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.
Friday, 29 May 2015
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)