I have to say I loved last week's class on misconceptions. I am still going through the list of common student scientific conceptions, and it made me realize that I need to work on many of my explanations regarding certain concepts!
That being said, I think misconceptions are a great place to build a lesson around. I have heard it before that challenging misconceptions can be an excellent way of creating those true learning moments. It is easy enough for students to pass through their science classes by the simply memorizing facts (or calculus class, as many can attest!), because this method does not involve challenging an individuals pre-conceived notions about the world. Science then ends up being about accumulating facts rather than the continual evolution of ideas and a particular way of viewing the world.
One technique to combat misconceptions that I particularly like is to have students explain a particular phenomena. We did this in 416 during our first day of class to particular effect, when we were asked to describe why it is warmer in the summer and colder in the winter (with relation to the celestial bodies). Many of us, even as future science teachers, were vaguely aware of the seasonal effects of axial tilt, but we all seemed to hold on to the idea that the Earth's elliptical orbit must also play a significant role.
Another way to go about this is as I said bring up a particular scientific concept which students know to be untrue, and to have them try and prove the teacher wrong. An example could be to tell students that the sun revolves around the earth. Some students will likely grumble and maybe even call out, and the teacher can act shocked- "Are you saying that I am wrong?!" "Can you prove it?". Or, if there is no response, the teacher could try and come up with more outlandish hypotheses until students become confident enough to correct the teacher. This method might work especially well when the students are allowed to collaborate and scaffold their ideas together in small groups before explaining why the teacher was incorrect.
I also like the idea of students designing their own experiments to prove their hypotheses, or to better rationalize their thinking. I have done this before by asking students why condensation forms on the outside of a glass (something I believe we discussed in 416 as well). Many students have trouble conceptualizing condensation, though they have no problem with evaporation, and implicitly believe that it must have something to do with the water in the glass moving to the outside. It is fun to see what they come up with, such as adding a lid, putting dye in the water, or recalling that they have seen the same phenomena with a can of soda etc. I have also told students that I have a magic bottle that only allows water to pass through, but no other substance, in order to challenge them further.
Next week is my hook presentation, and I am going to use a similar technique that fits in with the whole theme of misconceptions or unexplained phenomena. It is something I have made up that I like to call 'Science or Magic?'. What I do is lay out my experimental reagents and let a few students inspect them. Then I tell students what I am going to do, and ask them to right down hypotheses of what they think will happen when I do it. After I preform the 'magic' I ask students, was that magic or science? Did what you expected to happen, in fact, happen? What did you observe? I usually will give them a minute or two to discuss with their neighbors, then let them know that they each have a week to get back to me and explain my 'magic trick'.
The purpose of this is that it mimics the scientific process in many ways; it allows the students to predict a phenomena by making a hypothesis, to observe the actual phenomena with their senses, and ample time to come up with a conclusion based on not only their own existing scientific knowledge, but also the wider body of knowledge available on the internet etc.
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Wednesday, 8 July 2015
Today the topic is formative assessment, something we discussed at length last week in 416. Personally I feel that formative assessment is THE integral part of teaching, because it allows us to see if learning is taking place. My own philosophy mirrors much of what is outlined in the First Peoples principals of learning, where the focus of teaching is on a student's individual growth, rather than against a particular criterion of reference. I believe that an educator's role is to foster growth and reflection in the students, so that they can become mindful of their own learning strengths and weaknesses. Education eventually becomes a self-evaluative process whereby we are constantly checking to see if we are expanding in our ability to know, understand and do.
Formative assessment can also be a very useful tool for teachers to plan and differentiate their instruction. It is difficult for a teacher to be truly inclusive and teach to every student until he or she has some idea what their individual educational needs are. They may opt to begin to plan their Units by incorporating various modes of instruction, in an attempt to reach all members of the class, but only once he or she has received feedback from each individual student as to how they learning process is going, can they truly adapt their instruction and assessment accordingly. The curriculum may indicate the for Chemistry 11 for example, 7-12 hours should be dedicated to the study of the different phases of matter. However through formative checks it may become apparent that the students have no problem grasping the concepts of matter, and the teacher may then opt to move to more advanced matter discussions, or spend time on other areas of the curriculum. The opposite is equally possible; perhaps members of the class are having more difficulty with a topic than was initially expected. By analyzing student work, self-reflections and other formative checks, the teacher is better able to adapt their method of delivery to suit the needs of the student. It may be that the student is understanding the concept partially, but not to the degree that is required for the summative assessment piece. This lets the teacher know where they need to dedicate more time, or to alter their approach.
My own favourite form of formative assessment is through open forums such as online blogging. Platforms such as blogger, wordpress or google classroom are ideal for this, because they utilize the online format which many students are familiar with, and they allow the student to begin to develop their self-reflective capabilities. I am always surprised just how well many students are able to grasp their learning progress, and where they are having difficulty. Additionally, I often learn things about the student that are beneficial not only from an assessment viewpoint, but from a personal view as well. This can help tremendously when building relationships of trust and care, and it allows the educator to reach the student more authentically by learning about their own passions and interests. One other advantage is that this format allows for other students to learn from the reflections of their peers, and in a sense it extend the classroom community outside of the traditional realms of school. I have found that many students do not know what is expected of them when it comes to self-reflection, but when they are able to observe the work of their peers, it gives them a bit of a scaffold in their own growth tracking process. Finally, it allows the educator to see what parts of their instruction could most use adaptation and or improvement. I have had lessons that I thought were extremely unorganized that students loved, and still others that didn't meet particular needs which I thought went reasonably well (it is important for the teacher to reflect!)
