Planning a Benchmark Lesson

One of the most important points of this reading was that teachers should make it clear how students will demonstrate learning while they are writing their objectives. The article even went as far as to say that the term "objectives" should be changed to "learning performances," but I don't think the terminology really matters as long as the perfomance outcome is specified. This is important because if objectives require students to show their learning in a more concrete way, they will be more likely to learn and put their learning to practical use.

Another important point of this reading was that there are different kinds of knowledge and levels of cognitive processes. Factual knowledge is basic details, conceptual knowledge focuses more on interpretations and theories, procedural knowledge involves knowing how to do something, and metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of one's own cognition. I will use all of these in my classroom at different times. Metacognitive is important to focus on because otherwise I think it might not have enough attention, whereas the others happen more naturally. Science notebooks are a great place to write about your own learning. The different cognitive processes start with simply remembering facts and progress all the way up to creating something. It's important to include this highest level of cognitive processing to make the learning experience more meaningful for students.

Finally, this reading provided a lesson plan format that is useful for a project-based science classroom. I like the idea of everything relating back to a central question. Then there is a sense of continuity and also relevance because that broad question is more easily relatable to everyday life. I also liked the fact that this lesson plan format included the idea of safety. I've never seen that in a lesson plan format before, and I think it's very important to think about--especially in a science classroom.

Iowa Core Science Curriculum

The Iowa Core Curriculum in science includes standards about Science as Inquiry, Earth and Space, Life Science, and Physical Science. I looked at the standards for 3rd-5th grade classrooms, and I saw a lot of connections to what we've been discussing in class. The fact that there is an entire section dedicated to Science as Inquiry shows the importance of the constructivist method of instruction. Students are expected to ask questions on their own and design experiments, not just accept what the teacher tells them is scientific truth. I also noticed that this section mentioned the use of computers in investigations. As we've been discussing in class, technology is very important in today's classrooms. I like the idea of using Google Documents like we've been doing to record data in our class. Finally, this section discussed critiquing and analyzing their own work. I think it's very important to make students comfortable with self-evaluation because it's a great method of formative assessment that increases independence. I always hated evaluating my own work, but I think if I had been exposed to it more, I would have had less trouble. Science notebooks would be a good place for monitoring their own progress.

In the other three sections of standards, I found some other areas of interest. The Earth and Space section discussed changes of earth's land and oceans (which can result in earthquakes, floods, etc.) and weather patterns. I thought that it would be very meaningful to integrate social studies and science together by discussing the science behind natural disasters, discussing a recent natural disaster, and raising money or doing a food/clothing drive to help the victims. Another focus area in this section was ideas about the solar system. As we've learned in class, this is a topic that is shrouded in many misconceptions, so I will make sure to address those misconceptions in my future classroom. In the Life Science section, there was a standard about environmental stewardship, and I was reminded of the School of the Wild. I think going to a camp like this, or even just doing a one-day field trip to a nature center, is a good way to make lessons about the environment more meaningful. Also, one could incorporate this subject with social studies by teaching environmental history or talking more indepth about policy. Developing a project to help alleviate an environmental problem in the community would be a very relevant learning experience as well. The standard about sound, light, electricty, etc. in the Physical Science section made me think of another cross-curricular idea--learning about sound through the musical instruments. The standards also mentions the use of math, so this is another area that should be integrated. I think that integrating the content areas like this would be a very meaningful way to learn (even though it might be a little tricky to implement) because real life isn't compartmentalized like school subjects.

Mosart

I can definitely see myself using the Mosart assessments with my students in the future. They seem to be a great way to uncover misconceptions before starting science units. However, I may consider changing the format a little. The tutorial mentioned that the multiple choice questions helped teachers save time and were actually sufficient for understanding students' misconceptions, but I'm not convinced. I liked the format that Keeley used in her book of probes--multiple choice along with an explanation for why you chose your answer. I think this would help with the problem of students randomly choosing answers. I could even tell students that they should write "I guessed a random answer" as their reasoning if they have no understanding of the question at all. They could also explain their "ruling out" strategies in this explanation portion. If I don't include this, I think it would be a good idea to interview some of the students after they took the test to find out more information.

Overall, though, I think that these Mosart assessments would be very helpful for understanding the misconceptions of the entire class and also of individuals. There might be a misconception that basically every student has, and then I would know to address this with the entire class. However, one student could have a good understanding of some standards and have misconceptions in other standards, while another student is the exact opposite. Analyzing these tests would help me see how to differentiate my science classroom to address that problem. I'm not sure if it would be too chaotic, but perhaps different group experiments could be going on at once in order to address different students' misconceptions. The students could share their results to the entire class by a certain due date.

