On teaching science...

[Jane in NC]

In several recent threads there have been discussions on curricular materials and methodologies used in various disciplines. Given that science is the field in which people tend to be more text book or box curriculum oriented, I wanted to comment on a science course that my son took over the weekend that incorporated what I feel are "WTM" type methods.

The course was on Neuroscience of the Senses and met for fifteen hours between Saturday and Sunday. (Obviously not a class for the faint of heart!) While the students were waiting for everyone to get checked in and find the classroom, participants were given a 60 page primer on the brain and nervous system to read through. This was essentially their text for the course. After introductions, the students were provided a basic overview of anatomy and the neural system before being divided into subgroups and being assigned a sense to research and eventually report on. I think we fail as teachers when we tell our students to go figure something out without laying the proper foundation and then providing leading questions. Their instructor gave them a list of questions to investigate: What are the main parts of this system? What do they do? Draw and label a diagram of your system. What is the neural pathway for your system? What can go wrong with your system? Devise a simple experiment to do with the class illustrating something about your system. The kids in my son's group divided up the research questions and determined who would do what aspects of the presentation on their system. The instructor and the T.A. would come by to see how they were doing, comment and ask more leading questions.

They gave their presentations Saturday night and were ready to go to the next level on Sunday morning when they dissected a sheep's brain and cow's eye (one each for every two students).

This was followed by a discussion of autism and other disorders, as well as ethical considerations as more is understood about brain development.

Note the general scheme: 1) foundation; 2) student research directed by leading questions; 3) teacher led activity to solidify material (in this case dissection); 4) examples to demonstrate that things can go wrong; 5) ethical implications.

It would seem that this scheme could be adapted for numerous situations: 1) foundations of angiosperms; 2) student research into seed germination; 3) experiment with some sort of plant 4) change some variable in the process to see what happens; 5) discussion of genetically modified seeds.

Or: 1) define Bernoulli's principle; 2) student research in how the principle is used in flight; 3) simple experiment to demonstrate Bernoulli's principle; 4) tinker with 3; 5) discuss how airplanes have changed our concept of time and space.

Science need not be memorization of a list of facts!

Jane

[Tokyomarie]

Thank you for sharing this experience, Jane! And thanks for generalizing the process to teaching other science concepts.

[Michelle in MO]

I wanted to comment on a science course that my son took over the weekend that incorporated what I feel are "WTM" type methods. . .

. . . I think we fail as teachers when we tell our students to go figure something out without laying the proper foundation and then providing leading questions.

Note the general scheme: 1) foundation; 2) student research directed by leading questions; 3) teacher led activity to solidify material (in this case dissection); 4) examples to demonstrate that things can go wrong; 5) ethical implications.



I thought it was you, although perhaps it was someone else, who posted about that grammar-stage science should be more about discovery and hands-on type projects.

The two examples you gave (i.e., seeds, Bernouilli's principle) sound like an excellent description of rhetoric-stage science.

Thanks for sharing this! It sounds like it was a great experience!

[Cinder]

My dh has been wanting our science to be more hands-on and investigative. I think what you described in your post is what he meant. I'm printing it out now.

Cinder

[Eliana]

I think a challenge with this approach could be that to meaningfully explore many of these concepts in a rigorous way a student must first learn the vocabulary and foundational concepts of the discipline... in some ways I think science learning is akin to learning a foreign language. There is so much grammar and vocabulary, but if a student studies those things only it is a lifeless (and, imnsho, almost pointless) exercise... but without a gifted native speaker, or better yet group of native speakers, immersion is impossible and experiential learning shallow.

So, although I think what you described is *fabulous* and the approach one which could enrich every student's learning, I think we need to be careful not to throw out our grammar texts and vocabulary lists altogether - unless we can provide that real immersion environment.

FWIW...

[8FillTheHeart]

Note the general scheme: 1) foundation; 2) student research directed by leading questions; 3) teacher led activity to solidify material (in this case dissection); 4) examples to demonstrate that things can go wrong; 5) ethical implications.
Jane

Wow, it sounds like he had an amazing experience. Your description sounds very similar to the approach the chemical engineering program A is going through.

