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.
No comments:
Post a Comment