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.