2/23 Jenna - Pedagogical Resources in the Modeling Classroom

Harlow et al.'s article about "pedagogical resources" reminds us of the mindsets of teachers that are asked to put model-based science education to use in their classrooms. Harlow et al. examine the pedagogical resources - small ideas and assumptions about teaching that are picked up through experience over time - that pre-service teachers bring to the table when learning to model and to teach through modeling. They identified four such resources, applied in both appropriate and inappropriate ways by the students in their modeling course:

1. The teacher provides the right answer.
2. Guiding is less certain than telling.
3. A good scientific model includes scientific terminology. 
4. Children are creative.

This article is interesting because it brings many of the pedagogical resources I (and we as a class) hold to light. For pre-service teachers who have not experienced this kind of instruction in their own learning experiences, it is no doubt difficult to shake these assumptions away, or to leverage them in a new context. It is also not particularly surprising to me that the researchers found these resources extremely prominent in their students' thoughts; experience, as I mentioned, is one reason pre-service teachers have these assumptions, and another is the current testing and standardization atmosphere. As we've mentioned in class and in our blogs, standards and testing put a lot of pressure on teachers, and modeling-based instruction can seem to be a counterintuitive response to that pressure. What I think Harlow et al. do well is that they explicitly forefront pedagogical resources and show how they impact teacher attitudes and decisions. By making our own pedagogical resources explicit, we can more closely examine how they are shaping our approaches to instruction, and adjust how we apply our resources so that they are more aligned with our ideals.

• What do you think of the notion that pedagogical resources are applied appropriately or inappropriately? What is this appropriateness relative to? Can resources be applied appropriately in one context but not in another?
• What are other pedagogical resources that you believe shape your thinking about teaching (with models or otherwise)?

2/23-Elizabeth-honing in on how to teach (Harlow)

I really liked the Harlow, et al article because it applied more directly to what I was concerned about with regards to teaching and where I was at in my life (i.e. college).   In her article, Harlow focused on a “knowledge in pieces,” approach to understand potential teachers’ views on teaching (1099).  According to diSessa (found in Harlow’s article), “knowledge in pieces” refers to the general ideas about phenomena that many people hold due to their interaction with the world around them.  Thus, an individual’s ideas can either be applied appropriately or inappropriately to explain and make sense of a specific scientific concept.  This is both in play with the student and teacher.  The example that Harlow, et al gave about “closer is stronger” and the misconceptions that come along with it when applied to summertime and the position of the sun was directly observed in my Science Literacies class last semester.  My fellow classmates and I partook in a student activity where we had to draw the earth and the position of the sun at different times of year and explain them to the class.  As revealed, some students did not fully understand that the sun is not closer to the earth in summertime, resulting in the temperature increasing, due to general ideas that when put into words mimicked “closer is stronger.”  Furthermore, we watched a video where 8^th graders tried to explain this phenomenon, and similar results were observed.  Harlow goes on to define “pedagogical resources,” which is the focus of her study, as the ideas about teaching within the knowledge of pieces and came to the conclusion that many potential teacher held four main resources, which can be applied inappropriately or appropriately: 1) the teacher’s role is to provide the right answer, 2) guiding students is less certain that telling them, 3) good model includes scientific terms, and 4) children are creative thinkers. 

            All the participants took the Physics for Teaching course, which after modification, contained PET, which used model-based instruction and included LAL.  These components made the class less of a content/knowledge based class and more of a discussion and learning about learning, which included actually completing some student activities, then watching videos of students doing the same thing, and reflecting of the process of learning science.

            This article tied to many previous article, especially The Framework, diSessa, and Schwarz which were directly referred to.  The tie to The Framework, was clearly evident in the article’s focus on model-based instruction, and the reference to the 8 core practices, especially numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.  While we did not read the article where diSessa defined “knowledge in pieces,” she did focus on the importance of communication and clarity in her novel, Changing Minds, which is critical for teachers (and students) to succeed in the classroom and for modeling to become “infrastructural.”  Finally, Schwarz was also mentioned in Harlow’s article regarding three practices that potential/new teachers must strive to do: 1) engage students in science, 2) organize instruction, 3) understand student ideas (1100).  This follows with what we previously read from Schwarz, who emphasized that successful modeling is an interactive process that involves constant revision, argumentation, and investigation (engagement).  Furthermore, he noted that modeling is a dynamic, ever-changing process where students constantly change their models as their own understanding develops and teachers are there to help guide them (understanding ideas).         

As previously discussed, the class that was studied greatly mimicked Science Literacies, where we partook in many of the same activities that students in the videos we watched after did too.  We saw similarities and differences in the way we approached scientific ideas and were able to more fully identify with student thinking, which is critical for student success.  This idea of LAL has also applied to the labs we do in Science Modeling.  It directly applies to Harlow’s words, “Teacher learners discuss their initial ideas about a particular physics concept, use computer-simulated and/or laboratory experiments to help them develop their understanding of this concept, and discuss their observations and interpretations within their small groups” (1103).  In our lab activities, we manipulate the computational models, slowly gaining evidence and building up our understanding of certain physics ideas.  Furthermore, when we did not understand something, such as the secret number or how to obtain certain colors, we discussed it amongst ourselves and furthermore manipulated the models to come to a greater understanding.   

Questions:

1)   Harlow mentioned the problem of a lack of actual opportunity or practice for potential teachers to teach.  Do you think the new opportunities where teachers have residency and engage in student teaching for a longer period of time is useful?

2)   What is a good way to organize instruction?  Should you focus more on student ideas or teacher ideas?  How much room for “flexibility,” I guess you could say, should you have?

      

2/23 - Kim K - Probing Pedagogically

The undergraduates in this PFT course thought, “guiding students through the process of proposing, testing, and revising models was less certain than telling them the scientifically accepted answer.”  I wonder if this thinking is merely a product of their own learning experiences, since a lot of science is taught with ‘getting the right answer’ as the goal/end of a lesson.  I also wonder why the instructors for this course did not address this misconception alongside all of their modeling units.  Allowing students to make mistakes and revise those mistakes is completely essential to the process of science.  We have read about this in every modeling paper and even in the frameworks.  Perhaps, though, these undergraduates did not make the connection of the discovery and revision processes of modeling to them actually telling students the correct answer.  This brings to mind the struggle I had with my clinical interviews last semester.  In the moment of those one-on-one interviews, I did not realize how often I told my interviewees the answer to a question I posed rather than guiding them to a correct answer.  I think that with practice and a more determined thoughtfulness while teaching, I can overcome the urge to “spill the beans.”  In order to counteract the possibility of students gaining misconceptions, I think educators need to be aware of where students are having problems and further explaining a concept if that is needed in order for students to form a more accurate model.

            Another aspect of Harlow et al’s paper I found intriguing was the undergraduates’ discussions on evaluating the children’s models of magnets.  I think most of us realize that knowledge of scientific vocabulary does not always mean knowledge of what those words actually mean.  We watched many videos of classrooms and students where a child would use a really great vocabulary word to describe some phenomena, but after further probing and questioning from the teacher, the student struggled to explain the phenomena/concept correctly.  Although I would never want my future students to come into my classroom as “blank slates,” it is kind of worrisome thinking about all the misconceptions I might have to address.  Just another teaching challenge!  I think modeling with NetLogo can be a great tool for teachers to use so that students have another “source” that is guiding them to a correct answer.  A student working with models in NetLogo can see immediately if his/her model has a problem, and then refine that model in that instant as well.  Modeling with a computer program is also a great way to actually use students’ ideas to inform instruction.  Students are building their own modeling or coming up with their own code to answer a question, and teachers can use how a student has completed this task to inform them on what that student is missing from the instruction.

Questions:

How can teachers keep scientific literacy an important aspect of the classroom while making sure students will not use that vocabulary as a crutch for their explanations?

Are you also deeply worried that these undergraduates thought creativity could be a hindrance to instruction?

