GULLEN MASTER’S PORTFOLIO 1

Content Knowledge: Science

The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning experiences that make these aspects of
the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content. The
teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage
learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to
authentic local and global issues. Candidates demonstrate and apply understandings and
integration of the three dimensions of science and engineering practices, crosscutting
concepts - practices, cross cutting concepts (differentiation and technology), and major
disciplinary core ideas - within the selected content area(s) of science.

Science is one of the most interesting content areas to me for a number of reasons, as it

can be engaging like few other classroom topics. Its scope is immense- from the smallest

particles to the cosmos, teaching science can entail so much! Not only is the content interesting

to me (and likewise to many students!), but the content often lends itself so well to connections

in related topics that teaching it can be incredibly fun and engaging. Because so many of the

concepts of science have applications throughout its domains, it is essential to present the topic

in a way that respects its interrelatedness. Not only that, but because scientific discourse “is a

mode of logical discourse whose goal is to tease out the relationship between ideas and the

evidence” (Duschl, Schweingruber & Shouse, 2007, as cited in Grooms et al., 2015, p. 45), it

mirrors the method which science uses to develop and refine knowledge, making scientific

argumentation an important element to science education according to Grooms et al. This

method of inquiry and logical discourse is something that further facilitates engaging lessons.

Key to scientific inquiry is the fact that so many of the concepts are repeated throughout

various domains of the field. For instance, one would struggle to define what constitutes a living

organism without some basic level of understanding in biology, physics, and planetary science.

While this is one of the factors that makes science learning so interesting, having so many

interrelated domains can make teaching science a bit murky. Because of this, The Next

Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were created to help educators know what knowledge
GULLEN MASTER’S PORTFOLIO 2

their students should have by what grade. The standards are big on the concept of cross-cutting;

i.e., making connections between the various domains of science by providing a framework for

science education that includes seven main categories (patterns, cause & effect, scale, systems,

energy & matter, structure & function, and stability & change). In my time teaching science to

3rd and 4th graders, we worked on many projects that looked at things with this framework in

mind. One project that came to mind was an ecosystem food web. After showing the students a

food web in action (shark feeding frenzy!), we defined what ecosystems are and how they work.

We discussed the elements that make up food webs (primary, secondary, tertiary consumers,

etc.) and connected this back to our own local environment which the students were familiar

with. They then had to create their own food webs for SE Alaska, choosing a creature that does

not live here to decide if it could survive in this ecosystem. They would use their food web to

defend their stance on whether the species they chose was well suited to find enough food in this

environment. This student reasoning is exactly what real scientists would do. While the NGSS

crosscutting concept might make categorizing science topics easier for educators, according to

Osborne et al. (2018) it lacks coherent narrative within its science curriculum. In their view, it

makes more sense to organize science instruction based upon the six types of scientific

reasoning- something my students were doing on their project before I was even aware of its full

usefulness!

A key tool for student engagement is finding material that they connect with. This makes

sense on a logical level, since if someone is interested or can relate to a topic, they are going to

be more self-motivated to learn. This is something that researchers have found to be the case as

well. Lowery (2018) found that just having culturally relevant teaching was an effective way to

promote a positive learning environment, which is a huge factor in ensuring good learning

outcomes (Lowery, 2018, as cited in Hernandez & Burrows, 2021). Importantly, Larson et al.
GULLEN MASTER’S PORTFOLIO 3

(2018) found that culturally responsive teaching along with proactive behavioral management

was found to have a statistically significant influence on positive student behavior. This makes

sense and should be another motivation for science teachers to find relevant material for their

students. Finding accessible material for science instruction is fun in of itself, especially in a

place like Southeast Alaska. So many of the students here are connected with the outdoors; from

hiking and fishing to the region's cultural heritage, the opportunities for local connection seem

endless. The local food web project I mentioned earlier is one such example, another would be a

second lesson I did during my science practicum class, which was on the local weather. After

discussing many weather-related concepts and definitions, I had students look up their local

weather from their most recent birthday, which are two connections every student will have. We

discussed the connection between the seasons and the corresponding weather one will typically

find, as well as what outdoor activities these climate patterns allow us to do. To me, this was the

profound connection that students could make as it connected two things they are closely

familiar with in a way that they might not have thought of before (our local environment, and

what we do outside for recreation based upon the climate). This connection between disparate

domains is what makes science so interesting, and indeed is what makes good science education.

Integrating these domains together in a way that allows students to make connections between

these different domains is what can make science learning meaningful in the lives of our

students, and it is something I hope to have accomplished in my lessons.

GULLEN MASTER’S PORTFOLIO 4

References

Grooms, J., Enderle, P., & Sampson, V. (2015). Coordinating scientific argumentation and the

next generation science standards through argument driven inquiry. Science Educator,

24(1), 45–50. https://eds-s-ebscohost-

com.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=2f92e680-c336-4a85-

81a3-fbca1fb054a9%40redis

Hernandez, A., & Burrows, K. (2021). Implementing culturally relevant teaching in the

classroom. Open Journal of Leadership, 10(4). Doi10.4236/ojl.2021.104020

Larson, K., Bradshaw, C., Rosenberg, M., & Day-Vines, N. (2018). Examining how proactive

management and culturally responsive teaching relate to student behavior: Implications

for measurement and practice. School Psychology Review, 47(2), 153–166. DOI:

10.17105/SPR-2017-0070.V47-2

Osborne, J., Rafanelli, S., & Kind, P. (2018). Toward a more coherent model for science

education than the crosscutting concepts of the next generation science standards: The

affordances of styles of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 962–

981. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uas.alaska.edu/10.1002/tea.21460