Teaching Science with Multilingual Learners [Guest Post]

By guest authors Dr. Emily Adah Miller (Univ of GA), Dr. Emily Reigh (Univ of CA, Santa Cruz), and Dr. Jennifer Bateman (Univ of GA)

How can you adapt science curriculum to better meet the needs of Multilingual Learners (MLLs)?

                                                            Image: SDI Productions, IStock, Edutopia

Districts have adapted materials that were originally designed to be one-size-fits all and aligned with the NGSS. Many students have success with these materials and they can be easy to use. These curriculum materials give teachers time to plan for teaching without having to invent new investigations or think through scope and sequence. They also help teachers consider questions that will best help students connect the experiences in class with the scientific understanding they need to acquire.

But the materials may not be designed with MLLs in mind. MLLs have different strengths, background experiences, and cultural and linguistic resources from students who are not labeled MLL and one another. Materials may not include enough flexibility to address the unique needs of MLLs. The only way to determine how to best support MLLs in science is through thoughtful planning and in-the-moment adjustments that respond to what ML students are doing, saying and knowing. Material cannot predict how your students will respond. 

This resource provides five adaptation strategies for MLLs, which help teachers address what they are seeing in their classroom with what is provided in the curriculum. Each strategy is supported by empirical research that aligns what is known about teaching science with MLLs, with asset perspective, and current understanding about how students acquire language and scientific understanding simultaneously.

In the Moment Adaptations

• Use Multiple Modalities - Using modalities like speaking, writing, gestures, drawings, and visual models, help MLLs engage in science. Teachers can use these modalities as valuable ways for all students to express their thinking.
• Support Translanguaging - Encourage students to use all their language resources, rather than limiting them to English. By allowing a student to engage in practices and discuss a science concept in their home language, students deepen science understanding which transfers to activities in English.
• Promote Student Collaboration and Communication - Create opportunities for students to learn from each other by presenting complex questions and problems that require them to value different perspectives and problem solve.
• Expand Scientific Practices - Help students reflect on the scientific practices they engage in by allowing extra class periods to share work, reflect on how the practice did and didn’t “work” to explain the phenomenon.
• Technology Tools - Integrate technology in ways that promote exploration and discussion, by providing language supports, and offering students more control over their learning pace.

Wauwatosa School District Science Detracking Efforts (Part 3 in a Series)

The Wauwatosa School District’s Science Department has undergone a significant transformation, which began in the Fall of 2022. The district’s curriculum review cycle prompted an external audit,the assembly of a curriculum review team, and a thorough process to create a plan to respond to the audit, engage in professional learning, revise and improve instructional practices, and evaluate and update curricular resources and materials.

The review team saw clear alignment between the Wisconsin vision for science education and the Wauwatosa School District Mission, Vision, and Core Values, and felt compelled to make the changes necessary in order to realize this vision for the students of Wauwatosa. The three main objectives identified to bring this vision to life included foundational courses aligned to standards, clear course pathways to support varying student interests, and ongoing professional learning and support.

The Wauwatosa School District has prioritized improvements to address the issue of tracking students into leveled courses, a concern recognized by District leadership and emphasized in the external audit. The audit revealed that the system of regular and advanced science courses—particularly in subjects like biology, chemistry, and physics—was contributing to disparities in learning outcomes. These inequities were exacerbated by the fact that such leveled courses are not aligned with the guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, which emphasizes the importance of equitable access to rigorous content for all students.

In response, the District took a proactive approach to rethink how students are grouped and how the curriculum is delivered, particularly at the high school level. Embracing the philosophy that the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Wisconsin State Standards for Science (WSS) are intended for all students, the District decided to dismantle barriers that had previously limited access to challenging science coursework for some students. This vision was grounded in the belief that all students should have equal opportunities to engage with a rigorous science curriculum that fosters critical thinking, inquiry, and problem-solving skills, regardless of their academic background or perceived ability.

To support this vision of science education, the team developed clear and equitable course pathways that focus on empowering students and supporting their varying interests. The changes to course pathways included: removing Advanced Biology, Advanced Chemistry, and Advanced Physics, and adding new courses: Introduction to College Chemistry and AP Environmental Science. Full details regarding the course changes and the rationale behind the updated pathways can be found here.

Additionally, the review team prioritized the selection of a high-quality instructional resource to support these changes. After careful evaluation, the team chose OpenSciEd as the primary curricular resource for biology and chemistry courses. The review team believed that OpenSciEd would enhance learning by delivering grade-level appropriate curriculum and instruction designed to support all students. Additionally, the OpenSciEd curriculum communicates that it is most effective when implemented universally for all students. OpenSciEd’s Design Specifications name that classroom activity structures are designed to leverage the diverse assets and perspectives students bring in order to make sense of phenomena. Teacher materials provide instructional guidance to leverage the heterogeneity in student thinking to support the emergence of group concepts, forms of practice, and links to convention.

The Wauwatosa Biology and Chemistry teams are currently in their first official year of implementation, putting the course and curricular changes into practice. As teachers shift their instruction to an NGSS-aligned approach there is inevitably learning and adjusting along the way, however, the team has seen steady growth in scientific reasoning skills among all students. Teachers report that creating inclusive, collaborative learning environments in universal courses is helping all students grow in ways that weren’t possible with the previous model. The team-based learning fostered by the OpenSciEd curriculum provides students with opportunities to collaborate with their peers, learn from different perspectives, and adopt various study methods. This approach helps improve both academic performance and overall engagement. Students of diverse strengths and experiences positively influence one another, contributing to a richer learning environment for everyone.

Detracking Students in High School Science - A Case Study (Part 2 in series)

Guest authors - Jacquelyn Curran, Craig Gagnon, Leah Williams, and Kathryn Eilert from Middleton High School (synthesized and edited by me)

To begin, the educators at Middleton High School readily admit that they do not have all the answers. What they did (and do) want is more equitable and engaging science learning for ALL students. Thus, they changed their system and graciously shared a bit about that process for this article. 

In the early 90s, some freshmen took physical science and some “more advanced” learners were tracked into biology. So, some freshmen went through a course sequence of physical science, biology, and chemistry, while others tended to take biology, chemistry, and physics. Then, later in the 90s, they got rid of the option of different initial courses and all freshmen took biology. Engagement in physical science had been low. Students took life science in 6th grade, physical in 7th, and earth in 8th, so it also seemed more beneficial to get them into biology as freshmen. There were, however, still three levels of biology at this time, general, regular, and honors. 

Over time they found that the disparities in physical science versus biology were mirrored in the three biology tracks. Student performance, attendance, and behavior data noticeably varied across these tracks. When students were given the opportunity to essentially self-track into honors biology (originally, students needed to test in), most of the students who were ready to enter rich conversations and tackle deeper challenges were separated out from their peers. In that shift, students in the general and regular level biology courses lost role models, supportive peers, and collaborative learning opportunities. General biology, especially, held a makeup of students that was disproportionate to the natural proportions of our school population, which raised red flags. Specifically, students of color, students receiving special education services, and male students were significantly more likely to be in that course. Furthermore, the classroom environment there was often not positive.

In 2011, the biology teachers, with the blessing of the administration, made the decision to integrate their biology courses. Chemistry followed soon after, as they eliminated the ChemCom, (regular) Chemistry, and Honors options. Honors became an embedded option that was open to any student, requiring further, structured work beyond the classroom curriculum. Physics continued to keep two separate courses, “Math Physics,” which was the rebranded honors physics, and Conceptual Physics. Physics was, and continues to be, a “recommended” 11th grade course, so students can take other electives instead.

In terms of meeting the needs of learners in a one classroom setting, the Middleton educators admit that it can be challenging. They have several sections that are co-taught with special education teachers, to support those students and try to keep proportions closer to the overall school ratios. There are also five main levels of differentiation that happen: honors/extension, a regular/base curriculum, a single level modification (with scaffolds), a double level modification with paired-back learning outcomes, and a triple level modification for students accessing a more tangential curriculum. They have consistently been evolving and working to improve these supports and noted that the work is never really finished. All of their “regular” education science teachers contribute to creating all levels of curriculum, as do their special education teachers. They feel that their core curriculum, while not perfect, has a strong foundational structure.

