What are some problems with trying to know all the science you might ever teach? What do elementary and middle grade science teachers need to know? What is the constructivist perspective in science education? According to this perspective, what is the best way to understand what children are thinking? How should teacher foster children’s ownership of knowledge?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Question 1: There are generally three problems with trying to know all the science you might ever teach: the amount of science knowledge is ever increasing, some becomes obsolete, and the controversial nature of sub-topics within science make it challenging to teach. Much like the universe, so to speak, the quantity of science knowledge keeps expanding at an amazing rate. Every year, new species of plants and animals are discovered. Because science knowledge is always in flux, no matter how much a teacher studies, it will never be enough. Some knowledge becomes outdated and changes. For example, prior to 1956, students were taught that human cell each contained 24 pairs of chromosomes. Shortly after that, scientist discovered that the number was inaccurate and that there are “actually” 23 pairs of chromosomes. Also, due to the controversial nature of some topics within science that could bring up ethical questions, such as evolution, global warming and stem cell research, teachers should exercise caution in introducing these topics into the classroom. Teachers must observe school policies and student readiness in these circumstances. (more to follow.)
ReplyDeleteQuestion2: What do elementary & middle school science teachers need to know?
ReplyDeleteMartin says that science teachers do not need to have extensive science knowledge in order to teach it well. What a teacher does, how he or she does it, and the pedagogy applied, are considered of much more priority than what he or she knows and the curriculum used. Having said that, the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) suggests that elementary/middle school science teachers have a well-balanced understanding of the content and concepts of the three major science disciplines: life science, physical science and earth space science. In addition, teachers should study those topics in the context of student-based investigative inquiry. With those understandings and skills, teachers would benefit their students most by focusing on teaching how to do science rather than trying to infuse large quantities of scientific facts into their students’ minds. Doing science presents these disciplines in a more useful way and potentially promotes greater retention of what students learn. Students must learn how to observe, brainstorm new ideas, analyze, evaluate and create, as reflected in Bloom’s taxonomy. These skills will be more applicable in the real world.
(Questions 3,4 and 5 to follow soon.)
To add one more thought to question 2 above that follows what was said about teachers studying investigative inquiry, is that teachers should effectively be able to instruct their students, mostly by modeling, about the scientific process. The definition of this phrase has evolved a bit over the years, but is primarily the process of what is meant by “doing science” which was discussed above. The observation and interpretation of data, analysis of it, research, questioning observations and results, identifying and controlling variables, communicating with each other, inferring, predicting, testing hypotheses by experimentation to confirm or disprove theories and then reaching conclusions, are among the main components of the scientific process. To be thoroughly understood, all of these steps must be actively practiced by students, rather than learned by memorization. The facts are merely the way to get to the process, which is of utmost importance in science. Next question:
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: What is the constructivist perspective in science education?
The constructivist perspective itself is clearly progressive compared to earlier views of education that presumed we could put information directly into a student's head. According to constructivism, real learning can occur only when the learner is actively engaged in operating on, or mentally processing, input. The interpretation of new stimuli depends most importantly upon prior constructed learning. To narrow that to the constuctivist method of teaching science is to make it parallel to the scientific process itself. When educators looked at the ways that scientists do science, they identified the processes of science. Because theses processes are the building blocks of science, students must be able to facilitate these processes. Although the facts are important, they are just a means to explore the process. As some examples, children learn to classify shells and rocks; they observe moving objects, measure things in their experiements, predict what will happen if a plant does not get water. The process is inquiry-based, hands-on, observatory, and experimental, full of inferences, trial and error and room for improvement. They are building on their knowledge by doing. this is not to be confused with the older verification experimentation, whereby the teacher told the students what to expect as a result of running the experiment, and then the students verified the result by reaching the same conclusion that was expected of them. In the constructivist method, the student makes predictions, runs the experiment, observes changes, questions, discovers how the result turns out and questions even more, reaching their own conclusions.
Question 4: According to the above perspective, what is the best way to understand what children are thinking?
ReplyDeleteThe best way to understand what children are thinking is by continuously listening to their responses, both verbal and non-verbal responses and then finding out reasons for their responses:
--listening to their responses to find out what they already know or have experienced
--listening to understand what their perceptions are and then,
--discovering how they are connecting the new information with their prior knowledge and perceptions.
