This time last week, I was wrapping up my visit to NSTA's 2016 National Conference on Science Education in Nashville. This past week has been spring break for many of us here in chilly Kentucky, so I've had a chance to reflect on what I learned at the conference, and I'm going to try to distill some of it in this post. As I attended a session on teaching reasoning, I was delighted to hear the presenter say that she'd been teaching the claim, evidence, reasoning framework for 5 years and still struggles with teaching kids reasoning. I'm not delighting in the pain of others; I'm rejoicing in the revelation that I'm not alone. Other people are struggling with some of the same issues that I am. Transitioning to the NGSS isn't easy; it isn't quick; and it requires adjustments from teachers and students. When we come together and share our struggles, we help other teachers realize that they aren't the only ones struggling to live up to the vision of the NGSS. When J. Drew Lanham lapsed into poetry during the Brandwein Lecture, I knew I was in the right place. (April is National Poetry Month, after all.) He wasn't talking about using NGSS to teach poetry; he was using word choice, rhyme, and rhythm to inspire scientists and teachers. The title of his lecture was "Love: The Four Letter Word that Science Forgot." It was, for me, a much needed reminder that science (much like teaching) is about the heart. A love of science is, for most, a prerequisite for investigation and discovery. Natural curiosity flows from the heart before it makes connections in the head. To reach our students, to inspire them to become interested in careers in science, we have to reach their hearts, not just their minds. In addition to being renewed by J. Drew Lanham's lecture and realizing that I'm not the only one struggling, I was also provided the benefit of being connecting to resources to support the work I'm doing in my classroom. One of these resources is The Argumentation Toolkit from Lawrence Hall of Science. This website offers videos, activities, and strategies for helping students develop their skills in argumentation. They have activities that you can use just as they are in your classroom, but they also include ideas for customizing the activities to work with the particular DCIs that you are addressing in your unit. These don't need much explanation. Connecting with science colleagues from virtual or real-life personal learning networks, eating great food in Nashville, and picking up free stuff in the exhibit hall. Of course, all of these things are better in person, but even if you weren't in Nashville last weekend, you can still experience most of the benefits I've described through online resources, personal learning networks, podcasts, and reading Tweets from #NSTA16. Let's keep the learning and conversation going online. Together, we're better.
0 Comments
When I first read Reimagining the Science Department, I was concerned about how successful The Framework and the NGSS would be in changing how science is taught across the United States. It looks at the history of science education in the US and points out that similar reforms in the past have failed. Then I read Science Teachers' Learning published by National Academies Press which pointed out the huge gap between the way science is currently taught and the vision of The Framework and the NGSS.
Taking both of these together, one might fear for the future of NGSS implementation, but I have reasons for hope. This is the first time in the history of science reforms that science teachers can easily connect with colleagues not just across the hall, but also across the district, state, nation, and the world through social media. Earlier reform efforts were forced to rely on conventions, mailings, journals, etc. to spread best practices. Today, we have the power of the Internet. Obviously, you know this because you're reading my blog, but let me take some space here to share how being connected makes us stronger and smarter. I am part of a state network for the implementation of the NGSS. As such, we meet monthly to explore the standards and to develop as teacher leaders. This network method has its strengths. It gathers teachers together and ensures that representatives from every district across the state (and Kentucky has a lot of districts) hear the same message. It also has some negatives. Only a limited number of science teachers can attend (3 per district plus one special education teacher). It is also limited in its focus. The facilitators (and the participants) aren't completely free to explore their own needs with NGSS implementation because the network has its own agenda. Still, this has been one support for my in my NGSS implementation journey. The second connection that supports NGSS implementation in my classroom is the teacher next door. I am lucky enough to teach in a school where three teachers split the 7th grade science classes. This means that I always have a partner to plan with and someone to bounce ideas off of. Together, we take my vision of NGSS and translate it into classroom instruction that works in middle school. Obviously, we're not perfect, but working together we are stronger than working alone. The negative of this is that we are only three people and we're still figuring out the NGSS. Probably my favorite network exists virtually. It's one one that I've developed through social media. Using Twitter, I've connected with great