The Learning Goals of a Lesson Plan
Goal #2: Reflection and discussion
Goal #3: Discussion of students' ideas
Content-Specific Learning Goals
Making the Transition to
"Scientific Science Teaching"
Resources to
support the transition
A Guide to Lesson Plan Revision and
Development
Science is not a matter of learning facts. Nor is it a matter of learning
"that scientists do experiments" and then we learn what they found
out (and call this "facts").
Rather, it is a combination of several "domains:"
A. Actual
facts--observations about the world we live in. The sky is blue.
Things fall when we drop them.
There are seasons. There
are mountains, deserts, forests, grasslands. There are living things, both plants and animals, in many
different environments, but different environments tend to have different
living things.
B. Analysis of
actual facts, including both creative linking of different observations, and
developing possible explanations for why
and how the actual facts are the
way they are. Why is the sky blue? Why do things fall when we drop them? Why are there seasons? Why are plants
and animals distributed in different places the way they are? How do these things happen?
C. Assembling
the possible explanations into an understanding of how the world
works--including testing alternative explanations in order to rule out those
that can be shown to be incorrect; discovering new actual facts as
understanding grows; developing possible explanations for these new actual
facts, thereby expanding our overall understanding.
In practice, these three domains
are deeply intertwined, and therefore nearly inseparable. Domain C explains why. Understanding grows with continued
scientific investigation. In
developing explanations for how the world works, and in attempting to
distinguish alternative explanations, scientists and engineers create new
instruments that enable them to make new observations that were not possible
before. Nonetheless, in teaching
science and in learning science, it is
essential to understand what is "actual fact" (observation or
measurement), and what is explanation of the facts (hypotheses, theories,
etc). It is also essential to
understand the link between these two, and to understand this, students must engage in this type of reasoning
themselves.
Authentic Scientific Thinking, as
we will call this type of reasoning, need not be complex and (probably) need not
be a part of every science lesson.
It must be frequent enough, however, that students develop proficiency
in this type of reasoning, so that they can distinguish between facts and
interpretations. Such distinction
is a fundamental part of science, but it is also a part of many other
disciplines, and of many aspects of life outside of school. It is probably easiest to learn this
important skill in science, where the fundamental core of the discipline is interpreting
facts (observations, measurements, data) to develop understanding (which we
then call "scientific knowledge.")
The Standards identify details -- pieces of Scientific Knowledge. Even if it were possible to teach all of them in the time
available, it is unlikely that students will be able to put them together and
discover the important Big Ideas.
However, if students learn the Big Ideas, then they will have an
understanding into which they can fit those details that they encounter.
But, what are the Big Ideas? Until the Standards are re-phrased to identify Big Ideas and
their supporting details, it is helpful to group the Standards (or, more
precisely, the individual Indicators for each Standard) by relationships among
them. One way to do this is as
follows:
- For each
Indicator, what are some examples that illustrate the concept?
- Which examples
occur under several Indicators?
These are examples that would serve to teach multiple, related
Indicators at the same time.
- Are there
similar examples that might bring additional Indicators into this group?
This approach enables us to sort the Indicators into
"teachable units," where a smaller number of lesson plans can address
a larger number of Indicators.
The Indicators that have been grouped this way address a
common Big Idea. Indicators that
do not fit into such groups may uniquely address their own Big Ideas, and may
need to be taught separately.
The Learning
Goals of a Lesson Plan
Important as it is to articulate the Learning Goals of a
lesson plan, we argue that it may be even more important to assure that the
Learning Goals include the three domains of science identified above: the
"actual facts" that need to be explained, the thinking skills involved
in developing explanations, and the explanations themselves (the
"scientific knowledge").
Many decades' experience indicates that it is relatively ineffective to
teach these three domains separately.
A lesson on scientific reasoning does not transfer understanding to
"scientific knowledge" when it addresses a topic divorced from
scientific knowledge itself.
Therefore, we argue that the Learning Goals should always (if possible)
include:
1. Discovery of
actual facts (even if "discovery" means that the teacher or other
resources provide the basic observations, measurements, photographs, or other
data that will be used.)
2. Students'
reflection on and discussion of those facts, wherein they develop ideas that
would explain those facts.
3. Consideration
of students' ideas, recognizing that there may be several different
interpretations, and that the available information may or may not enable us to
distinguish which is more likely.
Elaboration on these three points, to illustrate their value
and the Learning Goals inherent in each:
Goal #1:
Discovery of facts.
Although interpretations may change as new data come to
light, the basic data--the observations--remain true. In the early grades, much of science teaching represents
exposing students to relatively straightforward observations, such as the daily
changes in shadows from the sun, or the characteristics of different
environments in the world, or the fact that some things float and some sink. In later grades, many of the
observations depend on measurements from instruments such as telescopes,
microscopes, or DNA-sequencing machines.
We use the term "discovery" not to imply that
students should discover these things through open-ended investigations. To reach the ultimate learning goals
identified in the Standards, using examples that are particularly illustrative,
it is necessary to guide the inquiries carefully. Rather, by "discovery," we mean any process in
which students come upon the necessary information. In some instances, students' experiments or activities will
provide the observations. In other
instances, students may discover the information by looking in books
(particularly useful for photographs of unfamiliar animals and habitats.) In other examples, the teacher may
provide the information at strategic times in the lesson.
The important point is for students to acquire and work with
authentic information from which they can learn the science content. In the long-term goal of training our
students to distinguish fact from interpretation, this is the identification of
fact.
Goal #2: Reflection and discussion.
In reaching the long-term goal of distinguishing fact from
interpretation, students need experience.
By developing their own interpretations, they gain this experience
first-hand. They know their
interpretations are interpretations, and they know that other students'
interpretations are, too.
Students will also know that their interpretations are
hypotheses (though they may not know the term), and are unlikely to be
"the right answer." As students discuss alternative explanations that
they and their classmates have developed, they will experience and ultimately
learn the process of scientific thinking.
Scientists do not know "the answer" beforehand; rather, they
develop possible answers through interpreting observations.
The overall learning goals are to:
* develop
understanding of the scientific process as reasoning from data
* experience the
Nature of Science as an investigative endeavor, in which "scientific
knowledge" is an assembly of interpretations of facts.
* develop skill
in teamwork, evaluating others' ideas respectfully and honestly
* develop
confidence in expressing tentative ideas (more easily done with fellow students
than in front of the entire class)
Goal #3: Discussion of students' ideas.
In developing a lesson plan by starting with the Standards,
we aim toward students learning specific scientific knowledge. It is in this discussion that we reach
this knowledge. The initial
observations--the facts--when interpreted according to current scientific
understanding, lead to current scientific knowledge.
Students' own ideas may or may not converge with current
scientific understanding.
Different students' ideas may differ among themselves. This is an important feature of
science: alternative interpretations are almost always available, and must be
considered. There are several
directions that this discussion can lead:
1. If students' interpretations are
similar, and convergent with current understanding, it would be appropriate to
summarize current understanding in appropriate scientific phrasing. This serves to link students' untrained
terminology to the terminology of the field. It also serves to confirm, in students' minds, that their
data-interpretation is useful and valid.
2. If students' interpretations
differ from one another, there is an ideal opportunity to engage in
"scientific discussion." On what grounds do
some students favor one interpretation, and on what grounds do other students
favor other interpretations? This
is the core of scientific thinking--supporting interpretation with evidence,
and communicating the logic to others.
2a. If some interpretations are
actually not supported by the
observations, it is necessary to make this clear, perhaps by a simple form of
hypothesis testing.
"Hmmm...if that's so, then wouldn't we expect XXX to happen?" This is an ideal opportunity to model the
difference between dogmatic statements (this is right, that is wrong) and
scientific reasoning (this is a good idea, but perhaps the evidence argues
against it).
2b. If distinguishing between
alternative interpretations requires additional information not yet available
to the students, there is the opportunity to introduce that information. If the new information is appropriate
for their level of learning, students may be particularly ready to hear it, as it
may resolve their uncertainty.
2c. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to say, "well, we just don't have enough data to distinguish
these possibilities; we'll have to wait until we learn more to make a firm
conclusion." This models science as it so often works in practice, and
drives home the fact that conclusions are tentative, with the possibility that
new information will require their modification.
Thus, depending on the science content, the sophistication
of students' reasoning skills, and the relative importance of the concepts as
gleaned from the Standards, there are several different routes that this
discussion can follow. Overall,
however, the learning goals are the same, to learn:
* the specific
content, or "scientific knowledge" indicated in the Standards, and
around which the lesson was developed
* how the
evidence (data / observations / measurements, etc) leads to this knowledge
* the
fundamental "discourse of science," which is the discussion of
alternative explanations and the articulation of evidence-based reasoning
* that everyone
can do science, because everyone has the basic problem-solving skills required,
as a characteristic of human nature (this point must be learned by experience and success, not by being
told in a lecture).
Content-Specific
Learning Goals
What we describe above represents a "context of
presentation" that is necessary to align the learning of science with the processes that actually comprise
the practice of science. Consequently, we have not commented
upon the specific learning goals associated with the specific science
content. Every lesson will, of
course, be built around these content-specific learning goals. Depending on the nature of the specific
science content, and the complexity of learning it fully, there will naturally
be variations in the relative emphasis of the several domains of science
mentioned above.
Given the nature of the "crowded curriculum," and
the large amount of content identified in the Standards, questions naturally
arise about whether a full inquiry-based lesson is feasible for every
topic. We argue that incorporating
the basic outline described above need not require a greater time than a
traditional lesson, depending upon how the lead-in and data-presentation are
developed. We also suspect--but
have no data yet to confirm--that a moderate percentage of lessons that follow
this pattern may be sufficient to achieve the necessary learning about science
itself. We also suspect that, as
teachers become more accustomed to the approach described here, they will tend
to modify an increasing number of their lessons to follow this method of
teaching science as science.
Making the Transition to "Scientific Science
Teaching"
It is beyond question that teachers have plenty to do
without reworking their courses completely. Is it feasible to ask
teachers to move from traditional science teaching to a pedagogy that involves
students analyzing data to develop scientific understanding? It is.
First, it must be recognized that this transition does not
require a complete transformation of the entire course. We should start with one topic, and see
how it goes. In general, teachers
improve their courses through a process of "tinkering," in which they
modify a portion of the course every year. Make the transition to "scientific science
teaching" by tinkering with one topic at a time.
In testing new pedagogical strategies, it is important to
evaluate students' learning as they engage in the learning experience. It is quite possible (as many of us who
are making this transition can attest) that parts of a new lesson plan work
fantastically well, but the overall unit seems no better than usual due to
another part of the lesson plan.
Continuous evaluation of students' progress--embedded formative
assessments--provide both good feedback (parts of the strategy are great) and
informative feedback for further tinkering (some parts of the strategy weren't
perfect).
It is also important to compare students' attitudes and
learning experience with prior years' efforts using more traditional teaching methods. In particular, ask how well students retain their learning
over the course of several months.
It is our experience that initially, student learning appears roughly
equal with this method compared to a more traditional method. However, over a longer term of several
months, students taught by more traditional methods tend to forget what they
learned; those taught by the method discussed here tend to retain their
learning. They also so greater
interest and engagement in the material.
Resources to support the transition
One of the goals of the Institute is to develop a library of lesson plans
that follow the "scientific science teaching" strategy. Where such lesson plans are already
accessible on the Web, we will provide links to them. Where we can, we will develop lesson plans and post them to
this library. We will always be grateful for recommendations and contributions
from our colleagues worldwide. Please contact
us to make such recommendations, and/or to critique what we have said here.
These pages themselves are offered in support of the
transition to scientific science teaching. In addition, we offer the following resources:
Library of lesson plans that
present scientific knowledge in the context of scientific thinking and
reasoning from data.
Research
summaries supporting the recommendation to move to "scientific science
teaching"
A discussion of the Nature of
Science--a truly fundamental understanding of science that traditional
teaching methods seem not to provide particularly effectively
Professional Development opportunities,
to work together with other teachers on developing "scientific
teaching" strategies, to address specific science content questions, and
to earn course credit for continuing Certification. [availability depends upon
external funding, so opportunities may vary]
Online Professional Development--essentially
a means of linking teachers and scientists for one-on-one electronic
communication, to establish conversations on topics of interest to teachers,
whether concerning scientific content, pedagogy, or any other issues.
An integration of the State
Standards, beginning with a relatively simple listing of the Indicators in
a table format, with Math, English, and Health Standards indicated where
relationships exist; an ongoing effort is to group the Indicators according to
the Big Ideas, integrate Science standards with Social Studies, and provide
direct links from the Standards to appropriate lesson plans.
A guide to lesson plan revision. Many traditional lesson plans can be
revised fairly simply to mesh with our recommendations on Scientific Science
Teaching. We offer suggestions for
such revisions, as well as for development of new lesson plans.
Discussion forum on Scientific Science Teaching,
where teachers can discuss their successes, challenges, and the general wisdom
of making this transition.
Letters.
It is often necessary to provide supporting documents for requests for
Professional Development time, for introducing new pedagogical strategies into
schools, for administrative support of pedagogical improvement efforts, etc. We offer several prototypes that may be
useful.