Within differentiation they work hard to provide a challenging, rigorous curriculum based on the NGSS and Ambitious Science Teaching principles to every student. Students who struggle with reading and writing can be really great at making observations, asking questions, and carrying out experiments. They can make connections among separate pieces of information. Having peers to model certain behaviors in class really helps. Reading and writing support comes through modifications, assistive supports (like Snap N Read), and co-teaching partnerships. Special education co-teachers are seen as teachers and act fully as teachers for all students in their co-taught classroom spaces. 

Most "honors" level students are already challenged by the regular curriculum; however, if they choose, they can work on honors extension activities for the unit. These activities are currently based on topics needed in AP Biology or Chemistry classes and serve as extra foreshadowing for that content. Honors students currently answer honors questions on assessment to show understanding. They also run honors labs at times, either in class or during the all-school resource period, which happens every other day. 

Discussing this work, teachers say:

        “I enjoy teaching in an inclusive classroom because we see students of all ability levels, personalities, and more come together to reach a common goal in the classroom. We get to teach and then learn how students work together and become accepting and eventually allies of all students.”

        “I love my classrooms. The personalities make the community so much better. You can have one student who knows so much science helping another student that struggles with content, but they are teaching the first student how to relax, laugh, and work with others. It’s not homogenous and neither is the real world.”

In the end, Middleton educators want to emphasize that it has been YEARS of work and continues to evolve. That is probably one of the biggest messages - take the leap and keep moving forward. It is the right work for students!

You can find further details of their story, examples of classroom modifications and differentiation, and their contact information in the slides from their 2024 WSST conference presentation: bit.ly/4aLryBC.

Why is Tracking Students a Problem? (Part 1 in a series)

                Three experiences in my life stand out in my personal pathway to discouraging schools from tracking students into different levels of classes (such as “honors” vs. “regular”). In conjunction with reflecting on these experiences, I’ve also dug through the research on tracking – turns out it doesn’t support typical school and district practices either.

               I had the opportunity several years ago to support a curriculum review process at a mid-sized Wisconsin school district. In observing high school science classes and talking with the teachers, I saw the core materials for freshman biology were a series of packets developed by the teachers. Through further discussion, they let me know that honors biology did not use those same materials. They did much more inquiry work in the honors class, but “didn’t have time for it” in regular biology. 

               In another mid-sized school district more recently, they wanted my help in revamping their high school science courses. They acknowledged that they had three levels of biology, chemistry, and physics – consumer, regular, and honors. They made the claim that it was not tracking because students could choose which level they wanted to take, with no prerequisites; however, when looking at the data, they acknowledged that their honors classes were much more likely to be white and Asian students, while their consumer level classes were much more likely to be students of color and students receiving special education services.

               Finally, while not a science example, my son had solid math skills in kindergarten and liked math. We supported math learning at home, and he was clearly at grade level, likely a little beyond. In first grade, the school split students into an advanced math class or regular math. My son knew he didn’t get in the “smart” math class. We pushed on that decision a couple times and were told he just didn’t quite meet the criteria. While we could’ve used our white privilege to get extra support and get him in that class eventually, we made the hard decision to let it go. By the end of second grade, he did not like math anymore and did not feel like he was good at it.

               These examples are repeated over and over across the state, country, and world. They’re not isolated incidents, and if not the exact thing, then something similar is likely happening in your school district. Therefore, the Wisconsin Society of Science Teachers and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction have boldly stated, “Tracked course pathways should be eliminated. All students deserve access to rigorous courses and high standards, so they must be provided with the support needed to be successful in those courses.” It’s hard, but important, to realize that tracking hurts kids. Experience and research show that again and again.

