Posted on

Technology Considerations for the Science Classroom

As we plan for the upcoming school year, it’s a good time to reflect and think about goals and the means to implement them in the next few months. Many colleagues have mentioned the desire to incorporate more technology and even go so far as to suggest a “paperless classroom.” It sometimes seems like a race to keep up with the latest advances in technology as they impact learning via animations, simulations, apps, probeware and flipped learning to name a few.  While I too am guilty of falling victim to the allure of any tool that appears to potentially enhance my students’ love of learning science, the replacement of a traditional aspect of a lesson’s design should be performed only if it offers a real and tangible improvement to the lesson. The excessive use of technology simply based on trends should be approached with caution.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) can be the vehicle by which teachers decide if and how a technological application can be incorporated into their classrooms. TPCK more recently coined as TPACK technology, pedagogy and content knowledge incorporates technology into Lee Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) construct (Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J., 2006). PCK is the means by which a teacher takes his/her content knowledge and transforms it into content knowledge for his/her students. Teachers’ PCK includes an understanding of the misconceptions and preconceptions students bring to each specific topic as well as the strategies to assist them in overcoming these barriers to student understanding  such as demonstrations, animations, simulations, analogies, etc. (Shulman, L., 1987). With technology constantly evolving it is important to utilize applications with students if and when they enhance student learning. When deciding if it is appropriate to utilize a particular technology tool, a TPACK lens requires a teacher to think about how the technology could be used as a pedagogical tool or content representation as well as how student learning of the content is impacted by such a tool when considering the context of how it would be used. In other words: it eliminates the thought process of using technology for the sake of technology but rather requires purposeful lesson design where technology is integrated if and only if it aides in students learning of content considering the population of student needs.

It is challenging to integrate technology while at the same time, consider the pedagogy and the content simultaneously through a TPACK framework. Today, most teachers are trained to incorporate technology via one size fits all professional development sessions which typically provide only an introduction to a tool and focus only on the technology itself and not the best practices for integration the tool into student learning.

There is no debating the fact that students need to be technologically savvy and as educators we are responsible for making our students college and career ready for the 21st century. With a wide range of applications available at our fingertips, educators need to determine which tools are the best aligned with content that will enhance the pedagogy for their students. Students have also culturally adapted to the world of smart phones where they can download an app to practice a particular science skill, sketch and rotate molecules, makes mechanisms, etc. (Williams, A., & Pence, H., 2011). While there are many advantages of using such tools, the traditional paper and pencil method should not necessarily be dismissed. For instance, when polled my students preferred assessments on paper over the computer. Even when providing students with the rationale behind computer assessments such as Graduate Record Exam (GRE) and vocational tests now being administered online, they still did not prefer this method and stated they needed to annotate the questions and wanted to interact directly with the text on paper. Additionally, students in my class preferred Lewis dot diagrams and drawing structural formulas in organic chemistry by hand over their technology counterparts. For programs that had the application or functionality to create molecules, often it was more cumbersome than drawing by hand and more time was spent learning how to use the program than the chemistry content itself. When considering this from a TPACK lens, the technology did not enhance student learning and thus the lesson needs revision.

In summary, when trying to incorporate technology into lessons, teachers should consider the content at hand, the pedagogical method that best suits teaching the content and the technology that would aide or be the mechanism of instruction for a particular group learners. As educators, we continue to strive to improve our instruction. It’s beneficial to reflect and think about why a teacher is using a particular piece of technology and ask if it is serving the function the teacher believes it to be. There are many pedagogical techniques available that do not necessarily require technology such as Modeling instruction™, POGIL®, and improvisation to name a few that for which I have been unable to find a technological counterpart that I feel is equally effective for my teaching environment. While the demands for technological applications for certain pedagogical techniques have been met by means such as  zoom meetings with breakout rooms to teach concepts via a POGIL® activity, I would argue that certain populations of students learn better from the face to face interaction. Thus, there is not one singular approach that works but rather a variety of approaches that can be appropriate depending on what the content goal is for a particular group of students and the context.

 

References:

Glaser. R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.  American Psychology, 39(2), 93-104.

Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., &  Harris, R. (2009).

Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers.    TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et   al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp.  2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.                         

National Research Council. (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.      

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Williams, A. J., & Pence, H. E. (2011). Smart phones, a powerful tool in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(6),  683-686.        

 

Posted on

Building Next Generation Units – Harder Than We Thought

Aegolius funereus — Amherst Island (Ontario, Canada) — 2005 Author: Mdf

Last year, when our district decided to roll out one Next Generation “mini” unit per grade level for K-5, we decided to design the mini units ourselves. We figured, how hard could it be? We were already teaching a lot of the content, we could “next gen” what we were basically already doing by adding models, introducing phenomena, and adding some strong questioning techniques.  In some ways, it’s been easier than we thought, but in many ways, a lot harder.

One of the toughest things was adjusting to the idea that we’d no longer be dedicating whole units to the study of particular animals.   For example, when we built our grade 4 unit on internal and external structures, we figured we could keep one of our favorite grade 4 activities, dissecting owl pellets, as part of the new unit.  After all, the parts of the owl’s external structure (eyes, feathers, talons, etc) and internal structure (digestive system) that we would be studying all support the animal’s survival, growth, and behavior.  We’d continue to use zSpace virtual technology to investigate the owl’s internal structure, with literature and non-fiction resources to explore the external structure.  The phenomenon was the owl pellet – how cool!  Easy.  We’d done it before.

As it turned out, using an animal we’d already taught made things both easy and hard.  We’d done it before, but in many ways making significant changes to something we’d already done with different goals, was harder than starting from scratch.   We used to refer to this section of our curriculum as the “owl pellet” unit.  Our old assessments contained specific questions about owls and owl pellets.  Keeping these great activities and resources made it difficult for us to let go of the idea of an “owl pellet unit” and embrace the idea of an “Internal Structures and Functions”  unit where the owl pellet would simply be the phenomenon that allowed the students access to the core concepts of structure and function.  No longer could we expect our students to simply become experts on owls – we needed them to become thinkers and investigators who would be able to generalize from their study of owls to structure and function of all animals.  That’s a big leap, and in our first year, we didn’t completely make it.

Later in the unit, while introducing structure and function of plants, we encountered a very different challenge.  We’d decided to introduce a plant we never had our 4th graders examine before – moss.  It seemed like a good choice – there was lots of it available outside, and we could peel it right up and bring it into the classrooms when we were ready. And, we’d be investigating something new. There was only one glitch – it snowed right before this section of the unit, and the snow lasted!  This little miscalculation set us back a week!

Ultimately, did we succeed with our first try at a next-generation science unit?  In some ways yes – for example, the students got comfortable with the idea of drawing models, and the thinking expressed in the student models definitely got deeper as the unit progressed.   The students loved the unit.  How awesome is it to have students so excited and interested in their work each day?  As elementary teachers, that is the best part of our job.   But – do our students now have a better understanding of generalized structure and function in animals and plants?  I’m not sure.  In the end, they knew a lot about owls and moss, which was not the goal.   But, we’re learning!  We may have had mixed results this time, but we’re still evaluating and thinking about changes for next year.

Posted on

FRC FTW

The first of the year always tends to give my kids anxiety and feeling of abandonment. The next six weeks they will lose their parent. My precious Dorothy (5) and adorable Jame (3) will only see me on FaceTime for bedtime and a quick 5 minutes in the morning when they wake up as I am going out the door. This is due to the oath I took as well as thousands of others globally to be a FIRST robotics mentor. January 6th the Saturday that begins the 6 weeks of build season. For those of you that are unaware, this day Globally at about 10 am EST we learn our fate and the game of the year. In this cas, I am lucky that I live in the same time zone as where the game is released. Broadcasted out from the main kickoff event in New Hampshire Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers send their message and homework to the world. Then the problem solving, game strategies, and money for supplies starts flowing. Here is the link to this years game.

There has been plenty of preparation gone into the year before the kick-off. Teams have been training new members and fundraising. Plenty of fundraising is required to build these elaborate robots. Our team tries to include local businesses and to help sponsor and mentor our team. What is great about this, is that our students go out and have to talk and convince the sponsors how great this program and why they need to support us. Also, students show up not knowing the difference between a wrench and a hammer. So the leadership of the program is charged with training the new members on the equipment and start building the family. Robotics becomes more than a program to the kids. It becomes family. Our team motto has become “relationships forged with aluminum but built for life” This has become more evident to me as I just went to a wedding of one of our alumni. As I saw her cake with FIRST symbols and binary code, and sitting at the robotics table, I knew I was apart of something bigger than I. Each one of the alumni had a masters in engineering, programming, and heading into Medical School.

Now for this years game. This year we need to stack milk crates “power cubes” onto a balance beam that is either about 2 feet or 5 feet off the ground. As long as the balance is tilted to our team we are building points. Then at the end of the game we can opt to climb a 7 foot high bar for 30 points. The moment we find out our task the students start to problem solve and design. They prototype and do research. They have found out that a previous robot that we built while these students were in elementary school. Was able to stack crates with ease. So they savagely recycled her. So now have a robot in the works. Making better what we used in the past. Also the climbing task was very similar to another robot we built when these students were in Pre-k. They are currently adapting the plans to meet this years needs. Students are actively working each day doing things that they can not do anywhere else.

The way the build works is that student leadership is charged with different teams and the leadership is not supposed to touch tools but to assist the younger members staying on task and the leadership reports to mentors. This is what every team should be doing. Using the adults as a reference but the robots should be built completely by students. Student ideas should be examined experimented and tested. Although some of the robots do not look student built at all. I get some joy in seeing the finished product and the pride of my team each year.

The FIRST program is a program that get the students heads out of their phones and gaming systems and takes textbook knowledge and puts it to real use. Get the students to make something real and tangible. Gives them the ability to fail, fall down, and pick themselves up to succeed. Any student that does not have an idea fail doesn’t learn anything. It is not uncommon to see a student break down when something they worked hard for fail, but you see them get the determination to adapt and change their idea. These are the success stories. They own their creation. Often their creation becomes their child. When the students develop this adaptation and creativity you see it in the pits of the competition. That is a sight to see. The team converge on their bot during competition and fix things that broke or tweek their design to make their bot better mid competition. My job is to support them and the students make it happen. They are learning to depend on themselves and their team. They are learning that life is not about memorizing what someone told them, they are learning life does not have an instruction manual. They are learning that they need to critically think and whatever they put their mind to they can accomplish.

The team is not just about building robots. Team 2161 is also about helping others. In the past 12 years or so They have raised over $200,000 for St. Baldricks to help fund research on childhood cancers. They put the whole event together and team alumni come back to shave the way to a cure.  Please consider donating or coming.

As my children Dori and James lose a parent for six weeks. In the end when they come to competition they see their extended family the robotics team. As my kids come up to the school to support my events , the students get to know them and the students will have them control a robot and show them what their parent has been up to. James also has been shaving his head since he was one year old. My students expect my kids to be at competition too. So each year the family grows. The stress and anxiety continues but in the end a better society can be formed with the critically thinking students that realize that they hold the key to greatness. I leave you with these two quotes from Nicola Tesla “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” “I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success… such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.”

Posted on

Questioning the Traditional Lesson Structure

With the adoption of New York State Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS), there has been a variety of approaches taken to start blending its three dimensional structure, composed of core ideas, cross cutting concepts and science and engineering practices, into teachers current practice. The disciplinary core ideas are essentially the content that teachers will teach or what information their students are required to know. The cross cutting concepts are the key themes that emerge time and again across science curricula, such as patterns and cause and effect, and are used to explain how students think about science. The science and engineering practices are how teachers will teach the information and what students will actually do in the classroom. The science and engineering practices listed in the NGSS framework include: asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence and lastly obtaining, evaluating and communicating information.

If you are feeling overwhelmed with the new standards, one place to start your shift could be to merge one the science and engineering practices into your current teaching flow. A smooth transition could be found by incorporating the first science and engineering practice: asking questions. The most common professional development technique I’ve encountered regarding this practice is Question Formulation Technique, QFT. QFT was developed by the Right Questions Institute, tested and modified to intentionally teach students how to ask questions and provide teachers with the skills necessary to teach the students how to do so. Essentially, QFT is a series of steps that allows for students to ask numerous questions, improve them and prioritize them in order of importance.

