My research topic is reforms-based science teaching. It has been a little challenging to find information about this topic, but there have been enough articles for me to get a better understanding of what this teaching style looks like. I have found the differences between traditional teaching versus reform teaching are very different, and the reform style is what we have been talking about in class. Give students inquiry based lessons, let them be active in their learning, and center your instruction around their needs.
The website I read for this blog can be found here. It was actually written by a biology professor, which I thought was unusual at first. It was interesting to read an article from a scientist's point of view, rather than that of a teacher. He talks about how teaching is seen as an easy job until you actually get in the schools and watch what teachers do.
The article starts off by discussing 10 common myths about science instruction. The myths are obvious ones, but he did that on purpose because the obvious can be overlooked. The author states why he does not believe them to be true, which actually made me feel better. I know a lot of people in our class have been worrying about knowing enough science content to teach it. The author believes that with adequate materials, and enough planning time all teachers can be effective science teachers. He believes it is more about our feeling of inadequacy that leads us to avoid teaching science than a lock of content knowledge. The author includes a section on what scientists can do to assist with science education reform. One of his biggest suggestions is to get involved, either directly in the classroom or indirectly through grants or other programs that can offer funding. The author believes quality professional development can provide the support teachers need in science content instruction.
This article actually made me feel a lot better about my future in teaching science. It can seem daunting, but by taking advantage of the resources available, and being creative it is the same as planning a lesson for any other subject. Teachers also need to be aware of their own teaching style and knowledge. By recording yourself, you might learn something you need to change or add. As a teacher, you need to be aware of how you teach your students. If you don't like what you see, then change it. A great part of our profession is we have the ability to change things minute to minute, day to day. We don't need to be restricted to one type of instruction, and we can improve. Keeping up to date on science issues is also a good idea, so you can have discussions with your students and update your instruction.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Starting to piece together the nature of science
It is becoming more and more difficult to find good articles about the nature of science. It seems to still be a fairly new concept in teaching science. I still find a lot resources on the scientific method and step by step teaching of science. So I think I'll take this blog to start putting together my other blogs and prior knowledge.
In Jerrid's class we are learning a lot about how to teach the nature of science. He also uses this approach in teaching us, so he is effectively modeling how it could be used in a science classroom. We are being taught that there can be many ways to come to the same conclusion in the end. I agree that the scientific method is not the way to go, but when I first learned about the nature of science way of teaching I was in shock. I was in shock that 13 years of being taught science by way of the scientific method had just been ripped away from me. Not that I want to hold on to those years. I hated science and the way it was taught. I decided to become a teacher to make learning and school different for all the kids that go through school hating the "traditional" systems and methods of school just like I did. I think that the concept of teaching to the nature of science is a great place for me to start my teaching strategies for my future classroom.
I think you could even take the basic ideas from the nature of science and use them in other subject areas. If you extract the creativity, inquiry, and discovery parts of teaching the nature of science I think it could be beneficial to almost every subject. Next blog, I connect these ideas with past blogs and start to finish the puzzle that is the nature of science.
In Jerrid's class we are learning a lot about how to teach the nature of science. He also uses this approach in teaching us, so he is effectively modeling how it could be used in a science classroom. We are being taught that there can be many ways to come to the same conclusion in the end. I agree that the scientific method is not the way to go, but when I first learned about the nature of science way of teaching I was in shock. I was in shock that 13 years of being taught science by way of the scientific method had just been ripped away from me. Not that I want to hold on to those years. I hated science and the way it was taught. I decided to become a teacher to make learning and school different for all the kids that go through school hating the "traditional" systems and methods of school just like I did. I think that the concept of teaching to the nature of science is a great place for me to start my teaching strategies for my future classroom.
I think you could even take the basic ideas from the nature of science and use them in other subject areas. If you extract the creativity, inquiry, and discovery parts of teaching the nature of science I think it could be beneficial to almost every subject. Next blog, I connect these ideas with past blogs and start to finish the puzzle that is the nature of science.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Effectively Teaching ELL's Science = Effectively Teaching All Students?
I'm researching effective teaching strategies when working with English language learners (ELL's) in the science classroom. Although ELL's have some additional needs of learning language and facing cultural barriers in schools, ELL's learn the same way in which all students learn.
In Mary Ann Zehr's blog post The Latest Research on Teaching Science to ELLs, Zehr alludes to the research brief Improving Science Vocabulary Learning of English Language Learners posted by the Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. The research brief describes two interventions that have been used in the United States.
One of the interventions included pre- and post-vocabulary teaching using visual cards. Although ELL's need to develop science content language, the students first need to understand the concepts. Kolb's learning cycle informs teaching through telling teachers to first start with engagement for students. Students must be intrigued, motivated, and interested before they are going to learn vocabulary words. Additionally, having students actually experience the vocabulary word rather than showing them the card would be more concrete. Developmental learning theory emphasizes that starting with concrete representations helps students more than having them start with abstract representations. See figure 1 from the research brief for an example of one of the vocabulary cards used in the intervention.
Intervention 2 from the research brief highlights that teachers were to provide an engagement for ELL's at the beginning of the lesson. The brief describes the example of letting students watch a tea bag filter into water when learning about osmosis. Although I'm not sure if osmosis is developmentally appropriate for 6th graders, the act of giving students this introduction engagement would benefit not on ELL's but also all students. The engagement is concrete and it draws in student interest. The part that did not seem appropriate to "how science works" was that step-by-step directions were given for the experiment. Not only does the step-by-step process provide students with an inaccurate understanding of what science is and how science is done, but also limits ELL's from orally interacting during the experiment.
In Mary Ann Zehr's blog post The Latest Research on Teaching Science to ELLs, Zehr alludes to the research brief Improving Science Vocabulary Learning of English Language Learners posted by the Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. The research brief describes two interventions that have been used in the United States.
