Reframing the Discussion on “Learning Loss”

When students were asked to discuss “learning loss” for a recent article, one talked about school during COVID, saying, “I lost time I could have been enjoying my childhood.” I think that is a profound statement on where students are at right now. While it is clear that some typical school learning did not happen to the same extent through the past 11 months, I would like to reframe how we look at the learning that did happen and learning goals moving forward. 

I argue that the primary focus of schooling should not be to push students toward artificial learning benchmarks at the expense of “enjoying their childhood.” We need a focus on helping students first develop a love for learning. We need a focus on what they can do, not on whether there is a small change in a test score-based trajectory. Using a packaged program that raises their score 5 points on a standardized test is not worth it if it destroys a child’s engagement in school. And, we have lost that truth when the primary focus is on “learning loss.” Schooling at its best allows for students to find their identity and their passions. And, it helps them see that they are loved. That should be a major lesson of COVID-19.

Therefore, we need to focus on meaningful learning opportunities for all students, not a deficit- and remediation-minded emphasis on making up for lost time. Post-COVID student support requires very careful and thoughtful approaches for several reasons:

• Standardized test scores in mathematics and literacy have been relatively flat for at least the last decade and achievement gaps are not closing. Putting more time into these subjects and doing more of the same has not and will not fix that problem. Admittedly, these types of tests provide limited information about the full range of important student learning, but they are a useful barometer, particularly in relation to equity.
• Research shows that science learning supports literacy learning, but it has seen an ongoing deprioritization, especially at the elementary level. Literacy learning consistently receives a larger share of the limited time available.
• Like mathematics learning, science should be about giving students opportunities to collaboratively figure out interesting problems and phenomena, not memorize facts. STEM learning broadly should be about empowering students to make a difference in their community, with the ability to see where that’s possible.
• We need to move beyond only the “What Works Clearinghouse” of programs, often based on biased studies. As noted above, we have seen little overall impact on achievement gaps, but we have also realized that they exacerbate the opportunity gap. I taught in a school where students were taken out of engaging elective courses (like STEM) and placed in front of a computer for extra reading learning. Thus, they lost key elements of school that motivated them to attend. We must unravel the structures that inhibit joyful learning.
• A deficit focus on students who have not “learned” as much as others has historically led to tracking. Tracking needs to be dismantled, not further entrenched through new post-COVID strategies. Remediation, as has been seen in post-secondary education, is rarely the best answer. School systems need to strive for renewal- and asset-based support, as framed by this Nebraska model.

Instead of a focus on more of the same strategies to support students, we need to emphasize enriched learning for all. We need to get students engaged through meaningful connections to their community and their lived experience. For example, teachers can have them build literacy skills while gaining empowerment through exploring a unit on health equity and COVID-19.

As Dr. Bettina Love, the inspiration of several parts of this article, says, we need to focus more on joy – celebrating that we made it through COVID and dreaming of what can be – not get stuck back in the way things have always been done.

Is the "Scientific Method" Still the Way to Go for Science Lessons?

 Ask 20 teachers what scientific inquiry is and it’s possible you’ll receive 20 different answers. From a series of proscribed steps to a lab-based free-for-all, conceptions have shifted over time. In the National Research Council’s (NRC) 1996 National Science Education Standards (NSES), inquiry held a prominent position as its own content area, but the term rarely comes up in its 2012 Framework for K–12 Science Education (Framework). A report by the Midwest Comprehensive Center and myself (image above) details how notions of inquiry have changed in recent history, particularly as seen within the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). A further section of the report that won’t be described here analyzes how the science standards of upper Midwest states describe inquiry. 

In preparing this report, we reviewed articles about science inquiry from both current and historical perspectives, analyzed national science standards and related documents, and interviewed national science education experts.

Historical beginnings

In the early 20th century, John Dewey proposed a list of five steps scientists use in their work, intending to emphasize their reflective work practices, but educators instead interpreted those ideas as the five linear steps to doing science. Pedagogy and curricula through the 20th century showed the increasing popularity of labs with proscribed procedures and the idea of a set “scientific method.”

Standards era shift

In 1993, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Benchmarks of Science Literacy clearly pushed on this idea of a set method and discussed inquiry as a “habit of mind.” The 1996 NSES attempted to further clarify notions of inquiry with the five big ideas of inquiry in its own section of the content standards. With a follow-up report, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (2000), the NRC stated that, “Students do not come to understand inquiry simply by learning words such as ‘hypothesis’ and ‘inference’ or by memorizing procedures such as ‘the steps of the scientific method.’”. In the NSES, inquiry instead described the way scientists study the world and build explanations based on evidence.

Teachers nevertheless continued to use the scientific method as a convenient way to organize scientific investigations and what it means to think like a scientist, and instructional materials supported this approach. Textbooks today continue to include separate chapters on a scientific method. According to Dr. Joe Krajcik, a member of the NGSS writing team, “While well intentioned, when the National Science [Education] Standards assigned inquiry to its own separate content area, it meant that inquiry remained separate from other science learning.” And, thus, got its own chapter in the textbook! Therefore, as noted by Dr. Melissa Braaten, a professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder, “In schools, inquiry had come to mean one narrow image of doing formulaic, defined experiments. Teachers would refer to it as ‘the scientific method’ like it was a titled thing.”

