week+3+presentation

calendar

Benchmarks Revealed

Week Three

Reading the Benchmarks

The reading task seems less burdensome this week. That is indeed true from the quantity as- pect, but certainly not correct when considered from the importance of the Reflecting activity in the scientific endeavor.

While Reflecting on Scientific Knowledge has been given only a few pages in the Frameworks, MEGOSE, and now the HSSE it has been allo-cated space just behind the Constructing (inquiry) objectives/ benchmarks and before the Using objectives/ benchmarks in both documents. This order was (and still is) intentional.

The Nature of Science Literacy

The Constructing (Inquiry) and Reflecting objectives/ benchmarks were placed physically before the Using objectives/benchmarks to make sure that they were not considered as afterthoughts in the building of any science curriculum. By placing these objectives first in listing-sequence, the authors were attempting to give them their proper weight and significance.

While these objectives have been written generically (devoid of specifically stated content), the intent was to have them apply across all the content objectives. Realistically, this is the only

The Nature of Science (continued)

way the delineation of these objectives could be done without producing a highly complex document that would be very difficult to read.

So the intent is that Constructing(Inquiry) and Reflecting objectives/benchmarks be applied to and incorporated with instruction of all of the remaining objectives (Using) where appropriate. AND the implication is that it is not preferred nor expected that individual instructional units be designed to teach students Constructing or Reflecting as isolated science processes.

The Nature of Science (continued)

In fact, it would be a huge mistake to attempt to teach students about constructing (inquiry) and reflecting, or even attempting to teach them to construct and reflect, without the benefit of topic-specific knowledge. Thus, it will be stated again. The knowledge and the activities of sciences are highly intertwined. Teaching one component independent of its supporting components is not beneficial to the learners or the understanding of science.

Reflectingon Scientific Knowledge

We will spend this week with the Reflecting strand of the Michigan Science Frameworks.

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

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

Reflecting (continued)

Again, as with the Constructing objectives, the MEGOSE document begins its discussion (page 41) with the posing of four questions. These questions become the framework upon which the Reflecting objectives (pages 45-46) are organized.

The most significant of these questions is the first, how do scientists decide what to believe? It emphasizes the give and take in the formulation of the knowledge that is ultimately “trusted” by the scientific community. This trust is built upon

Reflecting (continued)

the primacy of sensory information, the sharing and replication of this information, discussion, critique, and valid reasoning processes.

Most importantly, “students should learn to see weaknesses in arguments that are presented as ‘scientific,’ and to recognize when the authority of the scientific community is being invoked even though its standards are not being met.” (MEGOSE, p. 42-43). This is unquestionably a defining characteristic of a scientifically literate

Reflecting (continued)

person. One needs to be able to know not only when knowledge and processes are good, but also be able to ferret out defects in knowledge and process being represented as good.

So, is reflecting inquiry? Not by itself. But in conjunction with Constructing and Using, Reflecting is the key to the highest quality of scientific inquiry. Reflecting is like estimation in mathematics. Estimation by itself is just a minor mathematical activity. When combined with

Reflecting (continued)

other tools of mathematical problem solving it becomes a powerful component of methods used to model and understand the world.

Finally, there is no doubt that all students in Michigan should be capable of effectively Reflecting on scientific knowledge. This is why the MEAP (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) tests in science include sections that measure techniques and limitations of science experiments (the hands-on investigation

Reflecting (continued)

component) and a section designed to have students interpret and critique popular science articles from newspapers or magazines.

Both Reflecting and Constructing are important scientific activities that students need to practice as they learn to understand and work with the knowledge of science. The knowledge by itself is not enough.

quiz

Quiz 3 1. In the Michigan Frameworks, reflecting is considered a

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

Score: 2/2

2. How do scientists decide what to believe or decide what counts as "scientific knowledge."

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Members of the scientific community agree among themselves as to what will count as "scientific knowledge." 100% B. Standards established more than 1000 years ago permit an Occam's Razor approach to decisions about "scientific knowledge" C. Since scientific knowledge has a human origin, the rules of democracy work well in making decisions about what is counted and what is not. D. Scientific professional societies, such as the National Research Council, are the ultimate arbitrators of knowledge within their domains of expertise.

Score: 2/2

3. One important trait of a scientifically literate citizen is the ability to:

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Write in journals as a way of recording important daily events B. Link history, art, and philosophy together as facets of scientific thought. C. See weaknesses in arguments that are presented as "scientific". 100% D. Discriminate between science and technology and the types of jobs each generates.

Score: 2/2

4. In the Michigan Science Benchmarks (and the Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education), why were the Constructing and Reflecting benchmarks placed before the Using content benchmarks?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. This was strictly an alphabetical order consideration. B. To make sure that they were not considered as afterthoughts in the building of any science curriculum. 100% C. There is a logic inherent in the order used. This order is typical of the logic employed in most types of scientific reasoning. D. The order was decided by editors who made the decision based on page space available and the need to maintain a pleasing appearance.

Score: 2/2

5. What is the relationship between reflecting and inquiry as scientific activities?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Reflecting is just one component of the scientific inquiry activity. 100% B. Reflecting and inquiry are synonymous. C. Reflecting is the activity that comes immediately after in the inquiry activity and is used to establish the validity of the conclusion. D. Reflecting is a philosophical activity that is sometimes applied to the scientific activity of inquiry.

Score: 2/2

6. Why do the MEAP (Michigan Educational Assessment Program) tests in science include sections that measure techniques and limitations of science experiments?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. To measure the constructing benchmarks of the frameworks. B. To measure the reflecting benchmarks of the frameworks. 100% C. To measure the using benchmarks of the frameworks. D. To verify the level of scientific literacy of the testees in comparison with national standards.

Score: 2/2

7. Which of the following is a representative example of a reflecting objective/benchmark?

Student Response Value Correct Answer Feedback A. Hypothesis, prediction, test, and conclusion. B. Suggest empirical tests of hypotheses. C. Compare and contrast the chemical composition of selected cell types. D. Describe some general limitations of scientific knowledge. 100%

Score: 2/2

8. Why is it good advice that when teaching the reflecting process of science to students, teachers must embed the learning in particular scientific ideas?

Student Response: Scientific ideas come from what and how scientists believe and experience. Ideas come from other ways of knowing. It is good advice, when teaching the reflective process, to embed, not only the science idea, but possible thoughts from where the science came from. Ultimately, reflecting on how a science idea affects society points to the impact science and technology have on our society. It points to how people of the world, a diverse mix of people all work together verify each others findings and/or enhance though countering a finding. As the MEGOSE document and other Michigan references constantly repeats, constructing, reflecting, and using science is intertwined. Students will better understand science when they see themselves intertwined into the science as well.

Sample Correct Answer Process (reflecting) 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 (reflecting) 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