QFT begins with a question focus chosen by the teacher, typically something students will look at and be curious about, stimulating them to ask questions. The question focus can be a short video, a visual model that students can look at or even a short statement. The question focus itself is not a question and has a focused intention of jumpstarting student questions in a direction that provokes student thought in a different vein that the traditional approach likely would not. For instance, if teachers were using a short video to introduce nuclear chemistry by showing a slow-motion clip of an atomic bomb detonating instead of a clip discussing the historical impact of the atomic bomb, then the conversation would be better able to focus on solely on the chemistry of the explosion rather than its historical, political or emotional implications. Further, while typical lessons might begin with a “Do Now” from a teacher, the question focus is a different approach that will allow students to develop their own questions to guide the following lessons.

The second step of QFT, is a protocol that must be followed where students produce as many questions as they can without stopping for a discussion, judgement or even answer to their questions. Questions are recorded exactly as they are stated and any statements listed are changed into questions. So often, teachers want to re-phrase student questions: “So what you’re really asking is…” while here the intention is the students’ questions will be validated, no matter how they are articulated. All student input is valued in this method and is a student-centered as opposed to teacher centered approach. Additionally, the teacher needs to stress the importance of following the rules. For instance, groups cannot stop to debate or discuss a question, the rationale for this being that they will lose focus and not be able to continue to generate questions.

The next phase of QFT calls for students to classify their questions as closed versus open by labeling them as “C” for closed ended and “O” for open ended. Closed ended questions are those that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” response such as: “is the balloon inflated?” as opposed to an open-ended question which could be: “what caused the balloon to inflate?”. Students are then asked to change a closed ended question to open ended and vice versa if desired in order to show how manipulation of a question allows for different information to be obtained in order to arrive at an answer. Finally, students prioritize questions in order of importance. Typically, teachers ask for students’ top three questions which, depending on the question set, will shape future assignments. As an example: if the class was going to proceed in developing an experiment from the question focus, this could be how students prioritize information, such as asking students to pick which questions would be appropriate to investigate or three questions to which they would most like to know the answer. This exercise is one where students need to analyze, compare and determine which of the questions posed would best yield the information they want to obtain.  This can be concluded by students reporting out priority questions along with a rationale for why they chose those questions. Finally, the technique ends with a reflection where students analyze their thinking in the QFT process and what they learned individually.

        Professional development is important for teachers to grow and develop new pedagogical techniques. I was first introduced to this technique last spring at a workshop where the presenter showed a YouTube clip of a tidal wave. Working in groups my colleagues and I were asked to come up with as many questions as possible about the video we observed (without judgement of the questions). The instructions were to begin each question with the statement “I wonder…” or “I notice…” as the video played on the smartboard over and over.   This was followed by us indicating if the questions were open (providing multiple answers) or closed ended questions (yes/no type responses) for each one and finally which one we could conduct an investigation about and to determine what the variables would be for that particular investigation. Similarly, at a recent department meeting, my director showed four clips on a loop and we had to choose one of the images to generate questions about. The images for this sort of activity can be obtained from YouTube clips or https://www.ngssphenomena.com/. Together, the group developed questions over a three- minute period, which felt long and grew increasingly difficult. The questions were categorized as open or closed and the closed ended questions were re-phrased to become open ended questions. The group questions were written on chart paper and prioritized into the top three the group would like to investigate.

This past month, I used QFT with my students on a unit discussing gas laws. The question focus was a demonstration in which a balloon animal was placed in liquid nitrogen. Students observed the balloon shrink and then the balloon was taken out and returned to its original configuration, a variation of which is shown here. The students then were led through the QFT technique. Some of the questions derived included: “what is the relationship between temperature and pressure?”, “what affects volume more temperature or pressure?”, “what causes balloons to expand and contract?”,” how would the shape change if it were a different gas?”, “what would happen if there were more molecules in the balloon from the beginning of the experiment?”. All of these were ideas which I typically would have used to drive discussion or generate lessons from. Here, the students generated the questions and took ownership of the lesson flow as I illustrated the ways in which the students’ questions were related to the aim of that particular lesson. The same content was taught, but the order they were presented in was slightly different to address the students’ questions as the lesson aim.

