Final Vision Statement

            After taking this Science Methods course, it’s hard to know where to begin in describing what I’ve learned. All of this new information has greatly added to my vision of what I plan for my science classroom. Though I have added to my repertoire of knowledge of a good science curriculum, I have some commonalities with my initial vision statements at the beginning of the semester.

            First, what hasn’t changed from now since August. I do still believe that it’s important for students to learn first-hand examples of natural science in the world. For example, I wrote in my initial vision statement about taking my students on nature walks, showing them real-life images, teaching about outer space, the human body, and elements; not just reading from a textbook, showing students live demonstrations, and caring for a worm, for instance. I also wrote about my experience as an elementary student going to “Week of the Wild” at Lake McBride Nature and Recreation Center; and stated the importance of having outdoor programs such as these for students. In all, I still have the firm belief that students should learn about science naturally through use of real-life examples and going outside to a ravine or forest, for example, and discovering raw science materials. Also, I stated the importance of teaching students they can learn about anything they want by making a hypothesis and understanding the scientific method; which I definitely still think is important.

            Now, what’s changed. In my initial vision statement, I talked about the importance of doing hands-on activities. Little did I know that in my science methods class we would learn how ineffective this was in itself. I remember when I first started learning about “inquiry” there was an assigned reading on an article titled, “Activitymania.” This article compared typical hands-on lessons with inquiry-based lessons. I agree with the article, and still do, that these hands-on lessons aren’t bad and are better than a textbook lesson. However, they’re not as effective as inquiry-based lessons because students are being passive learners (teacher is giving them the steps and procedures they are to do rather than them creating their own experiment or making their own questions). I remember this article shedding a light on the differences between typical hands-on and inquiry-based lessons.

            Another thing I have learned which has changed, or rather added, to my vision is the issue of misconceptions. Everyone has them. I know I still have many I’m unaware of. In the Sweater article, written by Bruce Watson and Richard Konicek, they describe an elementary teacher’s classroom where the teacher conducts a lesson on heat. Her fourth-grade classroom has the misconception that “warm winter clothes” are indeed warm, and though experimentation with measuring the temperature and seeing no difference, etc. their misconceptions still linger. What the article really illustrated to me was the importance of just covering material in the classroom or instead uncovering information from your students, thus their misconceptions. With today’s “teach-to-the-test” problem, it’s easier to just cover material. However, I believe it’s more important to combat these misconceptions first, so then real learning can take place.

            Another thing I have learned is of Piaget and Vygotsky’s teachings. In the Peters article, “Theoretical Foundations for Constructivist Teaching” I learned the comparisons between aforementioned Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. I agree that it’s important to keep Piaget’s “stages of learning” theory (preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational) in mind to know where your students are developmentally and intellectually. I also agree with Vygotsky in that people learn well socially and by using psychological tools and signs. I really liked the concept of schemata-sometimes we add information to our already existing schemata (present knowledge); but sometimes we have to completely readjust our schemata to make sense of incoming information. I think using both of these concepts from both of these educator’s is important in the classroom.

           Another thing that was re-emphasized through this course was the use of a science notebook. As read in the “Five Good Reasons to use a Science Notebook” article by Joan Gilbert and Marleen Kotelma, having students use these notebooks has multiple benefits. What I really like about this is the promotion of differentiated learning, teacher collaboration, guided teacher instruction, and promotion of literacy (and/or art) skills. For this, it’s cross-curricular, because students are using both their science and literacy/art skills. I really like the diversity aspect of these notebooks because since they are individualized, students can express themselves as they wish; whether it be in their native language, or drawing a lot of pictures to illustrate their findings. I also like how as the teacher, you can challenge and give each student feedback in accord with their abilities.

            Perhaps the biggest thing I have learned in this class is the importance of inquiry-based lessons, as touched on with the Activitymania article. Doing our two-day science practicum was an eye-opening experience of the advantages of teaching an inquiry-oriented lesson. In the second grade classroom my small group of student teachers went to, we made “Flubber” with our students. Though we gave students basic instructions, they had the freedom to make their own predictions, conclusions, and ways to test its properties. I believe that with inquiry-oriented lessons, students learn much more because they’re making their own predictions, instructions, conclusions, etc. I know that when I have had to create my own science experiment, such as in this class when as a small group we had a Long Term Investigation (LTI) experiment; I learned much more than had I just followed an experiment. We chose the way we wanted to test how fast or how much mold grows on a material, which we chose lettuce. Doing this peer-designed investigation really taught me a lot. Though hands-on activities are fine, it’s not nearly as effective as inquiry, as aforementioned. In point, inquiry-based learning is ideal in that students do their own learning within their ability, and grow because of it.  

