The Braund reading expressed an interest in increasing out-of-school
science learning to avoid the stigma that science, which at the secondary level
is experienced in school, is “boring, irrelevant, and outdated.” Interacting
with scientific ideas in the real world, such as through the Internet,
television, or print media, or by experiencing zoos, gardens, and parks, authentically
connects the science learned in the classroom to real life applications. The
researchers believed that students were more excited about scientific concepts
when they were able to interact with them in fun, real-life environments. It
also gives students the chance to interact with materials that the schools
themselves otherwise would not be able to afford or provide. The authors
support, and I agree with, the idea that classroom laboratory models are
beneficial to student learning. However, after reading this article I also would
argue that there are models that due to expense, size, or feasibility, cannot
be done in a classroom or laboratory, but are still useful to students’
learning and should be made as accessible as possible.
The Quinn reading introduced a new method for science education,
design-make-play (DMP). This method emphasized a project, with a target for
learning in mind, achieved by working in a group to design the project, make
it, and use it. The authors emphasized the importance of students making
projects from personal interests. This links back to the Braund reading because
Quinn et al. suggests that students interact with science in the world around
them to discover interests to investigate in a project. DMP is an interesting
method in my opinion because it encourages
students to take an active interest in science, but also reinforces content
area goals and encourages socialization in the classroom in what is an
inherently social subject. I could see it potentially failing if students don't have the prior knowledge or resources necessary to take the initiation to develop an entire project themselves, but I think the method can be scaffolded to help ease the burden.
WRT your last sentence, I think that potential failure is why the K-12 framework is so important, setting students up for success in the future by adequately preparing them with the necessary DMP skills early on. Sometimes depending on the skillsets that the children bring does fail. It is hard to plan a bunch of failsafes, etc. but I think the point of the whole framework is definitely to take even these failures as they come and construct the knowledge bases in the most positive way possible.
ReplyDeleteI think your comments about potential for failure are spot on, as well as your comment about scaffolding. As teachers, the burden is on us to equip and inspire our students to explore. This will probably to contrary to the dictatorial information giver role that teachers often play at all levels of school. But until the whole schooling system changes, I imagine we will have to find ways to combat students' misconceptions about science in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts about scaffolding. I remember Braund mentioned that some students may not necessarily benefit from less conventional learning opportunities because they are accustomed to highly structured lessons- in other words, they may have "learned helplessness". Therefore it may be necessary to scaffold students so that they eventually recognize that fun interactions can also be a source of knowledge.
ReplyDelete