Education reform presentation

Go to Prezi! Read, watch, and think about Michelle Rhee, Gene Glass, and Diane Ravitch. Thanks, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

http://prezi.com/xso6tktta_2r/education-reform/

Education Reform - Technology

My last foray into education reform comes from Paul E. Peterson’s Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning. (2010) This book is more of a history of the American school, and as the title suggests, begins at the beginning and offers a possible vision of the future. As such, it is relevant to the current conversation on reform. Since a good deal of the emphasis in the Methods for Teaching Secondary Science course has been about technology (in part because this is an online class!), I would feel remiss if I didn’t touch on the subject. Although I cite Peterson’s work as a launching point, his work only treats virtual education in the last chapter. He goes into depth with an example from the Florida Virtual School, and proceeds to discuss the business model, pedagogy in the virtual world, accountability, and cost effectiveness. In terms of reform, I can only consider virtual classrooms as a supplementary vision. In the short term – on a public school basis (pK – 12) it is no more realistic than the 100% competency that NCLB demands for 2014. I’m no Luddite, and neither fear technology nor discount its potential to be part of the solution. But it is certainly no panacea either. As Diane Ravitch clearly articulated, the “fundamentals of good education are to be found in the classroom, the home, the community, and the culture.”

Education Reform – Gene Glass

My next expedition into the topic of education reform falls along a trajectory that is not entirely random and finds me feeling a small but satisfying personal vindication on two fronts (to be explained later). I became intensely interested in the topic after seeing Michelle Rhee on Oprah. Although Rhee is a compelling force in education reform, I felt something lacking. With that in mind, I endeavored to give her vision a closer look. Still not satisfied (and not convinced that the course of action she and her colleagues advocated was the definitive answer), I decided to turn to more specific issues that were closer to home. This led me to choose to investigate two reports from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute which dealt with the state of the Milwaukee Public Schools and with the status of Wisconsin high school education. Although these reports were insightful, I felt they were both biased and fell short of offering any lucid insight. Reading The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch moved me in a direction that felt consistent with a broader vision of both what I consider to be the goals of education and the shortcomings of the loudest voices in the contemporary reform movement.
When I plucked Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America by Gene Glass (2008) from the bookshelf, my first thought was the similarity in the title to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond is a geographer, but is widely known (if not always respected) in anthropological and other social science circles. Gene Glass readily acknowledges that this was intentional (my first little vindication) in his preface. Dr. Glass admits his empiricist training (he did early and influential work in statistical meta-analysis), and his shout out to Diamond is grounded in the belief that human actions and choices do not “arise ex nihilo to shape modern society” but that there is “a chain of influences” that move and shape our society. (p.xii) He goes on to say, and this is the crux of his position, that

“On a much larger scale, I have come to see the continuous debates and attempts at reform of public education in America as linked to a set of influences largely unseen and unacknowledged, but when pointed out to any intelligent and objective observer strike a note of recognition and acceptance. My analysis is akin to that of the cultural materialist in anthropology, most notably its most influential proponent Marvin Harris, in that it combines elements of both Karl Marx (in the emphasis given to the forces of production in industrialized societies) and Thomas Malthus (in the emphasis given to the implications of expanding human populations). These two forces have much to say about a wide range of phenomena that pass before our eyes in modern society, in particular, how public institutions like education emerge, grow, and recede.” (p.xiii)

In my initial post on Michelle Rhee and company I used a metaphor likening her tone and actions to Chicken Little. Glass echoes this thought (my second small vindication) when he states that

“This book is about debates that never seem to end and why they don’t. It is about people who insist the sky is falling, when in fact things are about the same way they have always been. It is about farms and fertilizers and tractors and how many people it takes to feed a nation; about why nobody lives in the country anymore and why people in the city don’t want as many children as they used to want. It’s about pills that prevent pregnancies and discoveries in medicine that mean we can expect to live about twice as long as our great grandparents did. It is about robots that can build cars better than human hands can, and never ask for time off. It is about how people carry less money with them these days, and how the plastic card in their billfold or purse no longer seems like real money. It’s about people spending themselves into debt and corporations that welcome them there, and about those that retire only to go back to work because they have outlived their savings. It is about a nation growing older and poorer and caring less about the fate of those unlike themselves who were never invited here any way. And this book is about how all of these things are interrelated and under the control of some of the strongest human drives: for material comfort and for feelings of safety, drives that undergo transformations across a lifetime into the need to consume and the wish to segregate oneself from others who are different. And this book is about how all of this plays out in the arena of the public education system, long the pride of a young nation and now in danger of being abandoned” (p.3-4)

Undoubtedly this reveals my own bias, not only as an anthropologist and social scientist, but also as an individual who struggles to see black and white, struggles to see simple fixes to complex problems, and is unwilling to chuck it all. In education reform, we should be willing to step back from politics and slogans and ask ourselves what the underlying causes for our difficulties are. If we know where we need to go, then perhaps we can draw a map. Maybe education reform needs a curriculum.
------
Glass, G.V. (2008). Fertilizers, pills, and magnetic strips: the fate of public education in america by . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Education Reform – Diane Ravitch

Departing from the ideas of both Rhee and the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s reports, I would like to turn to other print resources. The first of these is The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch. (2010) In eleven chapters, Dr. Ravitch lays out what for me have been the most coherent and reasonable agreements that I have read on education reform.

Highlights include the first chapter, where Ravitch exposes her metaphysical journey from believer to skeptic. Where she had once supported and argued for reforms including “testing, accountability, choice, and markets, I now found myself experiencing some profound doubts about these same ideas.” (p.1) In the following chapters, she goes on to

“explain why I have concluded that most of the reform strategies that school districts, state officials, the Congress, and federal officials are pursuing, that mega-rich foundations are supporting, and that editorial boards are applauding are mistaken.” (p.14)

Dr. Ravitch guides the reader from the genesis of the modern reform movement when A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 (p. 24) to the current environment dominated by No Child Left Behind. She succinctly contrasts the two visions by stating that while

“A Nation at Risk was animated by a vision of a good education as the foundation of a better life for individuals and for our democratic society… No Child Left Behind had no vision other than improving test scores in reading and math.” (p. 29)

Risk is a vision of holistic curriculum, but NCLB is a cul-de-sac of data.

Ravitch devotes entire chapters to different reform models, including the business model, NCLB, accountability, and privately funded foundations (Gates, Walton, Broad). She considers each of these to be “fads” which “threaten to destroy public education.” (p. 222). The reason (other than that the data to supports these methods is spotty) is simple. The “constant reform churn is not the approach typically found in countries with successful schools.” (p. 224) While reformers “continue to look for short cuts and quick answers” Ravitch maintains that the “fundamentals of good education are to be found in the classroom, the home, the community, and the culture.” (p.225) To me, this makes perfect sense. A robust curriculum “road map” in every discipline can lead the way. (p. 236) “To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland ,” she writes “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
------------
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great american school system: how testing and choice are undermining education . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Education Reform - The Status of High School Education in Wisconsin

Following my last post on the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s analysis of the Milwaukee Publics Schools, I decided to go back to the well and read their report on The Status of High School Education in Wisconsin:A Tale of Two Wisconsins. (2006) But before I move ahead, I have another self-reflective confession to make. I am reading hard copies of WPRI’s reports, which look and feel legitimate and by all appearances are well researched, written, and documented. That said, I thought it might be prudent to think a little deeper about my source. To begin with, the WPRI report is a not peer reviewed material. Second, it only takes a quick trip to their web page to read their mission statement, which I only partially reported in my last post.

“The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc., established in 1987, is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit Institute working to engage and energize Wisconsinites and others in discussions and timely action on key public policy issues critical to the State’s future, its growth and prosperity. The Institute’s research and public education activities are directed to identify and promote public policies in Wisconsin which are fair, accountable and cost effective. The Institute is guided by a belief that competitive free markets, limited government, private initiative, and personal responsibility are essential to our democratic way of life.”

This expanded version reveals a far more conservative slant, verified by Wikipedia’s entry

“Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is a non-profit conservative think tank advocating free market economics in the state of Wisconsin. It has played a prominent role in the development of the State's school voucher program and has formulated recommendations for state prison policy.”

So, with full disclosure concerning the possible bias of the research, what does the WPRI have to say about secondary education in Wisconsin? As the second half of the report title suggests the state is experiencing an achievement gap, an obvious area for reform. What is not obvious is what the solutions are. The paper readily acknowledges a “picture of two Wisconsins” where in

“Wisconsin’s top tier high schools 86% of the students score proficient or higher on the tenth grade test. This contrasts sharply with the lowest tier high schools, where only 60% score proficient or better. The averages of this lower tier are affected by the disturbing performance of the state’s two lowest-performing districts—Menominee and Milwaukee—in which approximately 30% of the students score proficient or higher. However, when data from these two districts are excluded, only 62% of students in the lower tier districts score proficient or higher on standardized tests.”

This performance gap is widening. The study finds “that the gap between high- and low-achieving high schools is getting worse rather than better.” (McDade, p.1) In most respect, this should come as no surprise. The real surprise is this statement:

“the unexpected finding is that the growing gap between the performance of top and bottom tier high schools occurred during a time when the spending gap between these two groups of schools remained relatively constant. In fact, during the seven years studied, spending in low-tier districts actually got closer to spending in high-tier districts. Yet, during that period, the achievement gap widened. The performance gap seems to be unaffected by spending.
Further, the study also includes a statistical analysis of the relationship between high school test scores and spending for all districts in Wisconsin. This analysis found there to be an insignificant relationship between spending and student test scores. In short, money cannot close the performance gap. Therefore, policy makers looking to close the performance gap need not consider spending as a primary solution.” (McDade, p.11)

How do we account for a narrowing spending gap but a widening performance gap? The WPRI concludes that the largest factors influencing school performance are socioeconomic – property wealth, race, and poverty.
----------
Wikipedia. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute
McDade, P.J. (2006). The status of high school education in wisconsin. Wisconsin Research Institute Report, 19(1), Retrieved from http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no1.pdf
http://www.wpri.org/pages/about.html

Education Reform # 3 – Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools

The next installment on my journey into the world of education reform is a departure from my first two posts. So far I have been thinking and writing about Michelle Rhee as the most prominent voice in the national dialog on the topic, and grappling with why her policies upset me. My introduction to Rhee came through her appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime talk show, and I have been using online print media, online reference material, and online video sources (Washington Post, Wikipedia, Oprah.com, and youtube.com) to further inform my opinion. The upshot of my analysis and reflections on Rhee suggested to me that her slash-and-burn style of reform is only scratching the surface. There are many, many issues beyond teacher competency to confront in education reform. For a change of pace I have turned my attention to a new topic based on a report I found in the stacks at the UWFox library.
Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: The Limits of Parent Driven Reform (Dodenhoff, 2007) is a report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. who self identify as

“a nonpartisan, not-for-profit Institute working to engage and energize Wisconsinites and others in discussions and timely action on key public policy issues… to identify and promote public policies in Wisconsin which are fair, accountable and cost effective."

The purpose of the study was to examine two of the several reform strategies that the Milwaukee Public Schools have embraced to combat high dropout rates – 32% in MPS vs. 9% statewide (Dodenhoff, p.3) – and low scores in the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations (WKCE) or Wisconsin Alternate Assessments (WAA).

These two reform strategies are parental involvement and public school choice. Supporters of parental involvement make the point that

“even first-rate schools are limited in their effectiveness unless parents are also committed to their children’s education. Thus, the parental involvement movement seeks to engage parents as partners in learning activities, both on-site and at home. Research has shown that such engagement can produce higher levels of student performance, other things being equal. (Dodenhoff, p.10)

According to Dodenhoff (p.4), “this engagement can take a variety of forms, including:
• attending general school meetings;
• attending parent-teacher conferences;
• attending a school or class event;
• serving on a district governing board;
• participating in a parent-teacher association or school council;
• volunteering at school events or in the classroom;
• designating a specific time and space for study at home;
• helping the child with homework, or checking to make sure that homework has been completed;
• discussing school issues with the child; and
• reading to, or with, the child.

Those in favor of public school choice maintain that “by permitting parents to choose among a variety of public school options within the district, competition for students will ensue. This should improve school effectiveness and efficiency, and ultimately lead to better student outcomes.” (Dodenhoff, p.10)

Again, Dodenhoff (p. 3) defines “Public school choice” as a “variety of measures designed to put parents in the role of educational consumers, shopping for the best product for their child from among a variety of public schooling options. These options include:
• intra-district choice—a system allowing parents to choose among multiple schools in their home district;
• inter-district choice—a system allowing parents to choose among schools in multiple districts;
• magnet schools—public schools offering specialized courses or curricula, and often drawing on students from across multiple districts; and
• charter schools—public schools that are exempt from select state and local requirements that govern more traditional public schools.

So what does the WPRI analysis tell us? To begin with, they warn of the limits to these two theories of reform. They are quick to point out that that these reforms do not always work as advertised and that the “efficacy of the two reforms can sometimes break along lines of race, class, educational attainment, family composition, income, and ethnicity (or some mix of these, due to the often strong inter-correlations between them).” (Dodenhoff, p.6) The bottom line is that the greater the socioeconomic hardship, the less likely that parents are involved.

The total picture for relying on school choice and parental involvement as reform is bleak. Only

“an estimated 34 percent of MPS parents actively choose a school for their child(ren)… while fewer than half of parents who do choose make a choice from among two or more schools (as opposed to considering only one). Of those, about two-thirds consider academic/performance criteria in making their choice. By the time one arrives at this third cut at the data, only 10 percent of parents remain—that is, only 10 percent of parents consciously choose a school for their child, do so from at least two options, and consider academic/performance criteria in the process.”

The picture for parental involvement in the MPS is just as bleak where

“about one-third of parents are highly involved in their children’s education at the school site. With respect to at-home involvement, the figures vary between roughly 40 and 50 percent, depending on the student’s age. But parents who are at least moderately involved at home and highly involved at school are scarce indeed, constituting no more than one quarter of the parent population, and perhaps as little as 10 percent (again, depending on student age).” (Dodenhoff, p.10)

These estimates are considered high.

The Milwaukee Public Schools are broken and support a population facing conditions well below national averages. If parental involvement and school choice are not reliable reform options, then what next? Perhaps Michelle Rhee had the right idea…
-----------
Dodenhoff, D. (2007). Fixing the milwaukee public schools: the limits of parent driven . Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc., 20(8), 1-16.

Education Reform: Personal Bias and Further Research

As I began to think about education reform, I felt that I needed to confront a personal bias. Prior to reviewing Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee’s article in the Washington Post (October 10, 2010: How to fix our schools: A manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and other education leaders), I had watched Rhee and others on Oprah. Part of that interview can be seen here: http://youtu.be/i_C0CYScOwc . After reading Klein and Rhee’s manifesto, and revisiting the Oprah episode (for text: http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Shocking-State-of-Our-Schools), I kept trying to put my finger on just where my bias came from. I was not impressed with Michelle Rhee, but what was it about her personally or ideologically that raised my hackles. Both Rhee and Winfrey make it clear that they are not anti-teacher. But Rhee is famous for speaking out against ineffective teachers, and for taking actions to back up her words. In her short tenure (2007 -2010) as chancellor of the DC School District she closed 21 schools and fired 266 teachers (Wikipedia, 2010). She is not particularly loved by teachers’ unions. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and in fact there is evidence that Rhee’s policies have had a positive effect. Her Wikipedia page notes that

“High school graduation rates were at 72 percent in 2009, an increase of three percentage points from 2008. By 2010, D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System reading pass rates had increased by 14 percentage points, and math pass rates had increased by 17 percentage points. Enrollment decreased by one percent, a slower decline than prior years. [The Mayor points to] data showing that 72 percent of students graduated in 2009, up nearly three points from the previous year.”

So why would I feel threatened? Those numbers look pretty good! But they only tell a very narrow story over a short time period. I suspect that part of my reservations stem from the inherent uncertainties that an aspiring teacher feels. How can any single human being possibly know enough or have enough training to deal with every possible variable in the classroom? Is it healthy to teach in an environment where you feel like your boss is waiting off stage ready to give you the hook? And doubly so when the perception is that your achievement is tied to the achievement of your students.

Ultimately, I think that political and attention-seeking types make me suspicious. I find myself asking “What is their hidden agenda?” Is closing schools and firing teachers the long term fix, or an expedient Band-Aid? Are high achievement and learning the same thing? What are the roll of NCLB and high-stakes testing on school reform? Where does technology fit in? Parents? SES? Earlier I asked what purpose the Chicken Little approach serves in identifying and addressing specific failures and issues? I’ve already made it clear that while I agree that closing schools and firing teachers might have some merit, it is not the only course of action or issue at hand. For me the answer is to learn more about what these issues are and how they can best be addressed.


Joel Klein, Initials. (2010, October 10). How to fix our schools: a manifesto by joel klein, michelle rhee and other education leaders. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html

Wikipedia. (2010). Michelle Rhee. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee

Education Reform

Education reform is a hot topic. The following is a critique of an article from the Washington Post that appeared on Sunday, October 10, 2010: How to fix our schools: A manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and other education leaders. The two lead authors are Joel Klein, former chancellor of the New York City Department of Education and Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools (they both tendered their resignations in November of 2010). I will use this post as a jumping off point for my research and thoughts on education reform.

In their article, Klein and Rhee come out swinging. Rhee is best known for her role in the “Waiting for ‘Superman’” documentary and her controversial tenure as chancellor of the DC Public Schools. The title itself suggests more than a whiff of hyperbole. Do 17 short paragraphs, signed by 16 public officials constitute a manifesto? The begin by stating

“As educators, superintendents, chief executives and chancellors responsible for educating nearly 2 1/2 million students in America, we know that the task of reforming the country's public schools begins with us. All of us have taken steps to move our students forward… but those reforms are still outpaced and outsized by the crisis in public education.”

This comes across as a bit self-congratulatory. The authors recognize a crisis, acknowledge their responsibility, have taken action, but are left out gunned. The culprit, they find, are

“…the entrenched practices that have held back our education system, practices that have long favored adults, not children. It's time for all of the adults -- superintendents, educators, elected officials, labor unions and parents alike -- to start acting like we are responsible for the future of our children. Because right now, across the country, kids are stuck in failing schools, just waiting for us to do something.”

Here the authors start to sound encouraging. Failing schools are not a simple problem, but are often the result of systemic dysfunction across social, economic, and government boundaries. “So, where do we start?” they ask themselves. “With the basics,” they answer. And for Klein et al. the basics are “the quality of [the] teacher.”

They devote the next eight paragraphs to either directly holding teachers responsible for the mess, or to blaming the systems that support teachers.

“…for too long… we have let teacher hiring and retention be determined by archaic rules involving seniority and academic credentials. A 7-year-old girl won't make it to college someday because her teacher has two decades of experience or a master's degree -- she will make it to college if her teacher is effective and engaging and compels her to reach for success. By contrast, a poorly performing teacher can hold back hundreds, maybe thousands, of students over the course of a career. The glacial process for removing an incompetent teacher… has left our school districts impotent and, worse, has robbed millions of children of a real future.”

This is pretty strong stuff. All other factors, in the opinion of the authors – demographics, economic, family, community – scarcely warrant a mention. The tone of the article centers the blame squarely on teachers, teacher assessment, and teacher labor practices.

Klein and Rhee close their manifesto with a hodgepodge of other ideas, including relying on a business model for education, technology, and school choice.
To advocate a private sector approach, they state that we should

“stop ignoring basic economic principles of supply and demand and focus on how we can establish a performance-driven culture in every American school. When teachers are highly effective -- measured in significant part by how well students are doing academically… we should be able to pay them more. There isn't a business in America that would survive if it couldn't make personnel decisions based on performance. That is why everything we use in assessing teachers must be linked to their effectiveness in the classroom and focused on increasing student achievement.”

They link teacher assessment to technology.

“Even the best teachers -- those who possess such skills -- face stiff challenges in meeting the diverse needs of their students. By better using technology to collect data on student learning and shape individualized instruction, we can help transform our classrooms and lessen the burden on teachers' time.”

And finally they rally for school choice.

We also must make charter schools a truly viable option. If all of our neighborhood schools were great, we wouldn't be facing this crisis. But our children need great schools now…and we shouldn't limit the numbers of one form at the expense of the other.

I don’t disagree with much of what Klein, Rhee, and their colleagues have to say. My main issue is where they place the emphasis and how they get there. Education is one of the most data-rich sectors in the public domain. The Chicken Little approach that the sky is falling in American education might be politically useful and ignite public discourse, but what purpose does it serve in identifying and addressing specific failures and issues? What does the data tell us? What doesn’t the data tell us? Is firing teachers and closing schools an effective and long-term solution to the problems in education? How can a private sector approach be best used to drive quality improvement? And what are the realities and costs of putting more technology into the classroom?
-------------------------------
Joel Klein, Initials. (2010, October 10). How to fix our schools: a manifesto by joel klein, michelle rhee and other education leaders. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html

#7 Cooperative Learning Techniques

There are a number of cooperative learning techniques that can be categorized by the skills that each technique improves upon. Within each category is a possible structure to direct the development of a cooperative learning activity. The techniques with a possible structure are listed and expanded on below.

Discussion - communicating

• Think-Pair-Share: Students get together in pairs. Then the teacher 1) asks a question, 2) gives the students time to discuss and come up with an answer, and 3) asks for responses from the pairs. The teacher can then use the responses to initiate a lecture, a discussion or to assess what the students already know or need to learn. This structure could also be Write-Pair-Share. Examples
  

Reciprocal Teaching - explaining, providing feedback, understanding alternative perspectives

• Jigsaws: The class is divided into several teams who prepare separate but related assignments. When the assignments are prepared the class is re-divided into new groups with one member from each group in the new team. That person then teaches the new group what he or she learned. The new team undertakes a new assignment that pulls everything together. Example
  

Graphic Organizers - discovering patterns and relationships

• Group Grid: Students together practice organizing and classifying information into a table. The teacher could have the students first identify the classification scheme that will be utilized.
  

Writing - organizing and synthesizing information

• Peer Editing: Students are paired up in the beginning stages of an activity with peer feedback occurring throughout the process. Each student describes their ideas while their partner asks questions and forms an outline based on their partners answers.
  

Problem Solving - developing strategies and analysis

• Send-a-Problem: Students partake in problem solving rounds giving their solutions. The students are then asked to review their peers' solutions, evaluating their answers and developing a final solution. Example
  

There are many more examples of cooperative learning techniques. I am amazed at how much information is out there on this subject. I have not found one reason yet why as a science teacher I would not want to use cooperative learning in my classroom. The techniques seem very engaging and a great way to keep our students interested and feeling comfortable in a science classroom.

----------------------------------------http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/techniques.html

#6 How to Use Cooperative Learning

So far I have introduced cooperative learning by defining it, compared cooperative groups to small groups, given benefits and some controversies, and gone over in detail key elements of cooperative learning. Now I will discuss how to use cooperative learning in the classroom.

Cooperative learning can be used in a five minute class exercise or in a detailed project that is spread over a number of class times. It can be used in a number of different settings such as a small or large lecture, labs, or even in online classes. To properly design and use cooperative learning there are five key steps to follow. If these steps are not followed the five key elements that differentiate cooperative groups from regular groups are not met. The five key steps are:

1. Pre-Instructional Planning
2. Introduce the Activity to the Students
3. Monitor and Intervene
4. Assessment
5. Process

Pre-Instructional Planning - Cooperative learning takes practice by the student and the teacher. It is a good idea to use cooperative learning early in the school year to give your students time to develop their interpersonal skills needed to work effectively in such groups. As the teacher you will need to use cooperative learning for several projects to help the students, but also to help yourself get use to using such a method. To use cooperative learning pre-planning in the areas of setting objectives, generating positive interdependence, choosing the size and make-up of the group, identifying group decision making strategies, and selecting reporting out techniques are all crucial.

Introduce the Activity - First the academic task of the activity needs to be described; explaining objectives of the task, listing concepts and principles needed to be understood and explaining the procedures needed to be followed. Clarify the judging criteria to make sure students are on task (rubrics can be used). An explanation of the cooperative aspects of the activity including positive interdependence, individual accountability, and group processing needs to be made. Behaviors sought after should be described, time limits need to be expressed and questions from the students should be allowed during the introduction of the activity.

Monitor and Intervene - As the teacher we need to prepare for and record observations of desired behaviors during the cooperative activity. First, decide what behaviors, attitudes or skills will be observed and recorded. Next, decide who will make the observations; either yourself or another such as a teacher assistant or older student. Then plan the method used for observation; walking around the room or observing one group at a time. Finally, develop the procedure to be followed; checklists or detailed notes.

Assessment - Both formative and summative assessment can be used in cooperative learning activities. Formative assessment is used to provide feedback to motivate students to a higher level of learning. Summative assessment can be used to judge the final product for completion and competency. Assessment should be used at different times throughout the cooperative learning exercise. It can be performed by either the teacher, the student, group members or all three.

Process - Group processing allows the group to improve their working together over time, increases individual accountability by looking at group members' contributions, makes the learning process easier, and reduces or gets rid of unwanted contributions to the groups learning. It is important for the teacher to choose the skills he or she wants the group to focus on, express what actions are desired by them, and then monitor the groups and intervene when necessary to improve on their learning. Four important elements should be part of all group processing and completed by the student. They are 1) Feedback, 2) Reflection, 3) Improvement Goals, and 4) Celebration. Group processing is one of the most important parts of any cooperative learning experience. Without reflection students will not learn from their experiences (Johnson et al. 1998).

I could have gone into much greater detail but I think you are able to get the point that the correct implementation of cooperative learning is extremely important in its success. It takes practice by the teacher and the students. The more I research this topic the bigger fan I am becoming of cooperative learning.

-----------------------------------

http://serc.carlton.edu.introgeo/cooperative/group

#5 Types of Cooperative Learning Groups

There are a number of types of cooperative learning groups. I will review three of the most commonly used groups.

Informal Cooperative Learning Groups - These goups are put together "on the fly" to help in direct teaching. The use of group activities help to break up a lecture into smaller segments. Less material is covered but material retention is increased along with the students' comfort of working in groups.

Formal Cooperative Learning Groups - This group forms the basis for most cooperative learning. Groups are formed for at least one class period but can stay together for the duration of a project. In this type of group students will become comfortable applying the different techniques of cooperative learning.

Cooperative Base Groups - In order to be considered a cooperative base group the group must be heterogenous and lasting at least one year. Here students can support eachother academically and socially. In this type of group the students will make sure their group peers are completing their work.

------------------------------------------
http://serc.carlton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/group-types.html

An effective Science Classroom!

For my virtual presentation, I decided to create a Prezi. Here is the link!

What does an effective science classroom look like?

            What does an effective science classroom look like? I’ve been researching this question for several weeks now. This is my final blog post, so I wanted to use this blog to bring all of my ideas together.

            I’ve looked at several different key components that should be present in an effective science classroom. These components include:

·        An inquiry-based learning encourages students to explore and gather evidence about the natural world to learn about science.

·        Teachers should create an engaging classroom environment. When students are engaged, they are more motivated to learn about the content.

·        Student engagement doesn’t necessarily equal learning. Teachers need to remember to include content and develop concepts, and not get caught up in “activity mania.”

·         The Learning Cycle provides teachers with a guide to lesson planning. It also promotes an inquiry-based learning environment.

·        Assessment can and should be an effective tool in the classroom. Assessments let teachers know where their students are at academically and what they need in the future.

·        Learning theories should be present in the classroom. There are key components found in each theory that help create a more effective learning environment.

·        Questioning is a teaching tool that should be utilized in the classroom. Teachers can effectively use questioning in the classroom by asking high-level, thought provoking questions and using appropriate wait-times.

In my very first blog, I stated that I will be a practicing teacher in the not-so-distant future. This is an exciting, but eye-opening reality. I really feel as though this research has helped me better prepare for my future students.  I look forward to implementing these various concepts and creating my own effective science classroom.

Battle of the Schools... FINAL POST

THE WINNER!


The winner of the four schools is listed in my Glog above. I hope you enjoyed my journey, because I know that I sure did. I learned so much about science integration in the different types of schools! 


The rankings are as follows:


4th place goes to Private Schools. Even though I have a strong faith, I still believe that they way in which the Catholic schools combine religion and science is not the best for the students. It can get into a lot of confusing topics.


3rd place goes to the Public schools. Following the Iowa Core will get students to where they need to be in terms of learning the basics and a little bit above, but when compared to the rest, it just might not be enough.


2nd place goes to the Montessori schools. These schools ran a great race! I love the way they allow the students to discover and explore on their own. The way they encourage experimentation in science is just what students need. There just happened to be a school that was even better...


1st place goes to the STEM schools. My Glog shows a clip from the white house news about how STEM school are our countries future in science. 

Battle of the Schools... Round 2- And the winner is?

STEM schools versus Montessori schools- the final round! These two schools encompass exactly what it schools should for how students learn science content. In my final presentation, I plan on announcing the winner and how each school ranks based on how well they use science from the research I've done throughout this whole blogging process.

Battle of the Schools... Round 1, Montessori vs. Private

This was a little bit harder to break apart. Both schools are similar in the sense that they both do things their own way. The main difference is the way in which they are doing all of their content, including science content. Montessori schools are students lead and driven by curiosity. Private, or in this case, Catholic schools, use the foundation of faith to tie all content together. Science is really difficult to tie in with religion, but they way that these Catholic schools are doing it has proven to work. Science is about discovery and exploration, so is the Montessori way and the whole concept of religion. But there is still a clear winner in this round…

Montessori schools allow students to learn based on discovery and experimentation. Montessori schools are setting up students to question and learn based on self-discovery, especially in science. Private schools lack in the area that science and religion can't and don't always mix. There are aspects of science that religion is incapable of connecting.

WINNER ROUND 1: MONTESSORI SCHOOLS

Final Post

Here is a link to my final about Science Integration.

http://kms050.glogster.com/Science Integration/

Battle of the Schools... Round 1, STEM vs. Public

A school that specializes in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics versus the public schools seems to be a clear choice. As it turns out, STEM schools are rivaling public and charter schools in most areas! There are a lot of things that I may not agree with in the STEM schools and would side with the public schools, however science content is not one of them. Public schools are able to give students a rounded education that they need in order to achieve their goals in life, whereas STEM schools focus on the science and tech areas. They way STEM schools incorporate other subjects into the classroom can be detrimental for they way that some students learn. I strongly believe that each child has a way they learn better than the other ways, hands-on, reading, listening, and more. The STEM schools allow for students to use that hands-on technique really well and for science content, that just the perfect way. We talked about in class how to not teach to the students, but to teach to the content in the best way it can appear to the students. Science needs the hands-on approach the STEM schools provide. Public schools are able to cover a lot more learning styles, but won’t be able to keep up with a school that specializes in Science Content.

WINNER ROUND 1: STEM SCHOOLS

English Langauge Learners in the Science Classroom - Reflections

Over the past several weeks I have been researching effective strategies for working with English language learners in the science classroom.  Click here to see a Prezi presentation that serves as a reflection of my learning.  In the bottom right hand corner of the Prezi you will see 'more.'  Click 'more' to auto-play the Prezi and/or see it in full screen size.

#4 Key Elements of Cooperative Learning

In my last blog I mentioned four key elements of cooperative learning that set it apart from group work. The ones I will list here are slightly different with the addition of one.

1. Positive Interdependence: Students will feel as if they "sink or swim together". The feeling that each person's efforts will benefit not just him/herself but the whole group.
2. Individual Accountability: The idea that students "learn together, but perform alone." This will ensure that no one will " hitch-hike" on others' work.
3. Face-to-Face Interaction: Promoting each other's learning by explaining how to solve problems, discussing the concepts being learned, and connecting past knowledge with present learning.
4. Interpersonal and Small Group Social Skills: A group, in order to be effective, will provide leadership, decision making, trust-building, communication and conflict management.
5. Group Processing: Students will analyze how well their groups are functioning and how well social skills are being used.

The next question is how do we implement these 5 key elements? There are a number of techniques to use, but I will discuss one for each element.

Positive Interdependence:

• Big Project: When a student cannot accomplish a learning task in a reasonable amount of time students are assigned to work in groups. Some examples of projects are indoor and outdoor labs, jigsaws, interactive cases, and interactive role playing.

Individual Accountability:

• Within-Group Peer Assessment: Students anonymously rate their group peers. The average rating from all the group members is included in their grade. This discourages students letting others do their share of the group work.

Face-to-Face Interaction:

• Student Roles: Teacher will assign roles that require interaction as they work. They could check data, keep the group on task or keep records.

Interpersonal Skills:

• Practice: Allow students time to learn how to work together. Assign groups early in the school year to help them learn schedules and strengths of each other.

Group Processing:

• Reflections: Have students write reflections on their learning. Have them tell which group members and parts of the project contributed to learning. Then have the students come together as a group to discuss the project.

---------------------------------------------

http://serc.carlton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/whatis.html

What does an effective science classroom look like?

            Over the last few weeks, I’ve been researching what an effective science classroom looks like. My last blog looked at learning theories and why it’s important to incorporate them into the classroom. I looked at four crucial learning theories and how each theory contains components that help create an effective learning environment.

            For this blog, I wanted to take a closer look at questioning in the classroom. What types of questions are effective? What types of questions are ineffective? When should you be asking thought-provoking questions? I think these are really important questions and teachers need to have a better idea about how to use effective questioning in the classroom.

            When researching this concept, I came across an article called Classroom Questioning. The article looked at differences between lower-level questions and higher level, thought-provoking questions. It also looked at appropriate wait-times. A direct quote from the article stated that:

“Increasing wait-time and the incidence of higher cognitive questions, in particular, has considerable promise for improving the effectiveness of classroom instruction.”

            This statement indicates that asking higher level, thought-provoking questions with appropriate wait time will create a more effective classroom environment. The article also stated some information that I didn’t agree with as well. They talked a lot about differentiating questions and wait-time for lower level students. I don’t think this should always be the case. I think, once again, the most important thing you can do as a teacher is getting to know your students. The teacher is the most effective component in a classroom.

            If you would like to read more about this article, here is the link.

The Art Of Integration

Starting this project, I assumed that it would be very easy to find resources about how to integrate science into every area of the classroom. However, as I began to dig deeper into the research, I realized how limited the research really is. I took a class a few years ago about integrating art into the elementary classroom. We learned about a lot of different ways to integrate art into the classroom and there were many resources out there that useful in the integration of art. I was surprised to find that this was not the case for science.

I found a lot of resources about integrating math and science. I also found a few articles about integrating literacy and science. I was actually sort of unimpressed by the amount I was able to find about integration. I learned a lot about the importance of integration and how much better it is for students to learn through integrating subjects together. I have been more convinced of the fact that learning should be a fluid process. Subjects, especially in the elementary classroom, overlap and run together sometimes. I need to let that happen in my classroom. I want to teach my students to be lifelong learners, not just learners for the few years they are in school. We, as teachers, need to teach our students to learn, not just the content they need to learn.

Bringing Science Out of The Classroom.

A lot of times, even as I've been doing research, I think about integrating science as bringing science into other subjects. However, I read an article that changed my mind a little bit. The article focused on bringing science out of the classroom. The article was called "Bringing Science to Life Through Community-Based Watershed Education." by Timothy Donahue.

The article was about a group of high school students who decided to research the cause of a hepatitis outbreak that occurred in their school. The students began to do research out side of the classroom to try and solve the mystery. The students went out and actually performed experiments outside of the classroom. Science was not something stagnat that they were taught sitting in the classroom. The students were being taught to integrate science into their lives and the world around them. This idea was something that I did not necessarily think about before reading about this situation that the high school students researched.

I think this article made a really good point about making science something real that students are experiencing, not just studying. Students should be taught how to live science, not just read about it.

Technology: The Hope Of Good Teaching?

I read an article that had some pretty big claims about technology in science and in teaching in general. I was reading an article called "Evaluation of Interactive Media in Science Education" by David Kumar.

One of his opening lines said something to the effect of that education is dependent on the use of technology. Also, the article said that one of the biggest hopes for improving teaching quality and delivery is through the use of technology. I did not really agree with this statement. I think the teacher is the biggest influence in how things are taught. I don't think using technology automatically makes you a good teacher. I also don't think that good teachers have to use a ton of technology. A good teacher can incorporate technology in their classroom, but technology does not make a good teacher.

The article did have some good points about how using technology can keep kids more engaged in their learning. It also helps to keep students responsible for their own learning with the use of different programs.

The article also talked about the importance of pre-service teachers being taught directly how to incorporate technology into the teaching of science. At Drake, we take an Educational Technology course that teaches us directly how we can include technology in the classroom. I do see the importance and the need for technology in the classroom, however there is more that is involved in good teaching.

What does an effective science classroom look like?

            I’m researching what an effective science classroom looks like. My last blog focused on assessment in the classroom. I found a great website that outlined different types of assessment and when it’s appropriate to use them. For this blog, I wanted to research different learning theories and how to incorporate them into the classroom.

            When researching different learning theories, I came across a website that listed several different learning theories and teaching strategies. I found other websites that gave detailed definitions, but I wanted to find a website that teachers could use as a resource. This site includes: teacher friendly definitions, lesson plans, and links to other websites.

            I wanted to highlight several of the learning theories listed in the website. The first theory I wanted to focus on is called Constructivist Learning Theory. This theory encourages teachers to extend student learning by accessing their prior knowledge. This will help them construct their new schemas by building on their current schemas.

            The second learning theory I wanted to highlight from the article is called Social Learning Theory. This theory promotes student learning through peer interaction. Students are encouraged to work cooperatively and use each other’s thoughts to help form new ideas.

            Both of these learning theories promote a more effective learning environment. There are two other learning theories that I wanted to highlight that were not found in the website. In class, we’ve talked a lot about Behaviorist Learning Theory and Developmental Learning Theory. Behaviorist Learning Theory encourages teachers to plan instruction based on student behavior. Student behaviors give teachers information about their schemas. With this information, teachers can plan and redirect lessons to meet student needs. The fourth and final learning theory I wanted to touch on is called Developmental Learning Theory. This theory encourages teachers to move from concrete learning to more abstract learning.

            Using these learning theories in the classroom will help promote a more effective learning environment. When using these theories your students will: begin with a concrete learning experience, work collaboratively, and form new ideas using their current schemas. When looking at these theories, it got me thinking about what teachers can do to support these student actions. In class, we’ve been focusing a lot on questioning. What types of questions are effective? What types of questions are ineffective? When should you be asking these questions? This is something I would like to take a look at in my next blog.

What does an effective science classroom look like?

            I’ve been researching what an effective science classroom should look like. My previous blogs have included: inquire-based instruction, student engagement, content-based activities, and The Learning Cycle. All of these components help create an effective learning environment. Now, I want to take a look at assessment in the classroom. I want to know what it should look like and I want to know when to use it.

            Researching assessment isn’t hard. You can find it everywhere. There was a lot of information about assessment and its definition, but I wanted to learn more about what types of assessment are appropriate and when to use them. I found a site that provides a list of assessments and when you should use them. It also lists why they are appropriate and when you shouldn’t use a specific type of assessment. The information in the site was extremely helpful and I think it would make a great resource in the classroom.

            Assessment can be an extremely effective tool in the classroom. We take classes that focus entirely on assessment. Teachers need to understand when and how to use it. Each student’s needs are unique and the best way to address these needs is to assess the student. That information will let you know where they are at academically and what they need in the future.

            I’ve looked at a lot of components that can help create an effective learning environment. We’ve been talking a lot about learning theories in our class. I really want to further research these theories and how important it is to incorporate them into the classroom.

What does an effective science classroom look like?