            Thus, my vision for my science classroom now includes much more useful knowledge. Using science notebooks for students to record their observations, thoughts, experiments, etc. is such a valuable tool in that students can collaborate using their own abilities and also promote their literacy (and art) skills. Having discussions with students about common misconceptions, and recording them for my own records and/or a class list we could display in the classroom as they come up is useful in combatting misconceptions. Getting to the bottom of these ideas and uncovering information students is to be emphasized rather than just teaching them new information they won’t understand if not first dealing with their misconceptions. I will keep in mind students’ developmental stages, and their existing schemata when teaching new material. Teaching inquiry-based lessons is to be priority, so that students can learn as much knowledge as they can, truthfully. I still want to implement the importance of seeing scientific materials raw and in nature, such as through nature hikes or going to a program similar to “Week of the Wild.” Showing real images, demonstrations, and manipulating scientific material is important. I still hope that in my science classroom my students truly learn much about science through inquiry, observation, manipulation, and understanding the scientific method. I hope that after learning about science, students will have a better understanding of the world around them and that they will respect the environment.

SLPE Reflection - Flubber

            Maddy, Rachel, Tara, and I taught a second-grade class how to make “Flubber” and test its properties for our Science Lesson Planning and Enactment Project (SLPE). Flubber is a semi-solid, semi-liquid gooey, pliable substance that can be colored any way you would like, or left clear. We made ours green, based on the movie “Flubber”; and used a recipe which included water, glue, borax powder, and green food coloring.

Overall, it went very well. The students were all very enthusiastic and excited about making Flubber, and curious to see it form and how they could manipulate it. Despite peer concerns (when we went over our lesson in science methods class) about it being messy and children trying to eat it, this was not an issue at all. Despite little pieces of Flubber here and there on desks or on the floor, it was very neat. There was not even a need to put any newspaper or some sort of cover on their desks. Before we began the lesson, we asked students, “Now, do you think we should touch our face or our mouths when making Flubber?” to which they responded, “Noooo.” We also asked if they should eat the Flubber to which they also said, “Noooo.” They were very smart with it, and we made sure they washed their hands after the lesson was done and before we had our concluding discussion.

There were a few little things that didn’t go very well, but were easily corrected. There were of course children who wanted to make sure everything was fair. We had each given them a “job” so everyone would get to do something; though some students wanted other jobs, or were confused on the order of things. All but one group’s Flubber turned out right. The group whose didn’t turn out, Rachel made a batch at home for them. I wondered if we’d have some groups not follow directions correctly, or for whatever reasons have Flubber that didn’t turn out. All four of us made sure to walk around the tables while the students were making their Flubber to make sure it was going smoothly and safely. For the most part, children were good about taking turns and accepting what job they’d been given.

We didn’t make much change to our Flubber lesson after we peer-taught it, but one thing we did do is make sure to ask the students safety questions first. As aforementioned, we asked them if it would be a good idea to put their hands in their mouth, face, or eat the Flubber. We didn’t have this before, but after fellow classmates suggested something to make sure it would be safe, we added this. Another thing we did was make a letter home to parents before we taught the lesson informing them their child would be making Flubber. We told them that four university students would be teaching them, and on Friday their child would be sent home with their own bag. We told them that Flubber contains borax powder, which can be harmful if ingested in large amounts. However, we also told them that the amount of borax their child would have is only ¼ teaspoon. We also made a letter home from the students, in which they told their parents what they did and what they learned about making Flubber. Adding these modifications was definitely effective, clarifying safety information with students and parents’ is definitely necessary.

Students did meet performance levels. We made the students a worksheet the first day, asking them if four items were a solid or liquid. The sheet consisted of a pencil, rock, water, and milk. Not surprisingly, when I first started walking around the room, most students knew easily how to decipher each. However, I was surprised that quite a few students still had confusion. I saw many label the rock as “liquid” and the milk as “solid.” This was interesting, too, because the first question on the worksheet asked students what a property is, which most knew what this meant. The last question allowed students to make their prediction on what they think would happen when we mixed the solid powder, liquid glue, and liquid water. Most said “Flubber” (having seen the video clip-and one student had already made Flubber with his mother, as well); while a lot wrote “gooey.” After we had a more detailed discussion on properties, students seemed to grasp more the difference between a solid and liquid, and what can happen if we mix some of them.

We stayed mainly on point with what we planned in our lesson. However, who did what tended to change. The first day it was all as planned, with Tara and I doing the introduction, Rachel modeling and asking the safety questions, and Maddy concluding. However, the second day our roles got all switched. It all worked out, though, and we helped each other complete each task. There were little things we didn’t put into our lesson plan, such as clean-up and getting set up. It just so worked out for a few of us plus the teacher to wipe down the desks with antibacterial wipes while Maddy was concluding the first day; and then wash the bowls in the bathroom after we left the classroom.

The second day there wasn’t as much of a mess, but students had specials that day and had to get ready for the end of the day. We didn’t know this, so in addition to them getting their Flubber put away in their Ziploc bag and writing their name on it, they had to take everything from their cubby and get their backpacks and coats ready to go, and turn their chairs onto their desk. It was interesting to see the class get ready to go home an hour before they really had to. Thus, my point is, not only were we wrapping up our lesson, but helping to get them ready for clean-up so they could go home.

I learned a lot from this lesson, namely to reinforce procedures so everything goes well, and to keep the enthusiasm going for science. Just knowing we were going to teach them science made the class so excited. Reinforcing safety by checking for understanding if students should touch their face; and informing parents about what’s being taught is necessary, especially in science lessons. I also learned classroom management techniques. It helped having Maddy doing practicum already in the classroom, so knowing how to keep students under control was a plus. She knew the students’ personalities, so was able to effectively put them in groups to make Flubber. If we needed their attention, we simply did some sort of clap, or said “Garner” and they would be good about responding, “Gators.” I learned the importance of making sure you can do this, otherwise a classroom can get out of control pretty quick (in a good way in our case). Students got so hyped up about making Flubber, and it was great; but we also had to make sure we were keeping them in check.

Since our lesson was inquiry-oriented, I learned first-hand what this means. Importantly, I learned how positive this approach is! Modeling for students the basics of what to do, but then leaving it up to them is priceless. Students were so bright-eyed that they could make their own prediction and share turns; and on the second day of the lesson, decide how to test its properties. Some students really got into using the cookie cutters, some the strainer, some bouncing it, and some stretching it. One group of students (the one whose Flubber didn’t turn out) was actually able to press theirs on written paper, and see the words on the Flubber! (I believe this was due to their Flubber being made with white glue, rather than clear glue we used the first day of the lesson; this resulted in a much paler green). Then, students got to choose what they wanted to tell their parents about, and how they could use their Flubber at home. One girl told me she was going to divide hers in half so her brother could have some, which I thought was so nice. Since students are more independent with inquiry-oriented lessons, as a teacher you need to observe students vigorously and go over general misconceptions, safety issues, and check for understanding. If students know the basics and have common sense, they will excel while inquiring their own science learning. I noticed that the more students grasped, the more they got out of making Flubber.

Honestly, I wouldn’t modify much of this lesson. I think we constructed the plan well, took our peer classmate’s advice into good consideration while making modifications, checked for understanding with our students, and created an engaging learning environment. The only thing I might change is the introduction of the lesson when we talked about properties. As aforementioned, there were some students who didn’t seem to grasp the difference between a solid or liquid. I think it would have been helpful if we showed students the materials they had to decipher on their worksheet. For example, modeling a pencil, then a rock, then water, and then milk; we could go through what makes a property what it is, while holding the object. Students could physically manipulate them to understand why they are a solid or liquid. Also, talking more about mixing different properties would have been beneficial. For instance, showing that a pencil and milk might not make something new, but when you combine substances like flour, sugar, milk, and eggs, you can get baked goods. Modeling more aspects of what properties are and what they do would be very smart.

I don’t really think this lesson needs any more resources. We showed them the clip from the movie “Flubber” and then it was all inquiry-based from there. I really think this is all the students need for this lesson. Having more technology, books, or worksheets wouldn’t have mattered. The important aspect was teaching about properties, and what happens when we combine them. Then, testing how we can manipulate Flubber. Hands-on experimentation and discussion are all this lesson needs.

As stated, the only thing I would change about this lesson the next time I teach it is to elaborate more on properties, and make sure students really understand them. Doing this would be a great time to check for misconceptions. Inquiry-based science addresses misconceptions, but also allows students the freedom to make their own predictions and grasp what information they will from doing an experiment. Creating a learning atmosphere that’s enthusiastic and warm will help students feel comfortable in expressing themselves. I’m so happy that our Science Lesson Planning and Enactment Project involved inquiry-based science, which we’ve learned much about in this course. To actually do this hands-on with students put a tip on the iceberg for really understanding how this works. I feel this makes science come alive for students, and ignites a desire to learn as much as feasible.