Practicum Week 1: First Impressions and Interview of Students (Question #1)

My first impressions of practicum are that I can't believe how young the sixth graders are, even though I used to teach fifth/sixth graders in Korea and France. I totally had forgotten what that age is like and how much one needs to be an authority figure and literally tell them what to do.

At the same time, younger children seem to be much more obedient and used to following authority unquestioningly than even slightly older kids can be (which is something we've studied in school with Erikson and moral development, with all the pangs and throes of identity development in the middle school years). I can't imagine these kids refusing to wear their goggles like college kids always try to do. I am still torn on whether I should start taking off points or just remove people from lab if they keep trying to sneak not wearing their goggles...that's another "To Be Continued"  issue for me.

However, I have seen much less respectful, less obedient sixth graders before, and it's not like these kids were only obedient because they hadn't hit the Fidelity stage yet of moral development. It makes me wonder why the children seem to be fairly respectful and how the safe classroom environment was established, and I will have to keep my eye out.

In terms of content, they are working on their researching skills and learning how to read, evaluate harder articles, and describe what they've learned in writing without plagiarizing. (I also totally forgot that it was still hard to read through junior high for me). They are describing and evaluating alternate sources of energy, which I think is awesome, because it's basically Future Problem Solvers, except it occurs during the school hours.

For those of you who are not in the know, FPS was only the best extracurricular activity of junior high, after speech: a group of students got a problem (like, "violent crime"), researched the problem in the library after school for a couple of weeks, learned how to research, developed a solution, and learned how to defend the solution in writing. The solutions were mailed to graders from outside the school. It was the greatest thing ever and allowed us to learn on all level's of Bloom's taxonomy, as well as learn essential skills like collaboration, reading critically, and writing. It seems like that's what these kids are doing from the one lesson I've seen so far, and I think that form of instruction can be very engaging for children at that age.

In fact, the teacher is using technology to even improve on the FPS-style classroom. The anticipatory set was a quick YouTube video on hydroelectric dams, and it was short enough that it matched the children's attention spans while still showing the visual learners how a dam functions. All the children had their own laptops and on Google Drive, so as they brainstormed pros and cons of hydroelectric power, we were able to write down their ideas and send them to the students. The worksheets were all on Google Drive, too, so the children were able to collaborate and efficiently go from the Internet to their work.

What I really liked about having everything online was that it really minimized the grading for the teacher; instead of grading a hundred worksheets every night by hand, she can just go through Google Drive to get a sense of where students are having problems. She knows, anyway, since she talked with the students and looked over their shoulder while they were working, to catch anyone who was getting off-track. My guess is that she knew where to spend more time and how to arrange the seating (girls with girls and boys with boys, only) in order for her to help more of the kids who might need it.

Since the assignments are within the students' ZPD, the children should at least be able to make an attempt at the assignments--the students don't necessarily know how to read technical articles yet and understand them enough to paraphrase the ideas, and the children don't know how to use a laptop or do research on the Internet. But that's okay, and they'll learn through doing these kinds of worksheets, little by little. Ultimately, what that means is: grading is cut down.

Otherwise, we did not get to the blog interview questions, so I interviewed a couple of the high schoolers at GHS this morning. For full disclosure, these are the exact opposite type of learners my classmates and I are supposed to be questioning, and I will interview more children at practicum next week. Here are the high schoolers' responses:

• How do they feel they best learn science?

Student 1 sees how someone else did the problem and then does similar problems. They have a lot of spare time to go over the practice problems throughout the chapter, working in groups of four, and the teacher does a lot of example problems on the board.

Student 2 learns by doing labs. Reading the book is boring for him and doesn't help him to learn the material unless he has been introduced to it; reading might only reinforce material. He also likes repetitively doing problems, since he likes math, anyway, and that is how he studies math.

• What environment do they need to be most successful in learning?

Both students agree that the environment they have now is working--they have the facilities, time, and equipment to do experiments. Both students stressed the need to have approachable teachers who would answer their questions.

To that I would add that there is a friendly environment, the students are able to work collaboratively and are given sufficient time and materials (textbooks, laptop per student, lab equipment, etc.) to learn the content and practices of science, and student-centered and authentic learning are emphasized. 

• If they were learning something new, what would they need to ensure they learn?

Both students agreed that they would need an approachable instructor who is able to explain the concepts. They couldn't exactly what it was that made an instructor good or bad, but they agreed that it was all on us if they learned or not. 

Oobleck is Messy AND Standards Questions

I noticed that Dropbox had questions for me! Also, I am on an ueber go-chemistry high!

Standards Questions

1. What is the purpose of teaching science to middle school students?

I don't know if it's an Iowan thing or the fact that I didn't have to meet any standards as a student myself back in the '80s and '90s, but I was really surprised by our class discussions to learn that there are multiple schools that do not teach science at the elementary level. I loved science in elementary school, junior high, and high school; Mr. Sullivan was awesome. I still remember earth science being fantastic, even though my best friend and I were always in cutthroat competition and she beat me in reading the textbook and not being a klutz in lab. I know my friends' kids in Minnesota are doing a plenty of science nowadays, but there are different kinds of schools (Montessori, STEM-based, etc.) in Minneapolis, and I don't know what else the kids may or may not be learning. 

In fact, I had never heard of NOT learning about science or doing labs at any grade level. It never occurred to me that, for whatever reason, an elementary teacher would avoid teaching one of the main subjects to his or her students. However, it doesn't seem to me that the kids I talk to, at Chemistry in the Library or GHS, are behind in any way. That's not to say there still isn't plenty to learn (I'm still learning. I've actually been fixated for a couple of weeks on why R is R, specifically, in the ideal gas law or van der Waal's equation, and I can't find my p-chem book), but I believe that all teachers are passionate about what they're doing and genuinely working in the best interest of their students. 

I am not in favor of teaching science in the middle schools because it will help students to think logically, learn how to construct and support an argument, or any of those higher level thinking skills. Of course, studying science will promote cognitive growth, but that is a non-unique argument. It is important to teach science at the middle school level, because teachers should teach. We need to show the children that learning is valued, make sure that they do not fall behind in any subject, and try to overcome the tendency for them to lose interest in science at this age level. I think it's important to achieve a balance in all subjects and, in fact, stressing all subjects is a primary goal of public education and the obligation of the nation. 

 

2. How can we achieve the main purpose, which is scientific literacy?

 

We need to motivate students by relating the material to their personal interests, having engaging labs, and incorporating multiple modalities so that the children receive the information more than once and in a style with which they are comfortable. We need to overcome misconceptions through actual, student-centered lab work to promote conceptual change--otherwise, our students might just tell us what we want to hear on the tests, but then revert back to their original conceptions after the class is over. 

An example would be the students at GHS, who had three labs last week in which they received decreasing instruction--the labs became more student-centered as the students gained conceptual and process skills. I was able to see the students show understanding of the concepts (chemical reactions and stoichiometry) as the week went on. This week, when it came time for them to be assessed on their knowledge, whenever they asked a question, I was able to give them direction by referring to concepts they had learned in lab. Many are actually beginning to accept that the mass of the product should not just be literally the mass of the reactant, but it took a week's worth of lab work, directing more and more of their data collection and experiments, and communicating with others. 

Also, I think in addition to promoting scientific literacy, we also need to promote literacy in any middle school classroom. Mr. Sullivan did an excellent job scaffolding the reading (it was a really big pain to read textbooks and classic literature through junior high--I wasn't quite literate yet and failed when I tried to read anything really difficult on my own) by presenting the material first, having a class discussion and activity about it, and then giving us free time at the end of class to read and fill out the study guide. We would follow up the next few days with awesome, engaging labs that had us learn process skills like making and collecting observations and working with others. I want to follow Mr. Sullivan's lead and be understanding of the developing skills of young students.

At the same time that I may have had more time to study science as a student, without the necessity of being held accountable to standards, I think that science education is getting better with a greater emphasis on inquiry. An example would even be the science experiments recommended by the ACS for young children. When I did Chemists in the Library in grad school, it was awesome (it still is awesome, I just can't go up to the Twin Cities that often), and there is definitely a well-defined procedure for each investigation (at least, there was, like, 7 or 8 years ago). One thing I tried to stress today with Chemists in the Library is the Explore part of the 5E model because, actually, the ACS has some great new, inquiry-based experiments on its website. I was also reminded of a few investigations and demos by Ashley in Phys Apps, and then Hollie helped me to get on the social media bandwagon. 