It is also a more complicated version of how I try to teach science in my kids younger yrs. We read all kinds of "whole" books on topics. The books have lead to a foundation/appreciation for a wide variety of topics. We always talk about how/where they might see/experience what they have read. I won't say I assign teacher led activites.....but they love to check out ideas/identify concepts all the time on their own. One of mine currently has his interest piqued in lunar cycles and told me we needed to drive to the beach at different times of yr so he can see for himself some of the things he has read!! :)

Reading about great inventors sure can give an appreciation for 4. Number 5 is definitely key for older students to consider.

Thanks for the thought provoking post. I know that I tend to forget this whole approach with my older kids and focus more on learning the textbook and not the deeper, more enlightening educational objectives.

[Michelle in MO]

[QUOTE=Eliana;83796]I think a challenge with this approach could be that to meaningfully explore many of these concepts in a rigorous way a student must first learn the vocabulary and foundational concepts of the discipline... in some ways I think science learning is akin to learning a foreign language. There is so much grammar and vocabulary, but if a student studies those things only it is a lifeless (and, imnsho, almost pointless) exercise... but without a gifted native speaker, or better yet group of native speakers, immersion is impossible and experiential learning shallow./QUOTE]

especially the part about "science learning is akin to learning a foreign language. There is so much grammar and vocabulary, but if a student studies those things only it is a lifeless . . . exercise."

So, it sounds like this class started with the foundation---the 60-pages of information on neuroscience---the grammar and vocabulary, and then moved quickly into the logic and rhetoric stages! Sounds wonderful!

[Jane in NC]

I think a challenge with this approach could be that to meaningfully explore many of these concepts in a rigorous way a student must first learn the vocabulary and foundational concepts of the discipline... in some ways I think science learning is akin to learning a foreign language. There is so much grammar and vocabulary, but if a student studies those things only it is a lifeless (and, imnsho, almost pointless) exercise... but without a gifted native speaker, or better yet group of native speakers, immersion is impossible and experiential learning shallow.



Early exposure to vocabulary at the grammar stage when children sponge this sort of thing is ideal in my book! This is why it surprised me that the local public school did no science when my son was elementary school age. (I don't know what they do or don't do now.)

Another thing that frustrates me in science education is the "camp" mentality that makes mixing baking soda and vinegar together science. Well maybe it is at the grammar stage, but it is hard for a student to graduate from baking soda and vinegar play to a lab report. It seems that there needs to be a middle ground where things get somewhat formalized while still keeping some of the hands on activities.

When I began homeschooling my son in 7th grade, we attempted chemistry as it was laid out in TWTM with the MicroChem Kit, lots of library books, etc. It was a bust. In fact, we abandoned it after a couple of months and instead did a Jason unit on wetlands and had my son participate in Envirothon for his science education. The Jason Project is still around but I believe has changed from its former self when the focus was on a specific topic annually. Interestingly, a year before Katrina hit we had spent months studying wetlands in general and the wetlands of southern Louisiana in particular. My son clearly understood more about what happened there in the aftermath of the storm that the newscasters! What also made the topic relevant for us is that we have a wetland at the end of our street. We live in an area where both traditional farms and wetland marshes were being transformed into golf courses at a rapid rate (things have now slowed down on the development front, thank goodness!) The science had immediate relevance.

I think that our chemistry failure of 7th grade was due to some unreasonable expectations on my part, like in the area of lab reports. We should have done more hand holding and developed some transitional exercises to help him.

It is clear that I would like to see the bar raised on science and mathematics education in this country, but not at the risk of abandoning history, literature, other languages, etc. The integration of math and science into daily discussions is something that I want not only in my own home and community but in the national media. It seems that being a good citizen involves understanding more than the Bill of Rights, but also understanding implications of decisions on a number of fronts, including science and technology.

And we need to find more hours in the day to do it all.

Jane