A Framework for K-12
Science Education
The
authors discuss the current failing system of science education and outline a
plan to remedy the lack of interest and preparedness that the majority of
American students display with regards to STEM disciplines. This general framework
is based on prior science education research, and is intended to inform states,
schools, and administrators on how to implement more effective teaching and
learning strategies.
The
reading states that all children have an innate curiosity, and teachers should
capitalize on this sense of wonder in order to pique student interest in the
sciences. By framing the K-12 teaching of science around a small number of core
ideas, students will be able to integrate main concepts and delve more deeply
into these themes as they progress throughout their education. Furthermore, teachers should work to make
science feel relevant to their students’ lives by relating academic concepts to
observable real world phenomena. The authors also discuss the need for students
to learn not just scientific content, but also the ability to participate in
practices that relate the students’ formal education to the realities of the
professional scientific community.
- · Interdisciplinary applications of science: The curriculum that the authors propose focuses on the interplay between science, engineering, and technology and how the cross-disciplinary nature of these fields allows for new discovery.
- · Knowledge and practice: By engaging K-12 students in inquiry-based learning, experimentation, and modeling, the authors suggest that students will become more invested in the exploratory nature of science.
- · Argumentation, critique, and analysis: These techniques help students understand the role that constant evaluation plays in the field of science, and the authors posit that these methods will encourage critical thought regarding scientific theories, models, and experimental designs.
I enjoy the framework’s overall
attitude towards K-12 science education. Too often, students perceive success
in the sciences as rote memorization of facts, which, while sometimes crucial,
does not promote the innovative and dynamic nature of scientific discovery. Nonetheless,
I wonder what the balance between knowledge and practice looks like in a secondary
classroom. In my undergraduate science experience, I found that I was able to
think critically and construct individual knowledge with respect to scientific
concepts; however, this more expert-level thinking came only after certain information
had been adequately memorized. Is there a way to promote a more simultaneous activation
of knowledge and practice?
I understand your wondering of the balance between knowledge and practice in the classroom, and I'm curious whether or not some of the discussions we had last class might be relevant. Techniques such as teaching the theories of DNA replication, conservative, semi-conservative, or dispersive, without stating which is which or which is correct may allow students experience in practice, deciding which is most efficient and least error-prone, with little knowledge to begin with.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the balance in a secondary classroom depends on the teachers perspective on what he or she wants to achieve in the classroom. Each teacher's classroom will not look the same. The main goal should be to make sure that there is an incorporation of both in each science classroom.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about exploiting student curiosity. I mentioned in my post that curiosity is what got me interested in chemistry to begin with. I firmly believe that student lack of curiosity and sense of not being "a science person" stems largely from the current education system's inability to spark an explorer's sense of curiosity in science. I think it's interesting how we always hear things like "the cutting edge of science" or whatever, but fail to make the connection to teaching chemistry or biology at the secondary education level.
ReplyDelete