Well, I thought the ACS might have gotten a little overambitious when I was preparing for Chemists in the Library this week, adapting the ACS's new, inquiry-based experiments and expanding what I had done in the past to emphasize Exploring even more. I thought, well, is it possible to teach any science if I only have 20 minutes with a kid, their whole entire life? Is it possible to just give children the opportunity to be creative, given that limited amount of time? 

Of course, the children were creative and adapted their surroundings, and the new ACS experiments worked really well. Inquiry is VERY loud and VERY messy, but the children ended up being able to play around with the material (e.g., they made oobleck, but I didn't give them ratios or ingredients to use, just an example finished product) and apply knowledge across subjects: they brought up art, history, and moved equipment around (e.g., using the earthquake simulation to weigh material for their oobleck). A lot of the adults made awesome suggestions and helped out a lot, which also taught me a lot about teaching (e.g., some of the parents asked me what exactly non-newtonian fluids were, and that reminds me that I should look that up...The more I know, the more I know I don't know...). 

 

3. Who are scientifically literate citizens?

 

Scientifically literate citizens question what they read in the news, in terms of descriptions of scientific studies, the interpretation of data and observations, and the studies' implications for real life. These citizens stay updated on current events, so that they are aware of social and natural (e.g., an ecological disaster) problems that affect their lives and community that science/technology are trying to solve (or are responsible for). These citizens have an informed opinion and understanding of the relationship among science/technology, their personal lives, their community, and natural phenomena. Finally, these citizens need to be prepared to apply this information to act in their community, such as by voting in ways that will cause science and technology to be used in a socially beneficial way. 

 

Based on what we have been talking about as of late, these citizens will need to actually retain the questioning and logic skills that they have been taught long ago in school. The example this week in class was that scientifically literate people do not need to remember that only some metals affect magnets, but they do need to have some sort of schema for how they learned about magnets in the first place (questioning, manipulating variables, talking with their peers, etc.). If someone's doctor recommends that he or she goes in for an MRI, that person needs to be able to question the doctor (e.g., what are likely side effects?) and to be able to think through the cost-benefit analysis of going in for the procedure (How can science be helpful in diagnosing what causes my headaches?). That person will hopefully already have acquired and retained these reasoning skills from school. 

I actually got to use some of what I learned about magnets from Methods this week when teaching!! My students had free time in which to work in groups on carbohydrates. One group was asking what I liked to do better, organic or biochem, and I tried to explain the mass spec research I did without using jargon. We got onto the subject of magnets, and I elicited a lot of uses for magnets in real life. My students demonstrated that they could come up with a lot of applications for science in their normal, day-to-day lives, which demonstrates scientific literacy to me. I'm still not sure how I feel about eclipses or that I believe the answer to that multiple choice question we talked about, in regards to the sun and moon's positions if there is a full moon and lunar eclipse. Conceptual change takes a long time to rattle around in my brain, and it might be time to break out a model of some sort. 

Well, happy birthday to Dr. Seuss and happy National Reading Day! I get to do the Frog's Blood demo at GHS on Tuesday! I think I have an idea who is going to get grossed out and/or learn something, and it makes me very happy. Smells and gross-out factors are great ways for engaging kids and really putting an event in their long-term memory. 

Practical Experience

I just got back from volunteering at the local high school, where I've been volunteering for one or two days a week for a year. For my first "Practical Experience" blog, I'd just like to reflect how much more comfortable I feel in my skin there after a year and what problems being comfortable causes. I'm familiar now with the routines and expectations for everyone involved, and I genuinely like a lot of the students in Chemistry B (whom I've known since the beginning of this academic year when they started Chemistry A) and wish I could coach them in something. 

My goals in volunteering are to help out the students who really need one-on-one, individualized assistance and (even if I fail to teach them something) show all students that there is another person invested in their education. I don't come in first thing in the morning for my health, especially when they're doing difficult material and it'd be hard for anyone to stay focused, but I know that some students may have different situations, in terms of who is rooting for them at home. 

I feel like I have a greater sense of how students can be differentiated by home life situation, innate talent, academic skills (including lack of embarrassment/willingness to try), and motivation for chemistry. Having a sense of the differences in students' SES backgrounds is sadly one thing I noticed right off the bat, last year, but getting a sense of how to get to know students as people is something that has taken a year. 