The teacher’s strategies and efforts must be focused on learning each child’s unique set of prior learnings and understandings, and then helping the student to build on that. If each adult’s perceptions vary from one to another, so do a child’s. For this reason, there are no “right” answers or “wrong” answers, rather different ways of thinking. For example, word-association games and optical illusions illustrate that different people can perceive the same input in different ways. There are visual examples on page 22 of Martin’s text. Albert Einstein (Martin 19) suggested that we do science by using new thinking, rejecting the limitations of what we label as “right” and “wrong” as was evidenced by the best inventions and discoveries. In addition to good listening, teachers need to be open-minded to the many different individual perceptions of their many students.
Two teaching practices that play a critical role in helping students take ownership of their knowledge and learn successfully are:
ReplyDelete1. The questioning approaches used and
2. Facilitation rather than direction.
In the more conventional approach to teaching, the teacher knows or “owns” all the answers and the students are supposed to supply the “right” answers when asked. Even in hands-on activities done the conventional way, there is a certain expected end-result, and if students get the result “wrong”, they may be asked to try it again. When this is reversed and the constructivist approach is used, open-ended questions are included in the mix. These types of questions need to be appropriately placed and given longer wait time and thinking time. Students begin believing that their own thinking is important. When students take ownership of their thinking and feel accountable for their own learning, it matters to them more and motivates them to do more of it. A teacher who values a student’s thinking, will do more of this type of facilitating, rather than accepting or rejecting right or wrong answers.
It takes some practice for teachers themselves to learn to ask the kinds of questions that will guide their students to discovery rather than do the discovering for their students. In stepping back and relinquishing control over the answers, the teacher lets the kids discover and construct their own answers.
Another way to promote students’ ownership of knowledge is to be more careful about misplacing or overusing words of praise. Too much of that method identifies the teacher as a judge rather than a facilitator. According to Martin, smiling and thanking them is better, but then follow that up with the more probing open-ended questions again, such as “Why did you say that?” “Give an example.” “Can you add something to his response?” The students can then reach higher levels of cognitive thinking (Bloom) and meta-cognition (thinking about their thinking). In effect, teachers are then actually guiding their students in turn to learn how to ask themselves and each other those open-ended kinds of questions that lead to discussion and retention.
One teacher cited journaling as a method that helped her with inquiry teaching. She used the students’ journals to help her better grasp how her students were thinking and learning, and what they were retaining. Students took more ownership of the knowledge they wrote about. This does not differ much from a scientist making use of lab book.
Question 1: What are some of the problems with knowing all the science you might have to teach?
ReplyDeleteIt seems somewhat absurd that a teacher might be teaching a subject they don't have mastery of. But, science is an extraordinarily extensive subject, and the amount of science information grows daily. There will always be more science than any of us could possibly learn.
That's not to say that NO knowledge of the subject matter is necessary. A teacher should be well-versed in and should know HOW to teach the science at hand. However, especially at Elementary level, it would be an unreasonable, if not impossible, expectation that a teacher have mastery of every sub-topic.
Also, existing science knowledge often becomes obsolete. Accepted concepts and theories can change over time. And, a student might ask a related question that is not in the plan - something we didn't anticipate and aren't familiar with - branching off learning in an unexpected direction. These are all learning opportunities for both teacher and student. They are situations when the skills for being a facilitator, guiding students (and teacher) to the answer, will be invaluable. Brainstorming resources with our students and finding answers together can produce lasting learning for all involved. Assuming we know everything, or being afraid to acknowledge to our students that we don't know an answer, could lead to teaching misinformation.
Trying to knowing everything in science is unrealistic, and not necessary to teach science well.
Question 2: What do elementary and middle grade science teachers need to know?
ReplyDeleteNaturally, most pre-service teachers (myself included) would think they need to know all the facts about the science they will teach. The National Science Teachers Association states that elementary/middle school science teachers should have a well-rounded understanding of the three major science disciplines: life science, physical science and earth space science.
While knowledge is necessary, the skills to teach in a constructivist way are equally important. It is vital that we know how to teach students to "do" science rather than just "learn" science. Textbook based, content-oriented instruction will likely not result in a lasting learning of, or an appreciation for, science. Teaching the skills, processes and relevance of science, and building on existing knowledge through process-oriented, inquiry based instruction, is key. Knowing how to infuse the learning with joy and student-focused creativity will help foster positive attitudes and open minds about science...two things that have been sorely lacking in most students.
While knowing the material is important, knowing how to effectively engage our students in science, and make them see how it relates to their lives, is vital to creating lasting science learning and enthusiasm to learn more.
Question 3: What is the constructivist approach in science education?
Constructivist thinking believes that students should no longer be passive recipients of information and teachers should no longer be seen as all-knowing judges. It is a framework based on the idea of guided discovery - that learning is more effective when a student is actively engaged in the scientific process instead of learning passively.