One of the interventions included pre- and post-vocabulary teaching using visual cards. Although ELL's need to develop science content language, the students first need to understand the concepts. Kolb's learning cycle informs teaching through telling teachers to first start with engagement for students. Students must be intrigued, motivated, and interested before they are going to learn vocabulary words. Additionally, having students actually experience the vocabulary word rather than showing them the card would be more concrete. Developmental learning theory emphasizes that starting with concrete representations helps students more than having them start with abstract representations. See figure 1 from the research brief for an example of one of the vocabulary cards used in the intervention.
Intervention 2 from the research brief highlights that teachers were to provide an engagement for ELL's at the beginning of the lesson. The brief describes the example of letting students watch a tea bag filter into water when learning about osmosis. Although I'm not sure if osmosis is developmentally appropriate for 6th graders, the act of giving students this introduction engagement would benefit not on ELL's but also all students. The engagement is concrete and it draws in student interest. The part that did not seem appropriate to "how science works" was that step-by-step directions were given for the experiment. Not only does the step-by-step process provide students with an inaccurate understanding of what science is and how science is done, but also limits ELL's from orally interacting during the experiment.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
free and inexpensive ways to bring science into the classroom continued
The first website I found is a great resource if there are individual computers in your classroom and if you are allowed to downloaded apps at your school. It is called linux planet and is geared towards high school science. There are three sections; astronomy, biology and chemistry. Off of these three main sections are more sections that relate to the specific category. For example off of chemistry you can decide between Stellarium, Celestia, and Space Trajectory Analysis. The stellarium is an app where you can put coordinates for any point on earth and view the night skies at any point in time. The Celestia is like the Stellarium but lets you fly through 3d space to any place in the known universe. The Celestia sometimes uses actual photos of plants, asteroids and other objects so its a more real experience for students. Under the chemistry section there is an app that allows students to make diagrams of atoms, molecules, macromolecules, and crystals. I really liked this idea because the variety of apps allow for students to become familiar, or just get better practice with things they are learning in class in a fun way. The idea of allowing students to see actual photos and view the night sky at any point in time gets the children excited and holds them responsibly for their own learning.
Another great way to bring science into the classroom is exploring through field trips. Many field trips that incorporate science can be free or inexpensive with a bus fee only. Some more common field trips would include going on nature walks, walking around the school and exploring the environment outside, going to the beach, or a farm. Some other field trips could include museums around the area you are teaching, zoos, and science centers. Checking into areas around your school is important because a lot of places will do group discounts, or discounts for schools.
Sources:
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6812/1/
Another great way to bring science into the classroom is exploring through field trips. Many field trips that incorporate science can be free or inexpensive with a bus fee only. Some more common field trips would include going on nature walks, walking around the school and exploring the environment outside, going to the beach, or a farm. Some other field trips could include museums around the area you are teaching, zoos, and science centers. Checking into areas around your school is important because a lot of places will do group discounts, or discounts for schools.
Sources:
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6812/1/
Sunday, October 24, 2010
How to Teach the Nature of Science? Continued.....
"Along with the awesome responsibility to teach science content and inquiry comes a responsibility to nurture an understanding of the nature of science." It takes a lot to understand the true meaning of the nature of science. I have learned quite a bit through my research for this project. Science is not properly taught by teaching student the scientific method. A quote from my current research article proves this point nicely, "No single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the full complexity of doing science." This is so true. Students can not learn through step by step processes! Another point I found helpful from this article was "There are many methods to doing science, not just one “Scientific Method.” We can teach that questions lead to investigation and experiments that then lead to conclusions—but still stress there are many different pathways that scientists take."
This article also goes on to pull creativity into the definition of the nature of science stating, "Creativity is a vital, yet personal, ingredient in the production of scientific knowledge." Creativity is an element of the nature of science I had not yet thought about,but after being forced by this article to think about it I do feel that creativity does play a rule in the nature of science. As it does with all learning.
This article also mentions that it is important to connect your teaching of the nature of science to your science standards.
#3 Reforms-based teaching
My topic is reforms-based teaching in the science classroom. I read an article on how blogging can help teachers meet the goals of reform-based teaching. The authors studied 9 classroom blogs, looking at the role of the teacher, the role of the student, and how it met with reforms-based goals.
Find the link here
Blogging is considered positive because students always have access to their work, they can reflect and revise. Student can extend knowledge and have access to a wide variety of resources on the internet. Students read each others blogs and comment on their work. The effectiveness of blogging is more how the teachers uses the blog, rather than the blog itself. I like the table at the bottom of page 277 that shows how reforms-based science goals align with the potential learning that takes place with blogs. I think this could be a good tool to defend your use of blogging if co-workers or administrators question your actions. Also, as a teacher everything we do should have a purpose. How the blog is presented, and how the teacher chooses to use it, plays a big role in determining the effectiveness of the tool. Goal and purpose of blogging should be clear to the students. The effectiveness of blogs can be limited by the teacher, and their guidelines.
This article was a little dry and took me a while to read. Research is hard for me to read and keep my attention focused on the article. Basically what I got from the article is that blogs can be a good tool to use in your classroom if you are using it for the right reasons and in the right way. Blogs should be more open ended and allow students to construct their own learning instead of being driven and influenced by the teacher. Blogs can also line up with the goals of reforms-based science teaching. I like the idea of using blogs as more of a reflection/social learning tool to extend learning instead of using them for research or other assignments they can do in the classroom. I paid more attention to the right ways to use a blog than the 9 classroom blogs the authors chose. Students need to be made aware of the expectations the teacher has for them. What is appropriate, and internet safety. As the article points out, this tool would be most effective in middle school or high school. Not that elementary students couldn't blog, I just think it would be more meaningful when the students were a little older.
