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?
My feeling is that scientific terms or language can often be intimidating to students in that they think the topic will be too complex or difficult to understand. I think that if students are able to work with an idea and develop their own theories first will give them more ownership over topic and make it more accessible to them. Simply giving their idea a name after they have developed it, I would imagine, would do little to detract from process of actually developing it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan, I think if we let students develop their ideas through modeling first, we can see if they truly understand the concept/phenomena. One could ask students to apply their models to other situations or alter it based on a variable in order to check again for deep understanding. Then, one could introduce the term or terms the students had just discovered on their own. This is probably not the way any of us learned science terms, but I think it is a method to consider.
ReplyDeleteI think Dan's comment is aligned with what Harlow et al. would argue for. I don't think the authors were opposed to bringing scientific terms into the classroom, but that they shouldn't be use as the sole evaluator of student ideas. Exclusively using science terms in a classroom - and maybe even using them before introducing the concept at hand - can make science feel like an isolated body of knowledge that is only useful if memorized. Getting at the conceptual underpinnings and then introducing important terminology makes students generate their own ideas and see how these relate to the scientific community, which empowers students as scientific thinkers.
ReplyDelete