Monday, November 2, 2015

·        Quinn’s How Designing, Making, and Playing Relate to the Learning Goals of K-12 Science Education
This article makes the overlaps between designing, making, and playing (DMP) with the Framework for K-12 Science Education (the Framework) clear. Through these overlaps, we can see a new perspective on science and engineering learning and a demand for an increase in student agency in classroom culture, meaningful problem solving and investigations. Students are motivated by their ability to engage in work, influences outcomes, and contribute ideas and solutions, and engineering and scientific practices explicitly contact design and make pursuits of students. Arguing to use the Framework more broadly, this article describes the overlaps between formal and informal education through their complementary learning goals with respect to science and engineering. Informal learning experiences often provide important entry points for learning about disciplinary subjects, and educational outcomes in life are accomplished across a variety of formal and informal settings over long periods of time. Thus, the Framework provides a vision as to what is to be learned and how people learn but it avoids describing when and where learning occurs.
Additionally, there is an element of teacher preparation that is key; teachers need to be ready for the challenges of motivating students and making learning fun and relevant. In the future as a teacher, it will be necessary to motivate students, and I can use the fact that students engage in work as a motivating tool. The connections between informal and formal learning also jumped out at me; it’s completely true that learning occurs in all settings.
·        Braund and Reiss’ Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning
Braund and Reiss highlighted some problems with school learning as of now. There’s declining pupil attitudes to school science and a low take up of science in post-compulsory phase, possible caused by issues relating to curriculum, pedagogy, pupil practical work, or pupil discussion. These writers argue for the complementation of in school learning with out of school science in actual, presented, and virtual worlds. They argue that school laboratories, despite having advantages, constrain activities and are too restrictive, leading to an attenuated presentation of science i.e. less authentic and less motivating curriculums. However, out of school science can take the form of field trips, either residential or short, that allow engagement of pupils with science in actual world. Trips to museums, gardens, zoos, scientific centers, etc. offer meetings with the presented world despite informal sites of learning having to work hard to attract visitors due to non-compulsory attendance. Additionally, virtual worlds are available with technology.
As a teacher, it will be imperative to capitalize on all of these different worlds, the actual, the presented, and the virtual, to complement possibly restrictive laboratory learning in school.

1 comment:

  1. I like your comment on teacher preparation-- if the Framework is so novel, it will take time to get teachers up to speed on how to best implement its principles. For another class, we recently read about how a lot of curriculum changes are pushed through state government too quickly due to political reasons. Thus, it is definitely important to make sure that teachers are adequately prepared to transform their teaching strategy to best meet the new framework.