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] |
demonstrating that the California Science Standards can be comprehensivelyAmong the anti-hands-on provisions of the "Criteria" are:
LINES 102-106: "A table of evidence in the teacher edition,
PERCENT OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME . . .materials WITH HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES COMPOSING NO MORE THAN 20 TO 25
In other words, the textbooks must only OFFER AN OPTION of teaching with20-25% 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 toshow that they ALSO support teaching with at most 25%.
PRE-TEACHING the science content embedded in any hands-on activities."LINES 156-157: "A program organization that provides the option of
Pre-teaching science content is indeed important before labs, as otherwisethe 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,
teacher's responsibility to decide which activities s/he prefers to teachwith 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
should NEVER be pre-taught.
provided to DIRECT INSTRUCTION methods of teaching."LINES 299-300: "Suggestions for how to adapt each hands-on activity
This statement is in line with California's approach of supportingmultiple pedagogical approaches and leaving the final pedagogical
selection to the teachers. I don't believe the state should espouse amandated pedagogy to teach any particular science subject. It is unclear to
Hake seems to object to California making sure that teachers indeed havemultiple options at their disposal, rather than the hands-on option only.