reaction rates are too slow. High temperatures
and/or extremes of acidity can irreversibly change the structure of most
protein molecules. Even small changes in acidity can alter the molecules
and how they interact. Both single cells and multicellular organisms have

212

molecules that help to keep the cell’s acidity within a narrow range. (pp.
114)

A living cell is composed of a small number of chemical elements mainly
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur. Carbon,
because of its small size and four available bonding electrons, can join to
other carbon atoms in chains and rings for form large and complex
molecules. (pp. 114)

Heredity

The many body cells in an individual can be very different from one
another, even though they are all descended from a single cell and thus
have essentially identical genetic instructions. Different parts of the
instructions are used in different types of cells, inﬂuenced by the cell’s
environment and past history. (pp. 109) 5

MW

The chemical elements that make up the molecules of living things pass
through food webs and are combined and recombined in different ways.
At each link in a food web, some energy is stored in newly made
structures but much is dissipated into the environment as heat. Continual
input of energy from sunlight keeps the process going. (pp. 121)

 

APPENDIX F

ACTIVITIES

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F
ACTIVITIES
Date Small or Large Topic/Activity
Grog.
9/8 Large Group Beginning of school administrivia
Mercury Monster -- focus on observations and use
of evidence (demonstration)
Small group Raisin lab (sinking and ﬂoating raisins) -- focus on
making and recording observations
90 Large Group Review Mercury Monster demonstration with focus
on characteristics of living things
Small Group Compare results of Raisin Lab/add to their
observations and include reasons
Lage Group Share results/reasons with large group
9/10 Large Group Review Raisin Lab
Introduction to steps of problem solving
Small Group Worm observation
Larg Group Discuss results of worm observations
Small Group Students given a “real problem” to work on
propose experimental design
9/11 Large Group Review problem solving strategies
Small Group Continue to work on problems
Large Group Group presentations
9/14 Large Group Picture day - no biology class
9/15 Large Group/ Quiz on problem solving - students given sample
Individual problem
Student survey of views of science survey
Students polled on favorite foods (Used to set up
looking at ingedients in pizza and eventually yeast)
9/16 Large group Went over quiz/Brainstormed words dealing with
przza
Ingredients identiﬁed as from living or non-living
sources/Class agreed to start with experiments
dealing with pizza
Agreed ﬁrst experiment would deal with how
dough raises
Brainstorm -- What skills do we need and what
information do we need to know for experiment?
Brainstorm about metric system -- What do we
know?
9/17 Large group Lecture - Review metric system
Introduction to Metric Lab
Small group Metric Lab
9/21 Large group Introduce Pizza Dough Lab - different groups using
different amounts of yeast or sugar
Small group Set up Pizza Dough Lab (Teacher took care of
baking the dough after class)

 

 

 

 

214

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Small or Large TopiclActivity
__ Group.
9/22 Large group Lecture -- Review of density and how to calculate it
Small group Finish metric lab and make observations for Pizza
Dough Lab (color, texture, volume, mass)
9/23 Large group Reviewed Metric Lab and discussed procedures for
lab write g)
Small group Finish Pizza Dough Lab observations and started
write - up. Metric Lab and Pizza Dough Lab write-
_ ups due next dgy
9/24 Large group Went over Metric and Pizza labs
Introduction to properties of yeast -— Discussion:
How could we tell if it is alive? (students wanted to
look at it)
Introduction to Microscope Lab
Small group Microscope Lab
.9725 Large group Review microscope techniques
Small group Continue lab
9/28 Large group Description of thread and issues of depth of ﬁeld
with microscope
Small group Continued work on lab
Large group Review microscope questrbns
Discussion -- Raised central question -- What is
yeast? Is yeast alive?
Set up Characteristics of Living Things Lab --
What do living things do and need?
Small group Each group responsible for planning part of set up
9/29 Large group Review lab set up
Small group Students set up experiment
10/1 Large group Review of big picture/review lab write up
procedures
10/2 Large group Adrninistrivia
Small group Collect experiment results -- see note on Heather W
Large group Journal topic - suggest 2 or more other experiments
we should do
Introduce six test tubes lab/students asked to make
predictions/work on lab write upover weekend
10/4 Large group Review of what needs to be in a conclusion of lab
re rt
Rg/iewed results of lab
Individual time Finished lab write ups
Large group Review of lab
Large group Went over microscope lab/passed out progress
reports
10/5 Large group Review for test topics included: Raisin Lab,

