In regards to teaching science, I fully support the approach of viewing science as inquiry and students as constructive learners. Children are innately curious and exploratory. It only makes sense to teach in a way more congruent with that nature, as it creates a seamless fit between the learning style of most children and the appropriate attitude of a scientist. I found the example of constructive learning (the lesson on leaves) on pages 4-6 of the text helpful in illustrating this concept. I attended parochial grammar school from 1978 to 1987 and I do not recall teachers using this approach often. One science teacher perhaps, came close and she asked us many questions used our prior knowledge to assimilate new information. I also recall her class being the most interesting and one of the few that held my attention. With my three sons, I have found that this approach is most effective for them. They enjoy the class and “feel like scientists” when the inquiry method is used and they are considered constructive learners. They feel a part of the education process while learning in an engaging way.
One concern I have is how to use inquiry effectively with my students with special needs. Based on research, many exceptional learners require direct instruction and I am interested in determining to what extent I would be able to use this type of teaching and with which type of students it is most successful. I feel it is critical for students to be able to think scientifically and I intend to investigate teaching science as inquiry to students with special needs.
Due to my belief that children need to be taught to think scientifically, I found the three proficiencies to be very important themes of this chapter. Learning these habits of mind to develop a sequence of behaviors to understand the natural world serves the children not only in science, but across all disciplines. I derived the importance of observation, investigation, using tools to gather data, using evidence to and scientific knowledge to justify ones thinking. This is not merely best practice in science, but in every day life and I believe it is a practical strategy through which to view the world.
That being said, I was surprised by the idea that science is creative. I had never linked the two previously. As a grammar and high school student, I was involved in the arts and would never have considered science creative. I was also surprised by my own ability to hypothesize in a relatively accurate manner when the text posed questions regarding water drops on page 16. I suppose I paid more attention in science than I thought! However, I was confused about the adhesive bonds and cohesive bonds and which exerted a greater force on the wax paper or aluminum. I had to read it twice and “doodle” in the text to understand what the explanation. Yet I understood what processes would be most effective for me to comprehend the material and the importance of teaching such strategies to my future students to make the science curriculum accessible for all of my students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You raise a number of good points about inquiry science teaching. Let's look at students with special needs first. I have found that many students with special needs respond very positively to inquiry teaching. Some students will be hindered by a lack of organizational skills, poor auditory or visual processing skills, poor skills in reading, etc. And so these students will need support. It can be a challenge for the teacher to remember that she is teaching all of her students, and so a one-size-fits-all lesson plan must be avoided.
ReplyDeleteThe other interest point you raised is the question of creativity in science. The best science teaching--and the best real-world science--is creative. The textbook authors point out, correctly, that science is not just a body of knowledge but also a process of learning and discovery. Scientific thinking is rational and systematic thinking but also creative thinking. If it were only one type of thinking, science would be quite handicapped in helping us understand the natural world--don't you THINK?