On Week Two, I included in the agenda a John Dewey quote that I failed to expand upon. In retrospect, it seems a very odd contrast with the Roth and Garnier article. So I'll use this space to explore the contradiction. On the one hand, Dewey claims that direct contact with objects and phenomena is absolutely essential. His use of "empirical" is not meant to imply that an experiment takes place. Instead the understandings that develop must be provable and verifiable by using real objects and not just appeals to authority. Notice that he does not say that this only applies to elementary school or that high school kids are beyond this. In fact, at the end of that quote he indicates that children and scientists all need time with unfamiliar objects just to fiddle.
The TIMMS video study uncovered an interesting consistency within science teaching in the United States. Compared to other countries, the US science lessons are full of activities. That would seem to make John Dewey happy. But the problem is that teachers treat activities as if they are sufficient on their own. The problem is that just messing about will not encourage all students to learn the science. What Dewey was advocating was to start with activities — but not stop there. He saw contact with objects as the first step, not the only one. The TIMSS Video Study reveals the importance of having a step that comes after the first one.
The TIMMS video study uncovered an interesting consistency within science teaching in the United States. Compared to other countries, the US science lessons are full of activities. That would seem to make John Dewey happy. But the problem is that teachers treat activities as if they are sufficient on their own. The problem is that just messing about will not encourage all students to learn the science. What Dewey was advocating was to start with activities — but not stop there. He saw contact with objects as the first step, not the only one. The TIMSS Video Study reveals the importance of having a step that comes after the first one.
U.S. teachers have gotten the message that hands-on science activities are important. The next step is to help teachers learn how to select, sequence, and link those activities to content ideas so that students understand important science concepts (including ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry).
For those of us who want to be viewed as advocates for quality science teaching, our actions will speak volumes. And I believe that there is value with being consistent whether the science content is being taught in a kindergarten classroom or a graduate course. Step Zero is deciding on the learning goal. Step One is finding ways (and allowing sufficient time) for learners to have direct contact with the materials. Step Two is help make the connections between the hands-on experiences and the bigger ideas. This leap from concrete to abstract seems to be what is working well in other coutnries. Finally (but I'm geting ahead of myself) there should be opportunities to apply these newly formed understandings to fresh situations. More on that step in the very near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment