Effective Virtual (and In-Person) Learning in Science (part 2)

Based on current research, effective science instruction looks a bit different than what I often did as a teacher. In fact, there is more to it than having students engage in the three dimensions of the Wisconsin Standards for Science (or NGSS). Students must do more than go through a series of activities or labs (whether in person or virtually) to learn concepts. They need to be actively making sense of meaningful phenomena and solving problems, where their thinking develops over time. To illustrate what I mean, I am going to share four science activities, how I would modify them, and what assessment might look like. In each, my goal is that students become more active creators of knowledge and understanding, rather than only going through the motions pre-determined by the teacher. The grade levels of these activities are a bit flexible, generally middle or high school, though they could be modified for upper elementary. 

Activity 1 - Cells: Students go through a series of Google slides, watching video clips, filling out blanks for parts of a cell, and doing an embedded PearDeck quiz at the end.

Modification: Student groups brainstorm what critical aspects are of a family living space (home) on a Jamboard. They review each other’s ideas, then the teacher leads a class conversation to combine the ideas (goal of getting to ideas such as outer wall protection, energy, waste, water). The teacher uses the language of “systems thinking.” Students then go back to their group Jamboards, add class ideas if they’re not there, and mark which of those functions an individual cell would need to do—also adding other cell ideas as needed. Then, the teacher provides a listing of organelles and their functions, asking students to individually complete a diagram that matches organelles with the functions their group has discussed. When they come back together, they share their ideas and add new ones to the previous Jamboard about important cell and household functions.

Assessment: Students receive one of several types of cells, such as heart cells or neurons (differentiation). They are asked which function will be most likely needed by that cell, and therefore which organelles will be more abundant. Throughout their work, the discussions and explanations will help the teacher make sure students aren’t hiding a lack of understanding behind memorized terms and definitions. 

 Activity 2 - Rocks: Students find a rock outside and have to identify whether it is sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous, creating a CER that builds on their observations and learning about these rock types. Either in small groups using shared Google docs/slides, or through Flipgrid, students then react to other students’ claims and evidence, noting whether they agree or not and why.

Modification: A key thing missing here is a “why.” What’s the phenomenon students are making sense of or what’s the engineering problem they’re solving? A purely classification task like this shouldn’t be an end in itself—it’s not that important (and you’ll notice that they don’t exist in the NGSS). Instead, it should be part of larger sensemaking or engineering work. How about have groups explore rocks for different building tasks, making a claim for using a particular rock based on properties and costs. Then, they’d look at some actual rocks/crystals under the microscope and create models based on those images to help explain how these rocks were formed and why certain rocks are better for particular purposes.

Assessment: MS/HS – individually model internal structures of different rock types to explain why one type is good and one type not as good for a new building task. Create pics in Google and write up (or Flipgrid) explanation. Could also connect to chemical properties.

Activity 3 - Chemistry: In introductory chemistry, students learn about properties of acids and bases and their chemical formulas. They identify a substance as an acid or a base by its properties. They balance equations for simple acid and base reactions.

Modification: Student start with the phenomenon of the “alkaline diet” trend. Through an inquiry-based and student-centered process, they build up an understanding of acids and bases specifically to evaluate their claims.

Assessments: Create a website using Canva that shares an evaluation of alkaline diets, including designing an investigation to model how the pH of foods affects the pH within our bodies. They could also write a detailed, evidence-based letter to the editor of health websites or magazines.

Activity 4 - Dissection: The teacher virtually dissects a fetal pig (or, if in person, students do). The students see and memorize body parts.

Modification: Why is memorizing body parts and functions important? Instead, the phenomenon could be plastics pollution. A local DNR scientist could virtually join students and cut open a fish, together looking for plastics accumulation with students making claims for where that might happen and why. Is it in brain, liver, heart, muscles, blood, stomach, or intestines? Where and why do we find plastic and chemicals from plastics breaking down? The partner DNR or university scientist could use a gas chromatograph to test student ideas.

Assessment: A choose your own adventure lab! The teacher records a series of videos that students can choose from to do a virtual necropsy on an animal that had been showing particular symptoms. Students have to explain why they decide to look at videos highlighting particular organs/systems and what they might see in relation to particular causes of death. They use evidence from videos and research to make a claim for a particular cause of death and explain their reasoning.  

Admittedly, we are in a strange and challenging time for learning. What may have engaged students in the past might not work now. I hear teachers saying that students are sitting with videos off and remain silent even in breakout rooms. There are no easy answers, but I do believe that some shifts to more student-centered and phenomenon-based learning might help. I continue to make the assertion that quality matters over coverage!

 

What do we really mean by effective online learning?

In a recent regional meeting of education leaders, a district curriculum director touted their subscription to EdPuzzle and praised its usefulness as a virtual learning tool. I did not say anything, but I sat thinking that we can do better than embedding questions into videos that students watch. This type of instruction does not meet clear criteria for effectiveness: 1) It is not student-centered; 2) It does not require students to meaningfully collaborate with their peers, where different perspectives become valuable; and 3) It is not inquiry-based, which requires students to make sense of phenomena and solve problems.

First, effective online learning (like learning in an in-person classroom) is student-centered. Even if a teacher provides really thoughtful questions for that video or questions for students to answer after a reading, it is still the teacher doing the heavy lifting. The students are interpreting what the teacher wants, not doing the cognitive work of creating or charting their own path. If students are instead trying to make sense of a natural occurrence in the world around them, a historical event, or an engineering problem, their approach to a video or reading becomes their own. They delve into that resource to find answers to their own questions—answers they need to figure something out and answers that relate to their interests and identities—not answers to simply complete a virtual worksheet on a topic.

But is that approach still standards-based? Yes. Much of the school learning revolves around the idea that students need to be exposed to particular concepts or content because those are the standards. No, that’s not the goal. The goal underlying all standards is for students to be able to figure out the world around them, engaging in some content learning along the way in order to help them do that.

Second, effective online learning integrates meaningful student collaboration. “Meaningful” is not finding the one correct answer together, nor is it together replicating some near variation of the teacher’s example. Instead, students bring their own perspectives and background knowledge to bear as they make sense of something together—that can be seen in the science video on the lower left of this website. Small-group, project-based learning can happen in virtual and hybrid environments; typical structures for group projects still work.

Third, effective online learning is inquiry-based. I recently heard of a teacher dissecting a fetal pig, with the students watching virtually. I could imagine the students saying, “ewww gross,” and appearing pretty engaged. The teacher notes that this allows students to better learn and visualize body parts. Okay, but why does that matter? Why is memorizing body parts important? Instead, students might explore what causes organisms to die and connect with a wildlife parasitologist like Dr. Rebecca Cole. Student groups could use online resources to visually explore failures in particular body systems in an animal model and situation that interests them; as an example, Dr. Cole could walk them through signs of parasites in a body and how they affect various systems. Or, students might have a unit with a driving question of, “What, if anything, is wrong with plastic products?” A local DNR scientist could virtually join students and cut open a fish, together looking for plastics accumulation with students making claims for where that might happen and why. Is it in brain, liver, heart, muscles, blood, stomach, or intestines? Where and why do we find plastic and chemicals from plastics breaking down? The partner DNR or university scientist could use a gas chromatograph to test student ideas. It is true that in virtual learning students cannot personally manipulate physical scientific equipment, but they can still explore phenomena and see results of tests of their ideas (though done by a proxy scientist or a simulation).

In the end, effective online learning is not critically different from effective in-person learning.

"Essential" Standards in Science

Co-authored by Rochelle Sandrin, Science Curriculum Coordinator, Milwaukee Public Schools

As students head back to school this fall, many teachers and administrators have realized that teaching all of the topics from previous years may not be possible. There is a desire to pare down the standards into what is “essential” or “priority.” In science this process can prompt some useful conversation on a K-12 progression of learning, but it should be approached cautiously. The core phrase of the standards remains the guidepost for designing instruction--that "all students should use disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts to make sense of phenomena and solve problems.”

A definition of “power’ or “essential” standards shows that this prioritization typically happens at the local level, where administrators and teachers decide what is most important for students to learn. These teams need to carefully consider vertical alignment in this process, so that students are properly prepared for the next grade level and further education after high school. Teachers need to know what big ideas of science students are coming from and moving toward to focus their students’ learning within this progression (particularly to be more efficient by avoiding duplication of learning). Because the Wisconsin Standards for Science already represent a narrowed range of content at each grade band, educators might start by determining whether they can trim some of what they teach that is not in the standards. They might also consider bundling standards to address more within each unit. 

Even after cutting excess and bundling, a school system might decide that constrained time in a virtual or part-virtual and part in-person environment means that not all content standards can be addressed. The inquiry-based nature of science and social studies must continue, even if not all the typical content is “covered.” Notably, social studies and science learning is what engages students and makes learning come alive. These subjects should not be diminished to keep teaching literacy and mathematics with “fidelity” to a set of materials--e.g., teaching them in traditional ways with little evidence of success. Both literacy and mathematics are enhanced through deep connections to students’ lives, which is provided through social studies and science contexts. A better understanding of science and social studies does support literacy skills.

Any narrowing of the curriculum cannot mean less rigor and relevance. It cannot mean less opportunity to develop rich relationships with adults and peers. Students must be able to engage in equitable, grade-level work, not only “catch-up” from what has been missed. Further, students should be engaged in making sense of meaningful phenomena and designing solutions to locally relevant problems. This “three-dimensional” engagement is at the core of what is “essential” or “priority” work in science. 

Finally, as we move forward with schooling in the era of COVID-19, the discussion of priorities should consider current events. A unit on media literacy, connecting to grade-level content and the practice of finding and evaluating information, always makes sense, but is even more critical now. Exploring virology and vaccines might not have been a critical phenomenon for teaching a concept five years ago, but now certainly could be. 

In all current, messy deliberations, we must first consider what is best for students, keeping student well-being and equitable learning as the key lens through which we make decisions.