What exactly is a “transdisciplinary” approach and what does it mean for objectives?

There are so many terms floating around the education world that deal with approaches to teach the constantly changing curriculum. Sometimes it’s hard to keep current on all the new “ways” to best meet the needs of students. The terms multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary are three terms I’ve just become familiar with this year. Before this graduate program I wouldn’t be able to explain the difference between the three terms. Obviously we can tell what they all share is going beyond a single discipline but how the disciplines are fused together is what makes them different.

After my research and progression through this program, I found that I’m most familiar with the interdisciplinary approach to curriculum. This approach involves more than one subject area and focuses on a common concept, understanding or process. This is the kind of teaching I learned about in undergrad. I remember there was emphasis on trying to find ways to connect multiple content areas. To me, I achieved this by reading a book during science or math. It was easiest to connect reading to all content areas because it could be linked through a read aloud. Below is an illustration of four different approaches. These include disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary.

Image Source: http://www.greenwichschools.org/page.cfm?p=6697

I found this illustration during the beginning stages of my research when I was focusing on understanding the differences between approaches of teaching. I found it really helpful in visually showing the differences between approaches to teaching and learning, but especially helpful with illustrating transdisciplinary. It shows a framing topic/big idea as an overarching theme for the inquiry process. This led me into figuring out the biggest different between transdisciplinary and all the other approaches.

A transdisciplinary approach moves instruction beyond just blending disciplines. This approach links concepts and skills through a real-world context. Inquiry is one of the biggest differences in this learning approach verses the others. Transdisciplinary learning objectives require students to find answers to questions not only and questions they might have about the content.

So clearly teaching with transdisciplinary objectives is a best practice in todays fast growing world. Preparing our students to solve real world problems and allowing them to authentically create and build their own ideas is where we need to be moving. According to Greenwich Public Schools on “What is Transdisciplinary Learning?” the transdisciplinary approach “promotes depth of understanding as well as adaptability to skills needed to succeed in our changing world.”

Creating transdisciplinary-learning objectives is hard to do. It needs to include multiple disciplines with a human centered goal or global issue. All these pieces need to connect for the objective to make sense which is sometimes what I have a hard time doing. The Next Generation Science Standards is my go to place to find transdisciplinary learning objectives. These standards include core ideas from multiple disciplines, science and engineering practices and cross cutting concepts. NGSS believes that through mastery of the objectives students will be more prepared for college and careers.

I wanted to look at the difference between an objective that is transdisciplinary and an objective that is not. Below is a kindergarten standard and objective I pulled from the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. I used this objective, that is not transdisciplinary, and turned it into an objective that encompasses multiple disciplines with a global issue. I notice that most objectives that are not transdisciplinary lack the real world problem and are too broad. To fix the standard from North Dakota I made it more specific to a real world problem and narrowed the objective down to make it more specific. Below is the objective from North Dakota and an objective from NGSS that I felt could be used to meet a similar goal.

North Dakota
Standard 1: Unifying Concepts
Standard 1: Students understand the unifying concepts and processes of science.
Kindergarten: CONSTANCY AND CHANGE
K.1.2. Identify things that can change (e.g., weather, people, water)

NGSS
K. Weather and Climate
K-ESS2-1. Use and share observations of local weather conditions to describe patterns over time.

New Objective
By the end of the lesson we will be able to use and share observations of local weather and climate to describe and record weather to notice patterns over time.

In the new objective students are still identifying a change but now it’s specific to changes in weather. This objective includes science and engineering practices, multiple disciplines and cross cutting concepts just like those in NGSS. The science and engineering practice is analyzing and interpreting data, which students will be conducting through observations. The core idea is weather and climate and the cross cutting concept patterns which students will be using as evidence to explain their findings.

While coming up with transdisciplinary objectives is sometimes difficult to do, I always find it helpful to look back at NGSS for support. It’s hard to believe that since I’ve graduated from undergrad teaching approaches have already changed. How much more will they change? How many years until a new approach is discovered? These are questions many educators might have but no one can deny in seeing the importance of making our objectives transdisciplinary. Finding connections to global issues or real world problems are not only highly motivating for students but are also relevant to them and their learning. According to NGSS, “Science—and therefore science education—is central to the lives of all Americans, preparing them to be informed citizens in a democracy and knowledgeable consumers. If the nation is to compete and lead in the global economy and if AMERICAN STUDENTS are to be able to pursue expanding employment opportunities in science-related fields, all students must have a solid K–12 science education that prepares them for college and careers.”

Perspective on STEM Education

Perspective on STEM Education

There are so many different perspectives on STEM education. These perspectives can vary depending on job title, location and teaching style. These many perspectives can make it confusing for teachers trying to implement STEM centric lessons into their classroom. What exactly is a “STEM” lesson?

In Chapter 8 of The Case for STEM Education the author, Rodger W. Bybee, goes through many different perspectives of STEM. Bybee bases these perspectives on discussions, articles, reports, and projects to help clarify what STEM education is. As I read through Chapter 8 I found it easier to look at the graphics Bybee provided and determine which ones I didn’t think represented STEM education. Many graphics displayed the four STEM disciplines as separate topics and not integrated. My perspective of STEM education is an integrated version where all four disciplines are taught together. Below is what my perspective of STEM education would look like.

I think in order for a lesson to be considered a “STEM lesson” it needs to incorporate all four disciplines. In my graphic I show the four disciplines merging together to form “STEM”. Many of the graphics in Bybee’s chapter showed all four disciplines, but did not show them integrated. Instead, the four disciplines were taught separately or two disciplines were taught separately, but became connected through the technology OR engineering discipline. Currently (this may change throughout the program), I think that if we want to start calling our lessons “STEM” lessons then they need to include all four disciplines integrated together.

I couldn’t figure out how to show this in my graphic, but I wanted the four disciplines to show movement in size depending on the lesson being taught. I don’t think all four disciplines should be equally dispersed in a lesson for it to be considered STEM. Some lessons lend themselves easier to incorporate some of the disciplines than others. For example, I think incorporating the math discipline can be extremely hard for some lesson topics. I know from planning my own STEM kindergarten lesson that the math discipline was difficult to incorporate. Also, after talking to my peers on our graphics created to represent STEM, I found they felt the same way about the math discipline. Not only did most people feel it was hard to create a lesson that included ALL four disciplines, but it was especially hard to include the math discipline. If I could recreate my graphic to show my STEM lesson this is what it would look like:

As you can see, the four disciplines are not dispersed evenly throughout the lesson. In my STEM lesson I had students try and solve the deer overpopulation problem in their neighborhood. We looked at a forest ecosystem and talked about the important components to keep that ecosystem alive and what could damage it. We also talked about how deer can not only harm the ecosystem but how they can also be very harmful to humans. Their job was to come up with a solution to solve the deer overpopulation problem. I used math in my lesson by making a tally graph to represent data on a question I asked my students. If I used this lesson with upper grade students I can see incorporating math by talking about the specific population numbers compared to other animal, plant or humans population numbers in that ecosystem. My math discipline was the smallest circle in this particular lesson with my students, but maybe for the next STEM lesson I plan the technology circle will be smaller. Like I stated earlier, I think some lesson lend themselves better to incorporating certain disciplines more than others.

My perspective on STEM education has changed so much throughout the course of the two classes I’ve taken so far. Even through hearing my peer’s perspectives on STEM education has caused me to re-think what STEM education looks like in the classroom. With this, my definition of STEM has also changed. I know my perspective and definition of STEM will continue to change throughout the course of this program.

Now that I’ve officially finished my first year in this program I’ve been asked to revisit my perspective on STEM. I remember the first time I was asked to think about what STEM education looks like in a classroom I wasn’t really sure what I thought. This was my main question, and continues to be a question, as I think about what a STEM lesson looks like. How much math, science, technology or engineering needs to be in a STEM lesson for it to be considered “STEM”? At first I thought all four disciplines needed to be included in a lesson to be considered STEM and those disciplines needed to be very noticeable. For example, I thought you should be able to easily pick out what part of the lesson are math, science, engineering and technology. You can imagine planning a lesson like this would be very difficult and overwhelming.

I see the concern and worry other teachers might have when it comes to implementing STEM lessons. They do in fact take a lot of time to plan and implement correctly. I think of STEM lessons more like projects because they can sometimes take weeks to finish. You never know the length of the project because it depends on how your students respond so it’s hard to gage an ending point. They can also be a little scary to implement because I don’t think you can ever been 100% sure where the lesson will go. As the classroom teacher you can sometimes predict what kinds of questions your students will ask and where their discussions will go but there is some uncertainty.

After taking engineering this semester my perspective on what STEM looks like in the classroom has changed. Towards the end of the class we talked about the different disciplines in regards to engineering and if you could have an engineering lesson without it being considered STEM or if you could have a STEM lesson without engineering. At first I thought sure you could have an engineering lesson without the other disciplines. I thought about a scenario our teacher gave us about redesigning a grocery store during the class. I tried to pick out the different disciplines and I couldn’t so I thought that would be an example of an engineering lesson. As I listened to the group discussion I soon realized that although the 3 other disciplines weren’t immediately clear they were in fact integrated in the lesson. I learned that through this course your STEM disciplines aren’t always apparent looking at the surface until you dig deeper into the lesson.

