How can teachers foster positive attitudes about science? According to the professional science organizations, what is the primary goal of science education? What are your thoughts about standardized testing in science as required by the No Child Left Behind Act? Compare and contrast the aspects of NCLB.
Teachers can foster positive attitudes about science by incorporating fun into science, demonstrating successful experiences, encouraging students to inquire in and out of class. Students who ask their own questions, develop, challenge and formulate their own conclusions have a positive outlook on science.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA): This organization’s main goals of science education is 1) to achieve science literacy for all citizens and 2) to ensure an adequate supply of scientists, engineers, and science teachers. Students should be encouraged to develop science concepts, see science applications in everyday life, gain positive attitudes toward science, and learn how science helps solve personal and societal problems.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): This organization believes that teachers should treat science topics from an interdisciplinary perspective and focus on the relationships that are common among all the scientific disciplines. Teachers should encourage children to look for information that they have already gained from other subjects or previous knowledge of science. Students will have practice in collecting their own evidence and formulating data to solve problems.
National Science Education Standards (NSES): The primary goal is scientific literacy for ALL students. “All students regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science should have the opportunity to obtain high levels of scientific literacy.”
I see the differing opinions about standardized testing and understand both sides. While I think it is important to measure progress and the amount of content that is covered in a subject area in a given time, I don’t think that the curriculum should be based around the test. I realize that each grade level is expected to cover a certain amount of material in order to advance to the next grade level but I don’t know for sure if the scores of the standardized tests accurately report the grades as a whole. For example, there may be a bunch of very intelligent science focused students one year and the next year the class may be average. This is not an accurate report of progress from year to year. I do think that it is a good way to keep track of an individual teacher’s methods and way to keep them in line with the curriculum standards. As much as we need to track student performance, teacher performance is also very important in order to make sure they are successful in teaching the appropriate material and in the most beneficial way.
The NCLB Act was signed into law in 2002 and is based on four principles: 1) increased accountability for states, school districts, schools and teachers for the achievement of their students; 2) a larger choice for parents, in particular those families whose children attend low-performing schools; 3) increased flexibility for states, school districts, and schools in terms of use of federal funds; 4) increased emphasis on reading. The NCLB Act also states that all teachers by the year 2006 who teach core academic subjects must be highly qualified. The basis of this Act is to place emphasis on students’ achievement and to hold the teachers, schools and states accountable for the students’ achievement. The NCLB Act forces schools to measure students’ knowledge by administering annually state standardized testing. These tests are measured from year to year and analyzed to see if the students are making adequate yearly progress. If the scores do not meet the standards, the school or the teacher may be forced to take corrective action if scores do not improve. Conversely, schools that score in the higher ranks may be rewarded financially. There are many concerns about these standardized tests and whether or not they are an accurate measurement of students’ progress. Some people argue that students and teachers are punished for their lack of performance and does not concentrate on how schools will improve their scores and help students to perform better. There is extreme pressure on both the school and the students and in applying this pressure, a lot of creativity from the teachers is stymied making it more difficult to teach the curriculum. Most teachers are pressured into “teaching for the test” and not teaching the curriculum of the school in the manner they would like or would have more success with. Our textbook explains that the NCLB Act is a work in progress; they are still identifying and testing advantages and disadvantages of the Act and are working to make these laws fair for all parties.
Question 1 - To expand upon Lisa’s comment, I have also read that students who participate in science fairs have more positive attitudes towards science.
Question 2 - Lisa listed the main goals of the NSTA, AAAS and NSTS. Here are a few more comments:
The NSTA says, “The elementary science program must provide opportunities for students to develop understandings and skills necessary to function productively as problem-solvers in a scientific and technological world.” In order to do this:
1) Students must be involved in the first-hand exploration and investigation through employing inquiry and process skills. 2) Instruction must build on students’ conceptual frameworks. 3) Content must be organized on the basis of broad conceptual themes. 4) Mathematics and communication must be made an integral part of science instruction.
The standards of the NSES are guided by four principles:
1) Science is for all students. 2) Learning science is an active process. 3) School science reflects the intellectual and cultural traditions that characterize the practice of contemporary science. 4) Improving science is a part of systemic education reform.
