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:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorPhenomenal Science Leadership Team Archives
February 2022
|