               Let’s look at some research-based evidence. Based on a meta-analysis of dozens of studies, Terrin an Triventi (2023) did not find tracking correlated to higher achievement, but did find it correlated with unequal opportunities. In fact, “tracking is one of the primary mistakes that schools make if they hope to close achievement gaps” (Mathis, 2013). Additionally, underrepresented students are more likely to be placed in lower level classes (Connolly, et. al., 2019). Tracking not only limits opportunities for more rigorous classwork with higher expectations, it also appears to impact students’ self-perceptions, beliefs, and goals (Legette, 2020). Admittedly, you can find research with mixed results (not clear results) for the effect of tracking on the achievement of “higher level” students, but the impact of getting stuck in that lower track is much clearer.

               So, “How do we change this pervasive and well-entrenched part of our school system?” you might ask. In the next article of this series of tracking, I’ll be joined by teachers from the Middleton Cross Plains Area School District who will share their work to detrack freshman biology and sophomore chemistry.

Making Room for Creativity in Science Class

How many times have you had a student ask, “Will this be on the test?” I often did as a teacher. They fully expect the test questions to have one right answer, and I would often give them those answers over the course of a unit. Students might have to plug in different numbers, but there wasn’t a ton of critical thinking in the end.

I have wondered, “How could I have made more room for creativity in my science class?” I have a few ideas and welcome yours in the comments!

First, create a culture where students ask questions. When considering student questions, I think teachers worry about tangents that will distract from concepts they “need” to cover. At least, I worried about that. In my experience, when a unit focuses on students figuring out a key phenomenon, the questions they ask tend to be naturally answered in the planned unit anyway. The students, however, at least had a chance at creativity when asking them, and they buy in as they see them answered. For questions that aren’t part of the unit, let students go on a research tangent or test different variables, and give them credit for doing so. Of course, that sounds a bit like project-based learning, which is an obvious pathway here too and enables students to research/experiment based on their own interests. While I didn’t connect them as well I could have to their learning, I honestly loved crazy questions from students, so I appreciate the work of Randall Munroe in xkcd with "what if" questions like, “What if I had a mole of moles?”

Second, find ways to get rid of one right answer tasks. I thought web searches were going to destroy these questions, but now I see that AI is going to obliterate them. Teachers tell me they need to know whether students know definitions. The challenge is that they don’t remember them anyway. I had amazing students who would come back the next school year, and I’d ask, “What’s a proton?” They seriously had no idea. Testing definitions is pointless in the long run, and even in the short term, students often hide behind an illusion of understanding by being able to spout the right terms. They have to be asked to apply ideas to their worlds, to things that they’re interested in, and to current contexts. Plugging numbers into formulas is similarly problematic. Testing on conceptual understanding of what a formula means and how it’s used requires more critical thinking (and is more likely to support remembering it). To help make this change, students could even create the tasks (or questions) that they find meaningful.

Third, push for originality in scientific modeling. Modeling can also become a process of looking for what the teacher wants, but that defeats the whole purpose of modeling! We want students to make connections among ideas in their world and through the lens of their background understanding, not replicate diagrams from a book. In a workshop, I have used a phenomenon of cup phones several times and asked educators to model how they work, as well as why they work sometimes and not others. Once a teacher took the blank paper I handed out and folded it up like an accordion. When asked to share her model, she showed the folds bumping into each other and transferring energy. Brilliant! If I had specifically asked them to draw something or given a starting diagram to add to, I never would have seen that creativity shine.

Notably, I supported a research project where we asked students in grades K-8 to make a model of blowing a crumpled-up piece of paper across a desk. Younger students were more likely to include themselves in their model. Some 8th graders did too, but they were more likely to only draw a mouth or maybe a mouth to lungs system. We interpreted that as younger kids being more likely to see themselves as part of the scientific process, while older kids abstracted science to something outside of who they are. We should encourage kids to make the models personally relevant, meaning giving them phenomena where that will be possible, rather than stressing a system that doesn’t include them in the picture.

Finally, celebrate your students’ ideas! Whenever they get excited, get excited with them, even if it’s hard to do. I had a student who was excited to bring in articles that argued against human-caused climate change. It tended to make me grumpy, as they didn’t represent quality science. But, he wanted to talk science! I really should have celebrated his interest in pursuing science topics outside of school. I should have called my excitement out to the class! Because that’s what science should be, full of wonder and questions and creative expression, even in the face of the competing priorities and obligations of being a teacher.