        In summary, QFT is a protocol where students generate their own questions, improve upon them and prioritize them. My own personal reflection is that whenever I have tried this technique, the participants are all involved in the process and engaged for the entire duration of time. For my quieter students, I am continually impressed by their confidence in asking questions. I found throughout my unit of instruction, there was greater interest and comprehension of the topics. Moreover, in my after-school department meeting, my colleagues all participated and were curious about each other’s questions. Even after the meeting, we were talking about the clips, which is definitely not the case for all department meetings. Finally, the protocol is well tested in a variety of educational settings and across diverse student groups. It’s a technique that I would recommend to new teachers as it may help with classroom management by providing students with rules and steps to follow at each point of the process.  

For more information about QFT, visit the Right Institute for resources. Additionally, there is a great resource written by Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana called Make Just One Change that thoroughly describes the technique and provides much insight into how to incorporate into professional practice.

Resources:

Rothstein, D. & Luz, S. (2011). Make Just One Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education

Press.

https://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions

http://rightquestion.org/education/

 

Posted on

The Faulkes Project & the Montauk School Science Program

NGC330

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Faulkes project is a real-time, astronomy based research and imaging project based at Cardiff University in England, and Santa Barbara, California. The later operates as LCOGT (Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network), and is an equal partner in the project.  Through this project, students can use large research grade telescopes located in Hawaii and Australia, via the internet, to image objects and conduct student research.  In addition, LCGOT has created a network of smaller 1-meter telescopes around the world.

     I became involved in the Faulkes project during the summer of 2010, after trying to build an observatory in Montauk for 7 years.  It was my initial goal for the local observatory, to operate from a network, providing High Schools internet access to the telescope. When I found out about the already established Faulkes project, I passed the torch and began earnestly using the Faulkes telescopes on the LCGOT network.  The telescopes in Hawaii and Siding Springs, Australia, are two-meter diameter telescopes which cost 30 million dollars each.  These are capable instruments, to say the least.

        Since joining the program, Montauk science students have imaged a planetary nebula (M97), and a pair of galaxies that are colliding (NGC 4567) and many other deep space objects.  Montauk students have worked on rebuilding a galaxy catalog called the Hickson Compact Galaxy catalog.  In addition, several students began research on determining which stars in a globular cluster are classified as Be Stars.  

  As an example of a student’s actual research (sponsored by researchers at Cardiff University), the student numbered image below is named NGC 330.  The student used photometry to determine any variation in the amount of energy being emitted by stars in this field and compared multiple images taken over several months.  The student then examined the images in specific frequencies of light and used various mathematical functions to determine which stars are classified as B[e] stars.            

For general classes, teaching students about astrophotography using robotic instruments and photo-processing can be challenging enough, and very rewarding.  The following images were taken and processed by Montauk students.  Most science students get very excited about participating in this project, and this can be a terrific STEM project as well.

For further information about how to get involved, or if you have any questions, please contact me and see the following web sites: http://lcogt.net  &  http://www.faulkes-telescope.com . My e-mail is jmalave@montaukschool.org .  

Happy observing and I hope to see your school’s images soon!!

 

Posted on

Elementary Science Transition to NYSSLS

Having spent a career teaching high school science, I am now engaged with the world of elementary science. The adoption of the New York Science P-12 Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS) in December 2016 has apparently rejuvenated interest in elementary science. Recently retired (meaning time on my hands?) and involved with the transition to our new science standards based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education and NGSS, I was drawn into professional development opportunities. I’ve learned a lot about how students should learn science, reasons to shift to significant core ideas, how to incorporate engineering, provide meaningful hands-on experiences, and engage with phenomena. These standards should address the needs of all students, incorporate real-world scenarios and when possible be community-based. What really excites me the most about the NYSSLS is the impact this will have on our youngest learners.

The hours spent with our elementary colleagues has given me some insight into their challenges teaching science. Besides the many times that their students are involved in activities outside their classroom, most admit their world is driven by and focused on ELA and math. Teacher evaluation, APPR, and district initiatives typically don’t elevate science learning to the level it deserves. Many are lucky if they get a couple of hours a week of science. Unfortunately, some only do “science” by using the literacy-based science in the ELA domains and modules from www.engageny.org. I’ve seen a wide variety of programs with science “push-ins”, STEM specialists, family STEM nights, STEAM classrooms and varieties of publisher and BOCES kits. Even with that support, most admit science can be short-changed. Since the past standards outlined in Elementary Science Core Curriculum Grades K-4 isn’t grade banded, each district has been left to develop their own scope and sequence so there may be a lack of coherence or much repetition based on “favorite topics.” Students that transfer between districts and sometimes other schools within a district can miss important foundations of science literacy. Sometimes, it’s the grade 4 teachers have the primary responsibility of preparing the students for the Elementary-Level Science Test given in grade 4.