Although I’ve been in this program for a year I still get a little overwhelmed and panicked when I think about planning STEM lessons. I see the value and importance of preparing our students for jobs of the future but if you don’t know the research behind STEM in the classroom it’s more difficult to implement.

References

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Kids and Engineering

When I began my journey in this graduate program I was very familiar with the S, T and M because these are all subjects focused on in elementary school curriculums. However I was not very familiar with the E, the engineering portion of what STEM stands for. Math and Science, especially, have specific standards and objectives we as teachers are expected to teach. Engineering is not a subject that is focused on in curriculums. I’ve never seen an engineering objective or heard of anyone doing lessons dealing specifically with the idea of engineering. I’ve never even heard that word thrown around in meetings or curriculum study days. I wasn’t sure what engineering was and what it looked like, or was suppose to look like, in an elementary school let alone a kindergarten class. Engineering seems like such a big technical word. Can elementary school students, but more specifically kindergarteners, really participate in engineering related tasks?

Are kids really ready for engineering? Sesame Street thinks so!

Video Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOX-PbtnBnk

When it’s explained like that it sounds like kids are definitely ready for engineering! In the Fall 2009 Issue of The Bridge on K-12 Engineering Education, Christine Cunningham wrote an article titled, Engineering is Elementary. In the very beginning of her article she states that, “Children are born engineers—they are fascinated with designing their own creations, with taking things apart, and with figuring out how things work.” (Cunningham, 2009) (pg. 11)When I think about my current students I realize that some of their favorite toys to play with at the end of the day are Legos, blocks, and train tracks. All these toys are things you build, take apart and put back together from scratch. I think this alone proves that young children love to build and create things. This may not be the type of engineering we think of in the professional world but that’s not the point. It’s about exposing and giving children the opportunity to play with the ideas behind engineering concepts. I think lessons taught around the idea of building and creating would be very motivating for my students.

So, before I started looking at what role engineering plays in STEM education I wanted to make sure I understood exactly what engineering stood for. When I think of the word engineering I think of words like engines and machines and that can’t be the only thing it stands for. I looked up a few definitions of the word engineering to help me get a better grasp of what it actually means.

Freedictionary.com said: The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. (The Free Dictionary)

Chapter 8 in A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Engineering is a systematic and often iterative approach to designing objects, processes, and systems to meet human needs and wants. (Quinn, Schweingruber, & Keller, 2012) (pg. 202)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Almost all the definitions I found online had the words science or math. It doesn’t seem like engineering can be a standalone subject that is independently taught. Engineering appears that it needs to be taught with science or math so the application of it can be learned. It’s more beneficial for students to learn the engineering process and what engineering means by experiencing it through science, math or technology rather than learning the steps in an engineering design process in a lecture style class.

After reading chapter 8 in A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, I found out why there are no specific engineering standards/objectives. According to the 2010 National Academy of Engineering, “it is not appropriate at present to develop standalone K-12 engineering standards.” (Quinn, Schweingruber, & Keller, 2012) (pg. 204) At first I thought it was strange that engineering was the only part of STEM we didn’t have specific standards or objectives for, but I soon found that it’s more appropriate, beneficial and useful to blend engineering ideas with other subjects. The National Academy of Engineering stated, “engineering concepts and skills are already embedded in existing standards for science and technology education, at both the state and national levels—and the report recommended that this practice continue.” (Quinn, Schweingruber, & Keller, 2012)(pg. 204)

This information made me think about my current kindergarten science and technology standards and if there are opportunities embedded within them for kindergarteners to experience engineering design. I’ve never noticed them before but maybe that’s because I haven’t been looking for them or knew what to look for. I went back into the curriculum and typed in “design” to the search engine. (When I typed in engineering nothing came up in the kindergarten folder.) The only lesson that came up under this search tag was a rainstick lesson. Students identify the problem of what rain sounds like and try to figure out a way to make a rainstick using various materials provided in science kits by the county. The curriculum provides a PowerPoint to walk students through the process of sharing ideas and developing solutions, but until these graduate courses I never really understood it. Now, having done some research, I think incorporating engineering standards into current science practices would be very beneficial for students in elementary schools. I like the idea of having students develop and come up with their own designs and test their own theories. I’m sure once any teacher is taught and shown the value of incorporating engineering, and STEM ideas, into everyday lessons they would agree with this, but I can see the implications of teaching this way.

One major implication is time. It takes time to have student’s design, redesign and design again. There simply isn’t enough time with current curriculum expectations, especially when in some schools reading and math have highest priority. According to Christine Cunningham, “As our society becomes increasingly dependent on engineering and technology, it is more important than ever that everyone be aware of what engineers do and understand the uses and implications of the technologies they create.” (Cunningham, 2009) (pg. 11) I wonder how often engineering practices should be embedded into science and technology standards. Is it something that should be done for every science inquiry lesson and is that even practical?

