Basing Science Learning in EvidenceA Framework for K-12 Science Education emphasizes the need for students to support the development of their ideas with evidence, in accordance with how the scientific community practices science. It states, “all sciences share certain common features at the core of their inquiry-based and problem-solving approaches. Chief among these features is a commitment to data and evidence as the foundation for developing claims. . . . In short, scientists constitute a community whose members work together to build a body of evidence and devise and test theories.” (NAP, 2011, p. 27) Taking Science to School (NAP, 2008) suggests four areas of science proficiency. One of the four is “2. Generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations.” (NAP, 2011, p. 252) In line with this nature of science and science understanding, Phenomenal Science emphasizes that students develop their understanding of science concepts based on scientific evidence. This means that students need to be engaged in collecting evidence, analyzing evidence, comparing evidence, discussing evidence and using evidence to construct arguments and explanations. There are several powerful strategies that teachers can use to engage students in making their thinking audible and visible and support students’ use of evidence. For example:.
All of the Instructional Strategies described in this section describe strategies to engage students in using evidence:
Class Question Boards engage students in asking and answering questions about the phenomena, through gathering and processing evidence.
0 Comments
Science Discourse
Students build science understanding of concepts through processing of hands on investigations and activities. Students first mode of processing is talk. As a result the most critical factor of teaching science in a sense-making fashion is engaging students in discourse. Discourse can transpire as whole-class discussions, partner sharing, or small group work, but a key factor for each mode is teacher guidance and facilitation of powerful discourse questions. Often teachers will plan for these key questions in light of feedback from formative assessment opportunities and observations of class processing tools such as Class Question Boards, Summary Tables, Competing Hypothoses, or class consensus models - all of which also generate whole-class discourse. Another important aspect of science discourse is the opportunity it presents to uncover student ideas, thinking, and naive conceptions which is vital to building student understanding. (NAP, 2011) These can become stepping stones if skillfully built upon with key discourse questions, further investigations, and examining other sources of evidence. As stated in What We Call Misconceptions May Be Necessary Stepping-Stones Toward Making Sense of the World “If students have the guidance and space to reason aloud with one another, they can fill the classroom with ideas about how to solve problems and why the ideas make sense in the particular context being examined (Cohen and Ball 1990). As students identify the strengths and weakness of their ideas, they position themselves to better understand the problems at hand, the extent to which the ideas may offer solutions (Bransford and Schwartz 1999), and how these ideas might help in similar contexts later. It’s helpful for us as teachers to think less about correcting misconceptions and more about helping students engage in science reasoning to try out, evaluate, and refine their resources (ideas, ways of thinking about the world) to explain real-world phenomena or solve problems.” (Campbell, Schwartz & Windschitl, 2016) The type of talk used in classrooms is a result of different things. First it is indicative of a teacher’s beliefs about students and learning. (Bevan, 2011) Secondly, it is affected by the teacher’s own history as a student and years of modeling of classroom talk. So, often what happens is that teachers may hope to conduct classroom discourse in such a way that supports student sense-making, but still find themselves slipping into a more traditional or IRE (Inquiry, Response, Evaluation as explained here and also by BACOLOR, COOK-ENDRES, LEE & ALLEN, 2014) mode. The mode Phenomenal Science teachers strive to work in with students is dubbed “Exploratory” by Atwood, Turnbull and Carpendale (2010) and is characterised by “characterized by reciprocal interactions in which students justify their statements, are open to questioning or expansion of assumptions and assertions, and work with each other's ideas, including the particulars of ideas, to co-construct and refine a shared understanding. Studies have shown that exploratory conversation is linked to enhanced learning outcomes at the elementary and secondary level.” (Bevan, 2011) One great recommendation for teachers working toward making this shift in their classrooms is to videotape your lessons and reflect on the performance. This is seconded by Oliviria suggesting “opportunities for structured reflection on teaching practice can allow educators to improve their questioning strategies, leading to deeper scientific thinking for their audiences.” (Stromholt, 2011) Having collaborative norms in place and using sentence frames to help guide the discussions are critical. Planning for the key questions a teacher will need to guide the meaning-making discussions is also critical. An excellent collection of resources for science talk can be found here. Also this section from Tools and Traits for Highly Effective Science Teaching is valuable, “Ok, I’m Teaching Science, but How Do I Know They are Learning?” (p. 44-46) Further Resources Why:
Class Question Boards Why use them? According to Vale, “Science begins by asking questions and then seeking answers. Young children understand this intuitively as they explore and try to make sense of their surroundings. . . . Encouraging questioning helps to bring the true spirit of science into our educational system, and the art of asking good questions constitutes an important skill to foster for practicing scientists.” (Vale, 2013) As noted by Weizman, Shwartz & Fortus, there are four advantages to using Class Question Boards as an instructional tool to help students make sense of phenomena:
Class Question Boards, also called Driving Question Boards are a powerful instructional strategy that engages students in processing investigations and other data to work through multiple iterations to build an explanation of a puzzling phenomenon. They, similar to Summary Tables, Competing Hypotheses, become a bridge between experiences and conceptual understanding. In order to complete them, students and classrooms must experience rich science discourse based on experiences and several of the Science and Engineering Practices, especially Asking Questions. How Do We Use Class Question Boards? Initial set up: When first introducing the CQB at the beginning of an instructional cycle (often shortly after presenting the anchoring phenomenon), students are invited to brainstorm as many questions as they can about the phenomenon. Encourage students to ask questions that they feel will help them explain the phenomenon. With older students this initial brainstorm may be done in notebooks or on sticky notes followed by a small group discussion of their questions. With younger students, these may be shared first in small groups (without recording). Then in a whole class discourse each team can share one question at a time which is then recorded by the teacher on chart paper or white board. During