| 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] |
I think tying it to a reading program might be a good idea. Just
learning how to read stories is one thing, but learning how to read
about things like science or other intellectual disciplines is quite
another, and it wouldn't hurt to have kids get started on learning
those differences early on.
But just putting a group together and giving them something to
"predict" before actually putting their "prediction" to the test is,
IMO, not a particularly good idea. I have seen what happens when the
kids are given something to "predict" but on which they have no other
information. It is pretty much a disaster. They have nothing to base
a prediction on, so they just randomly guess. The most common answer
when they are asked why the made such and such a "prediction" is, "I
don't know." They really learn nothing from such exercises, since
they didn't have anything to base their initial guess on and as a
result, the findings of their "experiment" to test their "hypothesis"
is no particular surprise, and leads to no new thinking. It becomes
just something more to memorize.
Let their reading program introduce them to some of the ideas that
they will be testing later, and guide them through some of the
reasoning processes that they will need to use. Then when it comes
time to make a prediction, the teachers must insist that the students
give cogent reasons for their predictions. As a simple example,
suppose some third graders are testing how objects fall. If one
student, when asked to predict whether a light object and a heavy
object will fall together or not, might argue that the heavier one
will fall faster. That is certainly a cogent (even if incorrect)
reason, and one that can be tested. When it turns out to be (to a
certain degree of precision) untrue, they now have a basis on which
to start to structure a more appropriate prediction.
Creating such a program will not be easy. It would require close
collaboration between experts not only in the science being used
(presumably physics), but also experts in early childhood education
and in beginning reading, as well as child psychology. Such a
collaboration can not be a confrontational one. those involved must
be committed to a cooperative approach, but each member of such a
group must retain a veto capability when the issue is centered on
their area of expertise (the scientist must be able to veto sloppy
science, but the reading expert must be able to veto inappropriate
reading expectations, for example).
Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties in getting the required
but disparate groups to work together, I think the advantages of
combining different goals under one subject heading is highly worth
pursuing. It may be the way to cut the Gordian knot.
Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>
(919) 467-7610
Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
--Douglas Adams
******************************************************
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l