The Lesson Study for Accessible Science (LSAS) project created middle school teams comprised of both science and special education teachers who engaged in collaborative work to improve instruction in inclusive classrooms. The intervention is based on Lesson Study, a professional development approach that originated in Japan, which supports the systematic examination of practice and student understanding. Using an experimental design, teams of teachers were randomly assigned to the LSAS intervention or to a wait‐list comparison group. The results of this study suggest that science and special educators in the LSAS intervention were able to generate more accommodations for students with learning disabilities, and they increased their ability to set an instructional context and adapt an instructional plan to meet science learning goals for all students in an inclusive classroom. They did not, however, show significant increases in their knowledge of science content or learning disabilities. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1012–1034, 2012

No abstract

No abstract

Background: There have been increasing calls for integrating computational thinking and computing into school science, mathematics, and engineering classrooms. The learning goals of the curriculum in this study included learning about both computational thinking and climate science. Including computer science in science classrooms also means a shift in the focus on design and creation of artifacts and attendant practices. One such design practice, widespread in the design and arts fields, is critique. This paper explores the role of critique in two urban, heterogenous 8th grade science classrooms in which students engaged in creating computer games on the topic of climate systems and climate change. It explores and compares how practices of critique resulted from curricular decisions to (i) scaffold intentional critique sessions for student game designers and (ii) allow for spontaneous feedback as students interacted with each other and their games during the process of game creation. Results: Although we designed formal opportunities for critique, the participatory dimension of the project meant that students were free to critique each other's games at any time during the building process and did so voluntarily. Data indicate that students focused much more on the game play dimension of the design than the science, particularly in those critique sessions that were student-initiated. Despite the de-emphasis on science in spontaneous critiques, students still focused on several dimensions of computational thinking, considering user experience, troubleshooting, modeling, and elegance of solutions. Conclusions: Students making games about science topics should have opportunities for both formal and spontaneous critiques. Spontaneous critiques allow for students to be authorities of knowledge and to determine what is acceptable and what is not. However, formal, teacher-designed critiques may be necessary for students to focus on science as part of the critique. Furthermore, one of the benefits to critiquing others was that students were able to see what others had done, how they had set up their games, the content they included, and how they had programmed certain features. Lastly, critiques can help facilitate iteration as students work to improve their games.

No abstract