2/23 Dan - Pedagogical Resources

Harlow’s paper focused on outlining the application four resources in a modeling-based physics course. These four resources were developed and addressed in the context of the concerns of science and mathematics teachers-in-training. The issues and concerns raised in this paper have strong connections to A Framework for K-12 Science Education and the work of diSessa, as specifically mentioned by Harlow. By stating that there is a real need to shift modeling to the center of science classroom instruction, his work reinforces diSessa’s claim that computational literacy is a topic that should also be shifting to the core of academic standards. The NGSS Framework also reinforces many of Harlow’s claims. Several of the practices for K-12 science classrooms deal with using models to explain and predict, as well as thinking creatively to construct explanations and evaluating information. The issue of students being creative thinkers, as outlined in Harlow’s 4th resource, is one that is prominent in our work with NetLogo. In order to create a model from the ground up, it requires a great deal of creativity and patience. There must be edits, testing, re-edits, and even more testing. As we have already seen, even just with OneTurtle, there can be several different ways to explain the same phenomenon with modeling software. Exposing students to each others ideas and engaging in discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of different models is an integral part of the scientific process. This also draws heavily on the 2nd resource that Harlow outlines, that “guiding students is less certain than telling them”. While I have shared similar concerns, it seems that Harlow, and many of the authors we have read, are arguing that the process of grappling with the concepts and conflicting ideas is just as important, if not more so, than arriving at the “right answer”. In my own class, I think my biggest concerns would be on what level, or to what extent, do I use the students thinking to determine lesson plans and find the right guiding questions to prompt student thinking? I have read that it takes three to five years of teaching a subject to develop the pedagogical content knowledge necessary to create the appropriate questions that engage students in meaningful discussion. What can we do to help prepare teachers to be ready to engage in the type of practice when they enter the profession?

2/23 Caitlin - Revising Resources

Harlow’s study focused on computational modeling and how pre-service teachers understand it. A recurring theme I noticed in Harlow’s paper was the discussion that creating and using models is a necessary science practice that science students should learn. A Framework puts emphasis on the learning how to create, analyze, revise, and use models to explain and argue scientific and engineering concepts. Other authors, such as Nersessian, Pickering, and Wilensky, say that models should not just be accurate (consistent with scientific research), but they should also be predictive of phenomena. Many of the Netlogo models, even the oneTurtle.jar we have looked at, or modified, do have predictive power, though the oneTurtle is a little more limited. We also have been able to revise our models, sometimes with others giving suggestions to improve the program. This is an example of how students in future classrooms should be working with all models.

Writing and adjusting lesson plans according to student thinking and understanding was another theme in the paper. In the Science Literacy class from last semester, we touched on interviews and informal assessments to check for student thinking. It was interesting to see the same done for a class of pre-service teachers. Interviewing can bring out background knowledge, misconceptions about ideas, and changes in knowledge. This was seen in the homework assignments and interviews in Harlow’s study. I also had some misconceptions about computational modeling and programming when being introduced to Netlogo. I knew that it is a good teaching tool and resource for students to learn concepts more deeply. However, I was not sure what computational modeling would look like (I have had limited experience with coding), in the classroom (time-wise, difficulty, etc). Fortunately, this class is altering my views and understanding of how computational modeling works.

Harlow et al. revealed some pedagogical resources that the students used appropriately, and inappropriately, in different situations. The authors argued that these resources need to built upon so pre-service science teachers are more prepared when they are teaching their own classes. The first two resources, which connect to the adjusting lesson plan theme, are about how to guide students and when the answer should be given. The third resource is about terminology. The Wolf Sheep Predation and Mimicry Netlogo models I looked at did not include the terminology, at least not on the interface, that students would need to know for a standardized test. Should a model include terminology? Or, when should such science vocabulary be taught to students? Harlow seems to agree that students need to know the terminology for discussion about what they learned, but when should terms be introduced? I was thinking a scaffolded worksheet for students to work on throughout a modeling activity could help here.

Science question: Why are insects so small (I’m glad they are though)? I think this is a body mass and shape versus skeleton size and strength type of question?