Our New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards is very different for our young learners. Grade banded P-5 with specific Performance Expectations gives teachers and curriculum designers guidance as to what students are expected to know and do at the end of instruction. Coherence is presented by the progressions in grade blocks of K-2, 3-5, MS and HS for the three dimensions (Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts). This means that students learning science using curriculums developed from the NYSSLS will experience increasing expectations in how they learn (Practices), what they learn (Core Ideas), and what they look for in the questions they ask (Crosscutting Concepts). Students are expected to construct their understandings by doing science. Much greater depth in learning occurs when the focus shifts from knowing about science to them figuring out about science.

Many elementary teachers admit to me that their students say science is their favorite subject but the teachers are looking for support. The teachers I’ve worked with are among the most pedagogically talented teachers. I have seen them run with a token of an idea and turn it into fun activities, make ELA connections, and be totally appropriate to their school community. The challenge for STANYS and the science specialists across New York is how to support the transition of elementary teachers into NYSSLS. I’ve worked as a life science consultant with teams of elementary teachers and other science specialists writing grade 1 and 2 for Science21 and I can admit it is very challenging. Many elementary teachers feel they lack the background and confidence to dive into developing curriculum for science. They also wonder what these standards will look like on the student assessment which can help when developing curriculum. Our elementary programs need a good curriculum that maintains fidelity with the intent of the new standards. The elementary teachers and administrators need the training to recognize materials that are aligned and provide constructivist learning opportunities. They should be aware of the limits of the science content in the NYSSLS so they’re not compelled to teach well beyond and be sure to address science literacy for all the students.

This is an exciting opportunity for our elementary colleagues to teach science and for students to experience science as a platform for interdisciplinary learning. It has been shown that students that learn science this way not only show significant gains in science but students of high needs subgroups exhibit high gains, and positive gains are also demonstrated in subjects other than science.* Districts need a plan, decide on resources, and provide the support for the transition to an NYSSLS based elementary science program. It’s time we take advantage of our young student’s natural inquisitiveness and sense of wonder as an opportunity to teach and for students to learn science.

*Smithsonian Science Education Center. (2015). The LASER Model: A Systemic and Sustainable Approach for Achieving High Standards in Science Education. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Posted on

IEP’s – Read them for an effective school year

Many general education teachers and new science teachers are being asked to teach special education students without support.  This is why I am here, to help, give tips tricks and support those who are given the difficult (but not impossible) task of teaching this diverse population of students the subject we all love.

As a science teacher, it is difficult to be on familiar terms with and understand which parts of the IEP are most important.  An IEP can be a very overwhelming document to read and dissect.  An IEP is the Individualized Education Plan that each special education student has.  No two documents are the same as no two students are the same.  The IEP became uniform in New York State 4 years ago.  This has made it much easier for students to go from school to school and the document is readily available.  Each part of the IEP is important, nevertheless some I have found to be more important in the teaching of science.

The first part of the IEP to give special attention to is the Academic Achievement, Functional Performance and Learning Characteristics often known as the (PLEPS).  This part of the IEP informs the teacher of the student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.  This part of the document will inform the teacher if the student has reading, vocabulary, mathematical or any other academic difficulties.  This is often where I find if the student can read independently or needs to be read to.

The next section to take a glance at is the Social Development section.  Due to the lab environment in many of our science classrooms it is important to discern how these students behave in social settings.  Many times, this section will let you know if the student is able or unable to work in cooperative learning groups. Below this section is the Physical Development section, which needs to be read to determine if the student requires any modifications in the lab setting.  Below Physical Development is the Management Needs section.  The section that important for the general education teacher are the Program Modifications that are located further in the IEP.

For the science teacher, the most important section to read and understand is the Supplementary Aids/Services and Program Modifications section of the IEP.  This section informs the educator what modifications the student needs on a daily, weekly or as needed basis.  Often this section explains if the student needs preferential seating, books on tape, copies of notes, refocusing and redirection, information broken into smaller parts, breaks, etc.  These modifications are imperative to the success of the student in the science classroom and the success of the student is dependent on receiving these modifications.   When on IEP direct, click the “Show details” and then the exact reason for the modification or how the modification needs to be given is shown.  This is a huge help in meeting the needs of students with disabilities because each one has their own set of needs and modifications.  What “special seating arrangements” means for one student may be different for another.  