Framework and the NGSS

The writers of the Framework and consequent NGSS aimed to clarify ideas of scientific practice, moving away from varying ideas of “inquiry.” As emphasized by Dr. Helen Quinn, a researcher with the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and chair of the NRC Framework committee, “While it is what we do—we inquire—scientists do not use the term inquiry.”

To summarize, in this report we emphasize four big ideas from the Framework and NGSS that take the place of some traditional conceptions of inquiry:

1) Inquiry is a means for constructing scientific understanding; it’s not a content area

    Students should be involved in asking questions and investigating natural phenomena in the world around them. Instead of learning steps of a scientific method, they’re doing science.

2) Inquiry is a fluid set of practices that scientists use

    As Dr. Krajcik notes, “Having the eight practices doesn’t mean that you start with a question, then move on to the next practice... There is no linearity implied. The practices are tied together and any one of them could lead to another.” Further, when working with the practices or discussing their use as a class, they shouldn’t be numbered.

3) Inquiry involves three-dimensional learning

    The science and engineering practices are the means to gain scientific knowledge while investigating phenomena with a lens of the crosscutting concepts. Or, in other words from Matt Krehbiel, assistant director of science at Achieve, Inc., inquiry is “woven into science learning throughout the year, where practices are exercised and integrated with learning of the crosscutting concepts and disciplinary core ideas.”

4) Inquiry is independent from science pedagogy

    Inquiry-based teaching is essential, but it’s not the only appropriate type of instruction. Varying instructional practices based on student learning needs make sense.

Final thoughts

I’m certainly not suggesting that you shouldn’t do inquiry-based lessons; however, I would suggest that you rip out the chapter of your textbook on the scientific method and consider ways to structure labs beyond hypothesis testing. There are as many ways to “do science” as there are scientists, so allow the practices to infuse your instruction where they naturally and logically fit rather than in any prescribed way.

Supporting Students in Asking Questions in Science and STEM

What questions do you have about the world that is within one centimeter of you right now? 

What do you notice and wonder about the phenomenon represented by this graph?

If we look at the performance expectations of Next Generation Science Standards, which many districts and several states have adopted as their science standards, the practice of “asking questions” comes up only four times in all of middle and high school. I argue that for personalized, engaged learning, asking questions is the most important scientific practice. If we want students seeing themselves as scientists (which we do), then they need to be the ones asking the questions. Students’ lived experience and community/cultural-connections matter in building their identity as scientists, and asking questions is a critical part of that. Unfortunately, this practice is one I see only rarely in classrooms. I continue to see many teachers doing most of the deep thinking (and students doing the provided worksheets and Kahoot).

This lack of students’ questions not only misses a critical area of science, it’s also an equity issue. I argue that textbooks and prepared materials most often rely on questions built from the perspective of the dominant white culture. Textbooks and most other materials do not reflect local and community-based phenomena, whether urban or rural. They typically represent a limited notion of content and practice loosely tied to national standards.

Given that many teachers rely on packaged materials, having students ask questions becomes more challenging, but it can be done. Here are a couple strategies for adding in this work:

• Anchor Projects – while day-to-day learning continues, students also work on a self-selected anchor project in the background as time allows. In that space they ask questions and pursue learning based on their own interests, with class-wide sharing and check-ins through the year. This Costa Rica school does that work within a theme at each grade, and this Wisconsin DPI website has further ideas. 
• Driving Question Board – When introduced to a phenomenon, students should have the opportunity to share their noticings and wonderings. Those wonderings can be put on paper or virtual sticky notes to form a “driving question board” that the class returns to throughout the unit. In a typical unit, the vast majority of student questions are answered, while others can be turned over to students to explore on their own beyond classwork. It does not sidetrack planned learning but enhances discussion to better address and include student ideas. Page 22 in this OpenSciEd guidebook has some practical implementation ideas. 
• Other Resources – the Learning in Places team has useful ideas for K-3 science in community spaces. Google Books has a preview of the NSTA Making Sense of the World through Science and Engineering Practices book, which includes most of chapter 5 on asking questions. 

In addition to finding the time for student questioning, students also need help in asking good questions. It’s a skill that needs to be taught. Saying, “Does anyone have any questions?” is not an effective teaching strategy.

• Crosscutting Concepts – this dimension of the NGSS (and Wisconsin Science Standards) details how scientists think about or approach phenomena. It details the questions they ask. Students as well should be using them as question starters. What pattern do we see? What’s happening in the broader system and what do we focus on in this system? How does the structure of this part of the organism relate to its function? Teachers will have to model these questions first. The San Diego County Office of Ed has some useful further ideas. 
• Question Formulation Technique – this process provides a structure for students and a protocol for teachers to work toward asking better questions. It does take more time, especially at first, but will effect real change. 
• Eliciting Student Ideas – Ambitious Science Teaching is an incredible resource (and book). Part of figuring out what students already know can and should involve allowing them to ask questions about the topic. It’s a productive formative assessment for both content understanding and the ability to ask scientific questions. 
• Finally, teachers themselves should model good questions in discussions, on assignments, and on assessments. They should call out when students ask good questions. STEM Teaching Tools has two nice resources for asking questions based on the science and engineering practices and the crosscutting concepts. 

How do you support students in asking questions or help teachers better use this practice in their classrooms? I’d welcome your ideas and resources in the comments.