Science Instruction, Old and New

Traditional science lessons focused on “teaching the processes, not just the outcomes, of science,” and it “often involved no more than memorizing and reproducing the steps of an experiment”(Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 403). This is exactly what I remember from most of my science class experiments, especially those taught in high school. We would usually be given a background scenario and the opportunity to build a hypothesis…which is a form of inquiry, in a way, but since the end result was usually known and always concrete, there was no need and typically no room for creativity. I would, sometimes unbeknownst to my teachers, take creativity into my own hands, as mentioned in the last answer, and “tweak” a variable in some way to see if the outcome would change. Like I said, sometimes unbeknownst, when I would get caught being “defiant” by deviating from the “experiment” it was generally because something would start smoking or an outcome would change drastically. I’d get in trouble, but I’d say it was for science’s sake. I used to wonder why we would even bother with making “hypotheses” since we already knew what was going to happen. When the end goal in a science lab is presented or known it can thwart a student’s creativity and imagination towards and/or within that scientific thinking. Donovan & Bransford refer to that “thwarting” as a “lockstep approach”, an approach that shortchanges observation, imagination and reasoning (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 405).  

topinfopost.com 

 

Einstein, one of imagination’s biggest supporters, saw the connection between his scientific knowledge and how he acquired it. “One of the most important aspects of science-yet perhaps one of the least emphasized in instruction-is that science involves processes of imagination” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 406). Interestingly, although we know this is the way the world’s most ingenious scientists “learned” to do what we remember them for, we’ve failed as educators to encourage our students to think in the same ways, through our modeling and instruction. Donovan & Bransford suggest we teach our students science differently, as imagination plays a huge part in how our students learn science (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 406). It’s beneficial to give them opportunities to experience real inquiry labs, not just “inquiry times” appended to the curriculum (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 405). Allowing them to look beyond what they “know”, or to look beyond their current understanding, as Einstein advocated, through imagination, is key.
 

 

This quarter in Science in 3^rd grade we are learning about forces and motion. MCPS’s “Enduring Understandings” for this quarter include: “A force is required for any change in motion, changes in position and motion can be observed and measured, and tools, materials, and skills are used to carry out a task, conduct an investigation, or address a problem.” MCPS’s “Essential Questions” for this quarter include: “How evidence is collected about changes in motion, what evidence can be collected to describe changes in position and motion, and what factors affect changes in motion?” NGSS says that students who demonstrate knowledge of standard 3-PS2 Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions will be able to: “Plan and conduct an investigation to provide evidence of the effects of balanced and unbalanced forces on the motion of an object.” and “Make observations and/or measurements of an object’s motion to provide evidence that a pattern can be used to predict future motion.” (NGSS, 2011, 2012, 2013).  In short students are introduced to the basic concepts of Physics properties, including motion, gravitational pull, surface friction and Sir Isaac Newton’s first and third laws of motion.

 

During the first couple weeks of school we discussed, tested and observed examples of force and motion and the effects of gravity. I begin all of my lessons, STEM related or not, with some kind of inquiry. In the case of the aforementioned concepts, I one day showed my students a picture of a sliding board and a basketball and asked them to write a prediction and draw a diagram of the trajectory of the ball if dropped from the top of the slide.

 

Slide shown with student trajectories drawn by students in my class.

 

I then gave each table several slender rectangular prisms, foam cubes and small plastic balls and masking tape and clay and challenged them with building a model structure similar to a sliding board to test their theories about the trajectories of the basketball. After many trials and observations, we went outside and tested our theories on a real basketball and a real sliding board. Through much discussion the students decided that gravity was the cause of the ball falling down the slide and were able to conclude the basis for Newton’s first law, also known as the Law of Inertia. Once their theories were proven or disproven I asked them to brainstorm ways in which they could push or pull the basketball back up the slide without using their hands. They devised ways to move the ball, used the same materials as mentioned before plus string and rulers and built prototypes and tested their models using the basketball and the sliding board.

 

During the next couple weeks we discussed, tested examples of and observed the effects of surface friction on motion. I incorporated forces on bridge designs and surface friction into these lessons because we’d just read a book called Javier Build’s a Bridge, an engineering book about a boy who needed to build a bridge. After reading the book, and discussing and testing bridge types, we decided as a class we’d build beam bridges. I gave each table group slender rectangular prisms, foam cubes and tape, clay and rubber bands and challenged them with building a sturdy bridge that could support the weight and mass of a toy car, along with other specifications including not being able to physically touch the car to make it go from one side to the other, using the materials provided. I then asked them to brainstorm ways in which we could “see”  how long it takes for the toy car to get from one side to the other after being pushed to get them to understand when to use certain materials and why we use them. A few friends suggested we time the span using a cell phone or a stop watch, so I gave them stop watches. After timing four trials, I asked them to brainstorm ways in which they could slow the car down using these materials: sand, glue, tape and/or felt. They used the different materials and the Engineering Design Process to redesign bridges with more surface friction. They used the stop watches to make sure their cars were in fact traveling slower after being pushed. We then discussed surface friction and its effect on moving objects.

I believe this pedagogical approach allowed my students to use their imaginations and creativity to devise bridge designs and build them, and then to redesign those bridges to make them answer an engineering design question. I didn’t give them any answers and very few prompts, if any. I had them draw all of their conclusions on their own and with their classmates help. Students were given the opportunity to use their artistic and creative juices to create visuals, with labels, of these models. I think this method of teaching the aforementioned concepts allowed for imaginative and creative freedom, within a goal or as Donovan & Bransford put it, it allowed them to use their “observation, imagination, and reasoning about the phenomena under study” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 405). This should, in turn “extend their everyday experiences of the world and help them organize data in ways that provide new insights into phenomena” (Donovan & Bransford, 2005, pg. 405).

 

Written in response to this question.

Donovan, Suzanne M. & Bransford, John D. (2005). How Students Learn. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers