Buehl 3 &4: Bridge the gaps!

In Buehl chapter three, I found the idea of match and mismatch with an author interesting, because I encounter all three types when I read a new text. I know that I will lose interest in a passage if I am not familiar with the concepts or terms that are used by the author. If this happens for a text I have to read for a class, I take forever to finish, or even attempt to finish the whole passage. In the end, I do not get anything out of the text. If I know just enough, I feel motivated enough to go look up the few terms that I do not know. Then, usually, I am able to read through the text and process the new concepts. It is worrying that teachers sometimes try to avoid the problem of having an academic knowledge gap by avoiding reading texts as much as possible, and just do activities or tell the information instead.

Buehl offers frontloading as a way to build the bridge across the academic knowledge gaps that can occur. It seems that frontloading can be diverse and flexible, as it can review old material and get students to pull in prior knowledge while being either quick or long. It sounds like it could even do some of the work a clinical interview does, as it allow a teacher to see what a student has heard before.

I would like to hear more about wide reading. How complex should the texts and articles offered to the students be when students are still learning basic terminology for ideas and concepts? Also, can media count as wide reading?

Buehl Chapters 3 & 4

Buehl Chapters 3 &4

I think Buehl brings up some really great points about reading assignments and students.  He writes, “We tend to think of comprehension as the understanding of what an author tells us, but it is the implicit part -what is not on the page- that matters most” (Pg. 74).  I never really thought about how much background knowledge and experiences go into reading assignments.  The knowledge gap is a huge issue; especially with such dense science textbooks we all know and love.  That being said, I really enjoyed chapter 4 and the idea of frontloading instruction and building knowledge for reading, not through reading.  Having students draw from their own previous knowledge and then re-examining that knowledge is a great way to see where the class is as a whole with the concept prior to much reading.  Buehl brings up great examples of frontloading with much knowledge, frontloading with diverse knowledge, and frontloading with insufficient knowledge.

For me, what I enjoyed most about this reading was how applicable it is to my future classroom.  I can absolutely see myself using some of these frontloading strategies in an effort to not only draw out prior knowledge and promote priming for new knowledge, but also to help bridge the knowledge gap with textbook readings that can be intimidating.  I like a lot of the strategies presented, especially ones that leave room for predictions, hypotheses, inquiry, discussion, and revision.  These types of strategies would fit nicely into a modeling approach.  Earlier, I bashed Buehl for writing to much about himself (what he is good and bad at), family, and things he likes to do and not do, but after reading these sections it’s pretty clear he knows what’s up.

Designing Learning Across Settings

Quinn and Bell decide to discuss how the Framework for K-12 can be reached through designing, making and playing. They pushed for students to engage in the material through exploration of phenomena on their own. They advocated for student participation in the design process and active in the decisions that are put into their education. They identify many similar practices that many of the other articles have highlighted are essential to science. Asking questions and defining problems, modeling practices, investigations, etc.

Brand and Reiss talk about how engaging in science outside the classroom is important for the development of science knowledge. These practices are able to authentically immerse the student in a scientific phenomena. For instance, exploring nature to look at similarities between species or organisms and talking about why that may be. Seeing and experiencing science is more powerful because it is able to connect the student to the knowledge. Outside resources that are not authentic can be helpful as well. Field trips to museums, movies, speakers, etc. can provide a different way for the student to interact with information rather than through a textbook, the internet, or a teacher's voice. These practices are interactive and engage the student. They highlight five ways that engaging in science outside the classroom is beneficial: improved concept development, more authentic and practical interactions, new access to science resources, improvement of attitude toward science, and students are able to collaborate together.

These two articles focus on many of the same practices that we have been discussing. It is quite clear that engaging in science as scientists actually do is the best mode of learning. The articles discuss how modeling, engaging the students, posing questions for students to investigate, and evaluation are essential to good science learning. All of this information builds on each other nicely.

Bring the outside in?

The two readings for this week focused on how students can learn science from informal education settings. Quinn and Bell focused on how designing, making and playing can support and help the goals of the A Framework for K-12 Science Education, of which we read earlier in the semester. Braund and Reiss argue that out-of-school experiences would benefit science learners.

Motivating and interesting students seems to be the overarching theme for why informal science education should be used in schools. Braund claims that out-of-school trips and projects would allow students to experience ‘authentic’ science. Quinn has similar feelings, and says projects and out of school experiences would allow students more autonomy in what they learn, which would boost their intrinsic motivations to learn. He calls it identity-driven, which reminded me of the Buehl chapter on identities. Other earlier reading touched on this idea as well. In the modeling, argumentation and explanation papers, the authors argue that students should have the ability to choose a question they wanted to answer. Teachers can scaffold what questions could be asked, but the students should want to find out the answers. Quinn and Braund argue that informal education could lead to student interest, as it would be student driven. Furthermore, it can give students a positive idea of what practicing science and engineering is like. I liked the example, where physics students to can to a theme park to see physics and engineering practices at work. However, going back to Beuhl’s identities and motivating students; how can we motivate a student who’s strengths are not in the science, engineering, or computational fields?

Braund and Reiss bring up the difficulties of including more out-of-school experiences. There is limited time and funds for teachers to take students on field trips, and while students can learn how to put vocabulary into context, there is not certainty that all of the students will learn what they need to learn for standardized tests. However, I think that Quinn and Bell attempt to bring the ‘authentic’ science into the classroom. The authors discuss how their method can be used to support the goals of the Framework. There may be less fieldtrips, but they say that students encounter chances for science exploration enough in their world outside of school. The designing, making and playing method seems to follow along the ideas of modeling, argumentation, and communication, which is what all of our readings argued students be able to do, but adding even more autonomy for the student. Projects would help scaffold what students observe outside of school. However, I wonder what designing, making, and playing projects would look like in and out of class. Would it be like the tweet assignment we do, but then create a project to solve a tweet question, and then present the refined models to the class? How would these types of projects be scaffolded? 