2/23 Laura - It is 'known'

            This week’s reading by Harlow et al. resonated with many of our discussions on science education, both this semester and last.  As we, the audience, are going through the process of teacher education ourselves, I think it was a very interesting opportunity to consider the trends in our own thinking and how we want to utilize our pedagogical resources in the classroom.  I think the most significant trend for our cohort is a certain level of reservation regarding the plausibility of modeling and truly allowing classroom inquiry to be student driven, even when we can all see the value in theory.  I think this ‘inappropriate application of resources,’ as Harlow says, comes from the pervasive tendency to ultimately teach the way that you were taught. Our task then, as a cohort, will be to support each other in seeking the value in the unknown – in the inquiry driven and computational modeling learning styles we were rarely exposed to as students.  Therefore, opportunities to practice modeling as we would implement it (via Netlogo or last semester’s modeling exercises) help us to both feel more comfortable teaching the material and expand our experience as students to see the learning potential in modeling    

            In teaching Netlogo, I think it is definitely possible to appropriately apply the four resources that Harlow et al established.  In my classroom, I hope to guide students toward an active role in learning, which Netlogo can help provide in a structured, scaffolded way such that students can feel like they are making their own discoveries- which are grounded in data and not misconceptions.  I think Netlogo will also encourage students not to just wait for the teacher to tell them the ‘right’ answer, but instead practice asking questions of a system, a set of data, or what is ‘known’ in science.  I really believe that students are creative thinkers, and having talked about science with kids of all ages, I think that this impetus is shut down in educational settings more and more as students get older.  Therefore, I believe it is especially important to promote that kind of creative thinking at the secondary level, to trust in your scaffolding and your students’ capacity, and not fear its potential digression.  

Questions:

I feel conflicted about the value of scientific terms.  Obviously they are necessary to participate in scientific dialogue, but I think many high school students learn the word before they really understand the concept.  How important do you all think scientific words are to the modeling process?  Without personally interviewing each student, how can you assess whether they are using scientific words superficially or with a deeper understanding of meaning?

Modeling Question:

How is group rhythm derived?  When the audience claps along in a large concert hall, they are more often than not off beat.  Is this a case of fire-fly-esque synchronization, or is there a sound delay in large rooms? 

2/23 David Bergsmith Teacher Resources

Harlow offered four pedagogical resources for teachers to create a through instructing approach. These four resources are providing students with correct answers or solutions, guiding students to find a correct answer or solution, including scientific vocabulary to create an effective model and encouraging students as creative thinkers. These four teacher resources aligned with the modified curriculum of the Physics for Everyday Thinking that was applied and adapted to the course and the goals that the Physics for Teaching course that was studied in Harlow’s research. This course, a class for pre-service Physics instructing included “an appreciation for the role of students’ ideas in the teaching and learning of science and an introduction to how to teach science through modeling” as goals for the course (p.1104). However, instructors must be cautious as to how much or how little scaffolding is offered to students when allowing them to investigate and formulate their understanding. Harlow calls this a challenging and uncertain task.

Research found that the intersection between organizing instruction and understanding students’ ideas was a difficult practice for pre-service teachers. Harlow says that inappropriate use of teacher resources leads to one effective practice such as organizing instruction but an ineffective practice such as understanding students’ ideas. Thus, it is important to consider the goals used by the Physics for Teaching course; an appreciation for the role of students’ ideas in teaching and learning of science requires effective teacher resource application and practice of teaching. Including time to discuss, and appreciate, students’ ideas gives autonomy to their construction of knowledge. Also, teachers must then build upon students’ ideas in the classroom and use students’ ideas to give information to the class.

This article referenced a work by diSessa and NGSS’ Practices for Science Education. Harlow suggested effective teaching to build upon students’ cognitive processes as experiences as resources. A students’ personal experience will play an important role as to how knowledge is interpreted and constructed. A “closer is stronger” analogy is described in which the relationship of closeness between an individual and an experience the stronger the influence of the experience will be to the individual. Then, the development and use of models practice of the NGSS is referenced. The refinement of models develops an understanding of the representation created and builds knowledge by discussing its’ language specific properties. This is another use of an effective teacher resource, that a scientific model includes scientific language.

The intersection between organizing instruction and understanding students’ ideas was cited as a problem for pre-service teachers. What activities or discussions could we hold in class to better ourselves for this instance? Teachers often resource how they were taught as a student when faced with a problem they are unsure to handle. How can we prepare ourselves to not fall into this habit, concerning not appreciating students’ ideas to build upon further information? Also, what kind of activities or discussions will lead to that all students in the class feel that their ideas are appreciated?