I firmly believe that personal growth is the most important part of education. We may no all be able to meet every benchmark that is set for us in life, but if we are mindful of our own learning process, and what we need in order to best develop our individual gifts, then we have developed an important skill that is applicable in all walks of life. This I think should be the core focus of school, and can be best done with formative assessment, by all members of the classroom community. Blogging as reflection is not new, it is just the 21st century method of retaining a journal or diary, and it can be implemented with ease even by the most technologically illiterate of educators. Almost all students have mobile devices in the modern classroom, and it is the savvy educator who sees these as additional learning tools, rather than unfortunate distractions.
Formative assessment can also be a very useful tool for teachers to plan and differentiate their instruction. It is difficult for a teacher to be truly inclusive and teach to every student until he or she has some idea what their individual educational needs are. They may opt to begin to plan their Units by incorporating various modes of instruction, in an attempt to reach all members of the class, but only once he or she has received feedback from each individual student as to how they learning process is going, can they truly adapt their instruction and assessment accordingly. The curriculum may indicate the for Chemistry 11 for example, 7-12 hours should be dedicated to the study of the different phases of matter. However through formative checks it may become apparent that the students have no problem grasping the concepts of matter, and the teacher may then opt to move to more advanced matter discussions, or spend time on other areas of the curriculum. The opposite is equally possible; perhaps members of the class are having more difficulty with a topic than was initially expected. By analyzing student work, self-reflections and other formative checks, the teacher is better able to adapt their method of delivery to suit the needs of the student. It may be that the student is understanding the concept partially, but not to the degree that is required for the summative assessment piece. This lets the teacher know where they need to dedicate more time, or to alter their approach.
My own favourite form of formative assessment is through open forums such as online blogging. Platforms such as blogger, wordpress or google classroom are ideal for this, because they utilize the online format which many students are familiar with, and they allow the student to begin to develop their self-reflective capabilities. I am always surprised just how well many students are able to grasp their learning progress, and where they are having difficulty. Additionally, I often learn things about the student that are beneficial not only from an assessment viewpoint, but from a personal view as well. This can help tremendously when building relationships of trust and care, and it allows the educator to reach the student more authentically by learning about their own passions and interests. One other advantage is that this format allows for other students to learn from the reflections of their peers, and in a sense it extend the classroom community outside of the traditional realms of school. I have found that many students do not know what is expected of them when it comes to self-reflection, but when they are able to observe the work of their peers, it gives them a bit of a scaffold in their own growth tracking process. Finally, it allows the educator to see what parts of their instruction could most use adaptation and or improvement. I have had lessons that I thought were extremely unorganized that students loved, and still others that didn't meet particular needs which I thought went reasonably well (it is important for the teacher to reflect!)
I firmly believe that personal growth is the most important part of education. We may no all be able to meet every benchmark that is set for us in life, but if we are mindful of our own learning process, and what we need in order to best develop our individual gifts, then we have developed an important skill that is applicable in all walks of life. This I think should be the core focus of school, and can be best done with formative assessment, by all members of the classroom community. Blogging as reflection is not new, it is just the 21st century method of retaining a journal or diary, and it can be implemented with ease even by the most technologically illiterate of educators. Almost all students have mobile devices in the modern classroom, and it is the savvy educator who sees these as additional learning tools, rather than unfortunate distractions.
Wednesday, 17 June 2015
Since I am out of sync with the class reflections, I will write a preemptive post on Indigenous knowledge/science before reading Learning Indigenous Science from Place and discussing the topic in 416, in order to accurately reflect upon how my understanding has changed.
I have some knowledge of Aboriginal pedagogy, as a student in the PDP Indigenous perspectives Teacher Education Module, and I often incorporate the First Peoples principles of learning into my lesson design. Additionally, I have written an academic paper on how Indigenous knowledge can inform the physical education curricula and the pedagogical practices of teachers. However, incorporating Indigenous perspectives and content into science has been an area where I feel I have not been entirely effective. There are the obvious instances in the B.C. curriculum where Indigenous knowledge makes appearances, such in the form of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Science 10, or through discussion of Aboriginal views on the earth and celestial bodies in Science 9, but I can't help but feel that my lessons on these particular topics in Science have been anything more than piecemeal in nature.
For myself, most of my growth has really come down to acknowledging that this form of pedagogy has something to offer the modern student. It took me quite a while to reach a place where I fully 'believed in' Indigenous knowledge as more than a holistic way of looking at the world. I think the main factor which contributed to this realization was when I began to understand that TEK and other First Nations ways of knowing are not individual disciplines to be studied and implemented, but rather ways of learning and understanding that supersede all disciplines.
Certainly the goal of science is to better grasp the nature of our universe, but it attempts to do so from an objective human perspective, which in itself is fundamentally flawed. Indigenous knowledge on the other hand recognizes this bias, and attempts to address it through the multiple perspectives of all living things. This is why many First Nations people will thank all their relations, which includes every interaction affecting that person, from the wind, to the forest, to that individual's own immediate family. All of these things have a place in the learning of the individual, and by observing and attempting to understand each piece in how it interacts with everything else, the individual can make hypotheses about the way that nature functions. To do so without some understanding of the multitude of factors involved in a particular organism or piece of matter's existence would be akin to assuming in Western science that one thing is causally related to another, when in fact the true interaction is completely different.
I think this concept is is best described through the aboriginal concept of spirituality, where a life of the utmost spiritual quality is a "life that experiences to a high degree the connections in the relationship of the self to all reality" (Curwen Doige, 2003). As a scientific person who would not consider himself spiritual in any way, I found this extremely interesting, because it describes almost exactly the allure of Western science to me. That we should question the way the world works through experiencing its physical phenomena and understanding these phenomena through all possible angles seems only natural. I think that such an approach, were it considered by Western science, would help to re-evaluate some of the scientific theories and laws that do not seem to hold up under all circumstances. Perhaps if we accepted the value of Aboriginal ways of knowing and applied them to the scientific discipline, we would already have solutions to many of the questions regarding the quantum world that have been understood by Aboriginal people (to some degree) for centuries. Indigenous knowledge is such an exciting topic for me because the more I learn, the more I seem to be rewarded with refreshing new outlooks and furthered understanding.
I have some knowledge of Aboriginal pedagogy, as a student in the PDP Indigenous perspectives Teacher Education Module, and I often incorporate the First Peoples principles of learning into my lesson design. Additionally, I have written an academic paper on how Indigenous knowledge can inform the physical education curricula and the pedagogical practices of teachers. However, incorporating Indigenous perspectives and content into science has been an area where I feel I have not been entirely effective. There are the obvious instances in the B.C. curriculum where Indigenous knowledge makes appearances, such in the form of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Science 10, or through discussion of Aboriginal views on the earth and celestial bodies in Science 9, but I can't help but feel that my lessons on these particular topics in Science have been anything more than piecemeal in nature.
For myself, most of my growth has really come down to acknowledging that this form of pedagogy has something to offer the modern student. It took me quite a while to reach a place where I fully 'believed in' Indigenous knowledge as more than a holistic way of looking at the world. I think the main factor which contributed to this realization was when I began to understand that TEK and other First Nations ways of knowing are not individual disciplines to be studied and implemented, but rather ways of learning and understanding that supersede all disciplines.
Certainly the goal of science is to better grasp the nature of our universe, but it attempts to do so from an objective human perspective, which in itself is fundamentally flawed. Indigenous knowledge on the other hand recognizes this bias, and attempts to address it through the multiple perspectives of all living things. This is why many First Nations people will thank all their relations, which includes every interaction affecting that person, from the wind, to the forest, to that individual's own immediate family. All of these things have a place in the learning of the individual, and by observing and attempting to understand each piece in how it interacts with everything else, the individual can make hypotheses about the way that nature functions. To do so without some understanding of the multitude of factors involved in a particular organism or piece of matter's existence would be akin to assuming in Western science that one thing is causally related to another, when in fact the true interaction is completely different.
I think this concept is is best described through the aboriginal concept of spirituality, where a life of the utmost spiritual quality is a "life that experiences to a high degree the connections in the relationship of the self to all reality" (Curwen Doige, 2003). As a scientific person who would not consider himself spiritual in any way, I found this extremely interesting, because it describes almost exactly the allure of Western science to me. That we should question the way the world works through experiencing its physical phenomena and understanding these phenomena through all possible angles seems only natural. I think that such an approach, were it considered by Western science, would help to re-evaluate some of the scientific theories and laws that do not seem to hold up under all circumstances. Perhaps if we accepted the value of Aboriginal ways of knowing and applied them to the scientific discipline, we would already have solutions to many of the questions regarding the quantum world that have been understood by Aboriginal people (to some degree) for centuries. Indigenous knowledge is such an exciting topic for me because the more I learn, the more I seem to be rewarded with refreshing new outlooks and furthered understanding.
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
This week's reading was Chapter 4 of Rodger Bybee's book The Teaching of Science: 21st Century Perspectives. This chapter focused specifically on the 'teaching of science as inquiry', and delves into some of the history and current research around inquiry in the classroom. I was quite surprised that educators have been making inquiry a priority since the 1800's, yet still it is still something that is on the back-burner for many modern science teachers. I really connected with some of the statements in the chapter, especially those of John Dewey, where he discusses inquiry as more of a habit of the scientific mind, rather than a specific way of teaching. Though he published most of his theories in the early 1900's he was quite ahead of his time, in realizing that many individuals look at science as a body of facts of laws that are undeniably correct, rather than as a method of questioning and gathering evidence. I have seen this in the science classroom- students want to know what is the 'truth' or 'right answer' and be done with a topic, there is little room in their minds for questioning existing paradigms or challenging scientific ideas that don't stack up with what they believe. Indeed, many of the prescribed BC science textbooks portray science as a
collection of facts or a body of knowledge for students to learn.
Unfortunately, the impression this gives is often one where studying science is nothing more than memorizing facts and mastering
theories.
This in my mind is truly a failure of the education system. We as teachers get too wrapped up in the required content, or the 'scientific method', which many see as a set of rigid steps that a scientist flows through to achieve a conclusion, when in fact there is no such definitive protocol. I personally believe that the scientific method is simply manipulating a question or idea, working it into new shapes and formats, integrating it into our world, and playing with it in unknown ways. The scientific method IS inquiry, and it should involve students taking control of their own learning, where they go through the cyclical inquiring process and increase their understanding. As they learn to think through their own designs and developments, they gain a sense of self-responsibility that can extend outside of the subject area of science.
I also enjoyed the middle portion of the chapter, because it clarifies for the educator what inquiry in science actually looks like through a set of 'guidelines'. These chiefly revolve around engaging in questioning and developing evidence through such questioning. I think this is an area where students can benefit from some 'hands-on' direction from the teacher, as left to their own devices they may have trouble giving evidence the priority it deserves and formulating their explanations based on evidence alone. The 5th essential inquiry feature is of particular importance in my opinion because through communicating and justifying findings, it gives the budding scientist opportunity to fully form their understanding. I was further encouraged that these 5 tenets share similar themes to what I have written previously for myself about 'good science teaching'. My personal view is that it should involve asking questions, describing events & constructing explanations, and these explanations should be tested against current science knowledge and shared. There is often a lack of openness to alternative thinking and sometimes assumptions get the better of the budding scientist, so fostering a critical and logical mindframe is very important.
Finally, the later section of the reading deals with research on the use of and effectiveness of inquiry. I have read some literature on 'open inquiry', where students formulate their own problems to solve as well as the procedure (basically doing actual science), and while I think this may be an effective technique that could be progressively implemented, I am worried that it could result in a lack of directness and a reduction in performance. So I was encouraged to read the results of the 2008 Seidel et al., study that suggested the ideal form of scientific education to be at least 4 hours of hands on science per week, experienced through multiple curricular outcomes, and in the form of guided inquiry. I feel that open inquiry has its place, but it may be more appropriate for science clubs, science fairs and extension projects after the core scientific goals are met.
So all in all a very though-provoking read this week. I am encouraged to delve more of Rodger Bybee's work and I have found a very educational website on the topic of scientific inquiry called Just Science Now, which contains a large volume of information on the different types of inquiry, and appropriate lessons for facilitating that type in the classroom.
This in my mind is truly a failure of the education system. We as teachers get too wrapped up in the required content, or the 'scientific method', which many see as a set of rigid steps that a scientist flows through to achieve a conclusion, when in fact there is no such definitive protocol. I personally believe that the scientific method is simply manipulating a question or idea, working it into new shapes and formats, integrating it into our world, and playing with it in unknown ways. The scientific method IS inquiry, and it should involve students taking control of their own learning, where they go through the cyclical inquiring process and increase their understanding. As they learn to think through their own designs and developments, they gain a sense of self-responsibility that can extend outside of the subject area of science.
I also enjoyed the middle portion of the chapter, because it clarifies for the educator what inquiry in science actually looks like through a set of 'guidelines'. These chiefly revolve around engaging in questioning and developing evidence through such questioning. I think this is an area where students can benefit from some 'hands-on' direction from the teacher, as left to their own devices they may have trouble giving evidence the priority it deserves and formulating their explanations based on evidence alone. The 5th essential inquiry feature is of particular importance in my opinion because through communicating and justifying findings, it gives the budding scientist opportunity to fully form their understanding. I was further encouraged that these 5 tenets share similar themes to what I have written previously for myself about 'good science teaching'. My personal view is that it should involve asking questions, describing events & constructing explanations, and these explanations should be tested against current science knowledge and shared. There is often a lack of openness to alternative thinking and sometimes assumptions get the better of the budding scientist, so fostering a critical and logical mindframe is very important.
Finally, the later section of the reading deals with research on the use of and effectiveness of inquiry. I have read some literature on 'open inquiry', where students formulate their own problems to solve as well as the procedure (basically doing actual science), and while I think this may be an effective technique that could be progressively implemented, I am worried that it could result in a lack of directness and a reduction in performance. So I was encouraged to read the results of the 2008 Seidel et al., study that suggested the ideal form of scientific education to be at least 4 hours of hands on science per week, experienced through multiple curricular outcomes, and in the form of guided inquiry. I feel that open inquiry has its place, but it may be more appropriate for science clubs, science fairs and extension projects after the core scientific goals are met.
So all in all a very though-provoking read this week. I am encouraged to delve more of Rodger Bybee's work and I have found a very educational website on the topic of scientific inquiry called Just Science Now, which contains a large volume of information on the different types of inquiry, and appropriate lessons for facilitating that type in the classroom.