Works Cited

Retrieved January 12, 2014, from Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineering

Retrieved January 12, 2014, from The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engineering

Cunningham, C. (2009). Engineering is Elementary. K-12 Engineering Education , 39.

Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller, T. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. DC, Washington: The National Academies Press.

Chapter 11: Science in the Classroom

This week in physics we were asked to read another chapter from How Students Learn by Donovan and Bransford. This particular chapter although is written by a high school physics teacher. It’s clear the authors used many of the principals talked about in Chapter 1 by Donovan and Bransford. The authors also used a lot of personal experience and stories to share how they used the inquiry based model with high school students to teach the concept of gravity.

Image Source: http://mzteachuh.blogspot.com/2013/10/best-articles-for-educators-week-of_12.html

I really appreciated the way Minstrell and Kraus wrote the article through use of personal experiences in the classroom. It helped me imagine what the dialogue was like during discussions in the classroom and gave me ideas to bring back into my own classroom. I also liked how Minstrell shared what he was thinking in his head when students responded to questions. Knowing he shouldn’t say them out loud and let students sort things out for themselves. This occurred when the author was discussing with his class the idea of friction and air resistance on page 475.  “I was tempted to say, “No, don’t think like that.” I suppressed the urge and instead asked in a nonevaluative tone, “Okay, so you say things would just float away. How do you know that?””.  Writing the article this way helped me relate to the authors as real teachers and not just people who wrote an article. The beginning portion of the article also reminded me of principal 1, the importance of engaging in student’s prior knowledge. This principal was highly valued by the authors of this article. In the above quote you see they ask, “How do you know that?” giving the students a chance to explain their thinking allows teachers to understand preconceptions. “Teachers need to know students’ initial and developing conceptions. Students need to have their initial ideas brought to a conscious level.” (Kraus and Minstrell page 478) Also in the above quote, by keeping silent and not saying anything the teacher was able to figure out student preconceptions. If he would have said “No” that might of closed students off and caused them not to feel comfortable sharing their thoughts.

But something I found more powerful that Chapter 1 by Donovan and Bransford did not talk about or have, as a principal of learning, was the importance of trust and respect teachers need to establish in their classroom. This made me think of undergrad years, my current physics class with Dr. Elby and my own classroom. Establishing a respectful and safe classroom environment is key to student learning. The importance of this was drilled into us as undergrad students. Without trust, safety and respect students are not going to feel like they can be risk takers which is what an inquiry based lesson needs to be successful. Without risk takers, the classroom discussions will not be as deep and valuable for the students and the teacher. It could also cause preconceptions about a topic to not be shared aloud with the class and teacher. The authors went into explain that when teaching the concept the nature of gravity and its effects was not started until about a month into the school year. They wanted students to know some very basic information before diving into such a deep topic and wanted students to feel confident enough to discuss the topic.  The authors state, “The teacher needs to have enough experience with the class so that the students are confident that the class will achieve resolution over time. Students need to persevere in learning and trusting that the teacher will help guide them to the big ideas.” (Kraus & Minstrell page 478)

In general the article reminded me of my physics teacher Dr. Elby. As I was reading the article I couldn’t help but think of him and his teaching style. He is a great role model for teachers trying to figure out how to teach with an “inquiry style”. Not only does he figure out our preconceptions and pose us with questions that require us to give our opinions and argue for them, but he has also developed a very respectful and safe environment. I think it’s appropriate to say that most people in my physics class feel comfortable sharing aloud with the class. It’s a judgment free zone and everyone’s opinion and arguments are valued. I especially found the following excerpt a great summarizer for what I talked about in my blog post. I found this under the Nature and Effects of Gravity, Diagnostic Question1: “What would happen to the scale reading with no air under the dome? You may or may not be able to give a really precise answer, but say what you think would happen to the scale reading, whether it would increase, decrease, or stay exactly the same and if you think there will be a change, about how much?” (Kraus and Minstrell page 479) This simple question encompasses both topics I touched upon, addressing preconceptions and creating a safe and respectful environment. By saying “you may or may not be able to give a really precise answer” tells the student its safe to take a risk. I’ve found that with a lot of my physics assignments, Dr. Elby words questions this way. He always states it’s ok if you don’t know the answer but to just give it your best argument. Personally, this makes me feel safer when answering the question because I know its ok if my answer isn’t correct. I think by telling students your aware they might not know the answer ahead of time helps them feel more comfortable taking a risk because you aren’t necessarily looking for the “right” answer. Not only does this excerpt promote a safe environment but also through student answers you will be able to figure out their preconceptions. Since students know their answer doesn’t have to be correct they will share an authentic answer instead of an answer they “think” the teacher is looking for. Both creating a safe and respectful environment and determining preconceptions are important for an inquiry-based classroom.