Question 3 - Students are given yearly standardized achievement tests to show they are making adequate yearly progress. If a school or teacher fails to demonstrate the required improvements in student achievement over time they may be identified as inadequate. On the other hand, schools and teachers that do well on tests can be rewarded financially. Although this type of testing was put into place to help very important educational issues, it is not flaw proof. I do not think it takes into account that some students are not good at taking tests. They may understand the information, but may feel pressure at testing time that in turn skews their testing scores. It also does not properly gauge the effectiveness of teachers. For example, I know a teacher that excels at working with children who have disabilities or behavioral issues. Because of this ability, he is always assigned classes that include the most challenging students. I do not believe that standardized testing can fairly compare his teaching ability to the teachers that are assigned less challenging classrooms.
Question 5 – The law has been proven to work over the past few years. Gaps are slowly closing, so we are doing something right. But as Lisa stated, the NCLB Act is a work in progress; they are still identifying and testing advantages and disadvantages of the Act and are working to make these laws fair for all parties.
From what I have found on-line President Obama is making changes. An example is as follows:
The 2001 NCLB law prescribed penalties for schools that failed to meet adequate yearly progress goals for certain groups of students based on race, ethnicity, income, and disabilities. The result was one-third of all US schools, including many schools deemed successful by other measures, were designated as failing and faced loss of federal funding under NCLB.
By contrast, the Obama blueprint calls on states to identify their lowest-performing 5 percent of schools and to take strong measures to upgrade those schools, including firing the principal and teachers.
I do not know that I fully believe in this change, but it shows that continuous changes are being implemented.
I agree with Lisa’s comments about teachers developing positive attitudes about science. I feel it is imperative as a teacher you try to have your students learn to love science. Science is a difficult subject for many students; it involves using math and english skills, in addition to learning all about science. If children do not become excited at a young age about science they will never try to grasp the more difficult concepts later on in their studies.
The NSTA, AAAAS and the NSES all have different views on what elementary science education should incorporate. They all have good ideas in their views about helping students learn science. The NSTA tries to make children problem solvers and get involved in hands on science. They do bring up a very important fact about trying to ensure that the students of today will be our scientists of the future. Science is not an easy subject to comprehend for many students; it takes a lot of hard work and dedication in order to achieve success in the science field. If students do not develop a passion for science at an early age they will never try to pursue a career in science. The AAAAS is attempting to have the students connecting science to their other subjects. This is very important to have students see a connection between all their learning. The NSES believes that all students no matter what should have a high level of exposure to science. I agree that all students should be given equal exposure to science. This is very difficult to achieve in the lower achieving schools. Something needs to be done to help all students to have exposure to the different aspects of science.
I have mixed feelings about standardized testing for science. The NCLB is a work in progress. Personally, I feel as a future teacher and a parent that more emphasis should be put on cirriculum that encourages thinking outside of the box than “teaching to the test.”. Students should learn first hand about science from performing experiments and try to resolve problems. This takes time, and not all teachers will be able to cover the same amount of material. However, teachers should be held accountable in all schools to ensure that all is being done to properly teach all students science.
I would like to comment from the bottom up and start with the No Child Left Behind Revisions. Perhaps I am not as familiar with the specifics of these changes, but it makes no sense to me to withhold federal funding from schools that are already struggling. I can see not throwing good money after bad, but who is actually being punished in these cases? One-third of all US schools failing is a shockingly large number of schools. What are we doing wrong to have that many schools not progressing comparably? Jumping in and firing all the principals and teachers seems a bit impetuous. Are there more practical and reasoned ways to assess and correct the problem? Personally, I have never been a big fan of standardized testing. My view may stem from the fact that I have a child with learning difficulties and these tests not only cause a tremendous amount of stress and anxiety but rarely demonstrate what his true abilities or weaknesses are. In the primary grades he consistently tested advanced proficient in math and proficient in literacy despite the fact that he struggled with speech and formulating ideas. In the middle school, although making great strides academically, his NJ ASK scores dropped to proficient & below proficient. My additional complaint with the standardized tests is that we have schools across the nation “teaching to the test”. A great deal of time is also spent learning “how” to take the test ~ essentially coaching how to answer the questions, what to look for in the questions and to leave nothing blank. So after weeks or months of learning primarily about NJ ASK testing our students lose an additional week of learning when they take the test. There must be a better way. Yes there is a need for accountability and assessment. Yes we must find a measure to ensure that ALL our kids are learning and have available the same opportunities and Yes, we must determine quick and appropriate consequences when our schools are clearly failing or discriminating against our kids.