science teachers across Kentucky and across the United States. I've been able to ask questions, share experiences, offer advice, and have lengthy discussions with science teachers I've never met. All of us benefit from these, even when we don't exactly agree with what we hear. The #CER4Sci summer book club was born out of connections made on Twitter. You can see the archives of our summer book club using the link above. Through this experience, middle school science teachers from across the US were able to dig into the CER framework and help each other figure out how to use it in the classroom. Twitter is also useful for connecting to other science teachers' blogs. A group of us post blogs on a regular basis and promote them on Twitter via the hashtag #NGSSblogs. This allows other science teachers to easily find out what's going on in NGSS classrooms. Through Twitter and blogging, I have also connected with some amazing Kentucky NGSS educators who are working hard on a vision of developing NGSS teacher leaders. This is organized around the Multi Tools Online Community. I could keep talking about virtual professional learning communities, but instead, I'll encourage you to go get connected (if you aren't' already). It's only through these connections that we can really reach the vision of The Framework and the NGSS. Find those around you (virtually or in real life) who make you smarter and stronger. Together we are better. Come learn with us. (You can find me on Twitter @tksicguy.) Earlier this week, I picked up a copy of E. O. Wilson's Letters to a Young Scientist. (E. O. Wilson is a noted noted biologist, retired Harvard professor, naturalist, and author. He is also one of the world's leading experts on ants.) In this book, he gives budding scientists of any age advice about becoming scientists and includes anecdotes from his life and growth as a scientist.
If this were a different blog, I'd encourage you to read the book, but this is a blog related to NGSS and classroom instruction, so I'm going to use his ideas to think about classroom instruction. In one chapter, Wilson identifies three archetypes from science and literature that can inspire further study and deeper love of science. The three archetypes are journeys to unexplored lands, search for a holy grail, and good vs. evil. These archetypes can provide motivation to scientists who are frustrated or befuddled. They can encourage scientists to continue their work in light of failed experiments. Could they also be used to inspire our students to careers in science? Could we, as teachers, frame parts of our curriculum around these three archetypes? In thinking about my 7th grade curriculum, I have a few ideas. Journeys to uncharted lands could encompass cells, organelles, body systems, molecular and atomic structure, etc. Searching for the holy grail could be used in the similar units if we talk about current challenges in human health (cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.) This could also be used in a unit on energy since a perpetual motion machine is something of an unreachable holy grail, but we can attempt to get as close as possible to one. Good vs. evil could be used when dealing with digital vs analog signals. Data transfer using digital signals can be encrypted in an effort to keep unwanted eyes from seeing the message. Could these archetypes also be used to point students towards content that is only tangentially related to our curriculum but could inspire future scientists? At the very least, these archetypes help us, as teachers, remember that we do want to do more than inspire students to pass a test; we want to inspire future scientists and citizens who love science. What do you think? Are these archetypes helpful? Could/would you use them in your classroom? Admitting weaknesses is difficult, but I'm about to do it. I struggle with differentiation of lab activities. I don't struggle with the need to differentiate; I know that some students don't need what this particular lab offers. What I struggle with is the ability to successfully provide an alternative to those students. I know that I don't want to use a differentiation method that I've seen before where the students who already know the content are asked to research something else that is either tangentially related or something to deepen their understanding of the content. Research instead of a hands-on lab is a recipe for developing students who hate my class and who hate science. I also don't feel like I can effectively plan, gather materials for, and monitor multiple lab activities in my classroom at one time. Recently, I have placated myself with the reminder that NGSS is new and that all of my students need exposure to the science and engineering skills that the labs provide, even if they already have a firm grasp of the DCI that is tied to the investigation. Most of my students enter my class with a limited number of laboratory experiences, so they can learn a lot during our lab activities about the practices that scientists use. As I seek to continually deepen my understanding of the NGSS and to improve my implementation of them, I have come to a point where it is time to tackle this idea of differentiation in lab activities. Below is a list of some ways I think I can differentiate a lab activity so that my top students are continuing to grow while working through the same lab as (or one very similar to) the one the rest of the class is doing.