Another interesting point brought up by the tutorial was that misconceptions can actually be a sign of learning. Sometimes more advanced students are the ones who have the most complex personal theories. This is because they actually took time to consider how the world works. A student may have randomly chosen an answer in the pre-test, but if he specifically chooses a misconception answer in the post-test, this shows he has grown intellectually. For that reason, I will make sure to examine the pre-tests and post-tests carefully to look for those hidden improvements. I also like the idea of giving the pre-test again after the post-test to see if the learning has been retained, but I wasn't sure when this should happen. In my opinion, it may be best to do this towards the end of the school year but still allow enough time to reteach some concepts if necessary.

The Sweater Article

This was an interesting article because it was based on the experience of a teacher using constructivism for the first time. Therefore, it touched on a lot of the questions I've been having about this method of science instruction. The students in O'brien's classroom believed that sweaters kept them warm in the winter because the sweaters themselves emitted heat. After discovering this misconception, O'brien decided to have the students test their idea. It's important to have this "let's find out!" attitude in the science classroom because it shows students that science can help them understand real world problems. Experimentation also makes it easier for students to change their misconceptions. Simply reading or hearing the teacher talk about the science won't be strong enough. Afterwards, the result is often a subconscious split of scientific ideas at school and the real scientific ideas at home.

O'brien found out just how strongly her students were rooted in their conviction, because they stuck to their original idea even after three days of experimentation which seemed to prove them wrong. In her journal, she wondered (as I often have) how long students should be allowed to "construct" the knowledge on their own. (As a side note, I thought it was great that O'brien had her own science notebook which she wrote in at the same time as the children. This emphasized that it was an activity that was very real to life outside of schoolwork.) The article explains that in a constructivist classroom, the teacher should not be passive. Students at the elementary age will often revert back to earlier stages of development and not believe the evidence that is before their eyes. Therefore, teachers need to step in to introduce the true information.

I was sort of confused, however, on when this information should be presented. In one part of the article, there is a quote from Pasteur: "understanding favors the prepared mind." For that reason, I thought maybe it would be better to tell the students the correct information before they experiemented. However, later the article made it seem like the sweater lesson was a good example--that you should start with an experiment that contradicts students' misconceptions, then provide the correct information, and finally do another experiment to show that this information was correct. I think that this latter method is more effective because students are experiencing scientific inquiry that is more real.

I was really glad that the article pointed out the problem of time. Learning in a constructivist classroom creates a dilemma. On one hand, you can't cover as much material, but on the other hand, the students will truly understand the material you do cover. As we've discussed in class, oftentimes we learn the same things over and over every year but never truly understand the concepts. If students truly understand the topic the first time, perhaps we don't need to cover as much material in one schoolyear. However, it's still something that makes me hesitant about constructivism.

Keeley et al

This is an introduction chapter to a book that focuses on formative assessment, specifically on the "probes" or questioning techniques which can be applied by teachers. These probes are designed to bring students' misconceptions out into the open. Research has pointed to the most commonly held misconceptions, and these are included as possible answers to the probing questions. In order to be considered formative, findings about student preconceptions must then be used to make changes in teaching methods or provide feedback to students.

I will definitely use formative assessment probes in my classroom. The reason they are so important is because teachers need to know students' background knowledge in order to teach them something new. Based on their prior experiences, students' ideas about science are very strong, so it is best for teachers to build from those ideas and address unscientific ideas head-on if needed.

One thing I didn't agree with in this chapter was the idea that misconceptions should be considered "alternate frameworks" instead. The authors argue that students' ideas may conflict with a scientist's formal ideas but might not be completely incorrect. Even though it's important to stress that science is all about testing unproven theories, I feel like this terminology just gives students more reason to continue believing in their misconceptions.

At first, I was also concerned with how the chapter presented the idea of "probing questions" as part of a paper-and-pencil pre-test. I remember doing this throughout all my years in school and never truly understanding the purpose. It was usually just a multiple choice test that we never saw again after the first day of class. I think that it could be helpful to inform students about the idea of misconceptions so they have a better understanding of the pre-test. Maybe a teacher could even demonstrate how misconceptions are often carried with students throughout all their schooling (as we saw in the video about astronomy concepts).

Another important thing that was missing from these pre-tests was the reasoning behind our answers. Without this information, my teachers didn't understand the details of my misconceptions, so how could they effectively work to change them? The conversation between student and teacher is what brings out the child's ideas. I was glad that the chapter mentioned other ways to use probes--through journaling or discussions, for instance--because I think the paper-and-pencil pre-test can get old. Talking or journaling can lead to more engagement and deep thinking about the topic as well.

Peters

This article discussed the views of Piaget and Vygotsky and how they can be implemented in a constructivist classroom. The differences between Piaget and Vygotsky's ideas were specified as well, and this is important because I think it's a good idea to find what you like from each point of view and use that in combination in your classroom. Piaget focused on cognitive constructivism and the different stages of development. He thought that students had to be at the correct stage of development in order to enhance their learning. Vygotsky, on the other hand, focused on sociocultural constructivism. This has more to do with how the environment around a student contributes to learning, and he believed that learning led to development.

In my opinion, it's important as a teacher to pay attention to Piaget's stages of development for a general outline of how to teach your students. For instance, in the concrete operational stage (upper elementary school), students are able to do more thinking processes but still can't think abstractly. Therefore, it's important to include a lot of concrete materials and real life experiences to make their learning more meaningful. I think that it's also important to stretch students in this stage to think abstractly so that they can move on easily to the formal operational stage (especially if they are 11 or 12 years old).

Personally, I think it's more important to focus on Vygotsky's ideas because he placed more emphasis on learning being constructed through social situations. I think that it's very important for students to share their thoughts with each other in class and to encourage social collaboration. Peer tutoring is also a good idea because students at a lower learning level can benefit from being scaffolded by a more capable peer. The problem with this, as I mentioned in my response to the Krajcik article, is that teachers need to make sure that higher level students still have a chance to be challenged. Ideally, students would be switching the role of teacher and learner so that everyone benefits in the end.

The ideas presented in the article about the scientific language were also interesting to me. The whole language approach has the merit of being more in context, but I wonder how I would approach teaching difficult words. It seems like students would struggle to read something if they didn't know many of the scientific terms. Maybe we could discuss them as a class when students come across those words.

Overall, the constructivist approach seems very beneficial and like it would make learning meaningful, but I'd really like to see it in action to know how to make it flow smoothly.

Krajcik

Overall, social constructivism says that when students are involved in constructing their own knowledge, they will have a better understanding of science concepts.The most important features of the social constructivist model are that students are able to be actively engaged, apply their knowledge, represent their knowledge in multiple ways, learn in a community, and partake in authentic tasks. These features all relate back to students being involved in their own learning instead of just passively taking in what the teacher says. By making the learning experience their own, it is more meaningful, therefore resulting in more learning.

There were a lot of ideas in this article, but some of them really stuck out to me as ones I would like to use in my future classroom. However, several questions also arose while I contemplated which ideas I would implement.  I like the idea of a problem-based classroom where students are searching for the answer to a relevant question. Encouraging discourse with students to help them understand what they know and to realize what questions they have is important as the first step towards beginning this project. I was unsure, however, of how to make this work smoothly. The question must be relevant to the student, but it also must facilitate the achievement of learning standards. Teachers can guide students towards a question about a certain topic, but it seems like this would result in students asking about something they don't really care about. Perhaps some projects throughout the year could be completely student-initiated, whereas others would require the teacher to spark some curiosity about an otherwise uninteresting topic.

I really like the idea of students using this project method to take action to improve their world. The Science Technology Society movement focuses on topics like health, population, resources, and the environment--all of these are avenues for projects which could have a real impact in the world. I think this provides for some of the most meaningful learning because students see a true purpose behind their lessons. Finding out the answer to a question is great if you're a curious person, but projects that improve the world show students that the lessons they learn in school can be applied to real-life siutations to promote change. One problem with the project method and a constructivist classroom, however, is that it takes up a lot of time. It's worrisome to think that important topics might not be covered, but I think that it's possible to integrate many science topics into one project.

I also thought that Dale's Cone of Experience was interesting, and I will pay attention to how I present concepts in class. The use of more concrete materials and less simple lecturing will help students be more active learners.  Self-evaluations and revising was another area of social constructionism that I found interesting because I know that a lot of kids hate these activities. It's probably a good idea to do self evaluations and revisions often so students get more used to them. Another important aspect of revisions is that students will be more willing to revise when their work will be public. If they are partaking in a meaningful, real-to-life project (such as organizing a recycling campaign for the school), other people will often see their work and they will want it to be good.

I will also strive to create a learning community in my classroom because kids learn best when they are discussing their ideas. The classroom needs to be a very social, comfortable place because otherwise some students will feel like they can't speak up. Another important idea is that students should be peer mentors working within each others' zones of proximal development. I love the idea of finding something that each student is good at and posting a sign which tells students who to go to with questions about certain topics or tasks. There is one problem with this, however. Even though lower level students benefit from the exchange, higher level students may be held back. They benefit from explaining topics because they get an increased understanding from talking about them, but it's important that they don't get stuck in a tutor role all the time.