week+4b+discussion

calendar

Let's start the week off by briefly reflecting on last week's postings and summary.
 * Bill**

The week, the articles focused on reforming science education. The article by Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Lederman discussed the findings of a study. Their research centered on preservice teachers and how they incorporated their understanding of the nature of science into their lessons. The findings of the study showed that teacher preparation was crucial to science reform. The more support that a teacher was given, the better the teachers’ conceptions of the NOS. Keselman conducted a study to learn insight into students’ understanding of multivariable casuality. If a student is able to use evidence gathered in an investigation to draw conclusions, the more potential there is for improving inquiry learning. Lawrenz and Huffman discuss the efforts to reform science education through the use of Scope, Sequence and Coordination. The study made several recommendations for teacher enhancement and improvement. Volkmann and Abell provide a set of adaptation principles for changing a “cookbook lab” into one that in more inquiry based. While it has been called a simplistic approach, I found it very useful and feel that these principles would help begin the reform process in my building.
 * my comment**

 Discussion this week began with a look at the ways that teacher education can improve to help improve the way science inquiry is taught. My thoughts were that teacher support is the key to improvement. Chris felt that perhaps teacher training time could be extended. The second question referenced the Volkmann and Abell article and how consistent their recommendations were with other research articles we’ve read. We were in agreement that Volkmann and Abell were consistent with research evidence (Schauble, et al; Abd-el- Khalick, et al; Kesselman) to a certain degree. The final question asked how we, as teachers, bring about change in our district. I felt that change in my district could be made by using research such as the Volkmann and Abell article. However, it would only work if teachers buy into change.

Inquiry is a complex process. Volkmann and Abell attempt to simplify this process by recommending an inquiry analysis tool and then adaptation principles. And though these are only the touch of the iceberg, changing a cookbook laboratory into a series of asking questions is a great start. I note they could have addressed the reasons for changing a cookbook lab by adding cognitive studies, but then this becomes the slippery slope on how a paper can deter an educator from wanting to read the ideas.
 * Michele's comment**

 Keselman embarks the alley I'd like to approach. By referring to psychological and neuroscience studies we attempt to build a bridge in understanding more about how we learn. Especially with inquiry, understanding our immediate multivariable limitations helps us learn to develop them. The Keselman article refers to Schauble, et al. with how young people don't seek the why science explores, they seek the desired outcome, in particular drastic outcomes. As we explore of research coming from the educational field, there is a lot to learn from other research dealing with learning.

Roth's article presents an overview of three different perspectives of science education: Inquiry Perspective, STS Perspective, and Conceptual Change Perspective.
 * Bill's Question 1**

 QUESTION: Which perspective, or combination of perspectives will produce the most scientifically literate students? Which perspective, or combination of perspectives, do you most closely align yourself with? Why?

Before I read the article by Roth, I would have told you without any hesitation that the answer to the first question was inquiry. I would have chosen inquiry because a lot of attention is given to science process skills and students are engaged in “doing science.” However, Roth contends that teaching by inquiry is so focused on process, that “content is seen as irrelevant.” There was also a concern that students involved in inquiry would view the activities as “fun”, but become frustrated by the process. Once I read the section on conceptual change, I was hooked. It is researched based (did I just say that?) and is a way to help students incorporate scientific concepts into their explanations of everyday phenomenon. Scientific process is not separated from conceptualizations.
 * Michele's comment **

 If I were to choose a perspective, I would have to say that I align myself most closely with inquiry. Inquiry has been the big push in education for a number of years. My ISD did a workshop two years ago on incorporating inquiry-based instruction into the science classroom. I’ve been trying to use the principles learned in that workshop to guide my curriculum development. However, I’d like to make some changes to include the conceptual change perspective with the inquiry. The research by Roth showed that students are able to apply concepts they learned to a variety of real-world problems. It is a “reflection of their conceptual understanding…”

Roth can be persuasive.
 * Bill's comment**

 The "inquiry" Roth describes is an extreme (far swing of the pendulum) form popular in the 70's and 80's. In this extreme form the mantra was "learn how to learn" and inquiry was broken down into its supposed constituent processes. Students were to gain competency in the individual processes and ultimately gain inquiry or problem solving competency. These processes were the absolute goal in the classroom, not science content. If and when the students learned how to learn (inquire/problem solve) they then had the power to learn all the science content they needed (independent of a teacher or school).