this recording, all responses are accepted and other groups are invited to concur with nominated questions if they had a similar question in their group. This could be recorded as check marks or pluses next to the questions, or if written on stickies, they may add the question to that area of the board. Once all questions have been shared and recorded, often students can be invited to look for patterns and decide if some questions are related and should be “put together” or grouped in some fashion. One great teacher tip from Nordine and Torres, suggests that teachers make a “draft” CQB before this initial set up with students, to refer to during this discussion and sharing so that any redirecting might occur as necessary. (Nordine and Torres, 2013) This could be crafted by looking at the “Investigation Questions” for each lesson in the cycle. Finally, it is not critical that all questions are included at this phase since students typically will discover in the midst of exploring that there are other questions they need to find answers to. (Nordine and Torres, 2013) we know?” and “What questions do we still need to know?” Often times this will also lead to revisions of the CQB in which some questions are removed, some are answered, some evidence may be included, and/or some new questions are added. As noted by Nordine and Torres, “During sense-making discussions at the end of activities, the DQB is helpful for ensuring focus and fostering deeper thinking about the most central ideas in the unit. If a student asks an “off-the-wall” question, we can honor the student’s curiosity without derailing the discussion by asking him or her to write the question on a sticky note and put it in a “parking lot” section of the DQB, which holds questions that are interesting but not related.” (Nordine and Torres, 2013) Finally, at the end of an IC, we can finalize the CQB by ensuring that the critical questions for explaining the phenomenon are answered and that there is also supporting evidence for our answers. If there are further questions arising, suggest some other resources or upcoming opportunities there might be to answer them. Relate this process to how scientists ask and answer questions and note, “there is always more questions to be answered in science!” At this point, the CQB is an excellent tool and resource for students to use in crafting a final explanation, argument, or model to explain the Anchoring Phenomenon. Class Question Boards cause students to employ scientific practices to consider big ideas and develop concepts in a highly engaging way. After all the questions come from the students! As Wiggins and McTighe note, “From a pedagogical point of view, we seek questions that are likely to make students want to do two things: (1) actively pursue an inquiry and not be satisfied with glib, superficial answers, and (2) willingly learn content along the way in the service of the inquiry. That's why the best questions, used properly, make learning more active and enjoyable. When such questions are employed effectively, students experience far less sense of pointless drudgery because they are acquiring knowledge and skill for more obvious and worthy reasons. The learning is thus more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated, making it far more likely that students will persist with the work required for understanding and continuous improvement.” (2013) Some Resources for further investigation:
A Word About VocabularyTwo of the Core Principles of Phenomenal Science are “Activity before Concept” and then “Concept before Vocabulary”. These two principles sum up the core of what needs to happen with science instruction in regards to vocabulary and imply a sequence for developing understanding prior to introducing vocabulary. In shifting our science instruction to be more three dimensional as required by the new Michigan Science Standards, students need to learn science by doing science practices. As a result, students should be introduced to vocabulary that they need after they have begun to develop a concept of it through real experiences. during reading of the text, fine for teachers to highlight the vocabulary that students discovered in the investigation experience. For science vocabulary, it has been shown to not be helpful to pre-introduce or front-load the terms in our instruction. Vocabulary should be introduced as students experience a need for that term - often during an experience, investigation, or sense-making activity. We often use the phrasing "Scientists call that _________." As informational text usually follows this sequence, it makes sense to highlight the terms within it that students might have experienced, seen or heard earlier and help students connect them to the students' real experiences. Since the hands on experiences should happen prior to most reading of informational text in a Phenomenal Science instructional cycle, this is a great reinforcement of both the concept and the term to note them when encountered in the text. Many teachers have found that having students keep a “Glossary” section in their notebooks is a great way to have students track and define the vocabulary after they have built a concept of it. In this way, students might first write the word on the notebook entry they are keeping for investigation or sense-making when they first are introduced to it, highlight it there. Later, students add all highlighted words to the glossary when it is time for a more formal definition. This more formal definition is often introduced or co-constructed during an Explain portion of an instructional cycle sometimes in conjunction with an informational text or video. As can be seen this model fits nicely with the Michigan K-3 Literacy essentials which state: The teacher
Within PS Units the authors have identified lists of vocab (not exhaustive) that students will probably need for each instructional cycle. These vocabulary lists can be found in the in the Learning Plan Overview for each unit. You can see an example of this on p. 19-20 of Unit 1.3 Learning Plan Overview. The introduction of vocabulary has been described by the process outlined above and can certainly be embedded in the many various read-alouds suggested in the units. Words will also be used on class consensus models, explanations, arguments, and / or other anchor charts such as CQBs, Summary Tables / KLEWs Charts. Planning out child friendly definitions is a wonderful way to anticipate how to introduce the words to students as the students find they need them. Students will have additional opportunities to use the vocabulary in the various experiments, investigations, and books and highlighting these is a good practice for teachers prepare to teach PS units. Students will also have further opportunities to work with the words during use of exploration station, which can be embedded into all instructional cycles. It is important to note why vocabulary is found in this portion of the Unit Plan. Students will best remember and understand vocabulary when it is introduced in the process of discovering that concept. So as students are investigating the liquid found on the outside of a cold glass of water and drawing their models of this idea, but struggling with what to call it, it is a good time to say something like “scientists call that ‘condensation’.” To introduce terms earlier or front load them takes the discovery out of the power of the students. A great example of this can be seen in the video, “Responsive Talk: How Students Use Vocabulary” from Ambitious Science Teaching.
