Re: The End of Hands-On Science Activities in California's K-8 Classrooms?

[Larry Woolf <Larry.Woolf@GAT.COM>]

Richard Hake wrote:
> > Among the anti-hands-on provisions of the "Criteria" are:
> > LINES 102-106: "A table of evidence in the teacher edition,
demonstrating that the California Science Standards can be comprehensively
taught from the submitted
> > materials WITH HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES COMPOSING NO MORE THAN 20 TO 25
PERCENT OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME  . . .

To which Zeev Wurman replied
> In other words, the textbooks must only OFFER AN OPTION of teaching with
20-25% hands-on activities. The criteria do not say that textbooks cannot 
> offer also 50% hands-on option, or 75%, or even more -- they only have to
show that they ALSO support teaching with at most 25%.

Zeev Wurman is correct that a curriculum could potentially be approved for
adoption if it provided two methods for teaching each standard: a method
using no more than 25% of hands-on instruction and another method using more
than 25% hands-on instruction. In reality, no hands-on inquiry based
curriculum uses more than one basic approach, an approach that typically
involves more than 25% of hands-on instructional time. These curricula are
typically developed over a 2-3 year period with pilot testing and revision
followed by one or two rounds of field testing followed by revision -  at
significant expense.  Developers of these curricula will not be likely to
completely develop new direct instruction type curricula, due to the expense
of the development, the short time available, and, most importantly the lack
of evidence in the literature that such direct instruction methods are
effective - and the evidence in the literature that such direct instruction
methods are ineffective.

The real question is why such a limitation is needed, especially if we want
teachers to use the best methods available to them to teach effectively.
The only reason this limitation is in the criteria is because someone put
this limitation into the Science Framework, with no justification. The real
issue that needs to be addressed is "what is the scientific basis for this
limitation?" - an issue that no one who is for this limitation will address.
Or perhaps Mr. Wurman will cite peer-reviewed literature for why this
limitation is based in science.  But I suspect he will not.

Another aspect of this limitation is the potential for abuse.  Who will
define how much hands-on time is actually involved in hands-on activities?
How do you exactly define a hands-on activity? Since this discretion is
entirely left to the curriculum reviewers on the curriculum commission, they
are the sole judge. ---------------------------------
Richard Hake wrote:
> > LINES 156-157: "A program organization that provides the option of
PRE-TEACHING the science content embedded in any hands-on activities."

To which Zeev Wurman replied
> Pre-teaching science content is indeed important before labs, as otherwise
the labs tend to turn into "cooking exercises." The criteria 
> do not imply that all labs need to have the background material pre-taught
-- they only say that such OPTION should exist for any hands-on activity,
and it is the 
> teacher's responsibility to decide which activities s/he prefers to teach
with pre-teaching, and which s/he prefers to approach as a "discovery lab" 
> -- unless someone believes that certain topic MUST be approached as
"discovery labs". If someone does, I would appreciate to see specific
examples of topics which 
> should NEVER be pre-taught.

It appears that Zeev Wurman is not familiar with inquiry based science.  As
the technical reviewer for the FOSS middle school electronics course
<http://lhsfoss.org/scope/folio/html/Electronics/1.html>, let me clarify
some misconceptions.  These units typically involve some introductory
reading material.  Students are then guided (hence the term "guided
inquiry") to learn about electrical circuits while using resistors,
capacitors, and transistors to make circuits, and analyzing currents and
voltages using a multimeter. There are also written assessments where
students must analyze circuits and calculate resistances, currents and
voltages, describe how currents flow in series and parallel combinations,
etc. They use Kirchoff's Laws to analyze and understand circuits.  This is
not a trivial course - it is a very rigorous course for 8th grade - and I
think it would be a valuable course at the high school and first year
college level as well.  I encourage you or others to actually take a look at
this or other FOSS curricula to make up your own minds as to the value,
rigor, and high quality of these curricula. 

Note that they are not lectured about circuits and then do cookbook labs.
These are also not "discovery labs" - the students do not discover
electronics on their own by mindlessly putting circuit elements together. 

Are they pre-taught everything about circuits? No - they actually learn by
doing.   Learning by doing is the hallmark of science. Yet it seems to be
anathema to Wurman and others. The science content is learned partly by the
introductory reading and discussion, but mostly by making and analyzing
circuits. This seems pretty reasonable to me.

Will this curricula be approved for adoption? Unlikely - since students
learn by doing more than 25% of the time.  For this crime, California's
students will not have the OPTION of using this, and likely any other
inquiry-based curricula. That is the true tragedy of this situation. The
OPTIONS available for learning for California's students will effectively be
to read the book and do the cookbook problems at the end of the chapter.

Which topics should never be pre-taught? There should always be an
introduction to any topic.  The exact details of that introduction should be
left to the teacher and their chosen curriculum to determine: it is not for
a few members of the state curriculum commission to determine. 
----------------------------------
Richard Hake wrote:
> > LINES 299-300: "Suggestions for how to adapt each hands-on activity
provided to DIRECT INSTRUCTION methods of teaching."

To which Zeev Wurman replied
> This statement is in line with California's approach of supporting
multiple pedagogical approaches and leaving the final pedagogical 
> selection to the teachers. I don't believe the state should espouse a
mandated pedagogy to teach any particular science subject. It is unclear to
me why 
> Hake seems to object to California making sure that teachers indeed have
multiple options at their disposal, rather than the hands-on option only.

If the draft criteria are approved, no hands-on inquiry based curricula will
be approved for adoption. Only textbooks will be adopted - and they all are
pretty similar. This will leave California's teachers with NO OPTIONS other
than textbook based direct instruction. Take a look at the last adoption -
only textbooks were approved for adoption.  So right now, there is NO
hands-on option (although districts can apply for waivers, but it is
difficult).  In the future, there will be NO hands-on option.  If you and
the curriculum commission really believed that California's students should
have multiple options at their disposal, why did they rig the adoption
criteria singling out hands-on science instructional time for punishment?
This is no less than a crime.

Note also the absurdity of this statement: "adapt each hands-on activity
provided to DIRECT INSTRUCTION methods of teaching." Every hands-on
activity, apparently including anything resembling a lab activity - which
are required by the state standards investigation and experimentation strand
-  must have a non-lab direct instruction method for teaching it. So any lab
activity in any curriculum must not stand alone - it must have a way to
"lecture" the lab. Or else that curriculum cannot be approved for adoption.

The inmates are running the asylum.

Larry Woolf
General Atomics
San Diego, CA 92121
www.sci-ed-ga.org
www.ga.com