Friday, 29 May 2015
This week we had a guest speaker, Sandy Wohl, from Genome British Columbia. While his current role is in educational outreach, Sandy has been a public school teacher for over 40 years. As he presented to us, it soon became readily apparent why he has been so successful and received so many awards. He is very passionate about engaging his students, whether through his (sometimes questionable!) humour or by numerous other means, and it was inspiring to watch him talk about the places he has found the most success in his career. I am very on board with his philosophical approach regarding the technical and highly visual world faced by students of today, and this was something I focused on in my practicum. I like to find the most engaging media, pictures, webpages, etc. possible for my students to show them how awesome and exciting science can be, and from my formative assessments and student questionnaires, this was one of my most effective techniques in the eyes of my students. They also seemed to really loved the use of technology in the classroom- I keep an overarching website where all my notes, videos, assignments and contact information can be found. Twitter and blogging were additional mediums that I found useful to the connect with students, and I have been realizing more and more that as Sandy alluded, it is not about competing with student technology, i.e. we cannot say, "put away your phone and listen to me!" but rather realize that student interest in these devices and online platforms can be a tool with which we can reach them. I have attended some of the Surrey innovators conferences, (which focus on using tech in the classroom) and though I think the proposed potential of some of their mandates may be a bit over-exaggerated, I fully agree that we as educators are responsible to learn how to communicate through these mediums. If we cannot, the students will believe (and rightly so) that we are obsolete, with little to offer them in our rapidly changing world.
Another inspiring takeaway from Sandy's visit was his collection of excellent multi-modal student projects from his years of teaching K-12. It really illustrated to me the effectiveness of given students choice in how they demonstrate their learning. This was something that I was introduced to by Ross Powell, one of the FAs for the Imaginative Education module, in his discussion of differentiated instruction. It took me a while to fully comprehend, but I can see now that this doesn't simply mean, "show what you learned in either a PowerPoint, poster, or an essay", but rather "here are the criteria for this assignment, you may express your growth in any way you are comfortable with, as long as you meet the criteria", then perhaps provide some suggestions. One very impressive example of this from the innovators conferences was a student who did very little work in History class, but was obviously gifted. When the teacher approached him about some way to show his learning and make up his grade, he replied that there was no point, because "what he wanted to do would take weeks past the class end date". So the teacher humoured him and said, "well, if you finish whatever it is you have in mind and you hand it in, I will assess it". And what the student came up with was a truly remarkable pop-up book covering all of World War 2! So I think this type of assessment differentiation can be an excellent way to engage students because it allows them to learn and show their learning in the way that they desire most. The only risk is that students will continually avoid the mediums that they are uncomfortable with, so it might be for the teacher to step in in these cases and provide additional structure. But overall, I could a see a final portfolio containing student selected formats for assessment being a very powerful demonstrator of semester or year long growth.
Another inspiring takeaway from Sandy's visit was his collection of excellent multi-modal student projects from his years of teaching K-12. It really illustrated to me the effectiveness of given students choice in how they demonstrate their learning. This was something that I was introduced to by Ross Powell, one of the FAs for the Imaginative Education module, in his discussion of differentiated instruction. It took me a while to fully comprehend, but I can see now that this doesn't simply mean, "show what you learned in either a PowerPoint, poster, or an essay", but rather "here are the criteria for this assignment, you may express your growth in any way you are comfortable with, as long as you meet the criteria", then perhaps provide some suggestions. One very impressive example of this from the innovators conferences was a student who did very little work in History class, but was obviously gifted. When the teacher approached him about some way to show his learning and make up his grade, he replied that there was no point, because "what he wanted to do would take weeks past the class end date". So the teacher humoured him and said, "well, if you finish whatever it is you have in mind and you hand it in, I will assess it". And what the student came up with was a truly remarkable pop-up book covering all of World War 2! So I think this type of assessment differentiation can be an excellent way to engage students because it allows them to learn and show their learning in the way that they desire most. The only risk is that students will continually avoid the mediums that they are uncomfortable with, so it might be for the teacher to step in in these cases and provide additional structure. But overall, I could a see a final portfolio containing student selected formats for assessment being a very powerful demonstrator of semester or year long growth.
Monday, 25 May 2015
This week in Science designs for learning we read chapter 2 of 'Rethinking the Way We Teach Science' by Louis Rosenblatt. This was an interesting choice for me because I have a note I made in my phone that says "Rethink the Way We Teach Science", and initially I thought it was the result of some deep epiphany I had had, but now I realize that it was probably just that someone had recommended me this excellent book!
For me, the chapter was all about placing students at the centre of what is occurring in the classroom. Instead of delivering material and 'giving out' answers, Rosenblatt aptly suggests that the focus of the science classroom should shift to have students build arguments and explore ideas that they can connect with. The examples of the condensation on the outside of a glass, or the phenomena related to the sun and moon were practical demonstrations of how one can inspire students to question the world around them in an interactive and explanatory way. I can certainly see this type of approach working with a large portion of students, and also with many adults. I doubt many could explain the process of condensation, and there may be some who are even unaware of the water in the air around us. It illustrates that this type of 'interactive learning' based on 'questioning over answers' could work at any age level!