I think it has taken me time to gain enough skill and comfort level in volunteering here to free up enough of the information processing load in my brain so that I can relax around the students. Helping out the students in lab is when it usually clicks for me in terms of relating to students--I don't have any idea how they feel about the weird lady who comes in sometimes to help, but at least I can start to differentiate my approach to problems, depending on strategies that have worked for them before in solving problems. 

On the one hand, it's fine to get further experience (especially if my personal situation allows me to be in the schools), but I also feel like I've gotten lazier a year in. Right now, I tutor small groups of students before school starts and either help out with lab and/or do group work with students who may have more questions during period 1. 

Sadly, the first semester I was there, I was creative in doing demos for the kids during spring break and preparing and a lot of the planning and execution of an esterification lab for the advanced students (they are still complaining about the smell of the acetic acid, but at least smell is the most strongly related to memory...). I was sitting in on the forensics class, which was AWESOME (I was kind of just like a kid in the candy store--I wasn't really able to help out with anything that wasn't directly related to chemistry). 

This year, my sole occupation has been figuring out where to go for spring break, let alone how to be creative with the extra time on my hands. I still am going to leave Iowa for spring break, but I will be experimenting on my best friend's little ELL children again--we do the POE method for experiments that she and I can come up with, using stuff from around the house, and now they are getting to they point where they might be able to write and draw their write-ups, rather than just draw. Being around actual, energetic children should spark some ideas. Also, I have a meeting tomorrow to branch out Chemists in the Library, I have my second session of Chemists in the Library this upcoming Saturday, so I will be on an endorphin, giddy chemistry high for a good week. 

I will have to reflect on possible strategies for volunteering or activities that I can suggest to do with the kids that will be engaging for them and not leave me feeling burnt out. I think a goal of mine should be to re-invigorate my volunteerism. 

To Be Continued...

NGSS and the Magnet Investigation

The DCI that best describes the magnet investigation from class last week is PS4.B, on demonstrating knowledge electromagnetic fields. The performance expectation that specifically covers the magnet investigation is PS4.4: Electromagnetism. 

Standards Based Science Teaching (This is Where my Blogs Really Start!)

Based on a few weeks' worth of class discussions, classmates' input, and my honest and insightful students, I realized that I am in favor to some extent of standards based teaching. I think standards can be useful, depending on the assignment. 

First, before I discuss my thoughts on grading, here is how I organize assignments to begin with. Since I started working at my current position, all of my classes have been designed to imitate as best as possible what my life was like as a grad student. Students need to do research, find resources on their own and/or with my help, do group meetings (we have one coming up next week!! I love them!! My students do awesome jobs preparing, presenting what they have researched, and answering my pop questions!! They also let loose by this point in the term!!), and work on an iterative cycle. 

Just as I had to revise and revise my thesis, get it torn to shreds, and then revise it again, my students are strongly encouraged to revise their work. It just seems more authentic to me, just as it seems more authentic to never force students to memorize the kind of information I would have just looked up in grad school (i.e., anything from Sigma Aldrich or the CRC). I quiz students on the information that I feel one needs to know in order to understand the material; I tell my students that you can't write an English paper without knowing the alphabet, just like you can't do organic chemistry without knowing functional groups. 

In terms of what we have been talking about in class, I feel it is strongly connected to what I learned about motivation from my students this past summer. One of my students in the class was an education major and was able to give consistent, precise feedback on what worked and what didn't. What I learned from her was that my criterion-based grading system, with revisions encouraged, took away from her motivation--she told me that she knew that she could always fix up her assignments later (although, of course, she couldn't take back what she said during debates or "group meetings"). 

I thought that was really honest and insightful of her to admit that to any of her instructors, and this comment has stuck with me since then. I can't count on meeting anyone that outspoken ever again who is able to speak the lingo of chemistry and education and has a first-hand perspective on my teaching style. My students who are non-majors are not necessarily motivated to master the material I pick out because it is important to the discipline and meets the standards of the institution (and all of the public schools with which we have reciprocity). I need to keep thinking creatively to think of how to encourage my students to want to learn/learn how to learn/develop their identities as learners. 