Cultivating Genius: Adapting Lessons to Bring Out the Genius in All Students

I have a hard time connecting with some frameworks for equity-based teaching. Often, that’s because they don’t connect as well as I’d like to science teaching. The Cultivating Genius Framework from Dr. Gholdy Muhammad, on the other hand, provides a simple tool to reflect on lesson and unit design.

Her framework includes the following 5 elements, and I note how they’d work within science:

• Intellect: the disciplinary core ideas of science (DCIs) and ways of thinking of science (i.e., CCCs)
• Skills: the science and engineering practices (SEPs)
• Identity: connections to students’ interests and cultures, current events, and local contexts (some ideas in Appendix A of the WI Science Standards).
• Criticality: how is this science going to help change our community and the broader world?
• Joy: linking to the beauty and wonder of science, as well as the collaborative nature of it

So, what might this look like in practice to adapt existing materials? Let’s start from some high-quality and free materials, OpenSciEd, specifically the 7th grade unit on matter cycling and photosynthesis – “Where does our food come from and where does it go next?” In this unit students explore the growth of plants, creation of food, and decomposition of food materials.

Applying Dr. Muhammad’s framework:

This unit already effectively brings in the 3 dimensions of the WSS/NGSS = intellect and skills. Students develop a strong conceptual understanding of these topics and do science.

    Identity: The lesson starts out with maple syrup and students watch a video of tapping a maple tree. Instead, classes could go out and actually tap trees to connect to their local environment and native understanding of ecosystems and science, specifically noting the cultural connections. 

    Criticality: Later in the unit, students grow plants hydroponically. They could connect this work to growing healthy food for the school cafeteria (and eating it!) and consider issues such as the impact of food deserts in communities and over-consumption of processed foods.

    Joy: Students could take a walk in a local forest or other ecosystem to observe plant growth and decomposition. If the environment is a nearby local forest, they might do multiple measurements over time in the spring when plants are growing like crazy. A teacher could also add a group project related to local plants, food, decomposers, etc. that benefits a local food pantry.

There are so many possibilities for making our lessons better connect to the identity, joy, and critical perspectives of our students! The challenge, of course, is time. Like always, I’ll emphasize that it’s better to engage students deeply in their world than it is to cover more content. They will remember the ideas better and be able to better apply them to new situations. Their scientific literacy will also increase. If we want students to find joy in learning and be careful consumers of the (mis)information overload around them, some coverage must give way to more opportunities for locally-connected critical thinking.

Are Today's Students Actually Different?

In my role in state science leadership, I often end up hearing from educators that the students right now are different than before. I have especially heard that as we’ve gone back to school during this COVID era, but frustration aimed at cell phones and social media has been around for a while. Notably, I also heard these sentiments from several educators when I first started teaching 23 years ago. “Kids have changed from when I first started teaching…They’re not as ______ as they used to be.”

I sometimes wonder if those perceived changes are reflections of changes in society in general more so than children being inherently different now.

I have a few concerns with focusing on perceived “changes” in children:

First, it’s an easy excuse. It shifts the onus of responsibility away from educational systems and educators, and instead focuses on children. It becomes part of the ongoing blame game in education. It would be helpful to change how we frame our analyses. For example, instead of saying, “Only 30% of our students are proficient,” we ought to note that our instructional system and curriculum only meet the needs of 30% of our students.

Second, it can be conflated with changing demographics. I taught in California in a district that went from about 70% white to 20% white in the 20 years before I started there. We all have implicit biases; lots of evidence points to that. So, when we say students are different, their demographics are sometimes quite different, and we can come off as suggesting that that is the underlying problem, even if unintended.

Third, children are amazing, creative, and bring a fresh new lens on the world around them. That’s what we need to emphasize.