When students are ready for some more explicit vocabulary work, what are some tools and tasks that can help them further build understanding? Watch “Everyday Language and Science Language” and consider the article “Interactive Word Walls” for some ideas about connecting students everyday experiences with the new vocabulary. Another vocabulary tool example can be found in Phenomenal Science Unit 2.1, see Lesson?? Finally, use the Vocabulary Planning Guide to help you plan your vocabulary instruction for your next unit. Some other helpful resources:
ConstructivismConstructivism is basically a theory -- based on observation and scientific study -- about how people learn. It says that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. When we encounter something new, we have to reconcile it with our previous ideas and experience, maybe changing what we believe, or maybe discarding the new information as irrelevant. In any case, we are active creators of our own knowledge. To do this, we must ask questions, explore, and assess what we know. Additional Links and Resources: Concept2class: Constructivism Learning theories: Constructivism Constructivist Views of Learning in Science and Mathematics Constructivist Teaching Science Teaching and learning in science: A new perspective In the classroom, the constructivist view of learning can point towards a number of different teaching practices. In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques (experiments, real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their understanding is changing. The teacher makes sure she understands the students' preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them. In a constructivist classroom, learning is . . .
Use a Learning Theory: Constructivism Video Constructivist Learning Video What happens when a student gets a new piece of information? The constructivist model says that the student compares the information to the knowledge and understanding he/she already has, and one of three things can occur:
As an outgrowth of Constructivist Learning and Social Learning Theory, Dewey’s Inquiry Based Learning in the form of Guided Inquiry becomes the backbone of Phenomenal Science units. Each instructional Cycle follows a modified “Five E Approach” as proposed by Bybee. This model helps us ensure that investigations happen prior to asking students to develop concepts and that student concepts have begun forming before we introduce vocabulary or expert voice. As has been noted in How People Learn, “ Simply telling students what scientists have discovered, for example, is not sufficient to support change in their existing preconceptions about important scientific phenomena.2 Similarly, simply asking students to follow the steps of “the scientific method” is not sufficient to help them develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will enable them to understand what it means to “do science” and participate in a larger scientific community. And the general absence of metacognitive instruction in most of the science curricula we experienced meant that we were not helped in learning how to learn, or made capable of inquiry on our own and in groups. Often, moreover, we were not supported in adopting as our own the questioning stance and search for both supporting and conflicting evidence that are the hallmarks of the scientific enterprise.” (How People Learn, page 398) The key factor being that students should EXPERIENCE a phenomenon or concept before they try to describe it or read about it. So in each iteration within the instructional cycle in PS units we strive to ensure students have as real and concrete an experience as possible. This is followed most naturally by student talk as a way to make meaning of the experience (perhaps whole-class, partners, or collaborative groups or some mix). The next step to build upon the experience and layer in meaning would be drawing followed by writing and reading. Whether reading or writing most naturally follows drawing is dependent on the level of text or writing task. Of course, once the concrete experience occurs, often times the next steps happen simultaneously or at least with student talk layered throughout the process. This is the sort of “Gradual Release of Responsibility” that works most naturally in developing student explanations of phenomena. As one can see the Guided Inquiry Model allows students to build from more concrete experiences to abstract experiences. Within each iteration throughout the instructional cycle, students get closer in their own explanation, model, or argument about the phenomenon to a “scientific” one. The following shows a description of the types of activities that occur in each of the phases of the Five E Inquiry Model followed in Phenomenal Science units. For an even deeper dive into understanding inquiry-based teaching visit Concept to Classroom’s Inquiry Based Learning Workshop. For a synopsis of the research supporting the use of Inquiry-Based instruction, visit Inspired Issue Brief: Inquiry Based Teaching and Teach Thought’s 10 Benefits of Using Inquiry-Based Teaching. Another key aspect of the Guided Inquiry model followed in PS units, is the challenge of following this model at the same time as encouraging students own questions and ideas. Through the discourse, drawing, and students questions, the artful teacher will fine tune the craft of using what students bring to the experience as the springboard for the next experience, discourse, reading or writing. One guide for encouraging this sort of interaction between teacher and curriculum goals and student-driven ideas can be found in the suggestions given in Playful Inquiry for Elementary Students. For some more ideas, check out TeachThought’s 60 Ways to Help Students Think for Themselves. Further, as students and teachers move through each instructional cycle from beginning to end, they become more adept at managing the skills of inquiry and the Science and Engineering Practices. Another layer of gradual release of responsibility occurs in this way as well. This article from Edutopia is an excellent resource for helping students take charge of the inquiry process: Inquiry-based Learning from Teacher-Guided to Student-Driven. This same article also shows how helpful Classroom Question Boards and Exploration Stations can be as does the article: Inquiry-Based Learning: Developing Student-Driven Questions. Hopefully, these resources put Phenomenal Science teachers and students well on the way to learning together through inquiry. Social Constructivism is theory about how students learn posed by Vygotsky. It is related to the theory of constructivism and has many aspects in common such as:
Going further, however, social constructivism emphasizes the necessity of collaboration for learning to occur. According to Vygotsky, language and culture are critical to cognitive development. (GSI Teaching & Resource Center, 2018) In fact he “posits that learner construction of knowledge is the product of social interaction, interpretation and understanding (Vygotsky, 1962). As the creation of knowledge cannot be separated from the social environment in which it is formed, learning is viewed as a process of active knowledge construction (Woolfolk, 1993)” (Adams, 2006) Furthermore, because of the nature of language, “knowledge constructs are formed first on an inter-psychological level (between people) before becoming internalized or existing intra-psychologically (Daniels, 2001).” (Adams, 2006) This theory recognizes three major components of social learning: (David, 2014)
Social Constructivism also strongly advocates that experience is crucial to the student construction of true understanding. Vygotsky distinguished “between the genuine or 'scientific' concepts learned as a result of schooling and the 'everyday' or 'spontaneous' concepts learned by the child elsewhere." (Wertsch, 1985, p. 102). The link between formal and informal concepts, according to Vygotsky, takes place through the use of the psychological tool of language.” (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002) Language is the mitigator between the known and the unknown and the main powerful tool wielded by learners to construct understanding together about experiences. Without language students would not be able to move from thinking of concrete experiences to higher order abstract thinking. (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002) “According to Vygotsky, language serves as a psychological tool that causes a fundamental change in mental functions.” (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002)
Going further, however, social constructivism emphasizes the necessity of collaboration for learning to occur. According to Vygotsky, language and culture are critical to cognitive development. (GSI Teaching & Resource Center, 2018) In fact he “posits that learner construction of knowledge is the product of social interaction, interpretation and understanding (Vygotsky, 1962). As the creation of knowledge cannot be separated from the social environment in which it is formed, learning is viewed as a process of active knowledge construction (Woolfolk, 1993)” (Adams, 2006) Furthermore, because of the nature of language, “knowledge constructs are formed first on an inter-psychological level (between people) before becoming internalized or existing intra-psychologically (Daniels, 2001).” (Adams, 2006)
This theory recognizes three major components of social learning: (David, 2014)
Social Constructivism also strongly advocates that experience is crucial to the student construction of true understanding. Vygotsky distinguished “between the genuine or 'scientific' concepts learned as a result of schooling and the 'everyday' or 'spontaneous' concepts learned by the child elsewhere." (Wertsch, 1985, p. 102). The link between formal and informal concepts, according to Vygotsky, takes place through the use of the psychological tool of language.” (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002) Language is the mitigator between the known and the unknown and the main powerful tool wielded by learners to construct understanding together about experiences. Without language students would not be able to move from thinking of concrete experiences to higher order abstract thinking. (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002) “According to Vygotsky, language serves as a psychological tool that causes a fundamental change in mental functions.” (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002) Adams suggests a number of principles of Social Constructivism:
He summarizes that “the most obvious reform required then is the devising of more open-ended tasks that require students to think critically, solve complex problems and apply their knowledge in and to their own world (Shepard, 2000). “ (Adams, 2006) Which mirrors what is recommend by the NRC: An important stage of inquiry and of student science learning is the oral and written discourse that focuses the attention of students on how they know what they know and how their knowledge connects to larger ideas, other domains, and the word beyond the classroom. . . . Using a collaborative group structure, teachers encourage interdependency among group members, assisting students to work together in small groups so that all participate in sharing data and in developing group reports. (National Research Council, 1996, p.36) (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002) Some practical classroom suggestions can be found in the Social Constructivism section of University College Dublin’s Constructivism and Social Constructivism in the Classroom. TeachThought defines Student Centered Learning as “a process of learning that puts the needs of the students over the conveniences of planning, policy, and procedure.” (4 Principles Of Student-Centered Learning, TeachThought) Student Centered Learning within Phenomenal Science also integrates some factors meta-analyses of research, neuroscience research, even some theories such as Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences, Glasser’s Choice Theory and Kolb’s Learning Styles. As Dewey states “The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative.” (Dewey, 1938) This “‘learning orientation’ (Watkins, 2001) keeps the locus of control squarely with the pupil.” When this happens, students recognize that learning comes through effort are are rewarded with an increase in achievement and personal power and growth. (Adams, 2006; Dweck, 1999; Glasser, 1998) “In this orientation, learners . . . derive satisfaction from perseverance and success in difficult tasks (Dweck, 1999; Watkins, 2001).” (Adams, 2006) Historically, there have been several champions of this sort “progressive” education, as noted by Windschitl: “Early progressive movements championed “child-centered” approaches and advocated much the same instructional philosophy as constructivism does today. In the late 1800s, Francis Parker led reforms in Quincy, Mass., and at Chicago’s Cook County Normal School based, in part, on the child-centered theories of Rousseau, Froebel, and Pestallozi (Farnham Diggory, 1990). He emphasized learning in context, for example, by taking his students on trips across the local countryside during geography classes rather than having them recite countries and capitals. His students created their own stories for “Reading