The authors make an excellent case for using “inquiry” methods to teach elementary students science. Certainly the more engaged a student is, the richer the experience. Inquiry teaching draws children in, challenges them and then propels them to greater heights. One key aspect is how deeply the student can be touched in the process and how ingrained these effects can be. Witnessing and performing an activity always leaves a more lasting impression than listening to a lecture or reading a book.
Learning science or math is not about memorizing the periodic table or the powers of 2, it is about understanding concepts and learning how to think about and figure out problems. It is essential that our schools keep producing young people who can lead the United States in scientific discovery and progress. Students must have a grasp of “scientific literacy,” defined by the National Science Education Standards as “the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.” All the more reason that science should begin to be taught at an early age. Is there really an argument against this?
The most fascinating point I (re)discovered and reflected upon is how stimulating science can be, how to do it accurately and properly, you have to use both sides of your brain. You need to be methodical and creative. As the authors said, “Logical reasoning, scientific knowledge, and imagination must be used…” This idea makes science a rather appealing line of work, not unlike teaching.
Ultimately, studying both science and math using inquiry methods makes sense in practical terms. Students need to be able to apply what they learn and discover solutions that are important to them.
You covered a lot of the issues raised in the chapter. Indeed, the authors make a strong case for the inquiry approach to teaching science. It is the approach that develops thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as conceptual understanding in science. The authors also make the case for starting science instruction at an early age, an idea with which you are in agreement. And yet this does not always happen in schools. Why do you think that is?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, science, like teaching, requires use of both sides of brain. Science is not just logical, thought it is that. As you point out, it is important for scientists to think creatively as well.
P.S. I'm posting this comment after having thought I already did so. Is it possible that it was deleted? I dunno.