References:

Kraus, P. & Minstrell, J. (2005). Guided Inquiry in the Science Classroom. In M. S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford, How Students Learn (pp. 475-513). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

How Students Learn: Chapter 9

After reading chapter 9 in How Students Learn by Donovan and Bransford, I was asked to respond to two questions that were formed from class discussions and responses from classmates. Below are the two questions I responded to regarding the chapter …

5) On page 411, Magnusson and Palincsar are quoted as saying, “Engaging children in science, then, means engaging them in a whole new approach to questioning….lt means questioning the typical assurance we feel from evidence that confirms our prior beliefs, and asking in what ways the evidence is incomplete and may be countered by additional evidence.”

How does traditional science teaching support or conflict with the approach to science described in this quote?  How do Donovan and Bransford connect this approach to science to the third Principle: Metacognition?  Choose a concept typically taught at your grade level. Describe a pedagogical strategy for leveraging the type of questioning described in the above quote toward productive learning.

 

Image Source: http://www.funii.com/gallery/tag/Science

When I began reading this quote, I immediately thought of the new curriculum being implemented in elementary schools across Montgomery County. Much of the new curriculum uses this type of questioning. It requires students to dig deeper and explain the “why” part of what their learning about. So when I think of “traditional” science, I think of how I was taught science, in middle and high school. I think teaching methods are slowing moving away from the “traditional” ways.

With that said, I think traditional science teaching conflicts with this approach to science described in this quote. I remember science being very content and theory based, a lot of lecturing, note taking and reading response. The questions we were asked were simple recall questions. Recalling what was taught the previous day, or recalling a formula used to figure something out. I don’t ever remember being asked the “how” and the “why” to theories and content. This quote talks about going beyond that type of questioning and asking deeper questions. What I like most about this quote is that it doesn’t dismiss those basic types of questions. Magnusson and Palincsar still value the importance of basic factual questions and believe questions should be built on top of those to truly deepen understanding. I think it’s important to not completely bash and get rid of the traditional ways of teaching science, but instead find ways to improve and build upon it like a stepping-stone.

Donovan and Bransford connected the approach by discussing different types of studies that were conducted using the science approach described in the quote. Two people named White and Frederiksen, designed a “reflective assessment” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 412) for students, was the first study talked about by Donovan and Bransford. According to box 9-5 on page 412, “The assessment categories included understanding the main ideas, understanding the inquiry process, being inventive, being systematic, reasoning carefully, applying the tools of research, using teamwork, and communicating well.” Students using this assessment were compared with another set of students who were not given a guiding framework. Although there were no gains in either group on standardized testing, the group that was given the reflective assessment showed a greater and deeper understanding in both physics and science inquiry. I think the key word here is “reflective” because being a reflective learner means understanding what you’re being taught and applying it to other aspects of learning not just being able to recall the information.

While the previous assessment was used on inner city and suburban schools, the next study mentioned by Donovan and Bransford was conducted on college students. Lin and Lehman did this experiment, and they required students to learn about strategies for controlling variables. Their experiment required students to “ reflect on—and briefly explain—what they were doing and why.” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 407) This study truly supports the importance of application after being taught science in the classroom. Lin and Lehman found that students in the control group, who were not being asked to reflect and explain, were not able to transfer their newly learned knowledge to new problems.

Both of these studies discussed by Donovan and Bransford support the quote by Magnusson and Palincsar about questioning students in science. Just by looking at these two studies it is obvious how important the higher level questions are to student understanding within a concept. Not only do these questions require students to be reflective, but it also forces them to think about and look at the concepts in a different way so application can be made outside the classroom.

Again, this quote makes me think of the new elementary curriculum being implemented across Montgomery County. There is much value in asking students questions about “how” and “why” they know something. This is very apparent in the new curriculum. Much of what is being taught across content is being followed up with these types of questions. However in kindergarten, we spend a lot of time in science talking about basic needs to seeds and plants. Typically, we read books about basic needs, watch videos and eventually grow our own plants. With the new curriculum, students are highly involved in whole group and small group discussions on what they think plants will need and how they know that. A lot of these discussions are based off prior understandings and knowledge. When we start to actually grow plants we usually give every student a seed with the things they need to make a small pot. They receive soil, seeds and water to grow a plant. I think one way to make this topic link more with the quote is to have students experiment with growing seeds that are missing things they need in order to survive. Students could experiment with this idea by not watering or using soil with some seeds. Some students could even experiment with different places in the classroom that have a lot, little or no sun light. I think allowing students to experiment with their own questions and “what if’s” is important for deeper and more meaningful discussions. I know in the past, some seeds that are given all things for survival still don’t sprout and some seeds do sprout when their basic needs are taken away. Students have questions about this and instead of moving on and telling students “it was a bad seed” we can foster this and explores why this might have happened.

6) On page 403 Donovan and Bransford describe the value Einstein placed on imagination for scientific advancement.  (A quote commonly attributed to Einstein states, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”)

To what extent is imagination used as a tool in traditional science lessons, particularly those that begin with a specific end-goal in mind? What role does imagination play in the approach to science inquiry that Donovan and Bransford advocate? Chose a concept typically taught at your grade level. Describe a pedagogical strategy for incorporating student imagination and creativity into constructing knowledge about that concept.

Image Source: http://dracus.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/imagination-is-a-power-you-cannot-imagine/ 

Imagination is not used as a tool in “traditional” science lessons. I think Donovan and Bransford made that quite clear in the beginning of the chapter. “To know science meant to know the definitions of scientific terms and important discoveries of the past. … To be good at science meant to reproduce such information as accurately and completely as possible.” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 397) The authors talk a lot about how in traditional science the inquiry process is seen as a separate entity in classrooms. You learn a bunch of information about things scientists have found out and then you’re given a formal for testing a theory. Step by step directions on how to perform an experiment or task. There’s no imagination being used in this type of teaching. Teachers are expected to meet a certain objective and it’s their job to make sure students get there. Sometimes this diminishes imagination because so much has to be covered in a limited amount of time.

The following quote was one of my favorites from the reading, “If students are not helped to experience this for themselves, science can seem dry and highly mechanical.” (Donovan and Bradsford,406) This quote took me back to high school science class days. I hated science classes! All I really remember doing was taking extensive notes on formulas and conducting an experiment that wasn’t even fun every once in a while. It was mostly listening to a teacher lecture at the front of the room. I remembered being very bored and not engaged during these classes. I even recall trying to pick partners in my class that were “good” at science when it came time for lab groups because I never really enjoyed doing the labs/experiments. You were always given a set of directions to follow and if you messed up one little step then your entire experiment was thrown off and wrong. There went your grade for that experiment! Following a recipe for experiments doesn’t involve any sort of imagination; in fact it actually caused me stress because I was so worried about following them correctly. I didn’t actually understand what I was doing because I was only following what was on the paper in front of me. I had the end goal in mind and I didn’t care how I got there I just wanted to make sure it looked like the end product that was on the paper in front of me.

Donovan and Bransfords approach to science inquiry requires much more imagination and creativity from students. The author’s state, “They do not involve simply setting aside “inquiry time” during which students conduct experiments that are related in some way to the content they are learning.” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg 405) The authors approach is more focused on the idea of researching to figure out an answer or problem instead of assigning work that students find no interest or value in. Their approach is also viewed more of as a process instead of individual sections you learn about throughout the year. Learning is much more of a fluid process verses skipping around the content I had this feeling a lot in high school. Starting a new topic one week and moving on to something completely different the next week and thinking about how I could ever remember what I just learned for the final exam at the end of the semester. In Donovan and Bransford’s type of teaching students have a say in what they want to learn about and therefore enjoy and take so much more from the content. “If students are not helped to experience this for themselves, science can seem dry and highly mechanical.” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 406)

As a third year kindergarten teacher, I came into the county using the new Montgomery County curriculum. So all three year I’ve been in kindergarten I’ve used the new curriculum across content areas. I’ll admit that I’m a teacher that’s guilty for cutting time into my science block to finish a math or reading lesson; or even finish some writing from that day. After only 9 weeks in this program I understand the importance science and science conversations can have on children; especially the inquiry piece. I’m still learning how to incorporate Donovan and Bransford’s approach to teaching science into my own classroom with children who are only 5 and 6 years old. I’m not entirely sure they’re ready for the types of inquiry processes as described by Donovan and Bransford but I know they can handle some very basic versions of it. Thinking about concepts taught at my grade level that imagination would be easily worked into I thought about the topic of wind. Every year we have students make a wind-measuring tool. We receive resources and materials from the MCPS science kits to assist students in designing their own tools. The curriculum says to display the science kit materials for making a wind-measuring tool and ask the students how they might use them for measuring wind. I was thinking to add some extra imagination I could throw in some things that wouldn’t be suitable for making a wind-measuring tool such as a heavy long sock, stuffed animals or cups. There could be some trial and error and discussion on why these things didn’t work. Eventually students would be able to design their own tool and test their designs and redesign them based on testing the tools outside. This would allow for many deep discussions about why certain materials worked better than others. Since students are so young I could have students work in groups at first and then move on to designing their own tools. Students could even ask each other questions on why they chose a certain material and why they think it worked so well.

References:

Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Chapter 9: Scientific Inquiry and How People Learn. In In C. o. Teachers, & N. R. Council, How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom (pp. 397-419). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Light vs. heavy object: Does one fall faster than other?

In my physics class we’ve been discussing all aspects of a falling object. Does it speed up? Slow down? Fall at the same rate? What will the trajectory look like? What will the trajectory look like if it’s dropped by a horizontal moving force? We’ve experimented, discussed and experimented again. Some of our questions have been answered and some questions are still being discussed. Last Tuesday we started discussing the speed of two falling objects and if their weight affects their speed. We were asked to argue two ideas. The first, heavier objects land first and second, regardless of weight the objects will land at the same time. Here are my arguments …

Heavier lands first?

When I think of this idea I immediately think of skydivers. Now, I’ve never been skydiving but I know people who have. One of those people is my sister. When she went skydiving with her boyfriend (Justin) I asked … who jumped first? She told me Justin jumped first. Some might say this is because she was scared and wanted him to go first, but I knew this couldn’t be because I know my sister too well. If anything, her boyfriend would’ve been the scared one! So I thought … maybe Justin had to jump first because he is heavier than her. If she would’ve jumped first he could have potentially caught up to her in the air and that would of resulted in a dangerous situation. Gravity is a constant force but does it double or triple based on the objects weight? I decided to ask some other people who have been skydiving to find out who jumped first. I put an email out on my school private folder and asked people to email me if they’ve been skydiving. I got a handful of responses. I found that in most skydiving situations the heavier person jumped first out of the plane. Again, I’ve never been skydiving so I’m not sure if there’s a specific reason for having the heavier person jump first or if it’s just a coincidence. My conclusion is that the heavier person falls faster and could catch up to the lighter person if they jumped first.

Objects land at the same time?

I started thinking about my reasoning for why heavier objects land first and pictured in my head those skydivers that do tricks in the air. You know the ones that make cool shapes in the air with their bodies? If heavier objects fall at different rates than lighters ones then how is it possible objects land at the same time? Gravity is a constant force pulling objects down at the same rate no matter the weight. This must be why skydivers can do tricks like this in the air. They are all falling at the same rate and therefore land at the same time.  Skydivers wouldn’t be able to do this if the heavier person fell faster.

Image Source: http://houston.informermg.com/2012/10/21/2012-u-s-parachute-association-national-skydiving-championships-to-launch-outside-phoenix-october-25-to-november-3/

Now I’m not sure what to think! I’m pretty positive objects fall at the same speed but I don’t exactly know why. I’m looking forward to experimenting with this idea in Tuesday night’s class! Hopefully some of our questions can be answered and a conclusion can be reached!

STEM and How We Learn

In class we discussed the book, How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom by Suzanne Donovan and John D. Bransford. The part of the book we discussed explained three principals of learning. In class, we first began discussing them separately, by simply summarizing each principal, but soon we moved into the idea that these principals could overlap or be combined.

As stated above, the three principals, engaging prior understandings, the essential role of factual knowledge and conceptual frameworks in understandings and the importance of self-monitoring, were being discussed in class as related and overlapping ideas. Although the three principals are closely related, I don’t think any can necessarily be combined into one. Each principal is important and valuable for it’s own reasons and without one, or by combining two, I don’t think the learning can be as effective.

I believe the first principal, engaging prior understandings, is so important for teachers to consider. Engaging in student prior knowledge is so important and sometimes I think taken for granted in some classrooms. Every neighborhood, street and community feeding into a school can be very different. Students are coming from a wide variety of backgrounds and knowledge.

This concept especially hit home with me when Ruth was talking about the students in her classroom having a different term for “outlet”. At first some of her students didn’t understand what she was talking about but once she took the time to explain it in a different way students were able to make a connection and realize they knew exactly what an outlet was. These students simply called it something different. The book stated this idea very well by saying, “If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information,”. (pg. 1)

I also liked what Christine said during the discussion about this principal. We were discussing misconceptions and if they can be barriers for students. In the book the authors gave the example of how children usually think the Earth is a flat round shape because of their experience with balls. (pg. 5) Some classmates felt that misconceptions can help deepen understanding and aren’t barriers to learning. If the misconceptions are shared, they can be discussed in class and cleared up for students. They can also serve as a starting point for teaching the new concept. On the other hand, Christine talked about how some students with misconceptions might not speak up about their misunderstandings. This I agreed with and related to. I was a student in elementary school who was very shy and not willing to speak up when I felt I might be the only person not understanding something. I always felt relief when other students would ask questions about topics I didn’t understand. For students like this misconceptions would definitely be a barrier. Their misconceptions don’t have the opportunity to be cleared up in the classroom and therefore can hurt continued learning about a new topic.