Leaflets,” which replaced both the primers in his grammar schools and the rote learning that went with them (Stone, 1999). In 1919, Helen Parkhurst founded the Dalton School on the principles (among others) that school programs should be adapted to the needs and interests of the students and that students should work to become autonomous learners (Semel, 1999). Similarly, John Dewey routinely used the common experiences of childhood as starting points for drawing his students into the more sophisticated forms of knowledge represented in the disciplines (Dewey, 1902/1956). He intended that educative experiences be social, connected to previous experiences, embedded in meaningful contexts, and related to students’ developing understanding of content (Dewey, 1938). (Windschitl M., 2002) Some of the most commonly touted research work done in this area was conducted by Kolb in the 1960s. He identified three “learning styles:” Auditory, Visual, and Kinesthetic. More recently, Gardner identified between seven to ning various areas of intelligence. Kolb’s and further research eventually showed that while students may have preferences, at one period in their life or another, that we all take and process information through all modes and all areas of intelligence can be grown and strengthened.”There is no strong evidence that teachers should tailor their instruction to their students' particular learning styles . . . .’Matching is not a particularly good idea,’ Mr. Kolb says. . . . (There are) ‘practical and ethical problems of sorting people into groups and labeling them. Tracking in education has a bad history.’” (Finley, 2015) According to Finley, Moore states “that ‘the best way to honor people's individuality isn't to shove them into simplistic categories.’ But it isn't to treat them as identical robots either, and this requires beginning with the person, and not with the content.” (Finley, 2015) The take away for teachers today, supported by brain-based research, is that the more students are active in all three modes while learning, helps brains build connections and meaning. (Jensen, 2010) Some key instructional strategies that are supported by this include investigations, collaborative work, and sense-making activities such as summary tables and CQBs. In the realm of psychology in the latter portion of the 20th century, Glasser’s research determined that people have five psychological needs: survival, freedom, power, belonging, and fun (Glasser, 1998). According to Glasser’s Choice Theory, every action people take is motivated to meet one or more of these needs (Glasser, 1998). A key implication for classrooms is to ensure that students are able to use classroom activities to meet their needs, and that teachers help students recognize how these activities can do that. This theory further implies that classroom instruction allows for student choice, encourages belonging by building in social interactions and ensure emotional safety, that activities appeal to students, and finally that they are a level appropriate to gain understanding and thus gain power. There is a strong link here with Vygotsky’s Social Learning Theory also. As noted by Irving, “to meet Glasser's five needs, social interaction is paramount. (2015). Further, he states also, “emotion is a major component of needs satisfaction (Louis, 2009), and thus emotion is a major component of learning (Sullo, 2007).” (Irvine, 2015) Some cognitive research suggests that students learn best under certain brain-friendly conditions. Sprenger notes the following (corresponding image derived from teachthought.com):
Research-Based Theories and Models, part 5 - Bloom's taxonomy and Well's depth of knowledge7/21/2017 Higher Order Thinking and Depth of Knowledge“Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be worked.” (Dewey, 1916) According to Barak and Dori there is much agreement that “A central goal of science education is to help students to develop higher order thinking skills, enabling them to think critically, ask significant questions, reason, and solve problems (Bybee and DeBoer 1994; Zohar and Dori 2003; Zoller 1993).” (2009) In fact, a decade prior to the NGSS, “To comply with science education reform (National Research Council (NRC) 1996, 2000; National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) 2003) and the Standards for Professional Development in Schools (NCATE 2001), science teachers are expected to apply constructivist learning and higher order thinking among their students (Barak et al. 2007; Dori and Herscovitz 2005; Tobin et al. 1990).” (Barak and Dori, 2009) As described by King and colleagues, “Higher order thinking skills include critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive, and creative thinking. They are activated when individuals encounter unfamiliar problems, uncertainties, questions, or dilemmas. Successful applications of the skills result in explanations, decisions, performances, and products that are valid within the context of available knowledge and experience and that promote continued growth in these and other intellectual skills. . . . Appropriate teaching strategies and learning environments facilitate their growth as do student persistence, self-monitoring, and open-minded, flexible attitudes.” (King, Goodson & Rohani) In 1956, Bloom suggested a taxonomy of six levels of thinking. Since then the levels have been slightly revised by his colleagues. “In the new version, Anderson and colleagues changed the nouns to verbs to reflect thinking as an active process. Revised Category #1: Knowledge → Remember Revised Category #2: Comprehension → Understand Revised Category #3: Application → Apply Revised Category #4: Analysis → Analyzing Revised Category #5: Evaluation → Design Revised Category #6: Synthesis → Create” (Tankersley, 2005) setting, or the situation - which students will express and share the depth and extent of their learning. Are they expected to acquire knowledge (DOK-1)? Apply knowledge (DOK-2)? Analyze knowledge (DOK-3)? Augment knowledge (DOK-4)?” (Francis 2016) In further comparison, Francis explains: “In teaching and learning for cognitive rigor, Bloom's determines the cognition or thinking students are expected to demonstrate as part of a learning experience. That's the verb that starts the educational objective or academic standard. Webb's designates the context - the scenario, setting, and situation - students are expected to express and share what they are learning.” (Francis 2016) He further proposes that the DoK be looked at like “ceilings” and not as the ubiquitous “DoK Wheel” which does not represent the cognitive rigor accurately. For an example see, Webb’s DoK Model Context Ceilings.
