An idea in Monday's class discussion really got me thinking: if a student can't have a hands-on experience with something, maybe that isn't something you teach them in science. I found this idea to be very surprising, and challenging everything I thought I knew about science, and teaching science. For example, we discussed the idea of teaching students about the solar system, but since students can't directly experience different planets, perhaps it is something that should not be taught in science. If students simply read about the planets, that is more of a language arts activity, rather than a science one.
This discussion has caused me to reflect on an experience I had student teaching. I was responsible for teaching my 4th graders about different habitats as part of their science education. But now that I reflect back on what we did, I am wondering if I truly was teaching them science. Since my students had no direct contact or hands-on experience with jungles, grasslands, forests, and deserts, did I teach them science? They studied pictures of different habitats, learned about the anmials and plants that lived in them, and then created models of a habitat. Yes, they applied their knowledge of habitats to constuct their own models, but the way in which they acquired the knowledge was not through a hands-on experience.
This idea is definitely different for me. I had never really thought of science in this light before, but I will say that I agree with it. Science is much more valuable for studets, I think, if they can experience it in some authentic way for themselves. Otherwise, considering my habitats unit as an example, students are simply acquiring knowledge in a more "traditional" form.
3 comments:
I completely agree. I was thinking the same thing during this discussion and had a similar student teaching experience. I was responsible for teaching my students about the ocean and animals that inhabit the ocean. They did not have any real hands-on experiences and we did a lot of this research by using books, diagrams and drawings. Now I am wondering if I was teaching science or if this should have been a language arts project instead. I'm glad someone else is thinking the same thing as me!
the statement that John said about how it's not science unless you have hands-on experience really stuck out to me too! i was thinking that there are soo many different topics in science that I cannot imagine how I would create hands-on lessons. But i do remember him saying that another key aspect of teaching science is that the students must be using process skills.. so maybe it's ok as long as they are using process skills and not the usual traditional hands-on experience that we think of?? i think this is where as teachers we have to get really creative and learn to use our resources like the internet, books, or other teachers. i definitely agree with you Jen!
In some ways it seems so basic to me: start with hands-on, include process skills, and build toward bigger scientific ideas. That seems to be the key to being effective at helping children learn science. But it seems so foreign to many of us. Sure it's harder because we have to find equipment. Of course it takes more planning beyond getting all the crafty materials together. But now that we have discovered (me too!) that failing to do this may mean our students didn't learn science, then it seems we need to reconsider our vision of a quality science lesson.
John...
Post a Comment