A recent trend in medical field is evidence based medicine. While it might seem obvious to most of us that medicine should be evidence based, often times it is based more on what doctors have always done or gut reaction then on the latest science, or even worse alternative medicine is often based on nothing more than a crazy idea. What does this have to do with science education? Well as obvious as it may seem that science education should also be evidence based, that also is not always the case. Science teachers, like doctors, often teach the way they have always taught or based on their impression of the best way to teach rather than following the sciences of pedagogy, psychology, and neurology.
Psychology tells us that everyone falls into the traps set by our own brains. These traps include confirmation bias, finding patterns where none exist, and extrapolating conclusions from insufficient evidence. In understanding these brain traps can we avoid them, by gathering evidence through the use of science. That is one of the powers of science, it can light the way out of the traps and show us what really is. Unfortunately it is very easy for teachers to fall in these traps. Thinking that their teaching methodology is effective because they want to be effective, ineffective teachers and teachers using ineffective techniques often don’t even know that they are being ineffective because of confirmation bias, or extrapolating wrong conclusions from insufficient evidence.
So what do these fields of science tell us about teaching in general and science teaching in particular?
•That people learn science by doing science, not just studying science. People’s brains must be actively engaged from true learning and understanding to take place (this is why Socratic seminars are so powerful).
•That concentration centers and short term memory centers of the brain are only good for about 10 minutes and 3 or 5 facts before they are overloaded and people begin to tune out.
•People learn what is most important to them first and best, the rest of the details don’t stick in our brains, and those details may become distorted in our brains.
•Our brains work by making connections between what we already know and we are learning. Students are not blank slates coming into a classroom. Even Preschoolers already have a notion of how the world works.
•It is hard to break the cognitive dissonance often created by science. Science is not intuitive, and as a species we are programmed to trust our previous experience and intuition more than what someone tells us.
•Our brains still work on problems even when we are not thinking about them (have you ever woken up in the middle of the night with the answer to some question from the previous day? Or remembered someone’s name hours after you were talking with them and could remember their name, and you were even thinking about them anymore?) This is the processing time our brains need to make connections and solve problems. This processing time takes days to occur for a new idea or concept.
All this helps point a way forward for a better education system. One where students are engaged, given processing time, and not bored by brain unfriendly activities, such as worksheets or overly long lectures with too many facts than someone can possibly remember. A classroom where the cognitive dissonance is recognized and talked about so that students can connect new learning to existing neural pathways. This is science based science education.
In medicine being science based isn’t just about the clinical practice, but also educating patents on their health and why you are doing what you are doing or suggesting treatment. In medicine the mind of the patent is a powerful ally or foe when it comes to treatment, think of the placebo effect.
Science Teaching is the same. Students don’t just need to know their science facts, but they need to know the data and stories behind those facts, again the fields of psychology and neurology light the way forward. In understanding that the human mind has evolved over countless generations to pay attention to what is most important (usually for survival) and to understand stories and as a powerful pattern finding organ we can use this to our advantage when teaching by playing to these strengths of the human mind, rather than its weaknesses.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Literacy Creep
An interesting discussion is happening at The Core Knowledge Blog about Literacy Creep. Check it out at http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/01/11/literacy-creep/
This is in no way an endorsement of Core Knowledge, but it is an interesting discussion.
After checking it out, I would love to hear what you think. Is Literacy Creep a problem? Does having to teach literacy get in your way of teaching science or does it enhance your science your classroom and your students ability to learn science?
This is in no way an endorsement of Core Knowledge, but it is an interesting discussion.
After checking it out, I would love to hear what you think. Is Literacy Creep a problem? Does having to teach literacy get in your way of teaching science or does it enhance your science your classroom and your students ability to learn science?
Monday, January 4, 2010
Learning progressions
The standards movement in education has yet to fulfill its promise and potential of raising the achievement level for all students. Instead of being used as benchmarks to measure the progress of student s, the standards, and the assessments used to measure them, have too often been co-opted into a ranking system. Learning progressions, used well, can help change the conversation in classrooms to what strategies can we use so all students meet the standards.
Learning progressions defined a sequence of learning steps with in a specific topic. An example of a learning progression with infants is first sitting up, then pushing themselves up, then crawling, then walking, then running. Every big concept has a similar series of progressive steps that need to be mastered before going on to the next one. Within any subject area there are only a handful of big or important ideas that someone should know. The rest are just details about that idea. It can certainly be debated what those big ideas are, but once there is a consensus around those big ideas a progression can be made of the concepts and skills that a student needs to master in order to understand each big idea can be established. Students must build their concept of any of the big ideas over time starting with less sophisticated concepts and skills gradually getting more and more sophisticated with those ideas.
The power of learning progressions within a big idea is the tools it provides teachers for differentiation and intervention for all students. Often the topics being studied in science class have a set of prerequisite knowledge for students to be successful, without this background students struggle with the topics. Learning progressions provide powerful tools to teachers by prescribing pre-assessments for students. These pre-assessments should test range of learning progressions within a big idea, so that teachers know where individual students are on the continuum of learning within that big idea. Armed with data from the pre-assessment teachers can then tailor their lessons to meet the students where they are instead of expecting the students to all be ready to tackle that topic in the same way. These same pre-assessments also let students know where they are and where they are expected to go.
Similarly, defined learning progressions also point to intervention strategies when a student is struggling. Students struggling in science classrooms often don’t have the prerequisite knowledge for where the teacher is. By understanding the learning progression of big ideas teachers can more easily fill in the gaps in student knowledge using a deliberate plan action rather than randomly trying different things for that student.
Publications such as AAAS’s Atlas of Science Literacy provide the map needed to start using learning progressions in Standards, Curriculum planning, and Instruction.
Learning progressions defined a sequence of learning steps with in a specific topic. An example of a learning progression with infants is first sitting up, then pushing themselves up, then crawling, then walking, then running. Every big concept has a similar series of progressive steps that need to be mastered before going on to the next one. Within any subject area there are only a handful of big or important ideas that someone should know. The rest are just details about that idea. It can certainly be debated what those big ideas are, but once there is a consensus around those big ideas a progression can be made of the concepts and skills that a student needs to master in order to understand each big idea can be established. Students must build their concept of any of the big ideas over time starting with less sophisticated concepts and skills gradually getting more and more sophisticated with those ideas.
The power of learning progressions within a big idea is the tools it provides teachers for differentiation and intervention for all students. Often the topics being studied in science class have a set of prerequisite knowledge for students to be successful, without this background students struggle with the topics. Learning progressions provide powerful tools to teachers by prescribing pre-assessments for students. These pre-assessments should test range of learning progressions within a big idea, so that teachers know where individual students are on the continuum of learning within that big idea. Armed with data from the pre-assessment teachers can then tailor their lessons to meet the students where they are instead of expecting the students to all be ready to tackle that topic in the same way. These same pre-assessments also let students know where they are and where they are expected to go.
Similarly, defined learning progressions also point to intervention strategies when a student is struggling. Students struggling in science classrooms often don’t have the prerequisite knowledge for where the teacher is. By understanding the learning progression of big ideas teachers can more easily fill in the gaps in student knowledge using a deliberate plan action rather than randomly trying different things for that student.
Publications such as AAAS’s Atlas of Science Literacy provide the map needed to start using learning progressions in Standards, Curriculum planning, and Instruction.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Assessment and Testing. What does the research say?
We have all heard the catch phrases against testing such as “we are testing our students to death” or that our schools have become “a culture of testing”. But what does research say about students in terms of testing and learning? The answer may surprise you.
Testing not only assesses what students have learned, testing enhances student learning. That’s right! Testing it turns out can be a learning experience itself. A Study published in Memory by Karpicke indicates that repeated testing was MORE effective than repeated studying for information retrieval. Our brains work by making neural connections. Every time a particular neural pathway is used, that pathway or connections is strengthened, making it more likely for that person to remember it in the future.
Beyond that they found that even when students get the wrong answer on a test that it enhances learning. It is thought this works for a couple of reasons. Test questions can help activate prior knowledge and let students know what is important. So it helps focus attention and effort.
Studies find that “People remember things better, longer, if they are given very challenging tests on the material, tests at which they are bound to fail” (Roediger, 2009). The key to this is that the students have to get feedback on the correct answer in a timely manner.
How can teachers use this? As hard as it is for some to believe, teachers should be giving more, harder tests to students, especially more pre-tests and more formative tests. But the tasks must be relevant and students must receive timely feedback on their performance on these tasks.
Under the right conditions testing is good for our brains, and good for learning.
Read more at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-it-wrong and http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kornell/Publications/Richland.Kornell.Kao.2009.pdf
Testing not only assesses what students have learned, testing enhances student learning. That’s right! Testing it turns out can be a learning experience itself. A Study published in Memory by Karpicke indicates that repeated testing was MORE effective than repeated studying for information retrieval. Our brains work by making neural connections. Every time a particular neural pathway is used, that pathway or connections is strengthened, making it more likely for that person to remember it in the future.
Beyond that they found that even when students get the wrong answer on a test that it enhances learning. It is thought this works for a couple of reasons. Test questions can help activate prior knowledge and let students know what is important. So it helps focus attention and effort.
Studies find that “People remember things better, longer, if they are given very challenging tests on the material, tests at which they are bound to fail” (Roediger, 2009). The key to this is that the students have to get feedback on the correct answer in a timely manner.
How can teachers use this? As hard as it is for some to believe, teachers should be giving more, harder tests to students, especially more pre-tests and more formative tests. But the tasks must be relevant and students must receive timely feedback on their performance on these tasks.
Under the right conditions testing is good for our brains, and good for learning.
Read more at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-it-wrong and http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kornell/Publications/Richland.Kornell.Kao.2009.pdf
Thursday, December 17, 2009
10 things you can do to improve student outcomes
At the recent Colorado Science Conference I did a presentation on “10 things you can do to improve student achievement”. I have always been interested in what the best ways to engage students with knowledge are and how to ensure that students retain that knowledge. A combination of combing research and personal experience using various techniques; I have come up with this list of 10 strategies to improve student achievement.
1.Science study should involve doing science, that is questioning and discovering, not just covering material.
2.A Limited, judicious use of information giving. Students should only receive information in 10 minute time frames with time to then process and apply what they have learned.
3.Students should explore fewer topics in depth, not skim many superficially.
4.Develop a clear, coherent, science content storyline.
5.Integrate and teach how scientists read, write, speak, and do math.
6.Provide applications of science and technology.
7.Teacher use of Formative Assessments to guide instruction and improvement rather than to assign blame.
8.Interactive engagement of students (Students Are Intellectually Engaged with Important Ideas Relevant to the Focus of the Lesson).
9.Science is shown as a dynamic body of knowledge.
10.Sufficient time for Sense-Making.
Sources:
• Weiss and the Horizon research group
• TIMSS Video study
• Brain based teaching
• Linking science and literacy
• Use of Formative Assessments
• Brain Considerate Classrooms
1.Science study should involve doing science, that is questioning and discovering, not just covering material.
2.A Limited, judicious use of information giving. Students should only receive information in 10 minute time frames with time to then process and apply what they have learned.
3.Students should explore fewer topics in depth, not skim many superficially.
4.Develop a clear, coherent, science content storyline.
5.Integrate and teach how scientists read, write, speak, and do math.
6.Provide applications of science and technology.
7.Teacher use of Formative Assessments to guide instruction and improvement rather than to assign blame.
8.Interactive engagement of students (Students Are Intellectually Engaged with Important Ideas Relevant to the Focus of the Lesson).
9.Science is shown as a dynamic body of knowledge.
10.Sufficient time for Sense-Making.
Sources:
• Weiss and the Horizon research group
• TIMSS Video study
• Brain based teaching
• Linking science and literacy
• Use of Formative Assessments
• Brain Considerate Classrooms
Friday, December 4, 2009
Active Learning
One of the things that most, if not all research, on education agrees on it is that learning must be active. But what does this mean? How do the revised Colorado science standards encourage active engagement of students?
Active engagement of students means that students have to interact with knowledge in a deep and meaningful way, instead of being the passive recipient of knowledge. For our brains to function best, they must engage new thoughts and ideas within our current knowledge and most importantly make connections to that knowledge. This is where active engagement comes in. Does this does not mean that teachers should never give students an answer, have them read from a book or from the web, or lecture? No, these techniques have their place in our schools and classrooms, it is the amount of information the students are supposed to process, how long students are supposed to concentrate, and what you have students do with the knowledge afterward that makes the difference.
Exposing students to an idea or having them hear about an idea does not necessarily engage the brain and make the necessary neural connection for the idea to have meaning and for the idea to be “internalized”. For this to happen students need to time to talk about the idea or to explore the idea further either through a hands-on experience or through a simulation. Then students’ understanding of the idea or concept needs to be challenged with thought provoking questions or situations that challenge the idea. Students need to see evidence that the idea is true or that works in multiple situations. The key is that students must be involved in meaningful ways.
There are many tried and true education techniques that get at active engagement such as inquiry learning, hand on activities, field trips, problem based learning, project based learning, think, pair, share, using essential questions, researching and writing, concept mapping, class discussions and Socratic seminars as well as some new ones like using “clicker” questions in class and computer simulations. Like any education tool or technique there are appropriate and inappropriate uses for any these, and just because you use one of these techniques does not guarantee students are actively engaged.
The new Colorado science standards not only support active learning by students but require students to be actively engaged in meaningful ways to master content. Wording in the evidence outcomes of the standards such as: “Students will develop, communicate, and justify an evidence based explanation...” or “Students will gather, analyze and interpret data on…” require that students have deep understanding of concepts that only comes with active cognitive engagement with those ideas. When students are actively engaged in learning students they use higher order thinking skills and they retain more information. Active engagement make learning more fun so students typically enjoy active engagement cutting down on discipline problems.
Active engagement of students means that students have to interact with knowledge in a deep and meaningful way, instead of being the passive recipient of knowledge. For our brains to function best, they must engage new thoughts and ideas within our current knowledge and most importantly make connections to that knowledge. This is where active engagement comes in. Does this does not mean that teachers should never give students an answer, have them read from a book or from the web, or lecture? No, these techniques have their place in our schools and classrooms, it is the amount of information the students are supposed to process, how long students are supposed to concentrate, and what you have students do with the knowledge afterward that makes the difference.
Exposing students to an idea or having them hear about an idea does not necessarily engage the brain and make the necessary neural connection for the idea to have meaning and for the idea to be “internalized”. For this to happen students need to time to talk about the idea or to explore the idea further either through a hands-on experience or through a simulation. Then students’ understanding of the idea or concept needs to be challenged with thought provoking questions or situations that challenge the idea. Students need to see evidence that the idea is true or that works in multiple situations. The key is that students must be involved in meaningful ways.
There are many tried and true education techniques that get at active engagement such as inquiry learning, hand on activities, field trips, problem based learning, project based learning, think, pair, share, using essential questions, researching and writing, concept mapping, class discussions and Socratic seminars as well as some new ones like using “clicker” questions in class and computer simulations. Like any education tool or technique there are appropriate and inappropriate uses for any these, and just because you use one of these techniques does not guarantee students are actively engaged.
The new Colorado science standards not only support active learning by students but require students to be actively engaged in meaningful ways to master content. Wording in the evidence outcomes of the standards such as: “Students will develop, communicate, and justify an evidence based explanation...” or “Students will gather, analyze and interpret data on…” require that students have deep understanding of concepts that only comes with active cognitive engagement with those ideas. When students are actively engaged in learning students they use higher order thinking skills and they retain more information. Active engagement make learning more fun so students typically enjoy active engagement cutting down on discipline problems.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Grade level standards
One of the bigger changes in the draft standards for science for Colorado is the move to grade level standards grades K-8. In 2007 CDE commissioned WestEd to do a review of the Colorado State standards and compare them to other states and countries. As part of this review WestEd looked at who is doing grade level vs grade span standards and found that many high achieving states and countries such as Virginia and Finland specify their standards by grade level.
The State School Board, based on WestEds review and on advice from the Stakeholders Group on Standards, charged the various standards development subcommittees to write grade level standards P – 8 that reflect mastery. It was the decision of sub-committee to let the age and development level appropriateness of the topics dictate where they were placed in the P – 8 standards instead of forcing a grade level placement through themes or connections. This decision was made because it was right for the content and because the idea of making grade level themes or even having life, Earth, and physical at different grade levels seemed to move more into curriculum than being true to the developmental appropriateness of the content.
The draft content standards are designed to show when students should master a concept in science and therefore be ready to progress toward understanding the Prepared Graduate Competencies, in this way they were designed to be a teaching progression and not a mandate for what is taught at each grade, which is the job of curriculum developers.
As we move out of the standards development phase and into the standards implementation phase, we are now looking for the connections between those standards that will help teachers when implementing them.
The State School Board, based on WestEds review and on advice from the Stakeholders Group on Standards, charged the various standards development subcommittees to write grade level standards P – 8 that reflect mastery. It was the decision of sub-committee to let the age and development level appropriateness of the topics dictate where they were placed in the P – 8 standards instead of forcing a grade level placement through themes or connections. This decision was made because it was right for the content and because the idea of making grade level themes or even having life, Earth, and physical at different grade levels seemed to move more into curriculum than being true to the developmental appropriateness of the content.
The draft content standards are designed to show when students should master a concept in science and therefore be ready to progress toward understanding the Prepared Graduate Competencies, in this way they were designed to be a teaching progression and not a mandate for what is taught at each grade, which is the job of curriculum developers.
As we move out of the standards development phase and into the standards implementation phase, we are now looking for the connections between those standards that will help teachers when implementing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
