I believe in open ended learning and most of my labs are of this type where students are allowed to explore a whole range of ideas. So I am really happy writing the findings of my weekly reading for the course and my views.
We often tend to teach students what we know in science and expect students to perform experiments based on the theories that they have learnt by rote memorization and then conclude a hypothesis whose answer has already been given to them. Today students have access to world wide knowledge and obviously their mind is clouded with a whole lot of questions that could be best answered by motivating them to find out ` How we know science, what do we know in science`. They should be given the opportunity to discuss and critique and argue the whole process of what we know and widen their horizons of scientific thinking.
I will base my reflection on two models (alongwith a sharing of my personal experiences on Scientific argument) - `The Victor Sampson and Jonathon Grooms model and the Backward Faded Scaffolding design.
The Victor Sampson and Jonathon Grooms `Generate an argument` model helps create an environment in the science classroom that will result in a more wholesome learning of science by the student. In a way it also scores points in science literacy as it talks about writing in science and its importance.
The main points and steps in the model are as follows
• Encourage group work (Groups of three or four)
• Identify the task, problem or the topic for investigation and begin by capturing the students interest by letting them know that their goal is to explain how they know what they know and why their conclusions are important.
• A brief introduction or handout should be given to students that will guide them through the process of researching a question, guideline that will invoke thinking and the rubric and criteria for assessment.
• They should be asked to generate a tentative argument (my example: Are eddy currents of the same strength produced when magnets move through hollow tubes of different metals of the same thickness and length?Students should be given the theories related to electromagnetic induction, and a raw data of maybe the densities of different metals and the speeds with which the magnets move in the metal).
Students should be able to make sense of the raw data (set up their experimental setup and perform experiments if necessary to compare the data) and support their conclusion with an argument that leads to a final conclusion.
• Interactive posters that will enable them to showcase their work to fellow groups, evaluate, revise their conclusion if necessary.
• Finally they should be encouraged to write their argument as an essay. They should be given a prompt to write the argument that would have the following.
The conclusion they have to support
Evidence and rationale for the argument
Organization for readability
Use of a broad range of scientific vocabulary
The writing should have grammar and should be methodical.
I would like to share the following with respect to the above model. There are two components in the IB curriculum I teach namely the `theory of knowledge` and the extended essay. The above model seems to have been one of the ideas behind the above components. The theory of knowledge focuses mainly on what we know and how we know that we know it. We try and infuse this in out science classes and this opens doors for a lot of discussion. One of the lessons where I have used it is the lesson on gravity.
The extended essay is of 4000 words and if students choose to do their extended essay in science that is a lot of science writing. The essay is written on the basis of several criteria. Students are expected to choose a topic of their interest, develop a research question based on a rationale (why they chose the particular topic, and question), its real life application and then they have to choose variables, set up their experimental design, collect data, process and analyze the data,conclude, pave way for further research in the topic and defend their conclusion. I would say there is a lot of scientific argument procedure going on there. The essay is a final piece of work of 4000 words.
Writing enables to link science with science literacy. It gives the freedom for the scientific mind to put down all lateral thoughts on paper. It widens the horizons of scientific thinking as compared to the traditional ` this is what we know, go ahead and do this experiment ` way of learning science.
Generate an argument helps students develop a deep understanding of scientific explanations, complex reasoning and critical thinking skills.
As the authors say in the article, it develops the scientific habits of mind such as curiosity, skepticism and opennenss to new ideas. It sets new standards for warranted knowledge in science.
Backward Faded Scaffolding design
The Internal assessment for science in the IB curricula has a criteria called ` Design`. Here the students are just prompted with a sentence for example ` Tearing of paper` and they have to decide a research question, choose variables, set up an experiment, collect data and process the data. Often I have found that not all students are able to come up with a good choice of variables and experimental design. After reading about `Scientific argument` I will use the same technique mentioned there. It is so true that helping students create evidence based explanation of scientific phenomena is the core of effective science learning.
They should be guided through the inquiry process. The Backward Faded Scaffolding design by Stephanie and Tim Slater is a good approach for science learning at all levels.
The process would be to first show the students a web page of a relevant topic with data. The students would then look at the set of data , chart out a procedure, see whether the data supports a conclusion, generate an argument and finally draw a conclusion. The teacher guides them throughout this process with suitable prompts.
The students are then given a question for which they will follow the scientific method of deciding the variables, setting up an experiment, collect data, analyze and draw conclusion.
This backward scaffolding method will definitely benefit students who are not very good scientific thinkers. It will give them a hint to begin with their work. They learn to be methodical in their work and also gain confidence to begin another piece of investigation by themselves. Students will feel that the learning was complete. They will be more equipped to answer post lab questions.
Students who are very independent with scientific aptitude will be able to bring out their best in the argument session. The argument is open ended and the students can look at the same problem in a multitude of ways. This will give them an opportunity to improve their scientific knowledge and also give them scope for more exploration. This provides students to ask more questions and promotes inquiry.
In my class situation I could use this kind of a Backward design for a few of the preliminary labs and that will help students understand the meaning of exploring science and inquiry based learning. The argument can be used in combination with Glogster and Voice thread probably.
The evaluation rubric for such a lesson is very broad and different from the usual lab assessment rubric that I use. True as it is written in the article that helping students create evidence-based explanations of scientific phenomena is at the core of effective science teaching.
****************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment