I have mixed feelings about this section. While I agree with the premise that we need to "explore how we can incorporate opportunities within our classrooms to allow students to build a better understanding of science through engaging in language activities (Hand, et. al., p. 57)", I do not believe that this means that students need to create written products that are turned in or are done individually. In fact I contend that this goes counter to many of the points made in the book.
I agree whole-heartedly with the "language to learn" philosophy as opposed to the "mechanistic position" of memorizing vocabulary lists prior to scientific work. In Modeling Physics students construct their own terminology to describe their observations and negotiate it with their peers through consensus building. When the time is right, the technical terms are shared and negotiated into student's conceptual frameworks through more consensus building (Just-in-time vocabulary). In this way students "have much greater connections to science" by building "from what they know (Hand, et. al., p. 59)". In the Modeling approach argumentation is critical in the negotiation process as students "discuss, debate, and defend their results and conclusions (Hand, et. al., p. 59)."
Similar to the Modeling methodology, the Science Writing Heuristic approach puts students off the traditional school game. "I don't like the SWH. . . . I know how to play the game and score well on tests. Now the rules have changed. It isn't about playing the game, it is about learning, and I have to work just like everyone else. Just memorizing doesn't work anymore and I have to work at this.--Student Perspective (Hand, et. al., p. 77)"
Something that intrigues me about this approach is that SWH is documented to close the achievement gap for traditionally low-achieving students. I believe that Modeling methodology would do likewise however these students don't typically make through to physics. Physics-first though would achieve these gains. But how do schools go from being Biology-Chemistry-Physics to being Physics-Chemistry-Biology? I just don't see how this is done logistically given staffing abilities.
Like Modeling methodology, learners in the SWH approach construct knowledge and critique knowledge through public negotiation and argumentation (Hand, et. al., p. 86). Personally I know that I need to become more effective at getting students out of the "school-game" mode and get them to critique knowledge. They present but very seldom do they attend and critique no matter how much prodding and cajoling from me. This is a real weakness that I need to address.
The major difficulty I have with Modeling is getting students to ask questions of one another, to be critical of others' statements and to be self-reflective. Too often they look to me for the answer. They are trapped in a "school mind-set". I need to uses strategies to avoid the pitfalls and to pull students out of this trap. I need to ask more questions. I need to deflect questions to other students "What do you think about what Susie said? (Hand, et. al., p. 209)" . . ."How could you find that out? . . . What do you think would happen if you tried that? . . . Why is that important? (Hand, et. al., p. 115)". Another issue is knowing how hard you can push students with this stance. I must be able to accurately gauge their level of frustration and to be able to talk them down (get them to breathe, to laugh) (Hand, et. al., p. 115). Whenever I am asked for an answer I do my best to state my mantra of "I have never seen that before. What do you think?"
Sometimes students pose ridiculous questions that have no connection to what we are investigating just to test my resolve at not playing the school game. I need to refocus with these questions . . .
- "How do you think this question will help you build your knowledge on the topic?
- Do you think that is a good question?
- How does your question compare to the criteria for a testable question?
- Ask other students what they think of the question and prompt the poser to defend his/her question." (Hand, et. al., p. 105)
In order to have greater success in whiteboarding situations (negotiating and arguing), I need "to develop ground rules for public negotiation of ideas" so that I can bring "students into the process. (Hand, et. al., p. 107) The authors state "that students will invest a great deal more energy and thought into their discourse when it is being evaluated, challenged, shaped, or supported by their peers rather than by you, or in addition to you as teacher (Hand, et. al., p. 108)."
Perhaps I should have the students come up with the standard for a good presentation and then they can measure (and so can I) their performance against the standard. If students refuse to play by these new ground rules then there has to be consequences and follow through. The suggestion that the authors present is that the offenders are offered a choice: choose how you intend to learn new rules or segregated old rules (solitary worksheets, reading guides, etc.).
Quotes:
"Providing correct answers doesn't make students correct their conceptual framework to match the teacher's conceptualization."--Hand, et. al., p. 79
"Students . . . need to know that anytime they share their ideas, they need to be prepared to discuss them . . . they can't get away with 'I don't know' as an easy way out. . . . (it) will be followed by more questions to get at what they do know. Thinking is required!"--Hand, et. al. p. 107
"An indication of the success of teacher questioning strategies is how well students begin to ask questions of themselves and of others."--Hand, et. al. p. 115
"(A)ll must think and defend thoughts."--Teacher's Voice, Hand, et. al. p. 116
"At the end of the SWH the student/scientist/lawyer will need to convince a classroom of peers that his or her argument explaining the question is valid based on the evidence, which the student build from the data."--Hand, et. al. p. 128
"The story built from the data that leads to a claim is the evidence."--Hand, et. al., p. 129