Agree with Diane’s statement about children needing to develop a passion for science early. I was lucky in that respect… My dad was an engineer and amateur mineralologist. My mother was a math teacher. Even though my elementary school left much to be desired when it came to teaching science, my parents fostered my passion of science. I didn’t always like being dragged on mine tours or though museums as a young child, but as I’ve grown I’ve learned to appreciate those things and am very thankful for my experiences. I was taught to question things and find the answers. I know it’s my early exposure to science and nature that lead to my career as an environmental scientist. In my ideal job I’d be teaching “only science.” Though, I see all subjects coming together in science. Math, reading, and history are all a part of science. I hope that I can instill the same passion in my students that I have. I do believe it’s an interest that starts young. I think it’s important to measure children’s progress in subject area, but I really do think too much emphasis is placed on standardized testing. Teachers have told me they start preparing for the NJ ASK in November! Children feel the pressure. And in the end, I think it turns them off to subjects they may have interest in. I also think teachers become very limited when so much weight is places on standardized testing.
Teachers are able to foster positive attitudes towards science by emphasizing the unique characteristics of science. Science displays authority, science is honest, and science has such a sense of discovery. Science can be learned through hands on discovery as well as through videos and textbooks. Explaining to children that experiments can demonstrate vast principles of science will certainly increase willigness to learn.
I came from an extremely loving, traditional family. However, I was assisted on occasion with homework and projects. I would envy my classmates that came in with electric projects for the science fair. I would have wanted to enter a project that was more than rubberbands around a shoebox. I always handed something in but wished I told my parents what I would have wanted to have completed with their help. Parental guidance is a plus to have for any class, but would be so benefical in a science class. I hope to have the opportunity to make my electrical science project through my childrens' projects as well as my own classroom one day! Participation from your students with science activities can icrease their desire to be involved in the science field later in life.
I believe that it is imperitive for us, as teachers, to give our students an understanding and positive attitude about learning science. I know from personal experience how it felt growing up not being too thrilled about the subject but I feel like if I had been told the reasoning behind what I was learning, I would have had a better appreciation for it. Our students need to be encouraged to learn science because it is all around them. It is part of their world and it always will be. I think that if I had been told this growing up, I would have had a more positive attitude and appreciation for science myself.
I also believe that it is important to test our students knowledge and the easiet way to do so is to have standardized testing. That being said, I do feel that too much emphasis is put on these tests and it takes away from learning inside the classroom. Teachers have become so concerned with their students being successful on such tests that they are sometimes teaching to the test and I don't feel that is fair to the student. I do feel like there should be some form of assessment, as it is essential in the learning process, but I am not so sure that we are doing the right thing by making testing so influential on what goes on inside the classroom. There is more to learn in every subject than what the students need to know for the test.
It is clearly imperative that students feel a genuine curiosity about science and a connection to learning it. Teachers can foster that curiosity in a number of ways, but first and foremost, educators must instill the belief that science is a great, interesting and important subject. Too many of my own teachers seemed intimidated by science and did not stress the amazing discoveries and breakthroughs science has made possible. It is my belief that standardized testing has almost nothing to do with learning science. Getting kids out of the classroom and into the environment would do everyone some good. Children cannot grasp the responsibility that we all have to take care of our planet if they never get to experience the wonders of it. Science experiments help students understand possibility and that taking a chance pays off. Teachers who can bring the wonder of nature into the classroom and who invite scientists and ecologists to come and speak to their kids can help a child understand science in a way that is important to them.