Designing Learning Environments Across Settings

                Braund and Reiss’ article titled, “Towards a More authentic Science Curriculum: The Contribution of Out-of-Schooling Learning,” sought to give evidence to why informal science education can help scaffold science education. Pairing school learning with experiences outside of school creates validity in student’s science education. The authors wished for students to create a positive relationship with their science education, possibly through outside experiences, so that their will for learning is greater than their will for schooling.

                Quinn and Bell’s article titled, “How Designing, Making and Playing Relate to the Learning Goals of K-12 Science Education,” described that students should engage in work, influence outcomes and contribute ideas to flourish their science education.  The authors seek to influence student participation in group problem-solving, investigation, explanation and argumentation. Also, the authors reference, “A Framework,” throughout to incorporate engineering practices into the classroom. Modeling and evidence-based argumentation is also expressed.

                Both articles used informal science learning as a form of scaffolding for professional science education. Quinn and Bell described that students could develop in initial interest in a topical niche of science while learning science informally. Braun and Reiss described that this increases intrinsic motivation however does not support the mastery of concepts. School science can sometimes be too constructive for students at times; these informal learning opportunities could be a catalyst for some students. However, formal education is where the most of learning occurs. The use of modeling, explaining and arguing was frequently described; these practices should effectively be practiced to develop and maintain an intrinsic motivation for science education, both formally and informally. Learning and more specifically, scientific learning, should never stop, regardless of the venue.

Authentic Science Education

Quinn and Bell (2013) explicitly draw the connections between the modeling and argumentation based learning we’ve been talking about all semester and the NGSS standards. In a sort of summary of the class thus far, they showed the value of less-traditional learning approaches, including the similarities between a design-based classroom and less formal, real-life learning experiences such as hobbies and work.

Braund and Reiss (2006) contrast the experiences of school science, which is often seen as boring and irrelevant to all but the future scientists in the room (and unlikely to persuade more students to fall into this category), and real-life science experiences, which are typically more exciting and interesting. They talk about integrating science with students’ actual experiences as a means to add value to and deepen school learning.

“Classrooms had evolved to a culture of activity and engagement that failed to address important learning goals such as developing, using and critiquing scientific models, or engaging in evidence-based argumentation… Classrooms must change again, not back to a failed model, but forward to one that learning research demonstrates is more effective: to recognize the central role of active knowledge for learners and the social process of dialogic learning within communities.” This is something I have had to remind myself over and over this semester. The classes that were activity-heavy that I disliked so much during school were not designed around these learning goals. The activities were fun, but often felt like distractions from the real learning. Active construction of knowledge by students is completely different from entertaining students through exciting activities. It is not taking away from our time for the real learning, it creating time for much deeper and more meaningful learning. Braund and Reiss talk about the importance of a mixture of educational and entertainment motivations in mastery of concepts. I think some teachers may believe that we can trick students into learning by entertaining them with something that is secretly educational. But that’s not what their research advocates. I think that a design-centered classroom is fun, but it also doesn’t try to hide the education, or stick it on at the end.

We all know that students like field-trips, and I think that most of us would love to be able to provide these experiences beyond the classroom for our students. Braund and Reiss talk about tons of benefits of these types of experiences. How feasible is it to do this in secondary schools? I only remember a handful of fieldtrips after elementary school, and those were always complicated because I had to miss other classes. There are so many factors to consider in addition to whether or not these are really valuable. What are some really practical ways that we can integrate out-of-school science if we aren’t able to do many field trips and without presumptuous homework assignments (things that would require excessive parental involvement)?

Finally, science is not a collection of flashy, exciting experiences. Typically, real science is careful, diligent study that may lead to new or deepened understandings. I worry that we’re attempting to lure students into the field with flash, and then surprise them when they get into a real lab and learn what it actually means to have a good sample size. I agree that the activities that Braund and Reiss describe are “pale imitations” of real science, but science museums are not accurate representations of science either. I think that they are placing too much emphasis on one type of science learning and are forsaking some of what science really is. 

Computational Thinking

                Sengupta et al’s article sought to describe computational thinking as a scientific process that also involves inquiry and problem solving. Computational thinking was also described as a science as a practice theory, which includes modeling and representational forms. The article placed computational thinking into science and math standards, citing that their similar cognitive processes for reasoning.

                Grover and Pea’s article described computational thinking as information processing so that a solution may be sought out by a processing agent or through a set of instructions. The National Science Foundation has listed seven big ideas for computational thinking. The last big idea says that computing enables innovation in other fields or subject areas. Effective pedagogical approaches to computational thinking are still being developed; curriculum and assessment are still being developed.

                Between both articles computational thinking was described as a thought process that describes problems such that they may be solved simplistically, such as by an algorithm. Computational thinking should be described as a science as it involves inquiry and creation of ideas and artifacts. Also, both articles ask important questions such as what is the best pedagogical approach to computational thinking and how can instructors scaffold computer science so that the content is challenging for students with little to large background knowledge. Both articles agree that pedagogical approaches to computational thinking are still being developed and that the most effective ways are still yet to be sought out. Computational thinking has a great importance in how frequently technology is used currently. Both articles stressed the importance of preparing students to be problem solvers; computational thinking develops this skill set as a science.