Find the link here
Blogging is considered positive because students always have access to their work, they can reflect and revise. Student can extend knowledge and have access to a wide variety of resources on the internet. Students read each others blogs and comment on their work. The effectiveness of blogging is more how the teachers uses the blog, rather than the blog itself. I like the table at the bottom of page 277 that shows how reforms-based science goals align with the potential learning that takes place with blogs. I think this could be a good tool to defend your use of blogging if co-workers or administrators question your actions. Also, as a teacher everything we do should have a purpose. How the blog is presented, and how the teacher chooses to use it, plays a big role in determining the effectiveness of the tool. Goal and purpose of blogging should be clear to the students. The effectiveness of blogs can be limited by the teacher, and their guidelines.
This article was a little dry and took me a while to read. Research is hard for me to read and keep my attention focused on the article. Basically what I got from the article is that blogs can be a good tool to use in your classroom if you are using it for the right reasons and in the right way. Blogs should be more open ended and allow students to construct their own learning instead of being driven and influenced by the teacher. Blogs can also line up with the goals of reforms-based science teaching. I like the idea of using blogs as more of a reflection/social learning tool to extend learning instead of using them for research or other assignments they can do in the classroom. I paid more attention to the right ways to use a blog than the 9 classroom blogs the authors chose. Students need to be made aware of the expectations the teacher has for them. What is appropriate, and internet safety. As the article points out, this tool would be most effective in middle school or high school. Not that elementary students couldn't blog, I just think it would be more meaningful when the students were a little older.
Children's Literature in the Science Classroom
Words are abstract, but language is still important. As we continue to discuss developmental learning theory in class, I try to continually reflect on my own lesson plans and observations in practicum experiences. I ask myself, "How is developmental learning theory apparent?" Although I agree that students need to start with concrete, authentic experiences as they learn, students still need to develop the language that matches the content. I'm researching strategies for working with English language learners (ELL's) in the science classroom and believe stories and children's literature can be one way to incorporate language as students move from concrete experiences to more abstract experiences.
Jo-Anne Lake in Literature and Science Breakthroughs: Connecting Language and Science Skills in the Elementary Classroom discusses the many benefits of using children's literature within science teaching. Some of the benefits she discusses follow:
- Science concepts are introduced/reinforced through words and illustrations;
- Creativity and imagination are promoted through the stories;
- Cross-curricular connections are made;
- Children's literature may be more up-to-date than textbooks;
- Concepts within science are connected;
- Students develop a variety of perspectives related to one topic;
- Scientific and reading skills are reinforced and linked: observing, classifying, seriating, communicating, inferring, predicting, interpreting; and
- Children participate in multi-sensory experiences.
I foresee using children's literature at several points during my own classroom. If the book has great illustrations and diagrams, the students may benefit from the book at the beginning of the lesson. Conversely, if the book has abstract diagrams and mostly two dimensional pictures and words, the book may be a good reinforcement and would be better to use later in the lesson.
Although we learn through developmental learning theory that concrete experiences should be incorporated into a lesson prior to abstract experiences (such as reading a book), we often talk in methods classes about providing students background knowledge by reading a story. I'm a bit confused . . . in the science classroom should I never start a lesson with a book or other piece of text?
For more information about how to select texts, see pages 19-22.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
#2 Reforms-based science teaching
My topic is learning more about reforms-based teaching, the reason behind it, and how to incorporate it into your science teaching.
The link to my article can be found here
This article discusses the change from science focusing on memorization and following directions to a focus on building skills and conceptualizing students thinking. The old method focused on lecture and a teacher-centered classroom. The "reformed" method of teaching is much more hands on and puts students in the lead of conducting investigations, forming their own knowledge, and applying principles of science. There is a table in the article that compares the traditional and reform views of teaching science that I found very helpful. My science education was presented in the traditional method so I could really compare and contrast the styles because of my first hand experience. I could see the benefits of the reform method because it allows more student involvement, and makes science engaging and interesting. My experience with science was memorization and following steps from a textbook. The reform view is more about looking to the future and how you want students to be able to apply their knowledge.
The article focuses on creating an inquiry based classroom. Students develop problem-solving and communication skills, encourage curiosity, and develop real world skills. All of these relate back to the goals we created as a class. There was also another table that compares how real scientists work and the inquiry-based teaching approach. This table was just like a lightbulb moment for me. I don't think teachers usually view science instruction in this way. We tailor other subject areas to prepare students for the future, why would we not do the same for our students in science instruction. The article also encourages teachers to bring a scientist into the classroom, and I think that would be so exciting for students. Especially having them lead a lesson or do an experiment along with the students. They can talk about how they do their work and why science is important.
This article really gave me specific examples of how reforms-based teaching would look in a classroom. This was helpful for me in thinking about my teaching. The ideas were general, so they can be adopted in all classrooms where the teacher is willing. The comparisons were laid out so well in both tables, and gave explicit comparisons between two ideas. I saved this article to use for future reference.
The link to my article can be found here
This article discusses the change from science focusing on memorization and following directions to a focus on building skills and conceptualizing students thinking. The old method focused on lecture and a teacher-centered classroom. The "reformed" method of teaching is much more hands on and puts students in the lead of conducting investigations, forming their own knowledge, and applying principles of science. There is a table in the article that compares the traditional and reform views of teaching science that I found very helpful. My science education was presented in the traditional method so I could really compare and contrast the styles because of my first hand experience. I could see the benefits of the reform method because it allows more student involvement, and makes science engaging and interesting. My experience with science was memorization and following steps from a textbook. The reform view is more about looking to the future and how you want students to be able to apply their knowledge.