At the high school level, students will need even more scaffolding. They should be allowed to go at their own pace and cover much less material than what is traditionally taught, but they also need even more guidelines than my grown-up learners. Most of my students at the high school level will not end up being chemistry majors and do not know how to study yet, so they will need a little more extrinsic motivation, guidelines on pacing (i.e., deadlines for when their assignments should be polished) and a few assignments in which they only get one opportunity to show what they know (exams, debates, fishbowl discussions, etc.). Ultimately, what this means is that I believe that standards are excellent ways of measuring student success in labs, projects, portfolios (anything that I can think to write a rubric of), but I am not sure that standards would be motivating as an overarching grading scheme for an entire class. 

NGSS

            For this blog, I went through the DCI that would be relevant to me, step-by-step, and evaluated some of their advantages and disadvantages for promoting learning in the 9-12 physical science classroom (NGSS, “DCI Arrangement of Standards,” http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards-dci?tid_1[]=15&field_idea_tid[]=134). Specifically, I looked at DCI:

•          HS-PS1 Matter and its Interactions
•          HS-PS2 Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions
•          HS-PS3 Energy
•          HS-PS4 Waves and their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer

            These DCI are very broad, general concepts central to chemistry and physics. I would agree that setting national education standards helps to guide instructors, rather than setting up an assembly line for what to teach and when, despite the criticism being made by some Conservatives (e.g., NPR, Westervelt, E. “Political Rivals Find Common Ground Over Core,” [28 Jan. 2014] http://www.npr.org/2014/01/28/267488648/backlash-grows-against-common-core-education-standards). For full disclosure, I have been following and disagreeing with the Tea Party’s criticisms of having basic educational standards in this country; the more the Tea Party attacks these types of standards, the more attractive the NGSS and the Common Core seem to me. I believe that the limitations established by the DCI will not in themselves significantly constrain what or how I teach, given how general they are.          

            For instance, PS1 covers atomic theory, using valence electrons to predict reactions (we would probably first learn Lewis structures and electron configurations and then types of chemical reactions), intermolecular forces, basic thermodynamic principles, kinetics, conservation of mass (i.e., stoichiometry), and nuclear reactions. I would certainly cover all of these principles in Chemistry A and Chemistry B, besides nuclear reactions, but NGSS also provides suggestions on using models and inquiry to teach the material, as well as how to tie in math and engineering with these concepts.

           Forces and Interactions (PS2) includes the conceptual understanding and mathematical representation of Newton’s Laws, Newton’s Law of Gravity, and Coulomb’s Law. Standards PS2-3 and PS2-5 are wonderful standards that have the students engaging in inquiry, building and testing models, based on their knowledge of collisions and forces and of field theory, respectively. Standard PS2-6 involves the students communicating scientific information. I believe this DCI would be a helpful guide in planning an inquiry-based physics class (communicating ideas and deciding what materials to use would also be appropriate to use in a chemistry class), and the Science and Engineering Practices involved basically take the students through a scientific method.

            Energy (PS3) includes some very broad topics and could also find a home in classes traditionally devoted to physics or chemistry: developing a computational model (mathematical equation) to describe an energetic phenomenon, developing models to describe kinetic molecular theory, developing models or experiments to investigate transfer of heat (i.e., entropy and, possibly, specific heat), and developing models to show electric or magnetic fields. Standard PS3-3 actually has the students designing and building a device to investigate conversion of energy, which could allow for the use of inquiry in the classroom. Equally, PS3-4 (designing an experiment to show entropy) could also incorporate the use of inquiry, which I view as a positive attribute.

            Finally, Waves and their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer (HS-PS4) includes mathematical descriptions of wave behavior, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of digital technologies, wave-particle duality, evaluating claims based on the absorption of electromagnetic energy, and communicating technical information on wave behavior used in technology. This DCI keeps students at the upper ends of Bloom’s Taxonomy, evaluating and communicating information (the students are not just memorizing facts they will forget after the test). This type of learning helps to build a solid comprehension (and retention) of the material, helps to build cognitive growth, and helps to build scientific literacy, since students are engaged in evaluating claims made by the industry, using scientific knowledge the students have acquired. These goals are consistent with the stated goals of NGSS and consistent with what we know from learning theory (e.g., children are building models as they transition from concrete operational to formal operational learning).

            Nonetheless, these standards will be ineffective in promoting learning without the cooperation of the school, including the reinforcement of pre-requisites for science and mathematical classes. My classmates and I informally just had a discussion regarding the phenomenon of guidance counselors to fail to properly reinforce pre-requisites and the difficulty this brings to the teacher.  Unfortunately, I have the experience of trying to teach balancing equations and stoichiometry for students who have not had algebra (or who “passed” it with a D); it not only slows up the entire class, the students who do not meet the pre-requisite just become frustrated. It isn’t the fault of the students, but they are the ones who suffer when inappropriately placed in science and math classes. For example, HS-PS4-1 (mathematically representing the relationships among wavelength, speed of waves, and frequency in different media) would be extremely difficult to teach to students who do not understand how to express the relationships among any terms (e.g., x and y) in an equation. It will make it hard for me to follow NGSS when I certainly will have some students in my classes who, through no fault of their own, have been placed in my class without meeting the pre-requisites.

            Additionally, another possible disadvantage that exists in the implementation of NGSS is that autonomy will be taken away from the teacher. The newer editions of Pearson’s high school chemistry textbook have full pages in each chapter devoted to meeting the standards, how to teach to ELLs, and how to prepare students for standardized tests for each particular topic. I take these pages as suggestions on activities, not as requirements on the curriculum I develop, but the attitude of my principal and the parents will affect to what extent I am expected to follow these “suggestions.” What this means is that I will have to be prepared to explain my rational when I deviate from “the program” and to establish lines of communication with the parents at the beginning of the school year.

            A criticism that I have specific to DCI is I believe some rote memorization is in fact necessary, but the paradigms behind NGSS discourage rote memorization. Schema theory teaches us that learners need to build hooks upon which to organize their knowledge; without learning more of the names for things (e.g., following the recommendations of HS-PS1-1), it may be hard for students to learn the concepts. For instance, I think it would be very inconvenient for students to learn about the intermolecular forces without using the appropriate terms; calling dipole-dipole moments “the force in which the polar end of a molecule aligns with a nonpolar end of another molecule” would be very inconvenient and might interfere with the students developing a schema for the forces. That is, I know the point is to get students away from rote memorization without comprehension, but some memorization might be necessary.

            Additionally, I question whether these concepts are pared down enough and that the NGSS went far enough in eliminating material, so that only the “essential” concepts remain. Generally, there are topics taught in chemistry that are only taught out of tradition and not in the context of what is useful in current research; students study the ideal gas because they have always studied the ideal gas law, not because it is useful at all in today's research. Equally, balancing nuclear reactions seem to be just thrown in as standards into PS1; if students are only expected to learn how to balance the reactions (without any context), I don’t see the point in having them discuss nuclear reactions at all. It might be helpful, in terms of building scientific literacy, to have a discussion with the students on the social implications of nuclear power (especially to confront the misconception that the ability to make a nuclear warhead is the same thing as the ability to make a nuclear reactor); however, without adding more expectations to HS-PS1-8, I don’t see the point of including it at all. 

            Overall, the themes that I gather from reading the standards of each DCI related to what I intend to teach are emphases on:

•          Building devices, models, and mathematical relationships to describe and investigate core concepts  related to the physical sciences
•        Collaboration (e.g., building the models) and communication of “scientific” claims and students’ own  findings
•   Interdisciplinary learning, especially including connections made among chemistry, physics, engineering, and mathematics

At the 9^th through 12^th grades, students may have difficulties grasping abstract concepts, but they will develop their ability to engage in abstract thought through the practice of building physical and mathematical models. Building devices and developing their own experiments will allow students to gain mastery of the material and develop their lab techniques, and they will need to develop their logical thinking skills in order to communicate and defend their findings. Besides standardized test scores, a qualitative measure of how successful NGSS is in promoting scientific literacy will be society's reaction (in the form of election poll results, Pearson material, comments to NPR, etc.) to the type of scientifically illiterate claims that make it to the national zeitgeist. I do have reservations about both the implementation of and some of the principles behind NGSS; however, I believe that the above-given emphases will be successful to some extent in promoting inquiry, comprehension of scientific concepts, and students’ cognitive development.