 Another way to say this: there is just too much knowledge to learn, and more being discovered everyday. Don't try to cram all this knowledge into students, instead teach them how to learn the knowledge on their own.


 * Michele's comment **

 The extreme that Roth describes is what I'm am guilty of during my first years of teaching. I, like many others, thought that "hands-on" activities would lead students to understanding science content. It's taken me some time to see that analysis, synthesis, critical thinking, etc. must be part of the total package. What I really want is to be a facilitator for learning. That is, a guide to help them learn how to learn.

When I was becoming a teacher there was an aspect I was never comfortable, which is based on how much I know. I know there is so much I don't know, yet I am willing to learn more. It was this I never wanted to be called a teacher, I wanted to be a facilitator. For the questions we have, let's learn together. The key to facilitating is learning how to ask the right questions to get critical thinking from students. "What is food for plants" asked by Roth is a great question leading toward answers that can be evaluated and re-evaluated.
 * my comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">As I keep trying to wrap my head around each perspective, I can't see anyone in isolation. The STS perspective wants students to "act as young citizens rather than young research scientists," with the focus on problems science tries to address. The inquiry perspective is about the science thinking with "content...seen as almost irrelevant." And the conceptual change perspective's focus "grew out of cognitive science studies...to help students develop meaningful, conceptual understandings of science and its ways of describing, predicting, explaining, and controlling natural phenomena."
 * my comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I see value in all three perspectives. STS brings out my focus in teaching science. I want my students to be literate citizens. On the other hand, I want students to have a taste of the scientific process with inquiry as the means of "doing" science. The conceptual change perspective is new terminology for myself, yet I believe reflection is the key to learning.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Roth states "unlike the inquiry and STS perspectives, the conceptual change perspective views conceptual knowledge as central in science and in science learning." It is this distinction I feel can be integrated.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I align with what works. Learning the multitude means for approaching ways of teaching is my learning goal. With so many learning styles, integrating ideas and testing approaches are my research goals.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">If we took the "science" out of each of these approaches and substituted "math", what would each approach look like? (Math and Society, Math Problem Solving, Math Conceptual Approach) Are there parallel existing math curricula that align with these approaches?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Bill's comment **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">From my recollection, the Chicago math series is based on the conceptual and problem solving approach. The lessons are based on much more graphic representations than other math series. From my limited experience with the Chicago series, specific math concepts get lost in conceptualizing too much. With math and society, I have used statistics as a means to motivate students. My more significant success was working in inner city with minority students. Using numbers and graphs to depict equality or the lack there of can be motivating on changing those statistics.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my comment **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I am currently an instructor for early childhood education students and working on a conceptual model for these future teachers to use in their classrooms. Learning to apply concepts from other models will be a goal.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">I guess when I ask a question, I should also think about an answer. So with that in mind and 36 hours of thought, here is my shot at the different approaches.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Bill's comment **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Math and society - nothing exits, and yet it does. The general math courses taught in high school (the how to balance your checkbook courses) are sort of like a math and society curriculum. Actually more like a math and your survival curriculum, but close enough. A "real" math and society curriculum would probably look at community, national, and world events and show the math needed to understand and explain those events (bank failure, global warming, epidemics, city budget imbalance, etc.)