Constructivist science learning is a dynamic, active and social process that is most lasting through the use of student-centered, hands-on experiments that are made relevant to a child's world. Instead of merely confirming outcomes they have been taught, students should be able to actively achieve results and construct their own meaning from classroom experiences in a group setting.
Constructivist teaching also says that children make sense of new information and "construct" meaning based on their prior knowledge, and learning should build on this knowledge.
Simplified, the constructivist approach to providing lasting learning and deeper understanding suggests starting with these steps:
a) identify your students' prior knowledge, experiences, skills and
ideas
b) provide relevant opportunities for your students to predict,
explore, explain and "construct" new knowledge
c) allow your students to rethink and modify their ideas and views,
and provide support for these developments
Question 4: According to this perspective, what is the best way to understand what children are thinking?
ReplyDeleteBefore we understand what children are thinking WE must believe their thinking is valuable, and they need to know we do. More importantly, they need to believe their own thinking is valuable. The best learning and retention come when children value what they think and what they do.
To get the information to help us understand what our students are thinking we need to get them to talk and share. From a constructivist perspective, the best way to get children to talk is to first move away from the thinking that there is an absolute right or wrong answer to science challenges. Instead of saying "right" or "wrong" in response to a student's answer, we can ask them to explain how they came to their answer. Instead of constant affirmation and criticism, which can translate as judgement and possibly shut the student's own thinking down, we can respond with non-verbal gestures or more questions, allowing for further inquiry and conversation.
Among other ideas, a teacher can get the best feedback using open-ended questions, requests for clarification, explanations and justifications, and inquiry about personal opinions and feelings.
For the best sense of what children are thinking we must remain open-minded, get them to talk and really listen to what they say. We should respect what they say and guide them in a non-threatening, non-judgmental way. This will provide a safe environment for students to open up and share, giving us information we can use to help construct a better understanding of their thinking.
Question 5: How should teachers foster children's ownership of knowledge?
ReplyDeleteWith active learning, children construct their own knowledge of science as they work with varied materials and activities that create personally meaningful experiences and outcomes. They talk about these experiences and transform their ideas and interactions into logical thoughts and actions. Consequently, they feel responsible for the learning and take ownership of the knowledge acquired.
To help foster this feeling of ownership, we should first establish our students' confidence in their science knowledge and thinking skills. Then we should serve as a coach and guide...a "participant-observer" of sorts...avoiding direct instruction and encouraging student-centered, interactive learning that allows students to be responsible and autonomous. They will best construct and own their knowledge through activities relative to their lives that encourage them to ask their own questions, and discuss and appreciate new knowledge.
It is also important to let children make mistakes (some of the most important scientific discoveries came from mistakes), challenge concepts (not just accept or verify what someone else has concluded) and self-monitor (they should look to us for guidance, not judgement of spoon-fed information.
This is not an easy or natural method of teaching. It's tempting to solve problems and provide answers for children, a common part of traditional teaching. When it's done correctly, constructivist learning will teach students to focus on the process of science and the power of observation, and it will guide students to their own discoveries.
Question 1 – I agree with all of the responses, but want to add that many teachers lack an understanding of key terminology. This includes an understanding of the history and philosophy of science. Without this understanding, it is difficult for a teacher to defend science theories when they are questioned by students. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55033/
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there is a lot of information out there and trying to know all the science you might ever teach would be an extremely difficult task, especially in the elementary grades where educators teach multiple curriculums. However, this problem could be resolved by having teachers focus on the key terminology that is appropriate for the grade level they are responsible for teaching.
Question 2 – I just want to add that children have a natural curiosity about what things are, how they work and how they are related. They are natural born scientists. I believe that as children get older and life experiences build, much of this curiosity becomes stripped away. It is extremely important for elementary school teachers to understand the rich palate these children have for science and to give their students encouragement, sensitivity and developmentally appropriate teaching. This includes giving the power to ask and investigate their own questions and giving ownership of their own constructions.
Question 3 – Mary Lou stated that in the constructivist method, the student makes predictions, runs the experiment, observes changes, questions, discovers how the result turns out and questions even more, reaching their own conclusions.
After reviewing different studies completed in science classrooms, I fully agree. It seems that in time, constructivist methods showed better retention of knowledge than those who learned through traditional methods. This makes total sense to me because the constructivist approach allows students to question, modify even change their current knowledge.