Good response Lisa! A positive attitude and problem solving skills that fosters student’s science knowledge and understanding in and out of class is the real goal! Research now proves that teachers can “teach to the test” using inquiry science learning and have students perform on standardized tests and more importantly in life. Your comments about comparisons year over year are correct because with studies such as these, we are assessing a different cohort of students! Year over year really provides information on programs while cohort studies track the same group grade to grade. Your explanation of NCLB provides a good summary of the testing. It seems ironic that a low performing school that increases in growth may be penalized while a high performing school that actually decreases in scores may still be considered “high performing.” The question becomes should we take away monies from schools in need of improvement and give funds to schools providing effective instruction?? Allissa provides a nice comment about this in her post. Erin makes points about how the test alters learning in the classroom.
Debbie’s mention of sciences fairs is a great example of easy ways to foster positive attitudes. She also provides good examples of the issues of using standardized testing for measuring teacher’s ability. Special education teachers often use the most effective strategies for student’s learning. They are often very successful; however, their success will never show on the NCLB radar. Likewise, we have to ask…What are we really measuring? A standardized testing format for most students with special needs is a worthless exercise. Rarely do they accurately measure their learning. Allissa’s post has a good example of the stress and anxiety associated with standardized testing and student’s performance.
I agree that having data to inform your instruction is useful; however, research shows this should happen every 5 weeks. I am not convinced that firing the principals and teachers will help failing schools. I think that many schools have found themselves in old methods that did not and will not work such as lecture and drill/kill! As Catherine mentions…some teacher start this preparation in November! Should NJASK be a year long focus or should the focus be effective instruction?
Diane related science knowledge to both Math and English. This is absolutely true! In elementary schools, good readers will outscore their peers in math, science and English. This lends to the connection between subjects as described by the AAAAS. I agree that we must teach beyond “the test” but most importantly, we must facilitate the process skills of problem solving, experimentation, analyzing, concluding, and evaluating found in science learning. Catherine brings a different perspective as she describes her parent’s part in her science education. This brings us to another discussion and question… Does parent involvement affect student science achievement? Christine comments on her family’s involvement. Do we take advantage or foster of this facet of education? Should our teaching go beyond our kids to their families? Is this the missing link?
Great post… interesting how your conversations lead to different thoughts and ideas.
How can teachers foster positive attitudes about science? According to the professional science organizations, what is the primary goal of science education? What are your thoughts about standardized testing in science as required by the No Child Left Behind Act? Compare and contrast the aspects of NCLB.
ReplyDeleteTeachers can foster positive attitudes about science by incorporating fun into science, demonstrating successful experiences, encouraging students to inquire in and out of class. Students who ask their own questions, develop, challenge and formulate their own conclusions have a positive outlook on science.
ReplyDeleteNational Science Teachers Association (NSTA): This organization’s main goals of science education is 1) to achieve science literacy for all citizens and 2) to ensure an adequate supply of scientists, engineers, and science teachers. Students should be encouraged to develop science concepts, see science applications in everyday life, gain positive attitudes toward science, and learn how science helps solve personal and societal problems.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): This organization believes that teachers should treat science topics from an interdisciplinary perspective and focus on the relationships that are common among all the scientific disciplines. Teachers should encourage children to look for information that they have already gained from other subjects or previous knowledge of science. Students will have practice in collecting their own evidence and formulating data to solve problems.
National Science Education Standards (NSES): The primary goal is scientific literacy for ALL students. “All students regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science should have the opportunity to obtain high levels of scientific literacy.”
I see the differing opinions about standardized testing and understand both sides. While I think it is important to measure progress and the amount of content that is covered in a subject area in a given time, I don’t think that the curriculum should be based around the test. I realize that each grade level is expected to cover a certain amount of material in order to advance to the next grade level but I don’t know for sure if the scores of the standardized tests accurately report the grades as a whole. For example, there may be a bunch of very intelligent science focused students one year and the next year the class may be average. This is not an accurate report of progress from year to year. I do think that it is a good way to keep track of an individual teacher’s methods and way to keep them in line with the curriculum standards. As much as we need to track student performance, teacher performance is also very important in order to make sure they are successful in teaching the appropriate material and in the most beneficial way.
The NCLB Act was signed into law in 2002 and is based on four principles: 1) increased accountability for states, school districts, schools and teachers for the achievement of their students; 2) a larger choice for parents, in particular those families whose children attend low-performing schools; 3) increased flexibility for states, school districts, and schools in terms of use of federal funds; 4) increased emphasis on reading. The NCLB Act also states that all teachers by the year 2006 who teach core academic subjects must be highly qualified. The basis of this Act is to place emphasis on students’ achievement and to hold the teachers, schools and states accountable for the students’ achievement.
ReplyDeleteThe NCLB Act forces schools to measure students’ knowledge by administering annually state standardized testing. These tests are measured from year to year and analyzed to see if the students are making adequate yearly progress. If the scores do not meet the standards, the school or the teacher may be forced to take corrective action if scores do not improve. Conversely, schools that score in the higher ranks may be rewarded financially. There are many concerns about these standardized tests and whether or not they are an accurate measurement of students’ progress. Some people argue that students and teachers are punished for their lack of performance and does not concentrate on how schools will improve their scores and help students to perform better. There is extreme pressure on both the school and the students and in applying this pressure, a lot of creativity from the teachers is stymied making it more difficult to teach the curriculum. Most teachers are pressured into “teaching for the test” and not teaching the curriculum of the school in the manner they would like or would have more success with. Our textbook explains that the NCLB Act is a work in progress; they are still identifying and testing advantages and disadvantages of the Act and are working to make these laws fair for all parties.
Question 1 - To expand upon Lisa’s comment, I have also read that students who participate in science fairs have more positive attitudes towards science.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2 - Lisa listed the main goals of the NSTA, AAAS and NSTS. Here are a few more comments:
The NSTA says, “The elementary science program must provide opportunities for students to develop understandings and skills necessary to function productively as problem-solvers in a scientific and technological world.” In order to do this:
1) Students must be involved in the first-hand exploration and investigation through employing inquiry and process skills.
2) Instruction must build on students’ conceptual frameworks.
3) Content must be organized on the basis of broad conceptual themes.
4) Mathematics and communication must be made an integral part of science instruction.
The standards of the NSES are guided by four principles:
1) Science is for all students.
2) Learning science is an active process.
3) School science reflects the intellectual and cultural traditions that characterize the practice of contemporary science.
4) Improving science is a part of systemic education reform.
Question 3 - Students are given yearly standardized achievement tests to show they are making adequate yearly progress. If a school or teacher fails to demonstrate the required improvements in student achievement over time they may be identified as inadequate. On the other hand, schools and teachers that do well on tests can be rewarded financially. Although this type of testing was put into place to help very important educational issues, it is not flaw proof. I do not think it takes into account that some students are not good at taking tests. They may understand the information, but may feel pressure at testing time that in turn skews their testing scores. It also does not properly gauge the effectiveness of teachers. For example, I know a teacher that excels at working with children who have disabilities or behavioral issues. Because of this ability, he is always assigned classes that include the most challenging students. I do not believe that standardized testing can fairly compare his teaching ability to the teachers that are assigned less challenging classrooms.
Question 5 – The law has been proven to work over the past few years. Gaps are slowly closing, so we are doing something right. But as Lisa stated, the NCLB Act is a work in progress; they are still identifying and testing advantages and disadvantages of the Act and are working to make these laws fair for all parties.
From what I have found on-line President Obama is making changes. An example is as follows:
The 2001 NCLB law prescribed penalties for schools that failed to meet adequate yearly progress goals for certain groups of students based on race, ethnicity, income, and disabilities. The result was one-third of all US schools, including many schools deemed successful by other measures, were designated as failing and faced loss of federal funding under NCLB.
By contrast, the Obama blueprint calls on states to identify their lowest-performing 5 percent of schools and to take strong measures to upgrade those schools, including firing the principal and teachers.
I do not know that I fully believe in this change, but it shows that continuous changes are being implemented.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0315/Obama-s-No-Child-Left-Behind-revise-a-little-more-flexibility
The last question in my response was supposed to be listed and question number four, not number five. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa’s comments about teachers developing positive attitudes about science. I feel it is imperative as a teacher you try to have your students learn to love science. Science is a difficult subject for many students; it involves using math and english skills, in addition to learning all about science. If children do not become excited at a young age about science they will never try to grasp the more difficult concepts later on in their studies.