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Problem solving approach (inquiry) - a quick search for "inquiry-based" mathematics brings up lots of hits but no current curriculum. This is still a radical idea in the real-world of math teaching. Yes, there is lots of "problem solving", but that is really algorithm grinding and not problem solving in the inquiry sense. Inquiry-based math would be very open ended, with strong application of math skills and no absolute answers (that can be marked wrong or right).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Conceptual math - this approach was very rare at one time, but all the new NCTM curriculum materials have a high conceptual orientation. Connected Math and the Chicago Math materials fall into this camp. The back-to-the-basics people are absolutely against this sort of approach.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">With recent midterm election, I enjoyed listening to all the numbers stated and always in the millions. Politicians use big numbers to sound intelligent, yet are they accurate?
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my comment **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> As my own inquiry thought for a lesson, will the new Kennecott mine on the Yellow Dog Plains cause any environmental damage? There is the science, the math component of data collection and analysis, politics (I do work for a reservation that has sacred land near the mine site), legal, historical (Kennecott's own history), etc.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Math and society is evident, but I feel it is an out of book experience, relating to current events and painting a picture with numbers.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">The other articles this week focus on two specific problem-areas of science education: 1) students view models as tools to understand science concepts instead of tools to create new scientific knowledge, or TEST scientific knowledge, and 2) students have problems bridging the gap between their understanding of scientific conceptions and their own alternative conceptions. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Roth proposes that the Conceptual Change Perspective allows students to integrate higher-level thinking skills in developing conceptual understandings of real-world phenomena, and she gives examples of a lesson in which her students were able to address their own personal misconceptions and restructure their personal conceptual framework.
 * Bill's last question**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> QUESTION: Have you had similar experiences? How do you monitor your students conceptual understanding in the classroom and provide opportunities for them to restructure their understanding if necessary Can models aid you in testing your students conceptual understandings?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">My middle school students often come to class with misconceptions about science topics. I begin a unit by asking students what they already know about a topic and what questions they have. We discuss student ideas and make a class list of the questions. This gives me an idea of where to focus future lessons. I use a combination of the textbook, videos, outside reading, and the internet to provide information. To help them make connections, I use graphic organizers and foldables. I restructure labs so that students have a more active role. Students also write in their journals which gives me an opportunity to monitor their thinking. Providing a prompt such as, “I used to think ….., but now I think….” helps students to reflect on their understanding. I use a great resource from NSTA Press written by Page Keeley and Rand Harrington. The Uncovering Student Ideas series is a tool that helps me examine student understandings. My favorite it the probe on electricity. Students are given four wires, a battery and a bulb and asked what is the least number of wires needed to light the bulb. Most students are sure that you need two wires. Students conduct lab investigations with the materials and then reflect on their learning. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I use models often in my lessons. It is difficult to teach Earth processes without them. One way that I use models is to have students explain to each other how to use a model. For example, in a lesson on ocean-floor spreading, students construct a paper model at they can manipulate. I ask them to explain how it helps explain the concept. We compare our model to those shown in the textbooks and other reference material. I do have to hold a discussion about what the model represents. Grosslight et al cautions that some students will think of the model as “little copies of real-world objects” if they are only at level 1 thinking.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Michele's comment **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">"I do have to hold a discussion about what the model represents. Grosslight et al cautions that some students will think of the model as “little copies of real-world objects” if they are only at level 1 thinking."
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Bill's comment **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Do you ever post-test for this? What sort of distribution in understanding do you get in the classes?

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Unfortunately, I don't post-test. There just isn't time. The best that I can do is share several models, compare and contrast the models, and try to have students see the similarities. I'm not sure of the distribution. I would guess (and this is only a rough guess) that about 75% of my students can explain the concept that the model represents.
 * Michele's comment **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Though I am not teaching science now, the most I have done is integrate journals as a means for reflection. My last science teaching position was teaching physics and chemistry at a senior level. Unfortunately I am not an experience chemist nor physicist so my lessons were cookbook and not as inquiry or conceptual. The truly unfortunate aspect was the lab I had access was fully supplied and state of the art. I was quite overwhelmed, not to mention I had four other math courses. We had models, but upon reflection, I used them to understand concepts and did not use tools to create new scientific knowledge. Understanding these perception differences of models would have helped me help my students even more.
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my comment **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">animation as models: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/11/15/science/1248069334032/the-animators-of-life.html
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">my comment **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Integrating technology, like using flash or other animation software, has a potential to bring concepts to life. As I think about interdisciplinary, a team of instructors within their own disciplines could point to the same theme but come from the outcome from all different directions.