Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: "Effective" teaching methods



Please excuse the spurious punctuation...that happens when I use Web =
mail from off-campus. =20

I have met many elementary teachers who were highly motivated to lear=
n elementary-school science so they could teach it better. They were =
eager, devoted teachers who genuinely recognized their own deficienci=
es and were trying to do something about it. However, there's a limi=
t to what a one or two week workshop can do. What the teachers neede=
d and wanted was a good explanation of basic concepts. They also ne=
eded hands-on experience. When working with in-service teachers, I =
note that they're very good at following instructions to the letter. =
Elementary teachers are always trying to get children to follow dire=
ctions exactly, because it's their job to teach direction-following. =
When they are given instructions for a science activity, they often =
will not substitute a plastic plate for a paper plate even when eithe=
r will work equally well. They will not improvise. I think that one=
of the most valuable things we can teach them is to have the confide=
nce to try something to see if it works, and that it's OK if it doesn=
't work. Finding out what doesn't work is also part of the scientifi=
c process. =20

Part of their reluctance to improvise is fear of failure, and part o=
f it is fear of something "blowing up." Elementary school teachers a=
re not, by and large, comfortable with taking risks. They also don't=
have the science knowledge to know what substitutions may be made wi=
thout affecting the outcome, so their substitutions do fail a lot. T=
o make matters worse, teachers often cannot distinguish between good =
activities and bad ones. Too many books of elementary science activi=
ties focus on providing expicit directions, but neglect to develop th=
e scientific concepts which the activities are supposed to illustrate=
. So the teacher presents the activity, but in much the same manner =
as presenting a craft project. The activities are not used to fit co=
ncepts together.=20

The FOSS kits are great. The ones I've seen are well thought out, wi=
th fantastic student and teacher resources. The only disadvatage that=
I see is that FOSS kits, as sold, only cover single topics. IMHO, w=
hat's needed is a _good_ science curriculum for each grade which pro=
vides research-based materials and resources for the entire year. Th=
is could look a lot like the FOSS kits, but there would be one textbo=
ok for the kids with all the topics laid out for the year, and one fo=
r the teacher for the year, along with support materials. Reading is =
taught from a compiled "basal" curriculum, and something similar is =
needed for science in order to get the concepts from various topics t=
o fit together. The FOSS kits are expensive, especially considering=
that the materials for experimenting often look a little too dispos=
able for the high price of the kit. (Yes, I know that one is paying =
for the excellent curriculum development, and that the lab stuff is m=
eant to be child-safe and teacher-replaceable, and that stuff is more=
expensive than it looks, but school administrators have to be conv=
inced to pay for the kits in the first place. They won't buy if the =
kit doesn't look substantial when they open the box.) I don't know h=
ow many schools use FOSS exclusively as their science curriculum. Fr=
om what I hear, in our local school the teachers don't have a set sci=
ence curriculum, but pick and choose from various kits and materials =
(some FOSS, some not, some the teachers' own) as they move from topic=
to topic. The effect is rather scattershot. =20

Vickie Frohne
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l