ReplyDeleteThe NSTA, AAAAS and the NSES all have different views on what elementary science education should incorporate. They all have good ideas in their views about helping students learn science. The NSTA tries to make children problem solvers and get involved in hands on science. They do bring up a very important fact about trying to ensure that the students of today will be our scientists of the future. Science is not an easy subject to comprehend for many students; it takes a lot of hard work and dedication in order to achieve success in the science field. If students do not develop a passion for science at an early age they will never try to pursue a career in science. The AAAAS is attempting to have the students connecting science to their other subjects. This is very important to have students see a connection between all their learning. The NSES believes that all students no matter what should have a high level of exposure to science. I agree that all students should be given equal exposure to science. This is very difficult to achieve in the lower achieving schools. Something needs to be done to help all students to have exposure to the different aspects of science.
I have mixed feelings about standardized testing for science. The NCLB is a work in progress. Personally, I feel as a future teacher and a parent that more emphasis should be put on cirriculum that encourages thinking outside of the box than “teaching to the test.”. Students should learn first hand about science from performing experiments and try to resolve problems. This takes time, and not all teachers will be able to cover the same amount of material. However, teachers should be held accountable in all schools to ensure that all is being done to properly teach all students science.
I would like to comment from the bottom up and start with the No Child Left Behind Revisions. Perhaps I am not as familiar with the specifics of these changes, but it makes no sense to me to withhold federal funding from schools that are already struggling. I can see not throwing good money after bad, but who is actually being punished in these cases? One-third of all US schools failing is a shockingly large number of schools. What are we doing wrong to have that many schools not progressing comparably? Jumping in and firing all the principals and teachers seems a bit impetuous. Are there more practical and reasoned ways to assess and correct the problem?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have never been a big fan of standardized testing. My view may stem from the fact that I have a child with learning difficulties and these tests not only cause a tremendous amount of stress and anxiety but rarely demonstrate what his true abilities or weaknesses are. In the primary grades he consistently tested advanced proficient in math and proficient in literacy despite the fact that he struggled with speech and formulating ideas. In the middle school, although making great strides academically, his NJ ASK scores dropped to proficient & below proficient. My additional complaint with the standardized tests is that we have schools across the nation “teaching to the test”. A great deal of time is also spent learning “how” to take the test ~ essentially coaching how to answer the questions, what to look for in the questions and to leave nothing blank. So after weeks or months of learning primarily about NJ ASK testing our students lose an additional week of learning when they take the test. There must be a better way. Yes there is a need for accountability and assessment. Yes we must find a measure to ensure that ALL our kids are learning and have available the same opportunities and Yes, we must determine quick and appropriate consequences when our schools are clearly failing or discriminating against our kids.
Responding...
ReplyDeleteAgree with Diane’s statement about children needing to develop a passion for science early. I was lucky in that respect… My dad was an engineer and amateur mineralologist. My mother was a math teacher. Even though my elementary school left much to be desired when it came to teaching science, my parents fostered my passion of science. I didn’t always like being dragged on mine tours or though museums as a young child, but as I’ve grown I’ve learned to appreciate those things and am very thankful for my experiences. I was taught to question things and find the answers. I know it’s my early exposure to science and nature that lead to my career as an environmental scientist.
In my ideal job I’d be teaching “only science.” Though, I see all subjects coming together in science. Math, reading, and history are all a part of science. I hope that I can instill the same passion in my students that I have. I do believe it’s an interest that starts young.
I think it’s important to measure children’s progress in subject area, but I really do think too much emphasis is placed on standardized testing. Teachers have told me they start preparing for the NJ ASK in November! Children feel the pressure. And in the end, I think it turns them off to subjects they may have interest in. I also think teachers become very limited when so much weight is places on standardized testing.
Catherine Orosz
Teachers are able to foster positive attitudes towards science by emphasizing the unique characteristics of science. Science displays authority, science is honest, and science has such a sense of discovery. Science can be learned through hands on discovery as well as through videos and textbooks. Explaining to children that experiments can demonstrate vast principles of science will certainly increase willigness to learn.
ReplyDeleteI came from an extremely loving, traditional family. However, I was assisted on occasion with homework and projects. I would envy my classmates that came in with electric projects for the science fair. I would have wanted to enter a project that was more than rubberbands around a shoebox. I always handed something in but wished I told my parents what I would have wanted to have completed with their help. Parental guidance is a plus to have for any class, but would be so benefical in a science class. I hope to have the opportunity to make my electrical science project through my childrens' projects as well as my own classroom one day! Participation from your students with science activities can icrease their desire to be involved in the science field later in life.