The second part of the chapter takes a bit of a different turn, and looks at the same issue through the lens of history and the traditional philosophy of science. By discussing the work of Cuvier and Darwin, Rosenblatt attempts to drive home the point that we often struggle as scientists and teachers to move beyond the traditional boundaries of our discipline and focus on the question itself as opposed to the existing 'facts'. Personally, I thought this tied in well with our discussion of the new curriculum that followed, something I think can be argued to be more problem-solving focused and less answer/content heavy. It is exciting that we are slowly moving towards a school system where 'making sense of things' lies at the heart of the curriculum- a truly important part of becoming 'educated'. Especially in an age where so much information is available with the click of a button, it has never been more important to teach the skills required to outline a problem and develop strategies to solve it. I feel as a student teacher it can be difficult not to get overwhelmed by the dominant way of doing things in your particular school, but this chapter has helped to remind me of my original intentions for entering the field of education in the first place. For me the next challenge will be coming up with appropriate assessment strategies to evaluate students on their inquiry progress. It may be difficult to break away from the paradigm of 'right answers for assessment', but the value of this approach seems too great to me to allow such hurdles to prevent change. I can see value in Rosenblatt's philosophy not only in the science classroom, but across all teaching disciplines, and it think this might be one of the books that will become an indispensable part of my teacher library.
For me, the chapter was all about placing students at the centre of what is occurring in the classroom. Instead of delivering material and 'giving out' answers, Rosenblatt aptly suggests that the focus of the science classroom should shift to have students build arguments and explore ideas that they can connect with. The examples of the condensation on the outside of a glass, or the phenomena related to the sun and moon were practical demonstrations of how one can inspire students to question the world around them in an interactive and explanatory way. I can certainly see this type of approach working with a large portion of students, and also with many adults. I doubt many could explain the process of condensation, and there may be some who are even unaware of the water in the air around us. It illustrates that this type of 'interactive learning' based on 'questioning over answers' could work at any age level!
The second part of the chapter takes a bit of a different turn, and looks at the same issue through the lens of history and the traditional philosophy of science. By discussing the work of Cuvier and Darwin, Rosenblatt attempts to drive home the point that we often struggle as scientists and teachers to move beyond the traditional boundaries of our discipline and focus on the question itself as opposed to the existing 'facts'. Personally, I thought this tied in well with our discussion of the new curriculum that followed, something I think can be argued to be more problem-solving focused and less answer/content heavy. It is exciting that we are slowly moving towards a school system where 'making sense of things' lies at the heart of the curriculum- a truly important part of becoming 'educated'. Especially in an age where so much information is available with the click of a button, it has never been more important to teach the skills required to outline a problem and develop strategies to solve it. I feel as a student teacher it can be difficult not to get overwhelmed by the dominant way of doing things in your particular school, but this chapter has helped to remind me of my original intentions for entering the field of education in the first place. For me the next challenge will be coming up with appropriate assessment strategies to evaluate students on their inquiry progress. It may be difficult to break away from the paradigm of 'right answers for assessment', but the value of this approach seems too great to me to allow such hurdles to prevent change. I can see value in Rosenblatt's philosophy not only in the science classroom, but across all teaching disciplines, and it think this might be one of the books that will become an indispensable part of my teacher library.
Friday, 15 May 2015
Our first session of Designs for Learning: Secondary Science was quite exciting for me. We have a diverse group of student teachers in the class, and it seems that there will be plenty of opportunity to learn from experts from the other scientific disciplines that have not been within my area of focus. Everyone seems very passionate about science teaching in general, so I am sure that even the educators with similar science backgrounds to myself will be able to challenge my current thinking about the scientific discipline and the way I present it to students. It also appears that 416 will be very hands-on, and provide us as educators numerous opportunities to experience inquiry-based approaches such as group problem solving and discussion. I think we all know that this can be one of the best ways to engage students and to get them thinking and challenging their pre-conceived notions about science, but for some of the curriculum we (or certainly I!) may not have formulated how this might look exactly as an actual lesson.
During our four hour block this Wednesday, I found the 'carousel activity' where we looked at several scenarios and discussed whether or not we believed the writing represented science or something else, to be particularly effective. I think this technique could work well both as a pre-assessment or as formative assessment (particularly with the 4 corners activity afterwards), and also as a way for students to put their new learning into practice.
The second activity where we 'investigated the ramp' was also excellent in that it allowed me to see how effective this kind of 'inquiry group work' can be at generating several different approaches to solving a problem, especially when the teacher doesn't front load a lot of content and give explicit criteria. It would be another excellent way to pre-assess that also gets students thinking about a problem, and would allow them to further build on their existing knowledge through the presenting/sharing at the end.
Between these two activities, we also read the article Teaching Science by John R. Staver during our break period. I was a little distracted by some free plants that were available outside the cornerstone building (they now live in my lab), so I only read part of the article during class, and finished it on Friday. The article was put out by the International Academy of Education, and is split into 8 sections which are designed to assist Secondary Science teachers in their thinking about their purpose as science educators and the best way to achieve these purposes.
