W.M. Roth – författare

1 Wolff Michael Roth & Derrick R. Lavoie² 1 2 University of Victoria, Virtual Institute for Learning Resources The current reform in science education requires a substantive change in how science is taught. Implicit in this reform is an equally substantive change in professional devel- ment practices at all levels. (NRC, 1996,p. 56) In a continuously changing society, it is not surprising that education also undergoes continuous change. Science education is no exception, and perhaps changes are more rapid given the daily construction of new scientific knowledge. In such a c- mate of continuous change, the preparation of science teachers has to follow suit in order to be appropriate to the reforms that national organizations encourage. H- ever, whereas science teaching reform movements spawned recommendations of what teachers should know and be able to do in order for their students to concep- alize and process science (NSTA, 1997), they provide little guidance in terms of - the-classroom concrete implementation. Thus, while national science education organizations continue to refine their positions about teacher education, there is no mechanism for translating these positions and statements into science education courses that can improve the preparation and quality of p- service science teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels. (Yager & Penick, 1990. p. 670) It is therefore not surprising that there are voices that describe teacher prepa- tion as unsuccessful and as unresponsive to reform efforts (Schnur & Golby, 1995).

1 Wolff Michael Roth & Derrick R. Lavoie² 1 2 University of Victoria, Virtual Institute for Learning Resources The current reform in science education requires a substantive change in how science is taught. Implicit in this reform is an equally substantive change in professional devel- ment practices at all levels. (NRC, 1996,p. 56) In a continuously changing society, it is not surprising that education also undergoes continuous change. Science education is no exception, and perhaps changes are more rapid given the daily construction of new scientific knowledge. In such a c- mate of continuous change, the preparation of science teachers has to follow suit in order to be appropriate to the reforms that national organizations encourage. H- ever, whereas science teaching reform movements spawned recommendations of what teachers should know and be able to do in order for their students to concep- alize and process science (NSTA, 1997), they provide little guidance in terms of - the-classroom concrete implementation. Thus, while national science education organizations continue to refine their positions about teacher education, there is no mechanism for translating these positions and statements into science education courses that can improve the preparation and quality of p- service science teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels. (Yager & Penick, 1990. p. 670) It is therefore not surprising that there are voices that describe teacher prepa- tion as unsuccessful and as unresponsive to reform efforts (Schnur & Golby, 1995).

During the summer of 1990, while taking my holidays to teach a university course of physics for elementary teachers, I also tutored one of the tenth-grade students at my school in physics, chemistry, and mathematics. In return for working with him for free, I had requested permission to audiotape our sessions; I wanted to use the transcripts as data sources for a chapter that I had been in­ vited to write. It so happened that I discovered and read Jean Lave's Cognition in Practice that very summer, which inspired me to read other books on mathe­ matics in everyday situations. Two years later, while conducting a study with my teacher colleague G. Michael Bowen on eighth-grade students' learning during an open-inquiry ecology unit, I discovered these students' tremendous data analysis skills that appeared to be a function of the deep familiarity with the objects and events that they had studied and mathematized earlier in the unit. I reported my findings in two articles, 'Mathematization of experience in a grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science' and 'Where is the context in contextual word problems?: Mathematical practices and products in Grade 8 students' answers to story problems'. I Begin­ ning with that study, I developed a research agenda that focused on mathemati­ cal knowing in science and science-related professions. During the early 1990s, I was also interested in the notion of authentic practice as a metaphor for planning school science curriculum.

During the summer of 1990, while taking my holidays to teach a university course of physics for elementary teachers, I also tutored one of the tenth-grade students at my school in physics, chemistry, and mathematics. In return for working with him for free, I had requested permission to audiotape our sessions; I wanted to use the transcripts as data sources for a chapter that I had been in­ vited to write. It so happened that I discovered and read Jean Lave's Cognition in Practice that very summer, which inspired me to read other books on mathe­ matics in everyday situations. Two years later, while conducting a study with my teacher colleague G. Michael Bowen on eighth-grade students' learning during an open-inquiry ecology unit, I discovered these students' tremendous data analysis skills that appeared to be a function of the deep familiarity with the objects and events that they had studied and mathematized earlier in the unit. I reported my findings in two articles, 'Mathematization of experience in a grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science' and 'Where is the context in contextual word problems?: Mathematical practices and products in Grade 8 students' answers to story problems'. I Begin­ ning with that study, I developed a research agenda that focused on mathemati­ cal knowing in science and science-related professions. During the early 1990s, I was also interested in the notion of authentic practice as a metaphor for planning school science curriculum.

1 Wolff Michael Roth & Derrick R. Lavoie² 1 2 University of Victoria, Virtual Institute for Learning Resources The current reform in science education requires a substantive change in how science is taught. Implicit in this reform is an equally substantive change in professional devel- ment practices at all levels. (NRC, 1996,p. 56) In a continuously changing society, it is not surprising that education also undergoes continuous change. Science education is no exception, and perhaps changes are more rapid given the daily construction of new scientific knowledge. In such a c- mate of continuous change, the preparation of science teachers has to follow suit in order to be appropriate to the reforms that national organizations encourage. H- ever, whereas science teaching reform movements spawned recommendations of what teachers should know and be able to do in order for their students to concep- alize and process science (NSTA, 1997), they provide little guidance in terms of - the-classroom concrete implementation. Thus, while national science education organizations continue to refine their positions about teacher education, there is no mechanism for translating these positions and statements into science education courses that can improve the preparation and quality of p- service science teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels. (Yager & Penick, 1990. p. 670) It is therefore not surprising that there are voices that describe teacher prepa- tion as unsuccessful and as unresponsive to reform efforts (Schnur & Golby, 1995).