The article focuses on creating an inquiry based classroom. Students develop problem-solving and communication skills, encourage curiosity, and develop real world skills. All of these relate back to the goals we created as a class. There was also another table that compares how real scientists work and the inquiry-based teaching approach. This table was just like a lightbulb moment for me. I don't think teachers usually view science instruction in this way. We tailor other subject areas to prepare students for the future, why would we not do the same for our students in science instruction. The article also encourages teachers to bring a scientist into the classroom, and I think that would be so exciting for students. Especially having them lead a lesson or do an experiment along with the students. They can talk about how they do their work and why science is important.
This article really gave me specific examples of how reforms-based teaching would look in a classroom. This was helpful for me in thinking about my teaching. The ideas were general, so they can be adopted in all classrooms where the teacher is willing. The comparisons were laid out so well in both tables, and gave explicit comparisons between two ideas. I saved this article to use for future reference.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
How to Teach the Nature of Science?
I am slowly finding a little more on teaching the Nature of Science. The source I have most recently found has proven to be a good one. It describes the nature of science as "key principles and ideas which provide a description of science as a way of knowing, as well as characteristics of scientific knowledge." I think this is a great way to put it. It doesn't make science out as a set in stone step-by-step process. This way it seems inviting. Often times this aspect gets lost in a classroom and teachers resort to the step-by-step procedures of science. It is great that the education world is finally leaving the chains of the scientific method behind. "Scientific knowledge is tentative." This simple sentence is breaking the mold for science education. If scientific knowledge itself is tentative, then the process in which we gain the knowledge is also tentative.
The first thing many of us learned in science was the scientific method. This is how science works, right? WRONG. "The danger in this approach is not only that learning the scientific method is a bummer to students, but that it is also quite restrictive in its scope. Scientists usually do not walk through the method sequentially. They often bounce around, perhaps forming a new hypothesis during experimentation. Studies in which no experimentation is performed are also valid scientific studies, but do not follow the scientific method." This quote put it all into perspective for me, and its so true. What is being taught to kids in most science classrooms is not what science is like in the real world. Students are getting only a very standard, and incorrect view of science when they are seeing it through the lenses of the scientific method.
For the source of the quotations and additional information, Click Here.
The first thing many of us learned in science was the scientific method. This is how science works, right? WRONG. "The danger in this approach is not only that learning the scientific method is a bummer to students, but that it is also quite restrictive in its scope. Scientists usually do not walk through the method sequentially. They often bounce around, perhaps forming a new hypothesis during experimentation. Studies in which no experimentation is performed are also valid scientific studies, but do not follow the scientific method." This quote put it all into perspective for me, and its so true. What is being taught to kids in most science classrooms is not what science is like in the real world. Students are getting only a very standard, and incorrect view of science when they are seeing it through the lenses of the scientific method.
For the source of the quotations and additional information, Click Here.
Friday, October 15, 2010
More about "How to Teach the Nature of Science?"
When I think about teaching science I am still a little unsure how to accurately teach the nature of science. I know the concept of how to teach he nature of science, but I'm really not sure how I'm going to put it into my classroom. I hoping through learning more about what the nature of science is, that I can better understand how to incorporate it into my science teachings.
One source I found said science exploration "is open-ended". This really stuck with me. This is what we were taught in class. I feel a science lesson is a series of paths that should be left just this way. Each path leads to a certain destination, but how you get to the destination should be an exploration. This article also says that science is a great adventure. Which also fits this point perfectly. For more information from this source click here.
I think a lot of people (including myself) are a little anxious about teaching this way though, because this is not how we grew up being taught. And honestly, I haven't found that many good and reputable resources to gain information from. I really would love to teach this concept in my classroom but its very hard to stand by something with such little know about it. Its VERY hard to break the mold, a mold that had been cast for me through 14 years of science lessons. Science taught in accordance to the scientific method.
One source I found said science exploration "is open-ended". This really stuck with me. This is what we were taught in class. I feel a science lesson is a series of paths that should be left just this way. Each path leads to a certain destination, but how you get to the destination should be an exploration. This article also says that science is a great adventure. Which also fits this point perfectly. For more information from this source click here.
I think a lot of people (including myself) are a little anxious about teaching this way though, because this is not how we grew up being taught. And honestly, I haven't found that many good and reputable resources to gain information from. I really would love to teach this concept in my classroom but its very hard to stand by something with such little know about it. Its VERY hard to break the mold, a mold that had been cast for me through 14 years of science lessons. Science taught in accordance to the scientific method.
Varieties in Approaches to Learning
As I was perusing one of the podcast websites that Jen recommended in her October 13 blog post, I came across an interesting podcast for my own research. The podcast discusses some differences between the Chinese and United State's approaches to teaching, particularly in science. My research focus is to learn about effective teaching strategies for working with English language learners (ELL's) in science. Thus, learning about how Chinese and Americans teach science differently will benefit teachers who have students who are from China.
In the podcast, several people who have connections to China and the United State's educational system were interviewed. One student interviewed was born in China, raised in the United States, and moved back to China to study at a Chinese university. The student mentioned that she observed and participated in Chinese classrooms and said, "Chinese students are not encouraged to analyze, argue, or think for themselves." Teachers typically only ask yes/no questions or questions that are going to lead to one correct answer. The interviewee compared the experience to her time in the United States where she was always asked for her opinion or her thoughts. The two vastly different experiences challenged the student's cultural adjustment.
Another interviewee who moved to the United States to study acting in California discussed how he was shocked his first week of school when the teacher was essentially facilitating classroom discussion rather than feeding him information to memorize. The student met with the teacher after the class and asked, "Are you going to give us one final answer?" Adjustments for this student were also difficult.
The head of the division of curriculum development for basic education of China's Ministry Education, was interviewed and said, "We need excellent teachers who interact with the students and we need to find a way to assess not just what students learn but also if they’ve learned how to learn.” China is moving towards including more creativity and critical thinking in their curriculum.
Although previous to listening to the podcast I knew a good teaching strategy for working with ELL's was to learn about their cultures, the podcast reinforced the notion. When teaching ELL's, we may have one idea about how teaching and learning occurs, but other cultures may have different opinions about how teaching and learning transpires. I won't be able to learn everything about a student when I teach, but I can make a concentrated effort to learn as much as I can. Some ways of learning about students abd are their cultures are: talking with the students, spending time with the families outside of school (i.e. family picnic night), visiting other countries/places, reading and sharing ideas.
The part that I'm still confused about is "How do I help students who are unfamiliar with the United State's school system become familar? I want to use their previous educational experiences as assets, but I also don't want the students to be utterly confused."
Additionally, I'm wondering what China's goals are for students and what teaching theories they link to their teaching.
___
Image Source: Teachers Domain, http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/wds10.sci.engin.design.chedu/
In the podcast, several people who have connections to China and the United State's educational system were interviewed. One student interviewed was born in China, raised in the United States, and moved back to China to study at a Chinese university. The student mentioned that she observed and participated in Chinese classrooms and said, "Chinese students are not encouraged to analyze, argue, or think for themselves." Teachers typically only ask yes/no questions or questions that are going to lead to one correct answer. The interviewee compared the experience to her time in the United States where she was always asked for her opinion or her thoughts. The two vastly different experiences challenged the student's cultural adjustment.
Another interviewee who moved to the United States to study acting in California discussed how he was shocked his first week of school when the teacher was essentially facilitating classroom discussion rather than feeding him information to memorize. The student met with the teacher after the class and asked, "Are you going to give us one final answer?" Adjustments for this student were also difficult.
The head of the division of curriculum development for basic education of China's Ministry Education, was interviewed and said, "We need excellent teachers who interact with the students and we need to find a way to assess not just what students learn but also if they’ve learned how to learn.” China is moving towards including more creativity and critical thinking in their curriculum.
Although previous to listening to the podcast I knew a good teaching strategy for working with ELL's was to learn about their cultures, the podcast reinforced the notion. When teaching ELL's, we may have one idea about how teaching and learning occurs, but other cultures may have different opinions about how teaching and learning transpires. I won't be able to learn everything about a student when I teach, but I can make a concentrated effort to learn as much as I can. Some ways of learning about students abd are their cultures are: talking with the students, spending time with the families outside of school (i.e. family picnic night), visiting other countries/places, reading and sharing ideas.
The part that I'm still confused about is "How do I help students who are unfamiliar with the United State's school system become familar? I want to use their previous educational experiences as assets, but I also don't want the students to be utterly confused."
Additionally, I'm wondering what China's goals are for students and what teaching theories they link to their teaching.
___
Image Source: Teachers Domain, http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/wds10.sci.engin.design.chedu/
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
inexpensive ways to bring science into the classroom through technology blog 2
For this blog I decided to keep my focus on free ways to bring science into the classroom through technology. While doing research I found a lot of interactive websites for children and resources for teachers to connect to current events through technology.
The first website I found allowed for free podcasts that connected students to current events in science. Some of the current events that you could listen to through audio were Life in the Deep and Green Chemistry. The website was well organized and had grade levels next to each audio which helps teacher narrow down their choices. Doing a podcast in the classroom is an exciting way to keep students up to date on current events through a different educator than the one in the classroom. Another fun way to bring science into your classroom for free is through a blog like this. This activity would have to be for older children who can read and type well, but it allows for the children to be responsible for their own learning in a fun way.
The last set of websites I found were aimed more for children. The first one called FT Exploring science and technology focuses on exploring energy, photosynthesis, energy and life. This website is very kid friendly and easy to navigate. It would be great to use if the children want to find out something new or do their own research. The second interactive website was called kitchen chemistry and is put out by PBS. The children can choose either the virtual or reality kitchen. The virtual kitchen provides a kitchen with online experiments and puzzles to solve to get rewards, and the reality kitchen allows you to use things from your own kitchen and submit ideas to get a reward. Not only could the children use this at home, but the teacher could bring things from his/her own kitchen and they could work together to complete the tasks being asked.
Technology offers a variety of ways for students, parents and teachers to learn about science and bring it into the classroom. From podcasts, blogs and interactive websites children can enjoy what they are learning through new and exciting ways. Before anything is viewed by the children the teacher should always make sure the information is valid and appropriate for the students.
Resources:
http://www.classroom20.com/profiles/blogs/bring-pris-the-world-into-your
http://www.ftexploring.com/
The first website I found allowed for free podcasts that connected students to current events in science. Some of the current events that you could listen to through audio were Life in the Deep and Green Chemistry. The website was well organized and had grade levels next to each audio which helps teacher narrow down their choices. Doing a podcast in the classroom is an exciting way to keep students up to date on current events through a different educator than the one in the classroom. Another fun way to bring science into your classroom for free is through a blog like this. This activity would have to be for older children who can read and type well, but it allows for the children to be responsible for their own learning in a fun way.
The last set of websites I found were aimed more for children. The first one called FT Exploring science and technology focuses on exploring energy, photosynthesis, energy and life. This website is very kid friendly and easy to navigate. It would be great to use if the children want to find out something new or do their own research. The second interactive website was called kitchen chemistry and is put out by PBS. The children can choose either the virtual or reality kitchen. The virtual kitchen provides a kitchen with online experiments and puzzles to solve to get rewards, and the reality kitchen allows you to use things from your own kitchen and submit ideas to get a reward. Not only could the children use this at home, but the teacher could bring things from his/her own kitchen and they could work together to complete the tasks being asked.
Technology offers a variety of ways for students, parents and teachers to learn about science and bring it into the classroom. From podcasts, blogs and interactive websites children can enjoy what they are learning through new and exciting ways. Before anything is viewed by the children the teacher should always make sure the information is valid and appropriate for the students.
Resources:
http://www.classroom20.com/profiles/blogs/bring-pris-the-world-into-your
http://www.ftexploring.com/
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
When effectively teaching English language learners's (ELL's) science, do we first let students explore or do we first provide them with vocabulary and language skills? My interest area that I am researching is, "What are effective teaching strategies for working with ELL's during science instruction?" I'm interested in exploring the two aforementioned questions because I've become a bit confused about how to combine the "best teaching practices" that I have learned in different courses here at Drake together. I learned in my Introduction to Teaching English Language Learners course and Methods of Teaching English Language Learners course to provide students with background information and important vocabulary before the lesson. I learned how to use the Sheltered Insturction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model. In our science course, I've learned that students should first explore and have an experience before actually focusing on the language and more abstract parts of the content. The ideas from the courses in some sense conflict.
After reading Inquiry Science, Sheltered Instruction, and English Language Learners: Conflicting Pedagogies in Highly Diverse Classrooms by John Settlage, Anne Madsen, and Kerri Rustad, I learned that an effective way to teach students in science is to provide them with an inquiry-based experience first and to then match the vocabulary and language with the experience. The authors of the article used observations of their own classrooms to justify their opinions. By encouraging linguistically diverse students to initially interact with science "hands and minds on" in a shared experience, students develop background knowledge. The inquiry-based approach additionally promotes bringing various cultural viewpoints to the lesson. I see this idea linking to my previous post about the multicultural science view of science education.
The authors also allude to the fact that sometimes ELL's are unfairly assessed because teachers do not understand the student's achievment becuase of language or cultural barriers. Page 48 of the article has a nice table that organizes the language and cultural barriers into three categories: "linguistic issues, ultural influences issues related to language, and acquisition development."
We've been discusssing various learning theories in class, including developmental learning theory. I'm linking what I've learned from the article and with the class together to come to the idea that letting students experience science first and then providing the language is likely the most effective classroom strategy for working with ELL's during science. By letting students experience the science, they are participating in a concrete experience. The language/vocabulary that is later provided to the students is a more concrete experiences. Learning theory tells us that by moving from conrete representations to more abstrac representations, students will more likely retain the content.
Knowing that I may have some difficulties assessing ELL's because of limited language development, I will need to make sure to provide alternative opportunties for students to show what they have learned. Using alternative assesments is something I may research more and discuss in my next blog post.
--------------------------------------------
Settlage, J., Madsen, A., & Rustad, K. (2005). Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: Conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 39-57. Retrieved from ERIC database.
After reading Inquiry Science, Sheltered Instruction, and English Language Learners: Conflicting Pedagogies in Highly Diverse Classrooms by John Settlage, Anne Madsen, and Kerri Rustad, I learned that an effective way to teach students in science is to provide them with an inquiry-based experience first and to then match the vocabulary and language with the experience. The authors of the article used observations of their own classrooms to justify their opinions. By encouraging linguistically diverse students to initially interact with science "hands and minds on" in a shared experience, students develop background knowledge. The inquiry-based approach additionally promotes bringing various cultural viewpoints to the lesson. I see this idea linking to my previous post about the multicultural science view of science education.
The authors also allude to the fact that sometimes ELL's are unfairly assessed because teachers do not understand the student's achievment becuase of language or cultural barriers. Page 48 of the article has a nice table that organizes the language and cultural barriers into three categories: "linguistic issues, ultural influences issues related to language, and acquisition development."
We've been discusssing various learning theories in class, including developmental learning theory. I'm linking what I've learned from the article and with the class together to come to the idea that letting students experience science first and then providing the language is likely the most effective classroom strategy for working with ELL's during science. By letting students experience the science, they are participating in a concrete experience. The language/vocabulary that is later provided to the students is a more concrete experiences. Learning theory tells us that by moving from conrete representations to more abstrac representations, students will more likely retain the content.
Knowing that I may have some difficulties assessing ELL's because of limited language development, I will need to make sure to provide alternative opportunties for students to show what they have learned. Using alternative assesments is something I may research more and discuss in my next blog post.
--------------------------------------------
Settlage, J., Madsen, A., & Rustad, K. (2005). Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: Conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 39-57. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Science Integration
The question I am going to be researching for the next few weeks is the idea of how to integrate Science into different subject areas in the elementary classroom. I am a huge fan of integration. As teachers, we have a lot that we are expected to do and a lot that we want to try to do. Integration is one way of teaching the kids a lot but also making that learning authentic. I believe that if we really want students to learn the learning has to be authentic or else it will not mean anything to the kids.
The first article that I have spent time looking at is called Implementing An In-depth Expanded Science Model in Elementary Schools. (Here is a link to the article.) I found the article to be very interesting. It mainly focused on how when you integrate Science and Reading together, students benefit greatly. The article said that students had both Science and Reading achievement when the two were integrated. Also, students thought more highly of the two.
Their approach was to replace the two hours of Reading/Language Arts time with in-depth Science time that allowed for a lot of reading to take place. I was torn on this idea. In my other methods class we have learned a lot about the importance of Reading/Language Arts time in the elementary classroom. However, there was a lot of evidence given to support the idea that it can improve both subject areas.
I think that as educators, we are going to have to make some tough decisions about what we feel is most important to teach and how. I am not sure exactly where I stand yet on the best way to integrate Science into the classroom. This seemed to be a somewhat effective way, however, the cutting back on time in Reading does worry me.
