As I read through the first few chapters, I found myself asking several questions. How does this work in the science classroom? How do we get our students to take on the role of scientists? What does that look like after they leave the classroom? How do we complete this statement: writers write and scientists (insert answer here)?
For some students, the answer is easy, scientists become real scientists. They go on to study science in college and work in science fields. But what about the other students? The NGSS has reminded us that science is for all students.
What if we filled in the blanks this way: scientists think like scientists? Whether students are in science fields or making decisions in their everyday lives, thinking like a scientist is a skill that will serve them. And like writing, it's a complex skill. Thankfully, the writers of The Framework provided crosscutting concepts to help us see how scientists think. When these are combined with the science and engineering practices, we have a great model of what a scientist does. While I don't expect my students to plan and carry out investigations once they graduate, I do want them to ask questions about the world around them, create and modify mental models about how the world works, and understand how argumentation helps build consensus. I want them to notice patterns and think about cause and effect. They need to be able to dive deeper than "A came before B, and therefore, A must be the cause of B." I want them to notice connections between structure and function and how some things stay the same while others change.
While it would be great if they can remember how photosynthesis works and explain where trees get most of their mass, I'm more concerned that they take with them the ability to think (and act) like a scientist.
In a writing classroom, writers are often developed using a workshop approach where students work independently, conferring with the teacher, to create something that showcases their emerging abilities. How can we create something like this in the science classroom where there are specific disciplinary core ideas that we must develop and deepen our understanding of? This is where three-dimensional phenomena-based science instruction shines. Students are given opportunities each day to think like scientists as they seek to figure out a phenomenon. (If you need examples of this, check out the examples of high-quality design here.)
There's one more idea from The Confidence to Write that I'm still trying to envision in the science classroom. In writing classrooms, teachers can showcase the struggles and successes that come from being a writer by sharing and discussing their own writing projects. These projects don't look that different from the ways students can use writing after they graduate (regardless of their occupations). In science, we can show the struggles of famous (and not-so-famous) scientists, but these struggles are not likely to parallel how students may use science in their everyday lives. The closest I think I can come in my classroom is exploring some phenomena that I don't already know the answer to--starting the unit without reading through to the end to see how things turn out.