Mercury Monster, Worm observations, Problem
solving steps, Pizza Dough Lab, Metric Lab,
characteristics of living things

 

 

215

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Small or Large Epic/Activity
Group.
10/7 Large group Test
10/8 Large group Went over test
10/12 arge group Review araracteristics of living things
Review cell structures and functions and introduced
Cell Lab
Small grog Cell Lab
10/13 Large group Discussion of Cell Lab
10/ 14 Large group Types of cells and cell structures. Discussion of
what might a cell theory look like -- student got into
a debate about deﬁnition of a theory or what would
count as a theory
10/15 Large group Continued discussion from previous day --
Developed cell theory
Student given reading assignment
1(Vl9 Individual Students worked on section review over reading
assignment
Large group Class discussion -- review oﬁell theory
Introduction to time line assignment and scientiﬁc
discoveries and advancements
Small group Worked on time lines -- started posters
10/20 Small group Finished time line
Large group Shared time lines
1—0721 Large group Review of cell theory
10/22 Large group Film on microscope
10/26 Large group Introduced Lego lab «focus on detail and
consistence writing observations and procedures
Small group Lego lab
Large group Review of types of microscope
10/27 Large group Introduced concept maps - small groups asked to
produce concept map of topics covered so far in
semester
10/27 Small group Worked on concept maps
W29 Small group Worked on concept maps
ll/l Large group Shared maps with whole class
m Large group Student shared information about her python which
she had brought for another class
Overview of how class journals were graded
Reading assignment
Small group Written assignment over reading (Cell types) --
created a poster
11/3 Large group CR5 presentations
Review for test
11/4 Large group Review for test-cont...
Test
11/5 Large group Feedback on test

Review cell processes
Introduced topics in biochemistry

 

 

216

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Small or Large Topic/Activity
Group.
11/6 Large group Discussion about cell ogganelles
11/7 Large group Introduction to Tissue/Food Lab Part l-- controls
Small group Lab design and set up
11/ 10 Large group Review of lab set ups
Small group Finish lab observations and started write-ups.
11/12 Large group Introduction to Tissurﬁood Lab part 2 -- student
provided foods
Small group Design and set up lab
11/ 13 Large group Review of lab write up procedures and strategies
for conclusion
Continued biochemistry lecture - molecules
11/17 Large group Discussion of Food Lab write-up.
Discussion of what is all food made of?
Discussion of the role of carbon in living things
and how carbon burns. Introduction to Food
Burning Lab
Small group Food Burning Lab
11/ 18 Large group Review and introduction to atomic structure
Small group Students saw and made observations about
molecular models representing proteins,
carbohydrates and lipids
11/19 Large group Introduced students to activity dealing with
molecular model building
Small group Students asked to build molecular models of
proteins, carbohydrates and lipids and show
protein synthesis and dehydration synthesis
-l—_l_/—20 Large group Viewed movie "Ring of Truth"- about atoms
__1_1_/23 Large group Review of topics in movie and biochemistry
11/24 Large group Discussion of relationship between molecular
re' resentation and cells
11/30 Large group Class constructed concept map of
tissues/organelles/organics
771 Large group/ Review of unit objectives
Individual Review atomic structure
12/2 Large group Passed back and reviewed quiz
Introduced reading assignment
Small group Reading assignment and produced poster dealing
with reading assignments
T 3 Small group Finish reading assignments and prepared
presentations
Large group Discussion and review of elements, compounds,
mixtures, brainstorm list of materials
12/4 Large group Review concepts
Small group Took brainstorm list of materials and classiﬁed

them

 

 

