In one of my previous blogs I discussed this question a little bit: how much credence should we give our intuition? Is there something intrinsically simple or ‘true’ about that which we can intuitively deduce? Just like the framework of a building needs foundation, the framework for science education needs some kind of base and the student brings a very important base to the equation. Intuition is one component. The innate drive to investigate is another. The experiences and observations that they make in the life leading up to education is a very important one as well. And what I love so much about this thorough framework is that the ‘firm foundations’ set provide the proper tone, persay, for the manifestation of the rest of the framework. Utilizing what is already present is what makes the framework and framework in the first place.
My experience in engineering here at Vanderbilt has taught me the indespensible importance of clearly defining the initial problem and allowing all the information to explain the best possible solution for itself right from the beginning. A proper definiton and framing of the problem can make all of the difference as you take the next steps. I admire the planning stages of the Science classroom practices in Box 3-1. Letting the ‘foundational’ aspects of the framework guide the introductory stages of a concept provides a much more dynamic bridge than just presenting static information in (maybe) a more traditional sense. I can really see how a lot of the valuable concepts we have covered in SciLit to this point in the semester are synthesized in this article/book. Seeing the argumentative steps later in the framwork as well puts me at rest a little bit since I injected so much discussion and argumentation into my design project, as it stands. J