Private Universe

PreConceptions

1. How the phases of the moon occur?
The moon stays in the same position relative to the sun (doesn't spin). The same half of the moon is always light and the same half of the moon is always dark. (see Decepticons) Depending on where the moon is in ITS orbit around the sun, we see different amounts of the light half. (cresent, etc)
2. What causes the seasons?
The earth's axis is on a 23 (and a half?) degree tilt. When the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, it is winter. When the southern hemisphere is farther away from the sun, it is winter there. Has nothing to do with the orbit around the sun!
3. What causes the lunar eclipse?
The earth creates a shadow over the moon. (Lunar eclipse, moon is covered. Solar eclipse, sun is covered.)

After Lesson
Yay! I got it right..ish.

Clarification: I was right that the hemispheres experience winter when they are tilted away from the sun, but NOT because they are farther away from the sun. I was fuzzy on that point. At millions of miles from the sun, that little change is distance isn't what makes the difference. The tilted-away hemispheres experience winter because they are receiving indirect sunlight. The equator/tropics is always experiencing direct rays, and so it is often hottest (and most consistent) there. Everywhere but the equator is experiencing varying degrees of indirect light, but more direct rays = summer and less direct rays = winter. For example, Iowa will never have completely direct rays, but since southern Florida is closer to the equator, it is receiving more direct rays. Thus, warmer climate.

I won't even get into the effect of water. :)

Peters: A Theoretical Approach to Constructivist Teaching

Krajcik: A Social Constructivist Model of Teaching

I am already a fan of Social Constructivist Theory due to my dabbling in psychology. I feel that accessing prior knowledge (schema) and constructing new knowledge (assimilation) are the keys to learning. Even better, when a student experiences confusion or inconsistencies (disequilibrium), they must stretch or alter their prior knowledge to fit this new piece of information. To me this process is scientific fact, but I guess that's what makes me a Constructivist. Behaviorists and Existentialists probably think their theories of learning are fact also!

At first I thought the article was just re-teaching what I already knew about Constructivist theories, but as I read deeper Krajcik delved into specific examples (my favorite) for how to apply Vygotsky's strategies to science.
In my previous teacher preparation, we always hit the buzz words: scaffolding, more knowledgeable other, zone of proximal development, but we never really delve into the practical application of those theories. Other than scaffolding - which as Allie said, is basically just good teaching, right?

I am all about hierarchies of information (aka lists and trees) and examples, so it really helped me to have the sub-strategies of scaffolding listed out as follows.

Scaffolding Strategies

• Modeling
• Coaching
• Sequencing
• Reducing Complexity
• Marking Critical Features
• Using Visual Tools

I also whole-heartedly love social learning, but I do not believe that all children learn best this way. I feel that being a social learner is more of a learning style than a philosophy of all learning. I, for one, benefit greatly from study groups, verbalizing my thoughts, and interacting socially throughout the learning process. Relational interactions are my anchors to come back to when I am trying to remember something. In other words, I am much more likely to remember who I was with and who said what than I am to remember where a piece of information was on the page or wall. That being said, I know that other students would learn best working alone or with a partner. I plan to incorporate many different groupings and arrangements into my classroom, but sometimes students just need to be left alone to think and wrestle with a concept.

Stepans, Beiswenger, Dyche: Misconceptions Die Hard

This article is both sad and unsurprising. I would hope that I would personally get a few of those questions right, if nothing else because The Big Bang Theory keeps me on my toes. (Everything they say is true, right?) At the same time, I have heard of similar interviews in which Harvard graduates could not explain the cause for seasons or the phases of the moon.

I also find it daunting as a reading-focused teacher. If teacher's who are passionate about science are not "sticking," what chance do I have? Maybe "all those teachers" I imagine are not as passionate as I thought. Do I have a chance at helping science be "sticky"?

Students are much more likely to remember concepts (if not terminology) if they are able to experience it, recreate it, or connect it with their personal interest. I do know that objects will fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but it is not because I learned it in science class. I know the concept (although clearly I'm struggling with the terminology) because Kirk Cameron performed the experiment when he became a substitute teacher on Growing Pains. As a student, I was invested because science had entered into my sphere of interests. 

This article suggests textbook selection, labs, and pre-lesson questioning/ challenging misconceptions to combat the erosion (or inexistence) of science knowledge in students. As a non-science teacher who will most definitely be teaching science at some point, how can I break through the disinterest and/or misconceptions of students?

Rising to Greatness: An Imperative for Improving Iowa's Schools

Upon reading "Rising to Greatness," I was expecting to hear what programs, tests, systems are being put in place to improve Iowa's schools. Rather, I read pages and pages explaining Iowa's shortcomings. Higher level math classes, reading scores, standardized tests - they all show Iowa as either slipping or stagnant. Could this really be true? I have a few questions about the data.

1. Has the ITBS been improved upon in the last several years? If so, it would make sense that students are receiving the same scores, where in other states (theoretically) the test may be getting more out-of-date and thus easier. I am curious to know how many states take ITBS, because that would certainly validate the comparison. I am also curious how TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge & Skills) compares to ITBS or other state tests.

2. Are test scores an appropriate way to measure student learning? Obviously, this is not a new question in education. Tests certainly measure student achievement, which is still important. What is the correlation between test scores and post-high school success (higher education, employment)? Is this so-called achievement (if not learning) actually indicative of achievement after high school?

3. Why is it that Iowa is flatlining? The "Imperative" discusses rising technology, race, poverty, and disability, but all states deal with those issues. In The Tipping Point, Malcom Gladwell explains that drastic measures are not usually what cause drastic changes, or epidemics. Small, seemingly insignificant changes are made that tip the fad/movement/production over the edge. In the forward of "Rising to Greatness" Jason Glass states that "this goal will not be accomplished through small and incremental tinkering with the status quo. A goal like this requires meaningful change and the courage to do things differently than we have in the past."
I agree that one cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result, but I suspect that maybe Iowa doesn't need drastic measures. Iowa is producing incredibly prepared teachers (and I've seen teacher education programs in other states). Iowa is setting high standards for schools without completely giving in to NCLB. The Response to Intervention program as an alternative to traditional Special Education or 504 testing and placement is wonderful. Maybe we just need to find our tipping point. The "small and incremental" changes that will catch on like wildfire in communities. I don't pretend to have any ideas for what this might be, but I do believe that such an effect is possible.

Gilbert & Kotelma: 5 Good Reasons to Use Science Notebooks

For reference:

1. Notebooks are thinking tools.
2. Notebooks guide teacher instruction.
3. Notebooks enhance literacy skills.
4. Notebooks support differentiated learning.
5. Notebooks foster teacher collaboration.

Due to my background in Reading and Language Arts, I'm very receptive to the idea of a Science notebook. Obviously, I love the idea that literacy, informative writing, and other skills can be incorporated into Science.
Letting students "free-write" about what they learned, what they saw, and what they did will wonderfully reinforce science concepts.

Gilbert and Kotelma explain in the article that "notebooks [are] a tool for every student to use to construct his or her own conceptual understandings." Having to put their experiences into words and pictures helps students solidify what they understand and what they didn't, rather than coming in the next day with vague memories of the lesson.

Everything I love about writers' notebooks is mentioned in the article. As a teacher, this provides a comfort zone for me that I did not expect to have in the Science classroom.
1. Reading students' science notebooks help me as the teacher to gauge what they are understanding, what concepts they have missed, and even what the class as a whole latched on to. (I will forever remember how to tell boy and girl "roly polies" apart, but don't ask me what else I learned on bug day).
2. I also love that Science Notebooks are such a smooth and inconspicuous way to differentiate instruction for different ability levels. Students can keep their notebooks private if they choose, or may choose to share beautiful artwork (ahem, diagrams) that demonstrates their understanding without requiring laborious lab reports. (Although we might have a few of those too.)

As a student, I think I would have loved science notebooks. As a visual person, I often could not really get a hold of complex concepts until I completely re-drew the diagram myself (be it the human heart or the Krebbs cycle). I think science notebooks really lend themselves to different learning styles or intelligences. Draw, chart, graph, write, question. They all work. Students may need to be encouraged to mix it up, but anything is better than choosing one worksheet for 30 kids.

The only part of the article I was dubious about was rule number five, "Notebooks foster teacher collaboration." These teachers were able to share their experiences with coworkers because the entire district was using Science notebooks. What if I am alone? What if everyone else is filling out worksheets and quickly grading multiple choice? What if parents want to see "results" (numbers and grades)? Ironically, these parents are often the ones whose students are doing just fine!

Maybe science notebooks would not rock the boat and produce raised eyebrows like Writers' Workshop would, but I want to know what to do as a little first-year teacher if I'm the only one.

Initial Vision Statement

            Overall, I have had wonderful experiences in Science Education. From earth science & life science in middle school to “IPC” (Integrated Physics and Chemistry) in high school. Unfortunately, 9^th grade IPC was my last positive experience with Physics. My wonderful teacher let us ignite gas bubbles, acted out the Doppler effect, and explained wave forms with a slinky. In middle school, I remember drawing the planets with correct size ratio to one another and also drawing the planets with correct distance ratio to one another; we were so proud of our long and calculated rolls of paper! We also created cells (the castle), gave presentations on different animal classes (the mammal group had it easy!), and used blocks to learn about plate tectonics.

            I also finally remember something from elementary school! I loved love organ systems. I had trouble remembering the order in which the circulatory system got oxygen from the lungs until I hammered it out in high school, but I loved the digestive and respiratory systems in elementary school. I specifically remember getting sick in fourth grade and completely missing skeletal week, so I got to make a skeleton with all the little paper bones connected by brads at the joints, but I did not have to take the bone test. I think I still have trouble with naming bones today because I got bronchitis in fourth grade! 

             Even into college Biology, I am still fascinated by the complex and organized design of anatomy.

            Compared to the long hours of consideration I have given to my future reading and language arts curriculum, I am ashamed to realize that I have not thought much about teaching science. I think subconsciously I just planned to use the textbook for my guideline and then have lots of hands-on experiments and projects. Now that I’ve articulated this to myself, I’m pretty stunned at such an unformed plan. I need a game plan!

            So, with very little authority whatsoever, I think the major components that create a quality science education are having students physically engaged and cognitively challenged. Although diagrams and worksheets can provide great references for students to refer to, I want them to be physically taking apart flowers and watching plants grow (and none of this lima bean in a wet paper towel business). Instead of only marking all the major fault lines and volcanoes on a world map, I want students to push blocks (or more sophisticated materials) together and record how mountain ranges are made.

            As for cognitively challenging my students, that is where I foresee my weakness. I jump at the chance to let students physically touch what they are learning, but I struggle to implement inquiry-style lessons in which I stop talking 

and wait 

and let students discover at their own pace. I look forward to not only learning more projects and experiments for students, but how to internalize the inquiry and student-centered methods of teaching into my own style.

            Beyond helping students to discover and touch science, I truly hope my own excitement will be a model for them. We can all remember teachers who were not interested in their subject matter or made it abundantly clear that they had been given assigned this class by administration. We all also remember teachers who were so excited about what they had to say (or show) that they were downright silly. We may have laughed or made fun of their exuberance, but we were drawn to them. I hope to show my students that I am excited about doing science with them because I am not  an expert, but a learner with them.

Now I’m all excited again!