I believe that it is imperitive for us, as teachers, to give our students an understanding and positive attitude about learning science. I know from personal experience how it felt growing up not being too thrilled about the subject but I feel like if I had been told the reasoning behind what I was learning, I would have had a better appreciation for it. Our students need to be encouraged to learn science because it is all around them. It is part of their world and it always will be. I think that if I had been told this growing up, I would have had a more positive attitude and appreciation for science myself.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that it is important to test our students knowledge and the easiet way to do so is to have standardized testing. That being said, I do feel that too much emphasis is put on these tests and it takes away from learning inside the classroom. Teachers have become so concerned with their students being successful on such tests that they are sometimes teaching to the test and I don't feel that is fair to the student. I do feel like there should be some form of assessment, as it is essential in the learning process, but I am not so sure that we are doing the right thing by making testing so influential on what goes on inside the classroom. There is more to learn in every subject than what the students need to know for the test.
It is clearly imperative that students feel a genuine curiosity about science and a connection to learning it. Teachers can foster that curiosity in a number of ways, but first and foremost, educators must instill the belief that science is a great, interesting and important subject. Too many of my own teachers seemed intimidated by science and did not stress the amazing discoveries and breakthroughs science has made possible. It is my belief that standardized testing has almost nothing to do with learning science. Getting kids out of the classroom and into the environment would do everyone some good. Children cannot grasp the responsibility that we all have to take care of our planet if they never get to experience the wonders of it. Science experiments help students understand possibility and that taking a chance pays off. Teachers who can bring the wonder of nature into the classroom and who invite scientists and ecologists to come and speak to their kids can help a child understand science in a way that is important to them.
ReplyDeleteChapter 2 Comments:
ReplyDeleteGood response Lisa! A positive attitude and problem solving skills that fosters student’s science knowledge and understanding in and out of class is the real goal! Research now proves that teachers can “teach to the test” using inquiry science learning and have students perform on standardized tests and more importantly in life. Your comments about comparisons year over year are correct because with studies such as these, we are assessing a different cohort of students! Year over year really provides information on programs while cohort studies track the same group grade to grade. Your explanation of NCLB provides a good summary of the testing. It seems ironic that a low performing school that increases in growth may be penalized while a high performing school that actually decreases in scores may still be considered “high performing.” The question becomes should we take away monies from schools in need of improvement and give funds to schools providing effective instruction?? Allissa provides a nice comment about this in her post. Erin makes points about how the test alters learning in the classroom.
Debbie’s mention of sciences fairs is a great example of easy ways to foster positive attitudes. She also provides good examples of the issues of using standardized testing for measuring teacher’s ability. Special education teachers often use the most effective strategies for student’s learning. They are often very successful; however, their success will never show on the NCLB radar. Likewise, we have to ask…What are we really measuring? A standardized testing format for most students with special needs is a worthless exercise. Rarely do they accurately measure their learning. Allissa’s post has a good example of the stress and anxiety associated with standardized testing and student’s performance.
I agree that having data to inform your instruction is useful; however, research shows this should happen every 5 weeks. I am not convinced that firing the principals and teachers will help failing schools. I think that many schools have found themselves in old methods that did not and will not work such as lecture and drill/kill! As Catherine mentions…some teacher start this preparation in November! Should NJASK be a year long focus or should the focus be effective instruction?
Diane related science knowledge to both Math and English. This is absolutely true! In elementary schools, good readers will outscore their peers in math, science and English. This lends to the connection between subjects as described by the AAAAS. I agree that we must teach beyond “the test” but most importantly, we must facilitate the process skills of problem solving, experimentation, analyzing, concluding, and evaluating found in science learning. Catherine brings a different perspective as she describes her parent’s part in her science education. This brings us to another discussion and question… Does parent involvement affect student science achievement? Christine comments on her family’s involvement. Do we take advantage or foster of this facet of education? Should our teaching go beyond our kids to their families? Is this the missing link?
Great post… interesting how your conversations lead to different thoughts and ideas.
~Rosalie