Overall, I appreciated the way the authors discussed the principles of learning, as I’m sure any teacher can appreciate. I loved how Donovan and Bransford used the book Fish is Fish by Leo Lionni to illustrate the principals of learning. Not only did it help me better understand the principals, but I found myself more “into” the reading. I wasn’t just reading the article to read it and get it over with, I was reading it and understanding it because it was relatable. What elementary teacher wouldn’t love an adult topic being connected and explained through use of a children’s book?

Image Source: http://www.nap.edu/books/10126/xhtml/images/p2000bd4fg2001.jpg

 

References

Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. The National Academies Press.

STEM … What? Why? How?

Image Source: http://knowledgeposts.com/stem-education-presents-a-new-inquirer.html

When I decided to join this masters program I wasn’t exactly sure what STEM stood for and what it meant. A colleague who’s been in the county for over 25 years introduced me to it. When I started telling her I was looking for graduate programs she immediately told me this was the new cutting edge degree and would provide me many opportunities in the future. So that’s what brought me here today. Now that I’m in the program it’s probably a good idea I figure out what STEM truly stands for and why all of a sudden it’s such a big deal, not only in Montgomery County, but all over the country.

I knew STEM had something to do with technology and … well that’s pretty important these days. The kindergarteners in my classroom sometimes know how to work the fancy Promethean board better than me! I thought continuing my education in technology would be very beneficial and keep me current with my students. The other three pieces, science, math and engineering I wasn’t so familiar with when used in the STEM acronym.

As I read Bybee’s article, I found myself relating to his beginning comments about the misconceptions of STEM. Bybee talked about how STEM is usually interpreted to mean science or math and typically the technology and engineering pieces are forgotten. (Bybee, 2010) I must admit that I too have done this before when thinking and talking about STEM, especially with the engineering piece. As a kindergarten teacher, engineering seems a bit scary. How am I supposed to incorporate engineering into the curriculum? And what part of engineering am I teaching? I really appreciated the way Bybee explained engineering in his article. He explained that engineering directly involves problem solving and innovation. (Bybee, 2010) According to Bybee, “Engineering has some presence in our schools, but certainly not the amount consistent with its careers and contributions to society.” (Bybee, 2010) So … it sounds like teachers are teaching science, technology, engineering and math just not in the “STEM” way. This is something that interested me. Bybee’s article discussed more of the challenges faced with integrating STEM into school curriculums. I needed to go farther back and really look into why people are talking about STEM and its importance NOW.

Before I started to research why STEM now, I wanted to have a clear definition of STEM. It’s not just an acronym that stands for science, technology, engineering and math; it’s something so much more. According to The Maryland State Department of Education, “STEM education is an approach to teaching and learning that integrates the content and skills of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. STEM Standards of Practice guide STEM instruction by defining the combination of behaviors, integrated with STEM content, which is expected of a proficient STEM student. These behaviors include engagement in inquiry, logical reasoning, collaboration, and investigation.” The main goal of STEM education is preparing students for the 21st century workforce. (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education, 2003)

Now that I understand what STEM stands for and what it means, I want to figure out … why? I started searching on Google to figure out why STEM education is now so huge and important, I came across an article written by Francis Eberle. He has his Ph.D., and is the executive director for the National Science Teachers Association. He talked about how STEM education creates critical thinkers and innovators. Eberle stated, “Innovation leads to new products and processes that sustain our economy. This innovation and science literacy depends on a solid knowledge base in the STEM areas.” (Eberle, 2010)

According to Eberle, most jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of math and science. He stated, “10-year employment projections by the U.S. Department of Labor show that of the 20 fastest growing occupations projected for 2014, 15 of them require significant mathematics or science preparation.” (Eberle, 2010) Now it’s starting to make sense. STEM education is obviously critical for our country to sustain. It creates future innovators that will move this country forward. Students with a background in STEM will have an advantage over other students who don’t when applying for jobs of the future. “Making STEM education a priority is important, for our nation’s short and long-term future.” (Eberle, 2010)

Clearly, STEM is where the education world is moving. Increasing STEM education in schools will hopefully produce more scientists and engineers our country needs to sustain. I already feel I have learned so much about STEM having started this program. I hope that with more knowledge I can develop my own definition of STEM and truly defend and discuss the great importance it has on student learning and growth and on our country as a whole.

References

Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher , 70 (1), 30-35.

Eberle, F. (2010, September). Why STEM education is important. Retrieved September 1, 2013, from InTech: http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=83593

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. (2003). Retrieved September 1, 2013, from Maryland State Department of Education: http://www.msde.maryland.gov/MSDE/programs/stem/