Questions 4& 5– In the constructivist approach, individuals create meaning through their interactions with each other and with the environment they live in. I see it as an environment that is full of questioning and healthy debate of different ideas amongst students. What, when, why, where and how would be words used by students within the questioning mode. The answers however, would not come from the teacher. They would come from within. The teacher is only acting as a facilitator. So, what is the best way to understand what the children are thinking? Listen and observe as the children work through the questioning and debate (or discussion) process with their peers.
This is also how a teacher should foster children’s ownership of knowledge. Children have to create the knowledge themselves in order to have full ownership.
A challenge that many 21st Century teachers may have is relinquishing the role of the “All-knowing teacher”. Clearly this is already an issue with regard to teaching science. Information changes rapidly and the amount of information is constantly expanding. Science is an exciting area of study and student-based investigative inquiry focusing on how to “do” science affords greater learning and retention opportunities than strictly memorizing facts and data. Most students remember the “fun” hands-on projects from their classes, such as dissecting a frog or dropping eggs from 3 story buildings, rather than which element stands for lead. I completely agree with Mary Lou’s thoughts that students must learn to hypothesize, observe, analyze and evaluate. In science as well as all curriculum, 21st century learners need to learn the skills that will apply to their lives and the world. Our role as teachers will be to actively engage our students, effectively guide them through observations and research and instruct them on the scientific processes. Our students will need the ability to take inquiry and investigation to the next step and beyond.
ReplyDeleteComing from a science background I can appreciate the immensity of the volume of information currently known about science. The field is ever changing and expanding each day more information is gather than they day before. Therefore I can safely say, it is impossible for elementary teachers to ever “know all the science they might ever teach”, because it is impossible to know all the science that will ever exist.
ReplyDeleteI think now more than ever a constructivist approach to science is what elementary teachers need to know and apply in their classrooms. Teaching students by letting them “do science” is presenting them with the most important lesson of all. Especially in the 21st century it is impossible to give students all of the information they will need in a lifetime during their educational careers. I once saw a video that said in the 21st century we are preparing students to solve problems that have yet to arise, and preparing them for jobs that don’t yet exist. This just further proves that it is impossible to know or teach everything that needs to be learned. By letting students “do science” you are giving them the most important skill of all, which is the ability to be self-learners. Rather than worry about teaching students all of the information they need- teach them how to find the information they seek. Developing confident independent students will help them become successful in their future endeavors.
Teachers must learn how to step out of the way and let their students guide their own learning. They must listen to the students and provide careful guidance in order to provide what they need. Especially in the 21st century teachers need to be aware of the needs of their students and give them the skills they need to develop rather than fill them with information that will no doubt be out-dated before they graduate high- school.
Chapter 1 comments:
ReplyDeleteExcellent answer Mary Lou! After reflecting upon this post, I wonder… Is the most important science lesson the understanding that our knowledge is limited by technology? Is the true goal for science the construction of an “open mind”? We know that activities, content and knowledge change therefore, we need to understand process! Pedagogy is all about teaching how to learn. Teachers can not be the fountain of knowledge. We must "learn" to "learn" from one another. This is the true life skill. In our class, some have questioned why we not providing more direct instruction, why you are not taking notes. Although this is how most of us were taught, research proves that effective, long-term learning only occurs when we construct our own knowledge. Your post ends with great instructional questions such as “Why did you say that? ” “Can you add something to his response?” and although it is very tempting for us to just give you activity after activity….exercise after exercise….that is all about what "we know" and not providing the setting for your knowledge to grow, develop and bloom.
Thank you Amanda! Your responses help construct a different viewpoint to Mary Lou’s original thoughts. Your point about teaching a subject you do not have mastery of is interesting. The question becomes… do we ever know everything about anything??? I agree that a positive attitude, open minds and creativity are the secrets behind successful learning. Students must believe in their own thinking because that is all they have after they leave our class. Spoon-feeding will make them happy because it is easy to sit back and let learning occur around you. Unfortunately, that is why we can not remember information presented in some classes. All we remember is being bored or being present.
Debbie added a great point about terminology! The question is do we really need to defend or just facilitate the conversation…. Do we really know the absolute truth? Does it matter?? I agree that kids are natural born scientist until we tell them what they don’t know. Is that the problem?
Allissa made a wonderful connection to 21st century learning and letting go with the “all knowing” ways of unskilled educators. The fun nature of the activities you mention are based on the brain being actively engaged with the knowledge and not just passively trying to stuff information inside. You are absolutely correct about our future 21st century citizens; they must have the skills to be part and productive in a world-wide network of learners.
Cori added an interesting perspective coming from a science background. Your point about self- learning is right on the mark! Stepping out of the way is so hard to do but it is the best thing we can do for our kids!
Great points learning team #1!
~Rosalie