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.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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)