Uncovering Students' ideas in science

Greetings everyone! Your discussion of exploring probes as a way to not only get students to reveal and reflect on their own ideas but to also assess your own level of understanding is a very useful one. It's clear all of you gave careful thought to what the Private Universe research means for your teaching, your science learning, and your students' science learning. Well done!

p.s. Hey Cody, it looks like I owe you a pair of socks!

--l

Science Probes

I wasn't sure where to post our blog about the Science Probe, so I hope this is ok.

Group Members: Mike, Ciara, Allen, Tricia, and Kacie
In general our group was pleased with the probes. They will be useful to be used within a unit and they are a good starter for writing a lesson. There is a lot of room for us to develop the probes into lessons that will work for our students. We liked the amount of resources that were provided at the end of each probe idea, having those resources already put together for us can save valuable time. Each probe suggestion seemed to be aimed at getting students to explore and form their own opinions, and be able to explain them. Two of the probes we looked at could be connected to each other, and the book even provided important things to make sure students understand. For example; observation always comes before exploration, and "erosion" and "weathering" are not interchangeable words. We felt that the suggestions were grade level appropriate, and we were confident that we would be able to teach the probes effectively. Our group felt that this book will be an important resource to have in the classroom.

I found an Aims curriculum book titled, Cycles of Growing and Knowing. Within this book there are many lessons that encompass the ideas of plant cycles and also human cycles of growth. All of the lessons not only integrate math and science but rely on math to accomplish the collection of data or data analysis. Similar to the jet toy lesson the pumpkin lesson also involved the processes of observing, collecting and recording data, and comparing and contrasting. But since the science of this lesson was life science and the jet toy challenge was about physics, the two are very different challenges. Both of the lessons relied on observation, predictions and class discussion as components of their success.

Week #4 Critique Integrated Curriculum

You have seen how integrated math and science are with the SAE curriculum (Jet Toy). Now compare with AIMS or GEMS. Click on the grade level to see more.

Jet Toy Force and Motion

There are several mathematical concepts which could be introduced and solidified through the Jet Toy curriculum which would be beneficial for 4-6th graders. Students work on recording and analyzing data while applying graphing and problem solving skills. These concepts are absolutely appropriate for these grade bands. Students will also learn and reinforce the idea that speed=distance/time in this lesson. I would ask students to come up with different factors in car design which would contribute to the speed and distance traveled. I would then ask the students in groups to come up with experiments where they change different factors on the cars, noting these differences, and graph their results. I would then ask them to come up with theories about what they have proven in their experiment. I would focus mainly on Newton's 1st and 3rd laws of motion. After reading Newton's first law of motion, that, "Every object in a state of motion tends to remain in a state of motion unless external force is applied to it," I would ask students to discuss in small groups what force they think caused their car to not remain in a state of motion. I would then ask them to share their answers and if necesary use leading questions to bring up the concept of friction. I would also adress the 3rd law of motion which states, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I would ask the students in their groups to discuss how this applied to their jet toy's speed and distance traveled. We would then have a class discusion exploring these different factors in context of Newton's law.

Math and Science standards Posts!

W^3= Wonderful, way to go and WOW!!
You all did a fantastic job analyzing the two sets of standards and comparing blog posts!
I have to say two things: Remember math process standards are not content: communication, problem solving, etc.
2. Math is NOT 100% right/wrong answers! There are multiple answers at times. It is not as black and white as you may think, thus making it closer to science than you may realize.

Thanks! Will post scores in Blackboard soon.

Jet Toy/Force and Motion Questions

Week #3: Jet Toy/Force and Motion Questions

The math involved in the World in Motion Jet Toy curriculum is graphing distance traveled vs. weight carried. Is this activity appropriate for the level of student you have been researching? Describe exactly what you would have a class do? In other words, what mathematics are they learning or are you teaching?

The science concepts involved in the curriculum include Newton's Laws of Motion. What force and motion concepts would you want students in the 3-4 band to know before exploring factors which can affect the distance traveled by the Jet Toy constructed in math methods? How did you decide this? (Hint: NSES). How would you adapt the learning episodes we explored in science methods to develop these force and motion concepts?

