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.
No comments:
Post a Comment