Why does Phenomenal Science consider the research and theory with Higher Order thinking and Depth of Knowledge? As stated by Hess and colleagues,
“Students learn skills and acquire knowledge more readily when they can transfer their learning to new or more complex situations, a process more likely to occur once they have developed a deep understanding of content (National Research Council, 2001). Therefore, ensuring that a curriculum aligns to standards alone will not prepare students for the challenges of the twenty-first century. Teachers must therefore provide all students with challenging tasks and demanding goals, structure learning so that students can reach high goals, and enhance both surface and deep learning of content (Hattie, 2002). Both Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's depth of knowledge therefore serve important functions in education reform at the state level in terms of standards development and assessment alignment. (Hess, et al, 2009) It has been shown that higher order thinking and deeper knowledge are promoted by “implementing a constructivist-oriented pedagogy” and especially by implementing science discourse. (Barak and Dori, 2009) This is due to the nature of the process of building understanding through discourse. As noted by Barak and Dori, students “demand evidence to support opinions and challenge facts, assumptions, and arguments underlying different viewpoints. Since a good discussion involves posing questions, expressing critical views, and providing arguments to support one’s views (Graesser et al. 2002), it enhances higher order thinking skills among its participants.” (Barak and Dori, 2009) To sum up the critical importance of HOTS and DoK for Phenomenal Science, as Hess states, ”Because students need exposure to novel and complex activities every day, schools in the twenty-first century should prepare students by providing them with a curriculum that spans a wide range of the cognitive rigor matrix.” (Hess, et al, 2009) Further, as Bloom notes, “Education must be increasingly concerned about the fullest development of all children and youth, and it will be the responsibility of the schools to seek learning conditions which will enable each individual to reach the highest level of learning possible.” (Bloom as quoted by Farr, 2006) Because the NGSS are quite rigorous and require higher order thinking and also depth of knowledge, we have have integrated many recommended instructional strategies to ensure a matching level of rigor in Phenomenal Science. Some of these recommended strategies are:
Some Resources:
Understanding by Design The second pillar is Understanding by Design which has shown that learners understand more deeply when teachers aim to help students develop “a conceptual framework of concepts and ideas that facilitates meaningful learning.” (Wiggins & McTighe, accessed 2018
“The Understanding by Design framework is guided by research from cognitive psychology. A readable synthesis of these findings is compiled in the book How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2002),” (McTighe and Seif, accessed 2018) Studies have found that successful curricula focus on “understanding the underlying concepts and then applying learning to new situations.” (Wiggins & McTighe, accessed 2018) This sort of “authentic pedagogy” in which students are expected to “explore connections and relationships so as to produce relatively complex understandings; to organize, synthesize, interpret or explain complex information; to elaborate on their understanding through extended writing or to make connections to the world beyond the classroom,” was determined to increase student achievement substantially and decrease the gap between high and low performing students. (Wiggins & McTighe, accessed 2018) Further, Wiggins and McTighe have found that “student achievement is strengthened when the curriculum is coherent, developmental, and allows for in-depth learning . . . students engage in . . . academic performance tasks that enable them to apply their learning; when they ask questions and develop strategies for problem solving, . . . (and engage in) meaning and understanding-based instructional strategies.” (Wiggins & McTighe, accessed 2018) With this pillar of Phenomenal Science, the program has been developed according to the six tenets suggested by Wiggins and McTighe: “based on the following key tenets: 1. A primary goal of education is the development and deepening of student understanding. 2. Evidence of student understanding is revealed when students apply knowledge and skills within authentic contexts. 3. Effective curriculum development reflects a three-stage design process called “backward design.” This process helps to avoid the twin problems of “textbook coverage” and “activity-oriented” teaching in which no clear priorities and purposes are apparent. 4. Regular reviews of curriculum and assessment designs, based on design standards, are needed for quality control, to avoid the most common design mistakes and disappointing results. . . . 5. Teachers provide opportunities for students to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess. These “six facets” provide conceptual lenses through which students reveal their understanding. 6. Teachers, schools, and districts benefit by “working smarter”—using technology and other approaches to collaboratively design, share, and critique units of study.” (McTighe and Seif, accessed 2018 Current Science Education Research“Traditional Science Instruction” has been described as focusing on a behaviorist view, focusing on a product (student knowing facts), students as passive direction-followers, and teachers in control and transmitting all the content to students. (Silber, 2018) It has been also characterized as product / performance focused, not process-focused. (Vigeant, 2016) “In the past, when students have offered explanations inconsistent with science (such as ascribing the seasons to the changing distance between the Earth and the Sun), these ideas were seen as problematic misconceptions needing to be “stamped out” by the teacher with the correct ideas ‘stamped in.’” (Campbell, Schwarz & Windschitl, 2016) Obviously, the traditional mode of science instruction is not helping students achieve conceptual science understanding as evidenced by test scores (Falkenberg, McClure & McComb, 2006) or persevere into STEM careers. Calls for change in instruction hearken all the way back to the turn of the previous century. (Lederman, 2006) Research supports that this traditional science instruction is not supportive of growth in science conceptual understanding. According to How Students Learn Science,
“Simply telling students what scientists have discovered, for example, is not sufficient to support change in their existing preconceptions about important scientific phenomena.2 Similarly, simply asking students to follow the steps of “the scientific method” is not sufficient to help them develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will enable them to understand what it means to “do science” and participate in a larger scientific community. And the general absence of metacognitive instruction in most of the science curricula we experienced meant that we were not helped in learning how to learn, or made capable of inquiry on our own and in groups. Often, moreover, we were not supported in adopting as our own the questioning stance and search for both supporting and conflicting evidence that are the hallmarks of the scientific enterprise” (NAP, 2005) In Taking Science to School, there were four factors determined to be necessary for students to make sense of science: “That report defined the following four strands of proficiency, which it maintained are interwoven in successful science learning:
As noted previously, it has long been recognized that students bring their own naive conceptions of science concepts with them to the science classroom. (NAP 1999) However, “an early focus on finding and fixing misconceptions can confuse students about why their own ideas aren’t accurate and fails to engage students in reasoning or idea revision. When their misconceptions are “corrected,” students learn that their own ideas need to be replaced by other ideas that they don’t fully understand. When this happens, students will likely memorize official “school” knowledge but fall back on their original ideas when thinking about and explaining the outside world, since they naturally reason with their own real-world experiences, language, and rules for validating claims.”(Campbell, Schwarz & Windschitl, 2016; NAP 1999) “This finding requires that teachers be prepared to draw out their students' existing understandings and help to shape them into an understanding that reflects the concepts and knowledge in the particular discipline of study.” (NAP 1999) However, as noted by. Falkenberg and colleagues, there is a disconnect between how science is taught and the research describing how people learn. Often, it seems that science continues to be taught “superficial memorization level and do not teach science in ways that support deep student learning.” (Falkenberg, McClure & McComb, 2006) It becomes apparent, then, that educators can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. In order for students to master science concepts, there are two key factors identified in How People Learn. First we must work toward deep understanding, “transforming it (content) from a set of facts into usable knowledge” (NAP, 1999) and facilitate development of students’ conceptual framework. “The conceptual framework allows experts to organize information into meaningful patterns and store it hierarchically in memory to facilitate retrieval for problem solving. And unlike pure acquisition of factual knowledge, the mastery of concepts facilitates transfer of learning to new problems.” (NAP, 1999) Secondly, it has been shown that experts are metacognitive in that they determine when they need more information, when there is a disconnect with new information and old, and consider alternatives and are mindful of whether the one chosen is leading to the desired end. (NAP, 1999) This is what mastery looks like. However, as noted in Taking Science to School, children bring to science class a natural curiosity and a set of ideas and conceptual frameworks that incorporate their experiences of the natural world and other information that they have learned. Since these experiences vary, children at a given age have a wide range in their skills, knowledge, and conceptual development. A teacher therefore needs to be able to evaluate each child’s knowledge and conceptual and skill development, as well as the child’s level of metacognition about his or her own knowledge, skills, and concepts, in order to provide a learning environment that moves each child’s development in all these areas. (NAP, 2007) So if mastery of science is our goal for all students, what is the course of action recommended by the research in regard to science education? In order to match the research about how students learn to science education, The Framework and NGSS were developed.According to the Framework, “The four strands (described by Taking Science to School) imply that learning science involves learning a system of thought, discourse, and practice—all in an interconnected and social context—to accomplish the goal of working with and understanding scientific ideas. This perspective stresses how conceptual understanding is linked to the ability to develop explanations of phenomena and to carry out empirical investigations in order to develop or evaluate those knowledge claims.” (NAP 2011) According to Krajcik, "Perhaps the most significant shift . . . is that students need to make sense of phenomena or design solutions for problems by scientific and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts working together. . . . Making sense of phenomena and designing solutions drives the teaching and learning process. (Krajcik, 2018) From these frames of reference, we developed Phenomenal Science as a Phenomena-Based curriculum with resonating Core Principles and research-based Key Instructional Strategies which focus on sense-making. Some specific recommendations for teaching that have been determined by the research follow:
Finally, How People Learn determined that “environments that best promote learning have four interdependent aspects—they focus on learners, well-organized knowledge, ongoing assessment for understanding, and community support and challenge.” (Vanderbilt CFT, accessed 2018; NAP, 1999) More details can be seen in the text inset below: Attending to Equity