Some instructional shifts might help, but I think that’s always been the case. For example:

First, yes, there are real issues with social media, internet-connected phones, etc. Cell phones turn most of us (adults too) into screen-addicted zombies. That includes me (I’m working on it). Social media usage is linked to self-esteem issues in children. I’d hypothesize that social media and excess screen time are linked to mental health issues for people of all ages. I would suggest rules and a culture that gets rid of phones in general during school day – not in the bag, not in a pocket. It would take serious time and effort, but it would give children some time to be away from those addictive platforms. We could model that behavior as educators (your family can call the school if there’s an emergency, and the front desk staff can contact you). Admittedly, students need to develop healthy habits with phones and use the internet for good. Using computers on a structured basis can support those goals. Perhaps there is real research that show most kids having phones will keep them safer in an emergency – if so, that should be considered, but I haven’t seen it yet (science is about evidence, not random anecdotes).

Second, if they can Google the answer, that’s the type of pedagogy that has needed to change for a long time. It’s even more critical now. Content-focused instruction has never been motivational for most kids, and according to repeated research, students quickly forget the details from that type of learning. Any DOK 1 or 2 learning can be effective when embedded within community connections, local phenomena exploration, and meaningful problem solving, but it shouldn’t be the focus. Kids have never been excited about memorizing the periodic table or the stages of mitosis! Applying understanding means connecting it to real issues, jobs, challenges, changes in the local community; it is not giving some fake context on a test to make stoichiometry (etc.) appear like it has “real-world” value. Students should be learning to make sense of the world around them, not be fed pre-packaged understanding.

In the end, are students different? Probably a bit. Society is different. But, that 13-year-old is still a lot like the 13-year-old from 50 years ago with similar core needs and wants. Let’s work together to help them find joy and wonder in the world around them!

What Is “Student-Centered” Instruction?

To begin, if there is one right answer to a task, it’s not student-centered. It’s students figuring out the answer the teacher wants. True, that might be the “scientifically accurate” answer to a problem, but it leads to students being dependent on the teacher (or another outside source) for telling them what is correct and what is not. It leads students directly to the sense that the teacher, textbook, or website are the knowers and creators of science, not the students. We want students to grow in their identity as scientists by becoming scientific knowledge creators themselves! That’s the key to student-centered instruction.

So, does that mean learning shouldn’t involve problems with only one right answer. No, but there should be many fewer than they typical classroom includes. And, when they happen, they should be in the larger context of student sensemaking and creation. The foundation of the Wisconsin Science Standards (and NGSS) is that students should use scientific practices, ways of thinking, and content to make sense of phenomena and solve problems. So, if there are single answer problems or questions, such as a limiting reagent in chemistry or the speed of a cart in physical science, they should be included specifically so that students can then use that understanding to make sense of or solve problems within a larger context, not be an end in themselves.

Learning targets and assessments should then have this student-centered focus as well and not stagnate in lower cognitive levels. For example, I would not have an objective that says, “I can describe an ecosystem.” Instead, I might have one that says, “I can explain with evidence how changing environmental factors can affect some species of bats more than others” (for reference, here’s a unit outline for learning related to that target). I might then break that down into success criteria for students, such as, “I can: 1) use my understanding of ecosystems to explain why changes in particular aspects of them matter for bats; and 2) use my understanding of structures and functions of different bat species to explain why some bats will be more affected by those ecosystem changes than others.” Therefore, students are using an understanding of ecosystems for learning in a context of Wisconsin bat populations--specifically building toward making sense of decreasing bat populations due to various causes including white nose syndrome, and then determining what to do about it.

In this unit example, assessment should also involve sensemaking/problem-solving and questions that do not have one right answer. The assessments should reflect the 3D instruction. They could include:

1. Modeling a bat ecosystem and using evidence to show how it might change with a new environmental pollutant or other ecosystem change; 
2. Writing a letter to a local politician describing the bat population problem, why it’s important, and possible solutions; 
3. Designing and physically building a locally adapted product to help bat populations, like a bat house tailored to a local species of bat; 
4. Developing an evidence-based explanation in relation to the success criteria--see sample bat ecosystems explanations rubric.

Notably, students will be using their own research, investigation results, and a variety of data to make these assessment products their own. In particular, writing an explanation (CER if you use that) should not be a reading comprehension exercise.

