Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Scientific Literacy
Well after reading those articles on what is meant by scientific literacy and statistics known, I was surprised at the stats and then again I wasn't. I mean, this is my fifth year teaching and I have seen where the students are in two different counties of Virginia and I can see there is definitely a problem there. It makes me sad to see that we are going to have young people of tomorrow's future not being able to make sense out of science articles and concepts. I look at the standards that we are given to teach and ready our students and I don't see where they are all that bad- of course there is ALWAYS room for improvement. The problem that I see mainly is the way that we are determining if a child does in fact get the concept. I don't think a multiple choice test is an accurate depiction of this. Does anyone else agree? I think there needs to be another system of clarification. A way where they need to communicate information about scientific concepts they learned in that school year. I also think there needs to be more emphasis in the science classroom on vocabulary and comprehension. I cannot tell you how many times, and I'm sure you've heard it too, that I have heard a science teacher say that they don't teach english so they shouldn't have to do things like this. We all need to come together on this because no matter what we teach- we will all see these children in our future in jobs where this concept needs to be known.
Excellent points. My question with the standards would be "are there too many per grade?". When we try to convince teachers to teach through inquiry, a common complaint is "that's all great, but I have the cover the SOLs and I only have so much time". So how woud you teach if there were fewer sols? Would you go into more depth? Would you utilize more hands on and investigative activities? If so, how do you think this would affect student learning?
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are a lot of standards for the students to cover, but I think some teachers feel that they have to teach each one separately. I find that I can still do in depth labs and activities that run a week at a time because I pick something that is a culminating activity that can cover more than one SOL. I feel that if teachers did do more than one or found NEW lessons that would allow them to do this; it would take some of the pressure off. If my standards were cut down, I do feel that I would do even more hands on projects. I wonder though in thinking of my SOLs, what would they cut? I guess that would be the next question.
ReplyDeleteSadly, its not the matter of enough time for hands-on activities in my classroom, its more the lack of money. I would use a demonstration, lab, or investigative activity as my engagement every class if I had enough money and equipment to do so. I think we ALL would!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amao when they write that multiple choice tests do not show the student's understanding of the material. When planning for this upcoming year, I decided to give quizzes that are similar to college lab practicals for certain topics. For example, thier quiz on minerals will include different stations that represent the different steps to identifying them. At the last station they should be able to identify it through the list of characteristics. This will show me exactly which step the student does not understand. Plus, this will be one strategy that WILL help the student prepare for college!
I agree that money can become an issue. I spend a lot of time finding activities that contain items that can be found in the house. Or I find kits that you could buy and I put together items that would serve the purpose of the material in the kit. It would be nice to have the money to do whatever you want. We find in our school that money tends to go to atheletics. It's a tid bit aggravating. I know they need athletics too, but we need to be fair and equal when funds are already limited.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the issue is too many SOL's, but I would like to have more opportunities to integrate the science curricluum to make it more meaningful. For example, we can't learn about photosynthesis without an understanding of not only cells but the chemical reactions involved...sometimes it is too "piece meal" and our students can't connect the dots. Literacy means understanding and comprehension of ideas, and I believe more science, at least at the middle school level, should be integrated rather than separate disciplines.
ReplyDeleteScientific literacy is obviously an issue. I am still very surprised that high school students have difficulty with basic science. Unfortunately, some do not know what a hypothesis is or that the scientific method is just a basic way to solve any problem. I believe that the standards are comprehensive and hit the major points for each topic. It is always a challenge to cover the SOLs thoroughly but not get bogged down in any one area. If there were fewer SOL’s I would probably use more labs and presentations in the classroom. That way each SOL would be covered in greater detail. In my experience inquiry activities do not take that much time in class. It is more time for the teacher to plan and organize the activity. However, with planning they can be integrated into the curriculum seamlessly. Students seem to enjoy inquiry activities but as a teacher one has to be cautious. I have done great labs before where I thought the purpose was clear and the students were actively engaged but in the end they had no idea why the lab was conducted.
ReplyDeleteAs teachers we are told to teach to learning styles and differentiate instruction. However, testing has remained multiple choice or essay. Personally, I think that students should demonstrate comprehension of a topic through writing a paper, giving a presentation or performing a skit. It also related to higher order thinking skills and what is meant by scientific literacy. In order to think critically about a subject, one must be able to view it from other sides and apply their knowledge. However, this is not always a focus in standardized testing.
I know what you mean about labs that students cannot reflect on purposefully. It is definitely important to differentiate between guided inquiry (most labs) and open inquiry (where students identify the problem/set up the test) and get the students to see the meaning.I always feel that the lab or activity should not confirm what they already know but force them to think deeper or make a new connection with what they have learned. Sometimes I stop the kids during a lab to have a mini reflection on what they have done so far. I especially ask them why they are (measuring, recording, testing, etc.)
ReplyDeleteHi All! I haven't had the chance to read through all the blogs; however, one point that stays on my mind as I accept homebound positions in my school system is that no matter what grade level I homebound (tutor) the science work and assignments seem to be covering the same basic concepts. Our students get bored of learning about simple machines in 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 10th grade. We should have had them master this area in elementary school and continue to expand upon it in middle to prepare them for perhaps a Robotics course at the high school level. Too much time is wasted repeating the same concepts--how can they become literate in science if all they rely upon is rote memorization of facts and they never get an opportunity to apply what they know. PS I hope I don't offend our great science teachers..no harm intended--this is simply my experience.
ReplyDelete