NCTM & NSES Standards

I agree with many of you that the NCTM and the NSES standards contain many similarities. Most of these similaritie relate to the processes used but not necesarily the content. Both standards focus on using an inquiry based aproach that emphasizes problem solving, reasoning, proof, communication, and connections to the larger world. Both focus on using teaching strategies which are student-centered and like Tara pointed out, encourage students to do and engage in their learning in order to create their own meaning. This student-centered instruction is based on the assumption that if taught the process of science and math, students will eventualy arive at truth on their own. The NCTM standards are quite a bit more detailed than the NSES standards. I agree with Adriene that this makes sense when you consider math versus science as a process. The subject of math builds upon its most basic concepts so must be taught sequentialy. This is propably why the NCTM Standards address exactly what students should learn in each grade level. Science is a much broader subject which encorporates information that is interconnected in many ways but does not necesarily build sequentialy upon more basic concepts. The science curriculum requirments are broad, allowing for the focus to be on the scientific process.

NCTM & NSES

The NCTM and the NSES standards are similar in several ways. As I am the final contributor to this blog,many of my observations have already been recorded. As Bryn also noticed, both sets of standards use action verbs. Our math text book brought up this comparison as well, stressing the importance of teaching math as a science- a subject that needs to be understood and not simply completed. Along this same line, is another similarity, that both sets of standards focus on understanding an comprehending the idea presented. Too often, especially in math, kids are taught how to answer problems by completing a formula and as a result, the student never fully understands the concept.

The math standards are more specific than the science standards. They not only give you the standard, but they explain it, and then give you some of the reasoning behind it. People generally are happier following guidelines if they know the reasoning behind it, so including a rationale for the standards is a good idea.

Both sets of standards are clearly stated. They stress comprehension, problem solving, something that was not stressed when I was in elementary school. I dreaded math when I was little; it was all drill and rote instruction. I think these standards will help more students have a positive experience with both math and science.

Montana content standards for math and science

The Montana content standards for math and science contain many similiarities. I agree with Leslie that the science standards are more general, but I do not look at that as a negative difference. Science is a bit more open ended than math, in math there are basic skills students must master, such as algbra, geometry, etc. The math standards contain more specifics than the science standards, which I feel makes perfect sense.
I also agree with Tara that both standards focus on inquiry based learning. The word demonstrate is used in both content standards which is an indicator that inquiry based learning is the established approach to teaching math and science. Students learn by doing and engaging.
Although the standards do have differences I feel that they coorelate very well with one another. I liked what Jennie said about how teaching an integrated unit is easier to teach than group lessons. I would like to add that integrated units are more fun for the students and the teacher. When students can draw connections between subject matter they will gain a much stronger understanding.

The Montana content standards for math and science have many similarities. They both discuss using a process to demonstrate different skills. In order to meet standards in both math and science an understanding of the subject matter is required. They both involove communication, a relationship with the "real world," and some sort of data analysis. Both of the content standards are student-centered.

I agree with Scott that the standards are and should be based on the idea that all children learn differently. It is important for the students to have an understanding of the subject matter and different teaching styles are required to reach this goal. I find it interesting what Tootsie brought up about the fact that math does not include anything involving the history of math and science does. Everyone so far has discussed the idea of how vague the science standards are in comparison to the math standards. I think the reason for this is the fact that science is not somthing that is necessarily factual.

I think all standards are important and I only hope that they keep getting revised and improved.

Understanding the NCTM and NSES

Bravo to everyone who blogged for the first time and thank you to all of you who blogged and offered purposeful insights into the use of blogging in the K-8 classroom.

This week you have been exploring the national standards for each of your respective methods courses. For this blog, we want you to do a comparative analysis of the math and science standards. For example, consider the main emphasis areas for the two standards. How are they the same? How are they different? What is the central teaching strategy or strategies recommended? Are they consistent or do they conflict?

For this blog, unless you are the first one to comment, the expectation will be that you have read at least one other student's entry (and preferably three) and incorporated their conclusions in your response.

Next week we will be splitting into your grade band learning communities.

Also, for next week's science methods class, please bring your copy of the National Science Education Standards to class or print out a copy of chapter six and bring it to class. Thank You!