Author Archives: maocchino

Disciplined Subjectivity Part II

General Updates:

AERA and NARST registration and travel arrangements are online now. Let’s discuss coordination of this on the 10th.

Writing – 9am – noon Saturday’s – Michael went.

Data surfing Saturday on the Belize data was fruitful.

Reading for following week (2/10): Studying Side by Side: Collaborative action ethnography in educational research by Fred Erickson (2006)

Research Updates:

  • Jeremiah will post weekly updates in between meetings. Working on proposal  – by the 31st – revisit/refine the research questions – by 2/2 (Big picture goal March 10th:  outline of ch1 & written ch. 2) – 2/2: questions, outline (ch1), & chunks of literature review (ch2)
  • Michael shared main themes from section 4 of comp 1  NEXT WEEK: Will complete first full draft of Comp 1 for submission on Feb 17 of final draft.
  • Liz will share a table of critiques matched with efforts to address these (comp 3) – Read feedback; did “insert text boxes” for responses to critique – Next week -outline of comp 3 Outline of comp 3 done.
  • Liz got feedback on conference proposal: teaching and learning with technology symposium in Ithaca. Will submit by Saturday.
  • For next week: Rachel will write 5 pages on socio-cultural /identity stuff related to science literacie -Today: worked with group on working drafts of pre-dissertation fellowship application (due 2/5)!; for 2/10 – Will write 2 paragraphs of “figured worlds.”
  • Joe  Today: had outline of comp 1 – brought copies of robust outline. Shared and received feedback.  Next week will have the genealogy methods section for feedback.
  • Feb 10: Joe and April will share Belize “Capture Sheet” and our attempt at a code book; each member of the research team is writing an analytic memo.
  • Rachel and Joe will share research questions for STARS

Warner Lunch Hour on Research Groups – February 11th

So, some ideas of what to present/talk about on Wednesday:

  • We collaborate on work as needed.
  • We engage in project work and research work in balance to move our work forward and have learned much from both types of work.
  • Meetings are weekly, have an agenda, and are facilitated in a rotating fashion. All members have a voice and we are comfortable bringing up questions and critiques as well as ample kudos.
  • Meetings begin with “Highs and Lows” which sets the tone for the meeting and lets us know where each of us is personally.
  • Our research work has yielded publications in multiple journals, conference proceedings (AERA, NARST, ILS (is that right?) Israel) and…
  • Our project work greases the wheels of our research and the teacher preparation part of GRS.

There is more I could add but I wanted to keep it shorter. Please add more including details.

2009 0130 Meeting Agenda

We have an agenda for the meeting this Friday the 30th of January at 2-4 pm. We will meet off campus in Panera at 12 Corners.
Prior to this meeting please take five minutes to do two things:
1. Log into the server via remote desktop (this may entail finding out your password from a tech expert), and confirm that you can get into the Get Real! Science Folder. This is important as permissions to do this may have changed.
2. Post on the blog at:
-30 minutes – upcoming pd that April will be facilitating and would like our feedback.
-logging onto our data on server – data organization on the Get Real! Science Folder
-February 11 – an update on the lunch hour.
-kankana – an update – share quick overview of slides from presentation.
-Freedom School Questions for future research

On Agenda for next meeting:
(next meeting – 474 questions)
(schedule STARS brainstorming)

Scribe post 2008 0722

Here is a scribe post from our meeting. However it is not exactly taken as the meeting unfolded, but slightly after the meeting.

Highs and Lows made us giddy… eg. Janet is up for tenure…

NARST proposal updated and on at (link forthcoming)



Data system/management also on Google docs: (link forthcoming)


Next time have three plusses and three arrows for each EMI paper…

Posting from an Email from April

I rapidly posted this to get it up here, Sorry for not commenting on it, I will later. I have a ton to get done. Perhaps we can discuss some if this a little tomorrow during our work session.

“Mark Windschitl requires his students to conduct their action research / lesson study work at the level of student work…(not allowing questions such as how does this change in pedagogy impact classroom culture?)  When we look across 474 action research projects, they fall at different “levels” noted below.  Is it too much to require teachers to work at all levels at once to get to the ultimate concern, impact on students’ learning?   Also, it would be interesting to consider what is missing in this graphic (based on our 474 topics) such as classroom culture (under practices perhaps).  And do we agree with the uni-directional layout that seems to be completely determined by teachers’ knowledge, dispositions, and reflections. (I’m guessing not.)”

More food for thought…

(We both have his paper too.)
It would be interesting to rework this figure to support Honeyoye Falls and GRS Food for Thought (2008-09) teachers’ action research work. 



Presented by Fulmer, Gavin (2008) NARST.  (We both have his paper too.)

Operationalization of reform-based science teaching: Another take

We all have been working with Mark Windschitl’s dilemmas and they have informed our work to the core. April and I have been talking about some of his other work presented at a conference that also seems powerful (as the dilemmas?). The four themes are:


1. Selecting “Big Ideas” in Science: This is the degree to which participants were able to identify the major underlying ideas in a curriculum and teach to those ideas, as opposed to teaching mere “topics”. If for example a participant was given a curriculum unit on the ocean’s tides, they might understand that the big idea behind this phenomenon was the gravitational relationships between the earth, moon, and sun. A topic centered focus, on the other hand, would mean that one might teach the definition of what is meant by high tide and low tide, how often they occur, and where they occur.
2. Teaching for Epistemic Fluency: This is the degree to which participants helped their pupils to understand that the currency of scientific knowledge is not a set of facts, but rather models and theories that are testable, revisable, conjectural, and explanatory.
3. Pressing Students for Evidence-based Explanations of Science Phenomena: This is the degree to which participants focused their pupils’ on underlying causes of events and processes, rather than simply having them look for patterns and trends in data. Observations are used, as evidence, to support claims one makes about causes.
4. Teaching as “Working on Student Ideas.” This is the degree to which participants elicited their pupils’ ideas at the outset of a unit of instruction and then made instructional decisions based on pupils’ initial understandings.
(Mark Windschitl, Jessica Thompson, Melissa Braaten, 2008, AERA)
Our questions center around the theoretical underpinnings for these. April pointed out that these are not so much their primary work… we can think about why these resonate with us, how they fit in to GRS and what theoretical/research work supports the use of these four foci.


Greg: Positioning within power structure. Goal? Teaching within the dominant culture (as a member) Core values:Promoting constructivism in the classroom and how that played out. Question comes up whether we should do coding. Using Ms. Frizzle codes? Can provide a framework/structure.Kankana will try coding (like Ms. Frizzle paper) and will report back how that sounds…