While it is known that there is an achievement gap in science between learners of different family incomes and between learners in dominant and non-dominant communities, it is also recognized that all students can learn science. (NAP, 2011; Bell & Bang, 2015) Research suggests that the gap continues to persist due to inequitable opportunities to learn science and “failures to recognize and leverage the existing science-related competencies of youth and communities.” Further, “While traditional classroom practices have been found to be successful for students whose discourse practices at home resemble those at school—mainly students from middle-class and upper-middle-class European/American homes [43]—this approach does not work very well for individuals from historically nondominant groups. For these students, traditional classroom practices function as a gatekeeper, barring them because their community’s sense-making practices may not be acknowledged [38, 44-46].” (NAP, 2011) This issue is compounded by the looming need for STEM literacy needed in our nation’s workforce now and in the future. It has also been shown that different perspectives (due to culture or gender, positively impact our understanding of science research. (Medin, Lee & Bang 2014; Bell & Bang, 2015; NAP, 2011) When students experience success, they are motivated to continue learning and persevering. Unfortunately, that is usually not the case when students are struggling through so many roadblocks and cultural barriers only to come up short. This shapes their identity in regards to science and can be the death-knell of student interest or perseverance. (NAP, 2011) So, what are science educators to do to begin to better attend to equity issues and eliminate this achievement gap? The NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education, Chapter 11 is an excellent resource along with the Next Generation Science Standards’ Appendix D - "All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students. Generally, though there is much agreement about what will make a difference for students at a disadvantage. Because students are actively engaged in doing science through the practices, the NRC suggests that the “Science and engineering practices can actually serve as productive entry points for students from diverse communities—including students from different social and linguistic traditions, particularly second-language learners.” (NAP, 2011) In light of Phenomenal Science’s three-dimensional nature, this is encouraging to note. Further it is suggested, that students begin with “lived experiences” which will level the playing field, just as the Phenomenal Science experiences begin with real phenomena, and engage students with shared hands-on experiences. As explained in the Framework: “Calabrese Barton therefore argues for allowing science and science understanding to grow out of lived experiences [28]. In doing so, people “remove the binary distinction from doing science or not doing science and being in science or being out of science, [thereby allowing] connections between [learners’] life worlds and science to be made more easily [and] providing space for multiple voices to be heard and explored” [28]. . . . Everyday experience provides a rich base of knowledge and experience to support conceptual changes in science. Students bring cultural funds of knowledge that can be leveraged, combined with other concepts, and transformed into scientific concepts over time.” (NAP, 2011) This idea of “cultural funds of knowledge” is another great tool for teachers to leverage to ensure all students are learning. It refers to the idea that all students bring stores of knowledge from informal learning and home experiences that can be “assets to build on.” Oftentimes, though, because of the diversity of these ideas, they go unrecognized in school settings for the assets they are. Some examples: ”researchers have documented that children reared in rural agricultural communities, who have regular and often intense interactions with plants and animals, develop a more sophisticated understanding of the natural world than do urban and suburban children of the same age [56]. Other researchers have identified connections between children’s culturally based stories and the scientific arguments they are capable of making [50, 57].” (NAP, 2011) And “For example, the authors synthesize research on how students use sophisticated math in everyday practices like practicing basketball, playing dominoes, and selling candy.” (Shea, 2015) It has been shown that valuing this fund of knowledge that students bring with them, enables students to build new ideas and make connections to their current understandings. As noted by Shea, “learning improves when varied student experiences are made relevant in informal and formal learning environments. . . . Robust learning environments support equity, in part, by acknowledging and building on diverse student experiences.” (Shea, 2015b) Finally, beyond just valuing existing student knowledge, research shows that it is also a rich resource for a whole class of learners. (NAP, 2011) As noted by “This research acknowledges and builds on the idea that in a community of learners both adults and children can bring ideas and resources from their everyday lives to the classroom and informal learning spaces in order to create a richer learning environment for the whole class.” (Shea, 2015a) Engaging students in discourse and sense-making is valuable for all learners and builds a bridge to connect students individual funds of knowledge. This is effective for all students even those whose first language is not English, because “engagement in the discourse and practices of science, built as it is around observations and evidence, also offers not only science learning but also a rich language-learning opportunity for such students. For both reasons, inclusion in classroom discourse and engagement in science practices can be particularly valuable for such students.” (NAP, 2011) Further, “Many equity-focused interventions have leveraged the discourse (i.e., sense-making) practices of youth to productively engage them in the language and discourse styles of science and in the learning of science. . . .Recognizing that language and discourse patterns vary across culturally diverse groups, researchers point to the importance of accepting, even encouraging, students’ classroom use of informal or native language and familiar modes of interaction [47-49].” (NAP, 2011) There are many opportunities for teachers within Phenomenal Science Units to engage students in discourse and sense-making. The further challenge is to listen and watch for evidence of students’ current understandings that they bring with them to the discourse or sense-making session and to build upon them. As noted below, research has shown there are several tips and tricks for doing this effectively:
Some Resources:
|
AuthorPhenomenal Science Leadership Team Archives
February 2022
|