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Small or Large Topic/Activity
Group.
12/7 Large group Reviewed chemical bonding
Reviewed differences between compounds and
mixtures based on bonding
_12/8 Small group Each group assigned different objectives to prepare
for class presentations
L Large group Started presentations
12/ 10 Large group Continue presentations
Introduction to origin of organic molecules
(01min),
L2, Review for test
1 11 Large group Test
12/14 Large group Most of class on ﬁeld trip/some students frhished
test
12/15 Small group Students assigned reading and asked to prepare
poster about reactions
Large group Started presentations
W16 Large group Presentations continued
Pre-test on photcpynthesis
‘ 12/17 Large group Discussion of physical and chemical change
Small group Lab -- variety of changes students asked to identify
whether it was amhysical or chemical change
U118 Large group Reviewed results of lab
December Break
1/5 Large group Introduced and discussed photosynthesis and
energy conversrons
Demonstration of photosynthesis samples kept in
light and kept in dark
1/6 Small group Lab: Variation of bubbles produced with
dark/dim/bright lights
1/7 Large group Review of concepts
Introduced Energy Conversion Lab
Small group Lab - students designed boats that could quickly
cross a “pizzgan” lake
1/8 Large group Review energy transformation/photosynthesis
Introduced Photosynthesis Lab
1/9 Small group Student set up lab to stress algae and counted
_ L bubbles produced as indicators or photosynthesis
l/ 12 Small group/Large Finished observations and shared in large class
group settin
Large group Introduced calorie lab -- burned marshmallows
1/ 13 Small group Calorie Lab -- burned variety of foods
1/14 Small group Lab continued and work on write-up
1/15 Large group/ Review of concepts
Individual °
1/ 19 Large goup Introduce diffusion and osmosis
Small group Diffusion 12%)
1/21 no school Teacher work day

 

 

218

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Small or Large Topic7Xctivity
__ Group.
1/22 Large group Review of concepts: diffusion/osmosis/hypertonic/
hypotonic
1725 Large group/ Review of concepts and their connections:
Individual mosynthesis/respiration/ATP cycle, calories
1/26 Large group Review of concepts and connections: calories,
photopynthesis, respiration, ATP
1/27 Large group Student questions and last preparations for ﬁnal
exam
728 Individual Final Exam

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

219

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science fgr e11 a_regr1gee§:
Ante. -010 r‘mrtr'c '01 r 1.rr.ru.u‘.r.104

Washington, DC: AAAS.

American Association for The Advancement of Science (1993). Beggmglggfgtﬁeignge
Litetagy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Biddle. B. J. (1979). W New York:
Academic Press.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. In

M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handmk gt teseargh on teaching (pp. 432-463). New
York: MacMillan.

Cohen, E. (1994). w r
(2nd. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Cohen, E. G. (1986). D s' ' w k: 'e t r n lassr om.
New York: The Teachers College Press.

Cusick,P.(l983). l1: - c m ,_ New York:

Longman.

 

Dar, Y, & Resh, N. (1986). Classroom intellectual composition and academic
acheivement W 2.3. 357- 374

DeBoer, G. (1991). Irsu 0. 'I-.e 1 -. In. ..10, 41,-. ,--on o or: e_.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Delpit, L. ( 1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's
children Wren 58 280-298

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & T iberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Chilthen's igeas ie §gieege.
Milton Keynes - Philadelphia: The Open University Press.

Eckert,P.(1989). 0. r- I..!.‘ 3.1.101: -0 i . ‘30.: 1.1010: 1' _ ‘Hl: hol.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). Ag
' stration of th le e wle ci ntiﬁc ar m n s ial n rrns
' (Presented Paper No. American Educational
Research Association.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. (1987). Beyond Special Education: Toward a Quality for All
Students. 1281, 31(4), 367-395.

220

Heath, S. B. (1983). W w' w r ' ' w
W. Cambridge: Cambridege University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. InBeygnd lmgegge ,
i f h lin l n 11 Los Angeles:
California State Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.

Howe, K. R., & Miramontes, O. B. (1992). flfhe Emigs gf Smcial Educatign. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Jackson, J. (1966). A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Paciﬁc

WGMUD 35- 47

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conﬂict 1n the classroom: Controversy and learning.

