A Framework: Practice Makes Perfect

The readings, for this week, from A Framework for K-12 Science Education, gave an introduction to new concepts that should put into science classes. Chapter two describes the principles that this framework is based off of, and how concepts should be taught as a progression of learning throughout primary and secondary education. The beginning of Chapter 3 discusses the first dimension of scientific and engineering practices that should taught in schools.

A Framework included many themes that have been discussed in earlier readings. These include the importance of modeling in the classroom. Lehrer’s research and articles argued for this. Argumentation and explanation were predominant in the articles by Sampson and Reiser, where a student should learn how to analyze and then communicate what they found to others, through modeling and representations. Representations were mentioned in A Framework as well. The article says that, by the end of 12^th grade, students should be able to critique representations and create their own. Our representation assignments and readings covered how representations have to be used carefully, depending on what is seen in the representation, and how it can be misleading.

Another common theme was that the goal of science education is not just to teach a student scientific facts: the results of scientific practices, but also how those pieces of knowledge were found. This theme has been constant in almost all of the readings assigned so far this semester. Lehrer describes, in his modeling articles, how a class should be representative of a scientific community. Sampson, Jackson, and Greeno also emphasize the importance of scientific practice as a way for a student to gain an understanding of science and scientific material. Students discovering facts on their own is also a good way to make the knowledge meaningful. This could increase the students’ motivation to learn, which is a difficult thing to do.

A new theme that A Framework presented, but has not been discussed in other readings or in class, is that engineering and scientific practices are both important practices to be taught, though as separate practices. It appears, according to the tables comparing scientific and engineering practices, that the two are not very different from each other. Is engineering practice entirely separate from scientific practice? Is the difference that important when it comes to designing lessons for the classroom? Personally, I’ve always seen engineering as another source and outcome of scientific inquiry. Facts and knowledge, that is found through scientific practice, is used to improve technologies or systems, but is also the reason new knowledge is researched. It seems to me that engineering and scientific practices are both under the same question of ‘how does this work?’ Should the two practices be taught as separate fields? 

Framework for K-12 Science Education

 Framework for K-12 Science Education

(National Academy of Sciences)

As the title implies, the general basis of the reading this week deals with providing a framework for K-12 science education.  The framework has a few overarching goals, some of the most notable include a hope by the end of 12^th grade students have enough science and engineering knowledge to participate in public discussions, can decipher what information is credible (related to their everyday lives), and have skills to enter careers of their choice.  The reading implies that currently where K-12 education is failing is by focusing too much on breadth over depth and not providing engaging opportunities to show students how science is really done.  The framework suggests K-12 science education should be built around three dimensions: scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting across fields, and core ideas in physical sciences, life sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering, technology, and applications of science.  One section dives into discussion comparing and contrasting science versus engineering, aiming to highlight the importance of both in K-12 education. Most of the reading goes into more depth about the structure and importance of their framework and how it can be used successfully. 

The reading connects a lot with what we have been learning about the process of modeling so far in class.  In the section Principles of The Framework, references to inquiry, models, representations, development of explanations and claims, argumentation and analysis, critique, review, revision, collaboration, and community are all mentioned.  The reading really hones in on the importance of building and revising knowledge and abilities, which is a focus in modeling as well.  The reading ties in well with discussions we have been having in class.  One of the goals being that students should be able to engage in public discussion of sciences and be able to decipher what information around them is credible is huge.  We had a long discussion on the importance of science literacy and communication among not only the scientific community, but also every other community and the world as a whole.  The idea of less breadth and more depth in core ideas, with a focus on engaging students in opportunities to experience how science is actually done is something I hope to see more of in the future.  We have discussed how difficult effective modeling seems with so many standards and expectations to be covered in place in such a small amount of time.  I think this revised framework would allow for more effective modeling to take place and allow students to get a lot more out of a science class.

Comments on Framework for K-12 Science Education

The Framework for K-12 Science Education was developed by a multidisciplinary committee of educators, scientists, and engineers in response to the perceived shortcomings of American education in the areas of science and engineering. These shortcomings are appearing increasingly dire in light of the growing necessity of science literacy in the workforce and the contrasting illiteracy of many adult citizens. The Framework acknowledges that the current model of science education falls short in that it presents science as a vast, isolated body of facts and disregards engineering entirely, failing to communicate to students that science and engineering are actually dynamic fields of integrated theory and practice. In an effort to address these shortcomings, the Framework provides a model for developing curricula, standards, assessments, and instruction in science and engineering that consists of three interdependent dimensions. These three dimensions are practices of science and engineering, disciplinary core ideas, and cross-cutting concepts that span between the major branches of the natural sciences and engineering.

Practices addresses the parallels between science and engineering, and stresses the nature of both as an integration of skills and knowledge toward a particular goal. This dimension attempts to broaden the view of scientific practices beyond the commonly taught 'scientific method' by engaging students in the full spectrum of activities by which scientists and engineers practice their profession. The emphases here include, but are not limited to, asking questions and defining problems, developing and using models, and engaging in argument from evidence. These practices are presented as the means by which students will interact with the core ideas of science and engineering and come to understand the nature of a career in one of these fields. I found the section on modeling particularly interesting, as it pointed out that the models referred to by the Framework are more often of the external, representational type, rather than the internal, mental thought-model.

Disciplinary core ideas and cross-cutting concepts are covered in less depth in the chapters we read, but particular emphasis was placed in the summary on the need to orient science teaching and learning around a few deep 'wells' of core ideas in science and engineering, which will provide the material with which students can engage in scientific practices and come to see the interconnectedness of knowledge and practices in each field of science and engineering. This marks a distinct departure from the common 'coverage' teaching of science, and makes practical sense from both a pedagogical standpoint (i.e., because it presents knowledge in a more coherent and unified way) and a scientific one (because it is both informed by and adaptable to the constantly expanding nature of scientific knowledge).

Comments on Buehl

The first of the three steps of mentorship that he gives is modeling. I wonder how this is similar to or different from the modeling we've talked about in class thus far. Maybe this is a sub-set of modeling, or more what I would consider a demo? Modeling thinking would be super useful though, especially if you expect students to be explicit about their thought processes, or to think about something as a scientist. Can you imagine being told to consider a text as a scientist without any scaffolding? Students will have no idea how reading science is different from reading novels except that they will probably find it less interesting. That's why we've got to model for them what it means to read and think like a scientist.


On page 35 the chart lists out the fundamental comprehension practices. Based on his wording, these seem like they would fall under intermediate literacies, but based on his message, I think he wants them in the secondary content classroom. I think that should be introduced as general reading practices when students are first learning to "read to learn", which I think is the same stage as his intermediate level. I think these become discipline literacies when we talk about how we make inferences in science reading, and how that is different from how we make inferences in fiction. Students will probably be familiar with most of these only in the context of ELA, not in science. And there are certainly distinctions in each of these fundamental processes between how we do them in science and in other areas. It could actually be super useful to see if they are being taught in other content areas and how students are learning these words to help them avoid confusion.

Buehl Thoughts

I thought it was really interesting how Buehl described the active process of putting on a different "reading lens" in order to help oneself in interpreting a text/situation/atmosphere.  I had never really thought of that before, but I definitely do that; I read my text books not at all like reading my leisure books.  Also I had never even considered that I "read" situations differently depending on the environment or context I am in.
His discussion about pseudoreading completely blew me away because, at times, I have noticed myself doing all of those.  I have formed a habit of self checking so as to avoid the traps of this and especially surface processing, because when my focus is low I tend to start thinking about other things while I read.  Often times I will have to re-read a whole page because I was thinking about what I wanted to make for dinner!
Although I felt Buehl was a bit dramatic in describing reading texts from unfamiliar subjects, I agree that the jargon can be a bit unsettling.  I do take more time reading such texts, but if one keeps up a habit of reading about varying subjects, varying texts should not be so difficult to comprehend.

Week 5

This week's Buehl reading addressed many of the issues we've discussed surrounding scientific literacy in the classroom.  I thought that it was especially powerful that he presented all of the challenges alongside solutions as well as scientific support for why the struggles (for identity, critical thinking, literacy, and more) were worth pursuing with students.  In thinking about the application of Buehl's literacy ideals in my future classroom, I struggled a little with his dismissal of teacher or round robin read-alouds of complex texts.  I understand that listening comprehension is a different entity from reading comprehension, but especially with difficult scientific texts it would seem appropriate to apply Vygotsky's Gradual Release of Responsibility Model to the reading experience.  Under this model (which Buehl describes on pages 26 and 27), a potential literacy lesson might look like: first the teacher would read the text aloud to the students and 'think-aloud' through her reading process (I do, you watch), then do a close reading with the students where they define confusing terms or concepts together (I do, you help), then have them summarize sections as groups (you do, I help), then have prompting questions about the text to answer as homework or as groups (you do, I watch).  Obviously the ultimate goal is to have students reading and working through complex texts on their own, but I think that there is still value to some early scaffolding and strategy work in the form of teacher example.      

Week 5 Memo

Buehl described how readers can identify themselves by different disciplines. In the typical classroom, there may be two types of students, students after having a science class who may enter the science field and students who may not enter the science field. Science teachers should incorporate reading into their coursework so that both future scientists and future nonscientists may be able to read and discuss relevant to their grade and subject while in school, and apply their knowledge to real world afterwards. This is a challenging task; to keep both students who may and students who may not enter a specific field interested and challenged while using the same material. Disciplinary literacy of students should be developed through modeling how to read the text, scaffolding the students through the text and lastly assigning independent reading and learning.

Buehl then describes how students sometimes do reading rather than engaging in their reading. Effective and efficient modeling, scaffolding and then assigning independent reading can be used to avoid students of these habits. Effective and efficient modeling of reading is greatly described by Buehl in his comprehension processes characteristic of proficient readers chart. Lastly, Buehl writes about how students may become troubled with comprehension of science texts. Vocabulary and language used can be very difficult for students who are not familiar with the text. Teachers should also constantly be aware of knowledge of the student; also, careful not to underestimate or overestimate what a student can read. Also, teachers should be aware of models and representations used in disciplinary texts, as these can be misinterpreted very easily by students who are not effective or efficient disciplinary readers.