1/12-Elizabeth-the framework...your new best friend

In the Schwartz et al article, the researchers discuss the components of effective and successful modeling within science education, including those of argumentation, explanation, and revision, alongside the understanding of the purpose of modeling and why it is important.  Schwartz et al also pointed out that modeling is a dynamic and interactive practice, where students continually change their models as their own understanding develops.

The Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards is a new framework focused on improving science education, striving to create an educated and active generation of individuals.  This framework emphasizes the importance of science and engineering practices, how successful practices are achieved, and how these skills can be used to produce enlightened students who critically think about the science around them.

Major Relevant Themes:

·      Science is NOT a static subject but an activity-focused endeavor:  I find it is always important to remind myself that science education is not about learning “isolated facts” as the Framework called it, but instead practice or “activity” driven, where students engage in argumentation, explanation, and revision of their ideas about scientific topics.

·      Making science meaningful is critical for student success: I have learned over the course of my time here that making information relevant to students and letting them know why it is important that they understand science it critical to their motivation and grasp of the concepts.

Both articles discussed the practices of modeling, argumentation, explanation, and revision are essential for successful science education.  In the framework, this is seen in the 8 practices listed for the K-12 curriculum, where the authors have outlined a potential student’s progression through their grades and where they should be in terms of understanding and practice.  In the Schwartz et al article, the researchers discuss similar practices of modeling yet provide specific examples of this practice-in-play within a 5^th and 6^th grade classroom.  Schwartz et al also emphasized this idea of progression and he ever-changing nature of student modeling.  While these articles did have similarities, the framework delved into the differences between engineering and science, an idea I never really thought about.  I had always considered engineering a science and therefore made little distinction between the two.  However, I did always view engineering research as a more “hands-on” science, or, as the framework puts it, one that has “immediate practical application” (47).  Thus, how would an engineering classroom differ from a science classroom?  Furthermore, I liked how the reading talked about the two varying purposes of argumentation.  While science argumentation focuses on coming up with a simple, single coherent theory for a wide range of phenomena, engineering argumentation focuses on coming up with the best productive designs tailored to certain specifications and choosing among them based on other reasons.  The framework mentions using “models” in both science and engineering classrooms, but what are some specific models for each?  How much “practical application” would students be able to achieve in an engineering classroom and what would these practices look like in the younger grades?