MW .2 51-70
Keller, E. F. (1983). A Eeelte' g fgr the Qrganiem; The Life ged Wgrk gf Babeta

MgQLiettwk New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools.
AmedcanSrniclcgicaLRenien it, 842- 858.

Labaree, D. (1989).
Press.

Latour, B.. & Woolgar, S. (1986). WWW

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

0.01. New Haven: Yale University

Lee, 0., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Student Motivation in Middle School Science
Classrooms. (Le Pregs).

Lemke, J. (1990). _. -
Ablex.

- . Norwood, N.J.:

 

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1989). The Current Situation. In D. K. Lipsky & A.

Gartner (EdS) WWW (PP 3- 24).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

MacLeod, J. (1987). v le ir 'on ' a w- c me
Neighmthggd. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. ngghglogiggi Review(50), 370 -
396.

Michigan Department of Education (1991). Ne ew Megeg fgr sgienge edegatign in
W No Michigan Department of

Education.

Michigan Partnership for New Education (1992). FRAMEWORKS: Rethinking
curriculum for the 2lst century. InE. Lansing, MI:

Mullis. I. V. S.. & Jenkins, L. B. (1988). W
W. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

 

221

National Science Teachers Association (1991). WWW
Coordinatimtﬁecondmhmlﬁciem N 0 National Science Teachers
Association.

Newmann, F. (Ed.). (1992). Stedetrteegeg t ' v i 'c

 

sghmlg. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ogbu, J. (1988). Class stratiﬁciation, racial stratiﬁcation and schooling. In L. Weis (Ed.),
(pp. 163-182). Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Ogbu, J. G. (1992). Understanding Cultural Diversity and Learning. Edugatignal
We 21(8), 5'14-

Osborne. R.. & Freyberg, P. (1985). WWW

scienge. Birkenhead, Aukland: Heinemann.

Palincsar, A. S., Anderson, C. W., & David, Y. M. (1993). Pursuing scientiﬁc literacy in
the middle grades through collaborative problem solving. The Elementery Schml
Mal. 23(5). 643-658.

Pearson, D. P., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
me). 317- 344

Persell C. H (1977) WW
W. New York: The Free Press.

Powell, A, Farrar, 13., &Cohen, D. (1985). The Shgppi ngMgll High Sgh ml; Winers
WW Boston: Houghtin Mifﬂin

Rosebery, A. S, Warren, B, & Conant, F. R. (1990). Appropriae'ng geientitrg discgurse;
W

No. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Rosebury, A., Warren, B., F., C., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (1992). Cheche Konnen:
Scientiﬁc sense-making in bilingual education. Hm, 13(1), 1649.

Rothstein, L. F. (1990). Spegtgﬁgleggttgwleaw. New York: Longman.

Sailor, W. (1989). The Educational, Social, and Vocational Integration of Students with
the Most Severe Disabilities. In D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds) Bneygng
ti (pp. 53-74). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brooks Publishing Co.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1988). Working Towards Merger Together: Seeing Beyond Trust and
Fear WWW 11(3) 103- 110

Sayre, A. (1975). W. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). W. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the Merger of Special and Regular
Education. mm, 31(2), 102- 111.

222

Steele, C. M. (1992). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlgetic
Montiﬂx(API‘il). 68-78.

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A.
Duschl & R. J. Hamiliton (Eds. ), Philosgphy gf Science, Cognitive Psyghglogy,
andEducatrnallheonLandMun e(pp 147-176) Albany State University of
New York Press.

Twaweek, S. (1988). Beam 'm an 'fetimes: The w rld of hi
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wheelock, A. (1992). Qrgssieg the geeks. New York: The new Press.
Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility.

management 5.2 411415
Willis, P. (1981). Legteieg tg lgmt; ng wgrkieg gigsg Lies get wgrkieg glass jgbs.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1992). Outcomes Are for Special
Educators Too. Teaghigg Egeepe'ongl Chilgeen, 29(1), 36-50.