week+2+presentation

calendar

Benchmarks / Frameworks in Michigan (continued) Benchmarks Revealed(Expectations Examined)

Week Two

Reading the Benchmarks/Expectations

While it is useful to “read” the Michigan Science Benchmarks/High School Expectations from beginning to end, it is also awfully boring since these benchmarks are nothing but incomplete paragraphs in table format.

Teachers, more often than not, scan the benchmarks for statements of interest that could be applied or linked appropriately to lessons. But, they seldom read the benchmarks.

Of course, we will read the benchmarks. But our strategy and purpose will be a little different.

The Nature of Science Literacy

The goal of both the Michigan Science Benchmarks and High School Expectations is scientific literacy. This literacy has traditionally been hard to define and even more difficult to achieve.

It has always been the case that only a small percentage of our school age population achieved scientific literacy.

Today the goal is scientific literacy for all students. This can only happen if the definition of scientific literacy is both agreed upon and reasonable in an education setting.

The Nature of Science (continued)

The Benchmarks definition of scientific literacy has five strands.

The five strands were originally derived from the Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives in Science Education (MEGOSE) document where science is described as consisting of three primary activities:

Constructing New Scientific Knowledge Reflecting on Scientific Knowledge Using Scientific Knowledge

The Nature of Science (continued)

The Using Scientific Knowledge can be further subdivided into:

Using Scientific Knowledge - Life Science Using Scientific Knowledge - Physical Science Using Scientific Knowledge - Earth and Space Science The Constructing activity, the Reflecting activity, and the three Using sub-activities became the five science Frameworks strands.

The Nature of Science (continued)

The new High School Science Expectations define scientific literacy with four strands of practice:

Identifying scientific principles Using scientific principles Scientific inquiry Reflection and social implications

Each strand of practice is applied equally to the sub-disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science.

The Nature of Science (continued)

While these new Science Expectations strands of practice seem somewhat different, they readily map to the previous Benchmark strands.

The Nature of Science (continued)

No matter how you divide the activities or strands, the fact remains that the Michigan definition of scientific literacy emphasizes three processes (constructing, reflecting, and using) and de-emphasizes scientific knowledge itself as the foundation of that literacy.

All students in Michigan should be able to con-struct new knowledge, reflect on the knowledge they have constructed, and use that knowledge to better understand the world about them.

Inquiry, or ConstructingNew Scientific Knowledge

We will spend this week with the Inquiry/Constructing strand of the Michigan Science Frameworks/High School Expecations.

As you read the Frameworks and MEGOSE sections on Constructing, ask yourself the following questions:

Is Constructing a reasonable description of scientific activity and a worthy component of scientific literacy? What is the relationship between Constructing and the idea of Inquiry (discussed in ED5730a (Learning Materials and Inquiry)? Is it reasonable that all students in Michigan be capable of Constructing new scientific knowledge?

Constructing (continued)

Notice that the MEGOSE document begins its discussion (page 33) with the posing of five questions. These questions become the framework upon which the Constructing objectives (pages 38-40) are organized.

The questions were subsequently dropped when the Michigan Science Frameworks was formulated. Therefore much of the meaning of Constructing was also left behind in MEGOSE. However, the intent is still there and remains exactly the same in the High School Expectations.

Constructing (continued)

The paragraphs that follow the questions on page 33 of MEGOSE are meant to clarify even further and point out relevant research where appropriate.

Note that the first sentence (p. 33) states, “Scientifically literate people are learners as well as ‘knowers’ of science”. This sentence is meant to establish the analogy between the learner and the scientist. Both endeavor to learn that which is new to them.

Constructing (continued)

But, is this a reasonable analogy? While scientists learn that which is truly new, school-age learners generally learn only that which has already been discovered. MEGOSE suggests other potential issues related to this analogy. Read each carefully.

The section on Constructing clarifying language in MEGOSE ends with a note of caution (p. 37). The objectives/benchmarks are stated

Constructing (continued)

“generically”. Processes, and objectives/benchmarks written about processes, do not exist independently of “particular scientific knowledge”. In other words, processes and knowledge are closely intertwined. You cannot have one without the other.

You may recall the “science process skills” derived from the behaviorist learning theory as applied to science learning. These were described in

Constructing (continued)

Week 6 of ED5730a–Learning Materials and Inquiry. The big instruction/learning failure of these science process skills in the classroom was the belief that they could be taught completely independent of any specific science knowledge. In fact, they were promoted as a way to learn science without the pitfalls of having to learning knowledge (which was constantly changing and ever growing). It is important not to make that mistake with the constructing,

reflecting, and using objectives/benchmarks of the Michigan Science Frameworks. When designing lessons based on constructing, reflecting, using benchmarks, teachers must embed the learning in “particular scientific ideas as they are applied to particular scientific systems or phenomena” (MEGOSE, p. 37).

reflecting, and using objectives/benchmarks of the Michigan Science Frameworks. When designing lessons based on constructing, reflecting, using benchmarks, teachers must embed the learning in “particular scientific ideas as they are applied to particular scientific systems or phenomena” (MEGOSE, p. 37).