Lastly, the section most general education teachers are familiar with is the Testing Accommodations section of the IEP.  This section explains what accommodations the student is entitled to for quizzes, tests and state assessments.  The IEP will explain how the accommodations should be given; for the example of “Extended time”, in the column “implementation recommendations” it will say 1.5X or 2.0X or Double time.  As the school year gets underway and you learn about your students if you feel that they are in need of another accommodation, do not hesitate to discuss it with the special education teacher, guidance counselor or school psychologist.  The input of the general education teacher is necessary for the success of the child and the coherent writing of an IEP.

All parts of the IEP are important to the success of each student and should be read and followed through.  For the science teacher and meeting the needs of the diverse population these I have highlighted are in my opinion the most important to help make the job a little easier and assist the students who already struggle.   If there is a part of the IEP that you do not understand, ask questions and inquire about the student.  As a special education science teacher it is always refreshing to have the general education teachers ask questions about their students, it shows you care and want to help them in any way that is possible.  Good Luck with the new school year! If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Posted on

Calling All Elementary Science Teachers: Building Great Science Units Around Phenomena

Wild Rabbit by Tim Felce

When we think of phenomena, we usually think of things that are big and dramatic, hence the expression, “that’s phenomenal!”  The biggest science phenomenon of the summer may have been the solar eclipse – huge and spectacular (unless you watched it from Long Island, in which case it may have felt like a bit of a tease).  The devastating hurricanes that came at the end of summer are also awe-inspiring (although devastating) phenomena.

But “phenomena” has a broader meaning.  In Next Generation science, a phenomenon doesn’t have to be big –it can be anything that sparks curiosity and makes us want to know more. A tiny ant carrying a larger insect, a drop of water clinging to a leaf, a magnified grain of sand are all phenomena that can be used to introduce science units because, more than anything, they can inspire us to ask questions like:  What is this? What is happening?  How does that happen? Can we change what is going on?   In Next Generation science, phenomena may or may not awe and amaze us, but they always make us wonder.

As elementary teachers we know all about getting kids to wonder – it’s a key part of our job.  Now, as we begin to introduce Next Generation units, we’ll be thinking very deliberately about phenomena that can anchor units as well as phenomena that can introduce particular lessons within those units.  The key is to choose phenomena that will get the students wondering, questioning, and lead us into investigations that allow them to discover core science concepts and make connections across disciplines.

Phenomena can be introduced as photographs, videos, demonstrations, sensory experiences; but the best may be those we bring students outside to directly observe.  For example: Rabbits are everywhere this fall.  Take young students outside to observe them!  Then show a photograph that highlights the ears.   This will generate lots of questions: Why do they have such big ears?  Do they hear better with those ears?  What if their ears were not so big?  This can be an excellent way to induce a grade 1 unit on sound, or a grade 4 unit on external structures of animals.   After the rain, take young students out to see earthworms on the pavement. Then do some digging and observe them in the soil.   This will generate lots of questions: Why do they come up from the ground when it rains?  Will they die on the pavement?  Will they drown in the water?  How do they move in the soil?  This can be a way to introduce a grade 3 unit on environment and survival, grade K unit on push and pull.

Getting outside provides us with an endless source of phenomena to grab student interest, generate excitement and elicit the kinds of questions we need in order to build understanding as our youngest students discover for themselves the amazing way our world works.  

Posted on

Live the Science, Don’t Just Teach the Science

Over the years I have realized that there is more to teaching science than just sitting in a classroom.  We should live it.  The environment of Long Island has so much to offer.  There is something for each one of our disciplines, and all we have to do is look to our waters.  As a Professional Association of Diving Instructor (PADI) Dive instructor, I have been teaching students about the wonders of diving.   Being an AP Physics 2, Physics, Chemistry, and Living Environment teacher brings so much more to this activity.