The first principle that Staver discusses is "teaching as a purposeful means to an end", or rather that the overall goal of science teaching is really student learning. Each principle is divided up into 'research findings' and 'practical applications' and for this one, the findings were a little obvious- that we as educators are responsible for our students learning, and that we should modify our instruction so to better support this learning if students are struggling or failing to learn. I think all modern educators share this belief; gone are the days where teachers believe that their role is to teach the material, and that it is the students responsibility is to learn (sounds a little like university), but it is a good reminder.
The second discussion is on core scientific ideas, especially those that have the most importance to each particular discipline. To me this section related strongly to the new upcoming curricular views that focus on the 'big ideas' of science, and center planning and learning around such ideas. It also reminded me of a speech we had on the first day of PDP, which was basically a discussion on the fact that the students of today will be faced with rapidly changing technology (and potentially scientific knowledge). Therefore it is up to us to teach them inquiry techniques and how to properly use scientific information to make effective choices in their lives. A movement towards thinking and away from memorization of core knowledge is obviously necessary in order to do this, especially given the already stringent time constraints placed on science teachers today.
Deep scientific understanding was also something that was discussed in the readings, which Staver suggests includes a coherent system of facts, or what I like to call a 'solid knowledge base', but also a strong emphasis on developing problem solving skills. I liked this section because it gives practical suggestions on how we can teach better problem solvers, such as effectively mapping out a 'problem gaps', and better learning from their errors during problem solving. Rather than having students work on endless exercises to see if they are 'getting it', we can have students work together in groups to attempt to solve problems outside of the realm of what they can complete on their own.
The fourth principle was a little less beneficial in my eyes, in that its basic suggestion was that we consider the level of each learner and their cognitive abilities, so that we do not overwhelm them. As teachers we are always observing our students to see where they are at cognitively, so I don't think this is much of an issue that needs addressing. However what I did find useful from this section is the reminder that the student body is diverse, and that by allowing students to share their social and cultural background knowledge, it may allow their peers to think in different ways and learn how to tackle open-ended problems more effectively than they would be able to on their own.
Section 5 was about active construction of scientific knowledge, and creating better adaptive thinkers. Staver suggests that a lot of this may depend on creating appropriately structured environments that support students and allow them to interact with their peers as they actively construct. Upon reflection, I can really see this principle embodied in the two tasks that we completed in class on Wednesday, that I discuss above. We were able to individually and in our small groups construct ideas and empirically test them (especially with the ramp activity), and then come together as a class and diagnose each of our alternative conceptions. The 'four corners' was great for this, as a few of us disagreed upon one of the 'Is this Science?' scenarios. Sometimes these inconsistencies are uncomfortable, and provoke heated debate, but they are often the best opportunities to construct new learning, or reaffirm existing frameworks.
Staver also highlights the importance of connecting Science with students lives and interests. I fully agree with this principle, and I think it applies to learning under any scenario. We only care about what we can relate and find value in. Sometimes this can be a little harder in science when we are dealing with abstract concepts, and educators may be afraid that by making inferences about scientific ideas, but I don't think it need be as difficult as it seems. Teachers don't need to necessarily directly link science experiences to student interests, only find appropriate ways to fit understanding of core ideas into existing student frameworks.
Another point of discussion is expectations for Science learning. I made an instant connection to this concept, because I observed some of the examples first hand. I had two science 10 classes during my short practicum, and despite encouraging students equally, I certainly had lower expectations for the adapted Science 10 class. These students were asked less challenging questions and were given more assignments that involved more rote-memorization, as opposed to allowing them to be creative and experience problems that centered around inquiry and higher-level scientific thinking.
Finally, the last section dealt with student anxiety and conflict. Specifically, it was focused on being sensitive to ideas that may be controversial for students, such as evolution. I had to be similarly tentative with this topic at my school, as there were several families at the school who had specific views. It was a good reminder that we as scientists should remember to avoid using 'definitives', such as "this has been proved to be true", or "everyone believes ____", because in addition to the uncomfortable feelings it can provoke, scientific views are constantly changing. Evolutionary theory may one day (though it is unlikely) become displaced by a superior theory, and we should be mindful of this possibility. I think therefore that when discussing ideas that are sensitive or unfavorable, we can circumvent issues by simply presenting them as theories that have great explanatory power and predictive ability and leave it at that.
So all in all a very thought-provoking class and reading assignment this week. I think my big take away is up to me us as science educators to set up appropriate inquiry-focused learning environments, then take a step back and let students do the body of the knowledge constructing on their own, while keeping a watchful eye and facilitating when necessary. More and more I am realizing that my role as a teacher is about understanding what it means to be an 'expert learner', and not necessarily an expert in every topic or discipline.
During our four hour block this Wednesday, I found the 'carousel activity' where we looked at several scenarios and discussed whether or not we believed the writing represented science or something else, to be particularly effective. I think this technique could work well both as a pre-assessment or as formative assessment (particularly with the 4 corners activity afterwards), and also as a way for students to put their new learning into practice.
The second activity where we 'investigated the ramp' was also excellent in that it allowed me to see how effective this kind of 'inquiry group work' can be at generating several different approaches to solving a problem, especially when the teacher doesn't front load a lot of content and give explicit criteria. It would be another excellent way to pre-assess that also gets students thinking about a problem, and would allow them to further build on their existing knowledge through the presenting/sharing at the end.
Between these two activities, we also read the article Teaching Science by John R. Staver during our break period. I was a little distracted by some free plants that were available outside the cornerstone building (they now live in my lab), so I only read part of the article during class, and finished it on Friday. The article was put out by the International Academy of Education, and is split into 8 sections which are designed to assist Secondary Science teachers in their thinking about their purpose as science educators and the best way to achieve these purposes.
The first principle that Staver discusses is "teaching as a purposeful means to an end", or rather that the overall goal of science teaching is really student learning. Each principle is divided up into 'research findings' and 'practical applications' and for this one, the findings were a little obvious- that we as educators are responsible for our students learning, and that we should modify our instruction so to better support this learning if students are struggling or failing to learn. I think all modern educators share this belief; gone are the days where teachers believe that their role is to teach the material, and that it is the students responsibility is to learn (sounds a little like university), but it is a good reminder.
The second discussion is on core scientific ideas, especially those that have the most importance to each particular discipline. To me this section related strongly to the new upcoming curricular views that focus on the 'big ideas' of science, and center planning and learning around such ideas. It also reminded me of a speech we had on the first day of PDP, which was basically a discussion on the fact that the students of today will be faced with rapidly changing technology (and potentially scientific knowledge). Therefore it is up to us to teach them inquiry techniques and how to properly use scientific information to make effective choices in their lives. A movement towards thinking and away from memorization of core knowledge is obviously necessary in order to do this, especially given the already stringent time constraints placed on science teachers today.
Deep scientific understanding was also something that was discussed in the readings, which Staver suggests includes a coherent system of facts, or what I like to call a 'solid knowledge base', but also a strong emphasis on developing problem solving skills. I liked this section because it gives practical suggestions on how we can teach better problem solvers, such as effectively mapping out a 'problem gaps', and better learning from their errors during problem solving. Rather than having students work on endless exercises to see if they are 'getting it', we can have students work together in groups to attempt to solve problems outside of the realm of what they can complete on their own.
The fourth principle was a little less beneficial in my eyes, in that its basic suggestion was that we consider the level of each learner and their cognitive abilities, so that we do not overwhelm them. As teachers we are always observing our students to see where they are at cognitively, so I don't think this is much of an issue that needs addressing. However what I did find useful from this section is the reminder that the student body is diverse, and that by allowing students to share their social and cultural background knowledge, it may allow their peers to think in different ways and learn how to tackle open-ended problems more effectively than they would be able to on their own.
Section 5 was about active construction of scientific knowledge, and creating better adaptive thinkers. Staver suggests that a lot of this may depend on creating appropriately structured environments that support students and allow them to interact with their peers as they actively construct. Upon reflection, I can really see this principle embodied in the two tasks that we completed in class on Wednesday, that I discuss above. We were able to individually and in our small groups construct ideas and empirically test them (especially with the ramp activity), and then come together as a class and diagnose each of our alternative conceptions. The 'four corners' was great for this, as a few of us disagreed upon one of the 'Is this Science?' scenarios. Sometimes these inconsistencies are uncomfortable, and provoke heated debate, but they are often the best opportunities to construct new learning, or reaffirm existing frameworks.
Staver also highlights the importance of connecting Science with students lives and interests. I fully agree with this principle, and I think it applies to learning under any scenario. We only care about what we can relate and find value in. Sometimes this can be a little harder in science when we are dealing with abstract concepts, and educators may be afraid that by making inferences about scientific ideas, but I don't think it need be as difficult as it seems. Teachers don't need to necessarily directly link science experiences to student interests, only find appropriate ways to fit understanding of core ideas into existing student frameworks.
Another point of discussion is expectations for Science learning. I made an instant connection to this concept, because I observed some of the examples first hand. I had two science 10 classes during my short practicum, and despite encouraging students equally, I certainly had lower expectations for the adapted Science 10 class. These students were asked less challenging questions and were given more assignments that involved more rote-memorization, as opposed to allowing them to be creative and experience problems that centered around inquiry and higher-level scientific thinking.
Finally, the last section dealt with student anxiety and conflict. Specifically, it was focused on being sensitive to ideas that may be controversial for students, such as evolution. I had to be similarly tentative with this topic at my school, as there were several families at the school who had specific views. It was a good reminder that we as scientists should remember to avoid using 'definitives', such as "this has been proved to be true", or "everyone believes ____", because in addition to the uncomfortable feelings it can provoke, scientific views are constantly changing. Evolutionary theory may one day (though it is unlikely) become displaced by a superior theory, and we should be mindful of this possibility. I think therefore that when discussing ideas that are sensitive or unfavorable, we can circumvent issues by simply presenting them as theories that have great explanatory power and predictive ability and leave it at that.
So all in all a very thought-provoking class and reading assignment this week. I think my big take away is up to me us as science educators to set up appropriate inquiry-focused learning environments, then take a step back and let students do the body of the knowledge constructing on their own, while keeping a watchful eye and facilitating when necessary. More and more I am realizing that my role as a teacher is about understanding what it means to be an 'expert learner', and not necessarily an expert in every topic or discipline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)