This idea is clearly reiterated in the High School Expectations (p. 5) in statements like, … “ ‘when conduct scientific investigations’ is crossed with a states-of-matter content statement, this can

Constructing (continued)

generate a performance expectation that employs a different action verb, ‘heats as a way to evaporate liquids.’” Thus, “performance expectations are derived from the intersection of content statements and practices…” (p. 5), which is just another way of stating that the Constructing (Inquiry) and Reflecting expectations have to be taught and learned in the context of the content expectations. Not separately.

Objectives vs Benchmarks

Finally, as you conclude your reading of this section of the MEGOSE and the Frameworks, note how the translation has been made between the MEGOSE tables of objectives, the Frameworks tables of benchmarks, and now the High School Science Expectations.

Which is a better tool for you in your role as teacher? Which is a better tool for curriculum developers? Can you think of a better way to organize this information?

quiz

Quiz 2 1. What is the main goal of the Michigan science Frameworks?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. scientific accountability B. Reasonable and useful education C. Scientific literacy 100% D. Educational documentation of diverse goals

Score: 2/2

2. In the Michigan Frameworks, constructing is considered a

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. The primary knowledge building block B. The opposite of reflecting C. An organizing feature to help decipher the overall structure of the Frameworks better D. A scientific activity 100%

Score: 2/2

3. What type of questions do scientifically literate people ask?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Sophisticated questions B. Any question that seems reasonable can be attempted C. Those questions that can be answered through scientific inquiry in ways that are comprehensible to the questioner 100% D. There is a small category of all questions that are deemed worthy of scientific consideration. These questions were initially laid out by Aristotle and have been tended to by scientific societies ever since

Score: 2/2

4. Which of the following is most true about process and knowledge in science?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. They are closely intertwined 100% B. They are distinct activities and need to be learned that way C. The roots of each lies in a different theory of scientific interpretation, thus they need to be treated that way D. Most would consider these two to represent essentially the same thing, and therefore treat them as that one entity

Score: 2/2

5. What is the Michigan definition of scientific literacy?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Constructing, reflecting, and using scientific knowledge 100% B. Communication of knowledge to the literacy standards of others C. Inquiry in scientifically comprehensible situations D. Knowledge, process, and communication specific to the scientific endeavor

Score: 2/2

6. What is the relationship between constructing and inquiry as scientific activities?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. They are opposites of scientific activity B. The first implies and deals with new knowledge, the second implies and deals with existing knowledge C. Both are scientific activities that generate new knowledge D. Constructing is a cognitivist interpretation of science, inquiry is a behaviorist interpretation 0%

Score: 0/2 Comments: Not sure why you opted for D. Behaviorism and inquiry are polar opposites. Behaviorists do not even believe in the theory of mind. It's all about reinforcement, rewards, and punishment. Inquiry, on the other hand, is meaning oriented, and that is precisely what constructing is about too.

7. Which of the following is a constructing objective/benchmark?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. How do scientists ask questions that help them learn about the world? B. Design and conduct simple investigations. 100% C. Hypothesis, prediction, test, and conclusion. D. Describe limitations in personal knowledge.

Score: 2/2

8. Why is it good advice that when teaching the constructing process teachers must embed the learning in particular scientific ideas?

Student Response: It is good advice to embed particular scientific ideas into the constructing process because ideas are driven by first asking questions, then figuring them out. Specific scientific ideas apply the knowledge. To speak of ideas as only knowledge, without the process, comprehension is not tangible. Using questions for particular ideas opens doors to understanding how to learn about specifics and learn about how to communicate inquiry.

Sample Correct Answer Process (constructing) and knowledge (particular scientific ideas) are closely intertwined. Experience has shown that teaching the process as an isolated activity does not result in understanding of the process or ability to perform the process in a real-world context. Using the process turns out to be situation and knowledge specific. The best way to learn the process is through specific real-world, knowledge-based situations. General Feedback: Process (constructing) and knowledge (particular scientific ideas) are closely intertwined. Experience has shown that teaching the process as an isolated activity does not result in understanding of the process or ability to perform the process in a real-world context. Using the process turns out to be situation and knowledge specific. The best way to learn the process is through specific real-world, knowledge-based situations. Score: 6/6