My uncle Billy was an avid scuba diver.  I remember him telling me stories of all his diving adventures from around Long Island.   Because of him, I joined the diving club, Aquanuts, at the Hampton Dive Shop.  There I learned about so many other possible diving adventures to go on locally.  Often people think that scuba diving off of Long Island isn’t very good because visibility isn’t very good, but I learned that when you know where and when to dive there is so much to see and do.

As a first year AP Physics 2 teacher a lot of things dawned on me.   The unit I teach on fluids in AP physics 2 includes everything I teach in my “open water diver” and specialties of diving classes.  Once this realization hit me, I started applying many of the concepts of diving to AP physics 2.   Many of the demonstrations and discovery activities I use in the classroom where inspired by diving.  For example, my students calculate the amount of air required to generate buoyant force to lift things off the floor, they calculate the volume of a sealed bottle at different depths, and the students develop ideas about air consumption at depths.  Because of this, all summer I have been trying to develop labs where students can go on a field trip to the Dive Shop to test and discover these principles.   I want the students to learn from real life action in the pool.   I want the students to model the phenomena and discover and explain what is happening.

Educators should explore their curiosity and try something new.   Find a dive shop and experience what you teach.   The more you experience the better you will become as an educator.   For example last year I dove the Oregon wreck.  On March 14, 1886, the Oregon collided with another ship and sank to the bottom of around 100-foot depth just off the coast of Fire Island.   She was the fastest ship of her day using sails and steam engine.   Before the dive, I was told that all that was left was a three story high steam engine and boilers.   I did not think there would be much to see.   During my plunge into the Atlantic, the steam engine came into sight in all of her majesty.   Then I spent the next 3o minutes or so lost in all of the biology and wonders hidden in all of the nooks and crannies.  I was getting lost in the science and thinking of the history and people who were on that ship that fateful day.

Image result for oregon wreck dive

Related image

Another dive was of the USS San Diego.  On July 19, 1918, the Sand Diego was sunk by German Submarine U- 156 just south of Fire Island and was the only major ship lost during WW1.   She sits upside down on a sandy bottom at about 100-foot depth.  The dive was awesome and visibility was about 40 feet.   This ship has been underwater for about a 100 years and my curiosity got the best of me once again.   The holes that Mother Nature put in her gave me great areas to look inside and see the life of that now calls her home.

Shipwreck USS San Diego

Wrecks are not the only things to see locally when diving.  The Ponqugue Bridge provides a beach dive that offers so much ecology and goes a max of 30-foot depth.  Right at Shinnecock inlet, you can spend 40 minutes underwater and your wonder and amazement will grow.  Just to see how all of the creatures interact and how they hide and even the human impact of the environment and the symbiotic relationship that exist between humans and sea life.  The two bridges offer a home to the sea life.   They are attracted there for the food source and protection they offer.   Including the utility cable that lies on the floor of the canal.   You will find more and more hiding places for sea life.   The more I dive the site the more I find.

Image result for ponquogue bridge

Some of the fun is investigating the areas that you are going to explore.  There is so much history just sitting there on the sea floor.   I try to learn about the history before I dive the location.   I do this to pre plan my activity for safety, but also to learn where a ship had been, what people were on that ship and how that ship came to meet the sea floor.   If I did not dive our local stores I would never know of the German Submarines, artificial reefs and other ships that went down for various reasons.   It is so interesting to learn about the history and to compare the original diagrams of the ship to what they look like now.

What I am trying to say is that it’s great to venture out of the classroom not just in field trips but rejuvenate our love of the subject.   Try something new each summer vacation to get out of your comfort zone to feel more alive.  The more you learn and experience and the more ways you will have to provide the information to the students.  For more information please email me and if you have any ideas for labs you would like to see developed.   Also if you would like to set up an experience or get your certification please let me know.

Bibliography
http://njscuba.net/

Posted on

Looking for Some Phenomenal Phenomena & Ideas on Designing Assessments?

Here are a couple of databanks of NGSS-related phenomena that teachers from various regions of the country have put together. If you find some more, feel free to include those links in the comment section!

Georgia Science Teachers Association: GSE Phenomena Bank

San Diego Schools: #ProjectPhenomena

TJ McKenna: Phenomena for NGSS

EDUConsulting: NGSS Phenomena Resources

With the phenomena, come the assessments. Check out the NGSS Task Formats to see some ideas on how to develop NGSS-style assessments.