I can already hear some of you saying, "all students should be doing these things." I completely agree. However, I struggle to get this much out of one lab. All students do need to know how to construct explanations, and we work on that together. Maybe during this particular lab, writing an explanation is not a focus. If there are some advanced students who are expected to finish early, they can use that extra time to construct a written explanation. Maybe for this particular lab, it would be great to compile data from multiple classes and analyze it, but time constraints won't allow it. If so, that is something that could be differentiated for some students. Obviously, at some point (actually several points) during the year, all students will have opportunities to compile and analyze data sets.
Are there other ideas that you use as go-tos for differentiating a lab experience? If so, please share. After 2 1/2 years of working with the NGSS, I was starting to feel a bit confident about understanding it's vision--not making the vision a reality, but at least understanding the vision. I understand 3-dimensional learning and phenomena based teaching. I understood that the Disciplinary Core Ideas reduced the amount of "content" so that students could develop a depth of knowledge not possible when teachers have to cover a "mile" of content.
Then, while I was enjoying the snow days this week, I downloaded and began to read the National Academies newest resources for NGSS implementation, Science Teachers' Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts. (You can download the entire book as a pdf here.) In this book, the authors make several recommendations that will be needed to support science teachers as they transition from older models of science teaching toward the vision of the NGSS. Before getting to the recommendations, the authors take a quick look at the vision of The Framework and the NGSS followed by a look at current practices in science education. It was in the "quick look" at the vision that I had an epiphany. Until then, I had made some basic assumptions about the DCIs. 1. That they shuffled the order in which content was taught in schools. (For example, a lot of the life science I used to teach in 7th grade has moved to 6th or 8th grade in the Kentucky middle school NGSS model.) 2. That the DCIs were trimmed down to allow for more depth and exploration. 3. That they help teachers decide what to eliminate from their previously over-crowded curriculum. 4. That they added waves and engineering as essential components of science instruction. What I failed to realize is that the DCIs are the essential understandings that allow our students to be science literate. They are the big ideas that underpin science, and if our students understand these big ideas, they'll have little trouble going deeper later. If, indeed, these DCIs are the essential big ideas, then everything in my curriculum should reflect back to them. Every activity I do should be grounded in at least one of these ideas. Every time my students use one of the science and engineering practices, they must be using them in conjunction with at least one of these big ideas. This means I'm going to have to do a little more work in my classroom. I need to learn the DCIs as well as I know the practices and the crosscutting concepts. I could list either of those from memory, but I don't have a good handle on the DCIs. Ted Willard (@Ted_NSTA) has been doggedly reminding us that it's not really NGSS if it's not connected to a DCI. I finally get it, Ted; I finally get it. Will you join me this week in asking, "What DCI does this activity/lab/discussion/etc. connect to?" ( See below for a list of the DCIs.) Use this link to go to the chapters focused on DCIs in The Framework. This week I started teaching the law of conservation of energy and energy transfer to my middle school students. I knew that they were well on their way to understanding the different types of energy (especially gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy), but I suspected that they would have trouble with the transfer of energy because it is such an abstract concept.
To check for misconceptions, I had students answer a couple of questions in an in-class simulation. After picking a students in class, I asked, "How could (specific student) increase his/her gravitational potential energy?" Since my students are middle school students, it didn't take long for someone to suggest: "Stand on the table." This first step told me that students did indeed have a grasp of gravitational potential energy. I know from other assessments that there are some students who still have not internalized this, but they are getting there. For the second step, I asked students to apply the law of conservation of energy: "Where did that extra gravitational potential energy come from? We can't create energy so it must have come from somewhere." This is where I heard crickets, then tentative guesses such as: "His potential energy was added to the potential energy of the table." My initial thoughts were confirmed. Students would need practice working with transfer of energy to deepen their understanding of it. After some missteps, the class finally arrived at an acceptable path that the energy could have traveled to become gravitational potential energy. What are the lessons here? How does this connect to NGSS? The biggest lesson is one that Paige Keeley has been teaching us for years: misconceptions need to be identified and addressed. This can only happen by eliciting the misconceptions through conversation or some other kind of formative assessment. Had I not taken the time to question my students, I could have quickly explained the law of conservation of energy and moved on. Students would have been exposed to it and could have memorized it, but their actual thoughts/beliefs would not have changed. The second lesson is that change takes time. This one-time event is not enough to cause students to change their thoughts about how energy is transferred. It will take multiple exposures and multiple opportunities to think deeply about how the law of conservation of energy applies to situations that are relevant to my students. Luckily, we are about the begin building paper roller coasters which will allow my students to analyze many transfers of energy (provided that I ask the right questions). The NGSS connection? Even as I'm typing this up, I'm realizing that students have seen the crosscutting concept, flow of energy and matter before. When we worked with photosynthesis and cellular respiration, students saw the flow of energy and matter. We even took the opportunity to trace the energy in a human back to its ultimate source, the sun. This past experience can be combined with our current study to reinforce the flow of energy and to help students realize relationships across the science disciplines. **For more information about how students develop conceptual understanding, see this video from Smithsonian. It's animated, but it is intended for science teachers. And it's based on the latest research in learning. As I look at the advances we've made in NGSS implementation in the last year and a half, I am pleased. The "content" has been shifted so that each grade level in the district is now teaching the correct DCIs. An increased emphasis on the science and engineering practices has lead to more hands-on and minds-on my science classroom and classrooms across the district. At this point in implementation, it is tempting to pat myself on the back and coast on those successes. My students are getting better science education than any students in my classes every have. Their education is hands-on and minds-on. Compared to those teachers still focusing on memorizing content, I'm doing pretty well. However, if I stop and focus on the vision of the NGSS instead of the hypothetical teachers down the hall, I realize that I have a long way to go to reach the vision.
But, back to the subject at hand--NGSS implementation. I think this is a good time to reflect on the vision of the NGSS and the Framework for K-12 Science Education. It's time to see how well the changes I've made align with that vision. I think the vision of the NGSS is best encapsulated by the following statement from the EQuIP Rubric for Lessons and Units: Science. Grade‐appropriate elements of the science and engineering practice(s), disciplinary core idea(s), and crosscutting concept(s), work together to support students in three‐dimensional learning to make sense of phenomena and/or to design solutions to problems. When I look at that vision, I see that the changes I've made are good, but they aren't good enough to realize the vision, and they aren't good enough for my students. Changes in who teaches what topics and how those topics are taught will always fall short of the vision if instruction doesn't originate with phenomena and include the integration of the 3 dimensions of the NGSS (disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts).
So, at this point, I will pat myself on the back for doing good work, but I won't stop there. I will internalize the idea that good isn't really good enough. I've got to continue to be intentional in designing instruction around phenomena and focusing on making that instruction inclusive of the three dimensions. I hope that you will also pat yourself on the back for the hard work you've done in NGSS implementation thus far, and then take a look at the vision and realize that all of us have more work to do. Will you join me in committing to ensuring that our kids get a world-class science education--not just a "good" science education? If you ask anyone who's tried to kick an unwanted habit, they will tell you that it takes work. The same holds true in the classroom as we try to implement new ways of teaching and designing instruction.
For the past two years, I've been studying the NGSS and the Framework on which it's based. I've tried to amass a large body of knowledge about what quality NGSS instruction looks like so that I can replicate it in my classroom. It has been an exciting and rewarding journey, and I'm reminded daily that I'm not done yet. My stack of articles and books to read, videos to watch, blogs to read, and instructional practices to try keeps growing. Sometimes it can feel a bit (or a lot) overwhelming, but growth is a good thing. Now back to the habits that I mentioned in the opening lines. Today, Kentucky's Commissioner of Education (and science rockstar), Dr. Stephen Pruitt, addressed science teachers from across Kentucky at the Kentucky Science Teachers' Association's annual conference. If you weren't there to hear the address, weren't following on Periscope, and didn't see my Twitter feed, you missed a great speech. I've gone back through my notes and my Twitter feed in an attempt to capture some of the highlights for you. What I quote below are not exact quotes since I didn't record the speech, but it does represent what was presented by Dr. Pruitt, Karen Kidwell, and other science staff from KDE. About Teaching and LeadingDr. Pruitt reminded us that it's important that people go into education and stay in education because it's their calling, not because it's convenient. He encouraged us to always use our teacher voice to say proudly, "I am a teacher." We never need to marginalize ourselves by saying, "I'm just a teacher." He stated that he took this job to work for kids, and he assured us that his office will not make decisions that aren't in the best interest of students. He also reminded us that Kentucky has been talked about across the nation in every educational meeting he's been in over the past 5 years. People know that we're moving forward in Kentucky and they are anxious to follow our lead. Kentucky has great respect in the educational arena across the country. About AssessmentKDE is working to make sure that everything is right before releasing any sample items for the new assessment system. Dr. Pruitt said that although we are slated to have an NGSS summative assessment in 2017, he will not release a bad test, so it may not be ready in 2017. In further discussion of assessment, KDE staff suggested that if students can answer an assessment question solely by pulling information from something they've read in a book, then the assessment item isn't deep enough. Dr. Pruitt assured us that the summative assessments that will be designed (probably for 4th and 7th grades) will be very different from the tests we are used to taking. They will not be focused on memorized facts and vocabulary. Regarding our current assessment and accountability system, he suggested that our accountability system is far too complex, but that at the state level, Kentucky does a good job of limiting the amount of assessment it places on students. He did suggest that we need to look at the amount of assessment mandated at the district level, though. Regarding Science InstructionDr. Pruitt suggested that we need to get rid of the myth that students can read about science and understand it. He mentioned that we need to address instructional practices in science, and we need to ensure that all students have the opportunity to access high-quality science instruction at every grade level. (Eliminate the opportunity gap.) Then, he suggests, we can work on assessment. "3-dimensional learning is hard" ~Dr. Pruitt "We are going to have a STEM agenda in Kentucky." ~Dr. Pruitt The TakeawayThe new science standards, much like the Common Core State Standards, require a depth of thinking that many students have not been asked to use before. Instruction and assessment must focus on this depth and complexity as students use Science and Engineering Practices, elements of Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts to explain phenomena from their world. The bad newsThe only bad news that Dr. Pruitt shared today came when he answered the question, "UK or UofL."
His answer was, "War Eagle." I think we can get past that one (for the kids). Have you seen the evidence statements that have been developed for the NGSS? I anxiously awaited their release throughout the school year last year. I knew that they would play an integral role in my understanding of the NGSS. You can find the evidence statements at this link http://www.nextgenscience.org/middle-school-evidence-statements In 7th grade, we are wrapping up our first big unit on chemical reactions. While we didn't use the evidence statements when we developed the unit, we are reflecting on them at the close of the unit. In this reflection, we are finding validation of some of what we've done and we're also finding that in some areas we may not have gone deep enough.
When we looked at the evidence statements for MS-PS1-2, we found validation. We found that that we had prepared students to achieve proficiency. We had given students many opportunities to analyze data from before and after a change to determine if a chemical reaction had occurred. In doing so, we also required them to provide evidence to support their ideas. However, when we looked at the evidence statements for MS-PS1-5, we realized that we had missed a few key details for this performance expectation. We had students creating models to show the before and after of a chemical reaction. We had students counting atoms in the before and after models to show that the number of atoms remains the same while the arrangement of atoms changes. However, we had failed to help students understand that each type of atom has a specific mass that stays the same. After this realization, I decided to use students as human models of a chemical reaction. The same students generated the reactants and the products so that students could visibly see that the "atoms" had the same mass before and after the reaction. As we move throughout the rest of the year, we'll be using the evidence statements as part of our curriculum design. As we do, we'll be keeping these things in mind (from the Introduction and Overview of the evidence statements).
|
Archives
June 2023
Categories
All
|