            My previous blogs have looked at what an effective science classroom looks like. My last blog looked at a phenomenon called “activity mania”. This phenomenon describes teachers that focus on the activities and forget the content. When the content is missing, the activity will lose its value.

            In this blog, I wanted to focus on creating the lesson. What does a quality lesson look like? What should it include? When researching these questions, I came across a site that contained The Learning Cycle model. We had talked about this model in class and how lessons should look when using this model. The model in this site provided a great visual and detailed explanation. The Learning Cycle encourages teachers to begin lessons with exploration. During this phase, students explore and work collaboratively to develop questions and record observations. The second phase of the cycle is called Concept Development. During this phase, students will use their questions and observations to develop a further understanding of their ideas. The teacher will also become more of a facilitator during the phase. The final phase is called Concept Application. During this phase, students will be asked to apply their ideas and concepts. You many also want to incorporate assessment into this phase. The Learning Cycle promotes an inquire-based learning environment. It also encourages students to develop their own understanding of learning.

            The Learning Cycle gives teachers a guide to creating lessons. Creating effective classroom lessons aren’t an easy task, but resources like this one can help make it a little easier. Teachers still need to remember the purpose of the lesson and incorporate hands-on activities. Lessons also need to contain an assessment that will accurately evaluate your students’ learning. I would really like to take a deeper look at what assessment looks like and when it’s appropriate.

Activity Mania?

I’ve been looking at what an effective science classroom looks like. My last blog focused on student engagement. I referenced an article that listed ten steps to creating a more engaging student environment. This article gave some really great ideas that teachers can use in the classroom.

I wanted to take a deeper look at activities being used in the classroom. Can activities in the classroom be used ineffectively? The answer, yes. It’s great that teachers are wanting to an inquire-based learning, but they need to be careful when choosing these hands-on activities. Activities still need to have a purpose and the content still needs to be present. This is when the most essential part of the lesson is the teacher. We, as teachers, need to be sure we incorporate and develop the concept after the engaging activity. If the content is missing from the lesson, the activity loses its value.

When researching this phenomenon, I didn’t find much on the topic. So I decided to research sites that give a lot of great lessons that contain quality activities and content. I came a across a site called The Teacher's Corner. This site contains a lot of great lessons that would make an excellent resource in the classroom. It also contains some great links to other science websites. We, as teachers, should use the resources available to us and then adjust them to fit our students. Knowing your students is going to vital when creating the lessons in your classroom.

I’ve taken a deeper look at student engagement, classroom activities, and how to use them effectively in the classroom. Now, I’d like to take a deeper look at creating lessons for your students. What are they supposed to look like and what should they include?

What does an effective science classroom look like?

My last blog began to look at what an effective science classroom should look like. When researching, I came across an article that focused on an inquired-based learning. This type of learning encourages students to explore and gather evidence about the natural world to learn about science. The article also provided a list of teacher actions and student actions. There was one student action I wanted to take a deeper look at. I believe that student engagement is an important component in an effective science classroom. When students are engaged, they are more involved and motivated to learn about the content.

          When researching for ideas on student engagement, I came across an article at http://www.edutopia.org/. This article lists ten steps to better student engagement. There were several of these steps that I wanted to highlight. One step recommended that teachers create a culture of explanation instead of a culture of the right answer. This strategy encourages teachers to use questions and problems in the classroom that can be solved using multiple strategies. This will also encourage students to use higher level thinking and spend more time on the process rather than the “right” answer. So many teachers want students to focus on the getting the “right” answer that they forget about the “teaching” component.

          Another step I wanted to highlight from the article recommended that teachers cultivate their engagement meter. This step encourages teachers to be aware of their students and what activities get them engaged. This skill will allow you to create lessons that will keep your students interested and on task.

          Student engagement is such an important part of student learning, but engagement doesn’t equal learning. Engaging activities must still have a purpose and contain content. When you lose sight of these components and focus solely on the activities, you may suffer from what is called “activity mania”. This is something I want to take a look at in my next blog.

Battle of the Schools... Let the Battles Begin

Now that my research has reached a point at which I can make intellectual comparisons, it is time to kick it into gear. I have recently broken down the four school types, STEM schools, Public schools, Private (Catholic) schools, and Montessori schools based on how well they integrate science content in their classrooms. Not only was this pretty difficult at times, but I learned so much! I hope you all have too. At random I put the four school types into a tournament bracket.

In the first round, it is the STEM schools vs. the Public schools and the Private schools vs. the Montessori schools. The two winners of said round will then go onto the challenge each other in round 2.

Since the four schools are so very different from one another in the way they perform and in their philosophies, it is going to get tricky when comparing the schools. I will do the best I can and be as unbiased and objective as a scientist myself.
Let the Battles Begin!

Battle of the Schools... Public Schools

Public schools. This is going to be the most difficult school to break apart with science content. Yes, all public schools (in Iowa) follow the Iowa Core Curriculum for every subject, including science, but the way that each school applies these standards differs with every single one. I decided to start my search at the Iowa Core Curriculum website and break that down to see just what all of Iowa is using for science. “[Iowa Core Curriculum] moves beyond, as stated in the research report, Taking Science to School (National Research Council, The National Academies. Washington, D.C. 2007) "a focus on the dichotomy between either content knowledge or process skills because content and process are inextricably linked in science. Students who are proficient in science:

1. Know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world;

2. Generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations;

3. Understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and

4. Participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.

These strands of proficiency represent learning goals for students as well as a broad framework for curriculum design. They address the knowledge and reasoning skills that students must acquire to be proficient in science and, ultimately, able to participate in society as educated citizens."

This got me thinking about the standardize tests and the amount of information that public schools have to cover because of the NCLB act, funding, and more. Teachers can teach as much as they possibly can, but when it comes down to it, do they end up teaching to the test?! I think that it really comes down to the individual school, the district in which each school is located, and the administration that run the show. In conclusion to public school’s content on science, I found a board overview of the state standards and from there, each school can take it as they want. It’s almost too big to sum up in one post. Maybe had I done my whole blog experience on science content in the public schools, I could have seen more than just the tip of the iceburg. I would say that they way public schools go about teaching science content is neither great nor is it bad, it is pretty middle of the road. 

Final Post

To view my final presentation, please Click here.

Battle of the Schools... Catholic Schools

In my search of information on Private school science content, I found that the amount of information is extensive from charter schools to catholic schools. I decided to narrow the school selection down to specifically Catholic elementary school science content. Now, it goes to say that with every school, there is going to be differentiation in the types of materials and philosophies they chose to follow. The science curriculum, however, was very similar for the most part in a majority of the Catholic schools.

I may be bias when it comes to Catholic schooling because that is what I grew up knowing, but I will take this as objectively as possible. Catholic schools follow their own curriculum based on the Diocese or Archdiocese in that area. A Diocese is the district that is run by a bishop and is divided into parishes. An Archdiocese is more significant and is run by an archbishop of importance. Like Montessori schools, you pay tuition to attend a Catholic school and a lot of times have to go through an admission process. The main focus of Catholic schooling is to incorporate the Catholic faith in the lives of their students and in every subject that is taught. What do faith and science have anything to do with each other you might ask? Well, that is where I come in…

The Catholic schools believe that “the goal of the Science curriculum is to enable students to have a basic scientific understanding of the natural world and its processes to guide their decisions through life. As Christians, we have a responsibility to be the caretakers of God's world, and Science supplies the tools and understandings to enable us to do that.” That was taken straight from the science curriculum of St. Austin’s Elementary school. Every Diocese has approximately the same idea on how science should be integrated into school and subjects like science. “The science teachers are responsible for developing students’ confidence in their ability to understand how things work according to natural principles and how this relates to Church teachings.” (from this link). Instilling faith in each subject is a way for students to unite all their schooling together. I see this as a huge benefit for students in learning. I know that science and faith have their drastic differences, but by being able to combine the two, students can get an even better grasp. A downside can be for those students that don’t have faith and by combining the two it can be detrimental to the students learning. It can be confusing for students to comprehend the differences in the Creation story and the proof of evolution. It isn’t a perfect method, but then again, what is?

Make Thinking Visible.

One article that I found extremely interesting was one called "Learning to Teach Inquiry Science in a Technology-Based Environment." by Michelle Williams. The more I read of this article, the more I was interested in what it was saying. The point of the article was a case study of a teacher who taught some of her science units using a technology called Web-Base Inquiry Science Environment (WISE). I had never heard of WISE before. The main idea behind it is that students can see and show how they are thinking about science. The teacher used the students thinking about things to really guide her teaching of a unit about plant growth.

One of the ways the teacher implemented WISE was by the use of Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI). The four main concepts behind SKI are:
1. Make thinking visible for students
2.Make science accessible for students
3.Providing social supports for students
4. Promoting autonomy for lifelong science learning

One thing that really stood out for me while reading this article was how much it related to some of the things that we have talked about in class. The whole point behind WISE is based on what students are thinking about and how they are processing what they are learning. It is completely student focused. Also, the four concepts of SKI reminded me a lot of some of the student goals our class created. The article talked about teaching students how to think about science and making it some thing they will do the rest of their lives. I really liked that idea. Learning in general should be a lifelong process, not just something we get through for the first part of our lives.

#3 Cooperative Learning

Before I begin discussing how cooperative learning is used in and enhances science learning I feel I need to spend some time on characteristics of cooperative learning, varieties of cooperative learning, questions and controversies related to cooperative learning, and the benefits of cooperative learning.

Many books and articles on cooperative learning have been published by David and Roger Johnson and Robert E. Slavin. Through extensive review of research characteristics of cooperative learning were specified in this article by the Johnsons and Slavin. The Johnsons feel that in order to put cooperative learning into practice five things must occur; specification of instructional objectives, appropriate groups assigned, explanation of academic tasks and cooperative methods to achieve these tasks, monitoring of progress and providing assistance, and evaluation of accomplishments including student input. Slavin is critical of the use of cooperative learning. He feels that not all forms of cooperative learning are effective for all educators' goals. In order for achievement to occur Slavin feels two conditions must be present; the presence of a group goal and individual accountability. The Johnsons and Slavin agree that not all teachers understand what cooperative learning involves and that they are under trained. In order for teachers to be proficient in its use they must receive assistance and years of practice.

One part of the article I found interesting was the comparison of cooperative groups to small groups. Many teachers think that small group work is the same as cooperative group work, but it is not. Here is a comparison.

Cooperative Groups

• Positive interdependence
• Individual accountability
• Teachers teach social skills
• Teacher monitors students' behavior
• Feedback and discussion of students' behavior is necessary before moving on
  

Small Groups

• No interdependence
• Some students do most or all of the work
• Social skills are not taught
• Teacher does not observe students' behavior
• No feedback or discussion of students' behavior

There are a number of varieties of cooperative learning. This alone could be a research topic so I will only list a few. They are: Circles of Learning, Jigsaw, Student Teams-Achievement Divisions, and Group Investigation. If interested in learning more about the different types of cooperative learning check this article out www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED351207.pdf.

There are some questions and controversies that have been brought up regarding the use of cooperative learning in the classroom. Parents of gifted children feel that their children are exploited in cooperative groups and that their individual exploration is hindered. Slavin feels that because gifted children are able to provide detailed explanations they are displaying a behavior associated with improved learning. The Johnsons have researched this topic extensively and found that there is greater retention and mastery in cooperative work rather than in individual learning. When these students work with peers of lower ability they are practicing with the material being studied and helping the other students learn which in turn helps them. Another concern for some, regarding cooperative learning, is the use of group rewards. Slavin feels group rewards improve student achievement while Kohn feels they undermine intrinsic motivation. Kohn feels that giving students control over what they will study and how they will study it wins over group rewards.

Benefits of cooperative learning include:

• Prepares students for today's society
• Promotes active learning
• Motivates students
• Encourages respect for diversity
• Improves language skills
• Breaks down stereotypes
• Increases self-esteem
• Builds cooperative skills

I do believe that cooperative learning should be used in the classroom. My concerns are that the teacher may not know how to implement it correctly and in what curriculum is it best utilized. Maybe as I further my research I will find the answers to these questions or develop more concerns and questions.

------------------------------------------------------------

www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED351207.pdf

Science and Literacy

One of the most interesting things for me to research has been science and literacy. At first I thought that there would not be very much in common between the two. I have always thought that science and literacy are two completely different subjects because of their nature. I knew that literacy is required in science because you need to be able to understand what you are learning about when you are reading about science.

However, I read an article called "Reciprocal Processes In Science and Literacy Learning" by Carolyn P. Casteel and Bess A. Isom. In this article, the authors argue the point that there are a lot of similarities between the way we read and the way we understand science. One of their points was that we the way we think about how to read should be the same way that we think about science. We need to be teaching students to think about their learning and how their learning is happening instead of just teaching them what to learn. The way students think through their reading strategies should be the same way that they are processing what they are reading in science.

One of the opening lines of the article is that if we teach students simply how to read what they are asked to learn in science, their hesitancy toward science will be greatly reduced. The article also said that teachers need to take a different approach to how they are teaching science in their classrooms. Science should be taught with motivating incentives. The authors described motivating incentives as practical experiments, thematic units, the use of technology and giving students opportunities to succeed in reading within the science curriculum will improve students abilities in science.

I really found it interesting to read about the integration of literacy and science. To me, this idea was such a foreign concept. However, after reading this article, I was strongly convinced of how it was possible to integrate the two, as well as how logical it was to integrate the two.