The first article that I have spent time looking at is called Implementing An In-depth Expanded Science Model in Elementary Schools. (Here is a link to the article.) I found the article to be very interesting. It mainly focused on how when you integrate Science and Reading together, students benefit greatly. The article said that students had both Science and Reading achievement when the two were integrated. Also, students thought more highly of the two.
Their approach was to replace the two hours of Reading/Language Arts time with in-depth Science time that allowed for a lot of reading to take place. I was torn on this idea. In my other methods class we have learned a lot about the importance of Reading/Language Arts time in the elementary classroom. However, there was a lot of evidence given to support the idea that it can improve both subject areas.
I think that as educators, we are going to have to make some tough decisions about what we feel is most important to teach and how. I am not sure exactly where I stand yet on the best way to integrate Science into the classroom. This seemed to be a somewhat effective way, however, the cutting back on time in Reading does worry me.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Diving into "How to Teach the Nature of Science?"
Before I start fully researching my question of "How to Teach the Nature of Science?", I decided that I wanted to learn a little bit more about what the Nature of Science actually is. I think I mostly understand what it is, but I wanted to make sure I understood the basic concept before bringing it into my question.
I believe science is better taught through discovery and exploration, not by completing a set in stone, step by step procedure that is formed by the Scientific Method. After researching about what the "Nature of Science" is, I found some very useful information. A LOT of people think that science can only be taught in one way, the Scientific Method. There are more and better ways to teach science, such as using the Nature of Science. When researching the Nature of Science I came across this quote, "Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work." This quote was taken from NSTA.org, which is the National Science Teachers Association's website. I think that quote sums up a lot about teaching the Nature of Science. I think I'll leave my first bit of research at that, and ponder that quote when I begin to research next time.
I believe science is better taught through discovery and exploration, not by completing a set in stone, step by step procedure that is formed by the Scientific Method. After researching about what the "Nature of Science" is, I found some very useful information. A LOT of people think that science can only be taught in one way, the Scientific Method. There are more and better ways to teach science, such as using the Nature of Science. When researching the Nature of Science I came across this quote, "Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work." This quote was taken from NSTA.org, which is the National Science Teachers Association's website. I think that quote sums up a lot about teaching the Nature of Science. I think I'll leave my first bit of research at that, and ponder that quote when I begin to research next time.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Culture and Science Clash?
Does the western perspective of science affect how English langauge learners (ELL's) learn science? Do we even think about the fact that we're teaching "western science?" I'm researching effective teaching strategies related to working with ELL's. When I came across the idea that ELL's perspectives on how science is taught in the United States may be unfamiliar to the students, I decided to start grappling with some conceptual ideas.
After reading a synopsis called "Views of Science: Is Science Independent of Culture?" in Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Research, Policy, and Practice, I reflected much on two varying perspectives of teaching science: universalist science and multiculturalist science. Lee and Buxton (2010) present universalist science as
"the view that the natural world follows a consistent set of rules, and because science is the quest to understand and explain those rules, then science must be practiced in the same way no matter where or by whom it is done" (p. 24).
Lee and Buxton (2010) argue that universalist science does not consider that some English language learners and those from non-westernized cultures may have varying perspectives on the "practices of knowing the natural world" (p. 26). Thus, Lee and Buxton (2010) argue that multiculturalist science may be an appropriate way to incorporate science into the United State's educational system. Multiculturalist science is a way to incorporate varying perspectives of how to do science.
Although I'm still struggling with fully understanding the two views of science, I do see how the multicultural science perspective may be beneficial when working with all students. I see inquiry-based science teaching as a way to actually do multiculturalist science. The connection I make is that in inquiry-based science enables students use their own problem-solving skills and perspective to find out answers to their questions. Students who come from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds would be able to bring multiple perspectives and processes of finding answers to their questions.
Through this reading I had some questions that came to me. I'm unsure of how to answer them or how to even look for answers to them:
Resource:
Lee, O. & Buxton, C.A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice J.A. Banks, (Ed.) New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
After reading a synopsis called "Views of Science: Is Science Independent of Culture?" in Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Research, Policy, and Practice, I reflected much on two varying perspectives of teaching science: universalist science and multiculturalist science. Lee and Buxton (2010) present universalist science as
"the view that the natural world follows a consistent set of rules, and because science is the quest to understand and explain those rules, then science must be practiced in the same way no matter where or by whom it is done" (p. 24).
Lee and Buxton (2010) argue that universalist science does not consider that some English language learners and those from non-westernized cultures may have varying perspectives on the "practices of knowing the natural world" (p. 26). Thus, Lee and Buxton (2010) argue that multiculturalist science may be an appropriate way to incorporate science into the United State's educational system. Multiculturalist science is a way to incorporate varying perspectives of how to do science.
Although I'm still struggling with fully understanding the two views of science, I do see how the multicultural science perspective may be beneficial when working with all students. I see inquiry-based science teaching as a way to actually do multiculturalist science. The connection I make is that in inquiry-based science enables students use their own problem-solving skills and perspective to find out answers to their questions. Students who come from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds would be able to bring multiple perspectives and processes of finding answers to their questions.
Through this reading I had some questions that came to me. I'm unsure of how to answer them or how to even look for answers to them:
- What are examples of ways that students may approach science different from in the United States? I'm thinking of concepts such as eastern medicinal practices, such as accupuncture.
- How do I differentiate science from technology as I think about universalist science and multiculturalist science?
Resource:
Lee, O. & Buxton, C.A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice J.A. Banks, (Ed.) New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Blog #1: Reforms based teaching
I chose to find out more about reforms based teaching because I find the topic interesting. During this class, some of my beliefs about learning and education have been challenged. I wanted to find out more about this topic.
Through a google search, I found an article from the University of Portland. The article was called, "The Occurrence of Reform Teaching Practice in Undergraduate Mathematics and Science Classes: The Students' Perspective." This article argues that our pre-service instruction impacts our future teaching. If we are not exposed and instructed in the reforms based method, it is unlikely we will use it in our own classroom. I agree with that argument, because you can't teach something you do not know. The study did show that instruction has improved over time in some areas, but not all. Technology, reflection, sharing rationale behind teaching strategies, gave students a variety of ways to demonstrate learning, and letting students be a mathematician were the areas with the lowest scores. I think the first 4 topics we have discussed already in this class, and although we haven't addressed being a mathematician we have talked about making students feel like scientists. Incorporating technology is becoming a requirement because of how quickly technology is changing. We have tools to assist learning, and they should be used. Being reflective is such an important part of the learning process, and most teachers do not take the time to include it. Without reflection, students do not think back on what they have learned to deepend their understanding. In class, we discussed not just using a test as an assessment. Allow students to demonstrate their learning in other ways as well. The article said undergraduate instruction is moving in the right direction, but there are still improvements to be made. I buy that because nothing is perfect, and I consider it a good sign that pre-service instruction is headed in the right direction.
Overall, I found this article interesting. I am not usually the type of person to read a journal article voluntarily, but I could relate to what the authors were saying to my own undergraduate experiences. The article was relatable, so I had a personal interest, and it was written in a style that was easily understood. I hope that pre-service instruction continues to change, and professors realize that some of the elements they are leaving out can be crucial to student learning.
Below is the link to the article:
Click
Through a google search, I found an article from the University of Portland. The article was called, "The Occurrence of Reform Teaching Practice in Undergraduate Mathematics and Science Classes: The Students' Perspective." This article argues that our pre-service instruction impacts our future teaching. If we are not exposed and instructed in the reforms based method, it is unlikely we will use it in our own classroom. I agree with that argument, because you can't teach something you do not know. The study did show that instruction has improved over time in some areas, but not all. Technology, reflection, sharing rationale behind teaching strategies, gave students a variety of ways to demonstrate learning, and letting students be a mathematician were the areas with the lowest scores. I think the first 4 topics we have discussed already in this class, and although we haven't addressed being a mathematician we have talked about making students feel like scientists. Incorporating technology is becoming a requirement because of how quickly technology is changing. We have tools to assist learning, and they should be used. Being reflective is such an important part of the learning process, and most teachers do not take the time to include it. Without reflection, students do not think back on what they have learned to deepend their understanding. In class, we discussed not just using a test as an assessment. Allow students to demonstrate their learning in other ways as well. The article said undergraduate instruction is moving in the right direction, but there are still improvements to be made. I buy that because nothing is perfect, and I consider it a good sign that pre-service instruction is headed in the right direction.
Overall, I found this article interesting. I am not usually the type of person to read a journal article voluntarily, but I could relate to what the authors were saying to my own undergraduate experiences. The article was relatable, so I had a personal interest, and it was written in a style that was easily understood. I hope that pre-service instruction continues to change, and professors realize that some of the elements they are leaving out can be crucial to student learning.
Below is the link to the article:
Click
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Using Differentiation in Science Units
The question I decided to research was how to differentiate science lessons. When I typed the question into google, the first link I got gave me some very helpful information to start with.
The website listed a chart with many different differentiation techniques and how to use them in a science lesson. The chart is nice because it gives you the generic idea of the differentiation method so you can also use them in other subjects besides science. Some of the main methods I really liked were:
Tiered assignments: This is when you create assignments that will have the same curriculum content and measure the same objectives, however as a teacher you adjust the process and product of the assignment based on the students level. I have actually seen this being used in my Clinical placements. The students are learning about electricity and their end of the unit assessment is to "wire a house" (actually a shoebox). The students were assigned to partners, and the higher ability partners are wiring "houses" with two or three rooms and two or three circuits, while the students of lower abilities are only wiring one room with one circuit.
Compacting: This is when a teacher adjusts instruction based on each students prior knowledge. The teacher should asses what each student knows about the topic, asses what they need to learn next, and come up with extra enriching activities for the students who will finish the required material first. This allows for some students to skip ahead the things they may already know, so they are given a chance to reach accelerated learning activities.
Choice Boards: Using choice boards in a classroom is when a teacher sets up a board with a bunch of different activities (usually geared toward different learning types) to learn about a specific topic in science. Some activities are more advanced, and some are more simple, however all activities will teach the same content and objectives. Students are then allowed to pick the two activities they would like to complete.
There were many different ideas listed on the website. Here is the link if you would like to check out the rest of them!
http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/sciencedifferentation.asp
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Intro Post (better late than never)
My name is Ali Maeser. I am currently a senior at Drake University. My goal is to get my degree in Elementary Education with an endorsement in reading. My grade preference seems to change with every practicum experience I have. Anything from kindergarten to 4th grade would be great for me. I have a soft spot for first and second graders the most though. I was the captain and president of the Drake dance club my junior year and am an active member of Alpha Phi sorority. Although I was born and raised a Minnesotan, I’ve lived in Iowa for 4 years. It’s a struggle for where I am going to go after I graduate this spring, but I believe now that I can call both places home. Growing up with two younger brothers and a slew of cousins (27 in all), I’ve always been a teacher in one way or another. It is now time to make it into my carrier, and I couldn’t be happier.
Our team name is Pike. This is after the scientist Rachel Pike. The reason I believe our team name has been named after her is for her bold moves in the science world. After some research on some of her studies, I have a lot of respect for her. Nothing holds her back, especially being a woman scientist! Her innovated techniques help show us what science really is and how it should be taught in our classrooms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)