In the end, the goal is for students to do science that is directly meaningful in their lives and community—to engage in learning that builds up their scientific identity, not reinforces their proclivity to want the teacher to tell them what the “right” answer is.

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.

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.

Categorizing the Multiple Literacies/Perspectives Learned in PK-12

At the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, we see the inherent problem of putting out 25 (!) different sets of standards, but we don’t always do a good job of helping districts see how to integrate and simplify these guidance documents. One area of connection we’re currently working on is STEM – discussing a goal of transdisciplinary STEM literacy that we hope all students gain by the time they graduate from high school. These conversations have gotten me thinking about ways to coalesce around a smaller set of core literacies (or perspectives or lenses) that schooling should support as students work to make sense of the unique aspects of the world related to disparate courses and standards. Students cannot meaningfully bring 25 different literacies or perspectives to bear as they explore phenomena and solve problems; I propose there are 5 that should frame student learning opportunities in PK-12.

First, students grow in understanding of how social systems work—how cultures, economics, political systems, and communities function. They explore what power means and how limited resources impact societies and individuals, including their own job prospects. There is a core aspect of them figuring out how they fit into these systems, their own civic and community engagement, and how ethics play out in these structures. Ideas of environmental sustainability come into play here. As students learn other languages and build intercultural competence, they also grow in this social literacy.

Second, students grow in understanding of themselves—how they think and feel. Introspection and metacognition are important processes. This psychological literacy often comes in relation to and builds from the social-emotional and cultural aspects of themselves; it’s hard, likely impossible, to make sense of ourselves apart from our cultures. Inward looking pulls from many perspectives and our unique “self” to frame our thinking and decision-making; it’s more than a social process as we analyze our learning and ourselves and how/why we feel about it as we do, including how our own racial and cultural identities connect with these elements.

A cultural and personal literacy could also be connected to what some would call a spiritual literacy. This spiritual sense-making clearly pulls from these social and psychological lenses, though the complex nature of spiritual perspectives is likely best left out of PK-12 schooling. Notably, this spiritual perspective often gets confused with an ethical or moral perspective. I argue here that ethics belong more in that social area of how we function as a society. We have expectations, laws, and responsibilities to make social systems function well instead of constantly becoming mired in the tragedy of the commons.

Third, again connected to these other facets of sense-making, I would argue that there is a unique aesthetic literacy. Through this lens we see things, often purely, for their beauty and how they make us feel. This artistic literacy would include music, dance, poetry, and other forms of creative expression and interpretation.

Fourth, students grow in STEM literacy. A challenge here, perhaps more than in other areas, is defining what that means. At its essence, it is pulling in science, technology, and mathematics understanding to solve technical problems in the world around us. A social systems perspective is necessary to solving societal problems, but there are nuances of those problems that require a technical skill set as well. This literacy could logically be called engineering, or an engineering design perspective, on problem solving. While, again, it weaves in social, psychological, and aesthetic lenses, it also requires unique technical and data-driven perspective and abilities.

Fifth, students develop in science literacy as they work toward understanding how the natural world works. This is not necessarily to solve problems or connect to product/process development, like the frequent focus of STEM and engineering literacy. It is to understand how natural systems work, from the broad universe to the quarks within the atoms making our bodies.

Other subject areas of schooling largely combine these five core literacies or provide tools to use them. For example, career and Technical Education (CTE) courses generally build on STEM and social lenses. At their core, they can be technical problem-solving in a particular field (like health care), though there’s always the sociological and psychological (people) elements in these fields. Similarly, a business class might be a blend of the social (economics/community) and technological, along with some psychology (advertising), to work through the development, selling, and eventual obsolescence of a product.

I can see an argument that there is a purely mathematics literacy, a unique numeracy of our being, but I’m not convinced that perspective is a core aspect of PK-12 learning. Perhaps at the university or in an extracurricular. Mathematics at PK-12 is more of a key tool in service to understanding the world from these other lenses.

Similarly, I’d argue that an English class also isn’t building a unique PK-12 perspective, unless you’re considering the aesthetic angle. It’s a tool too, though one that logically requires its own opportunities for learning. There is an underlying communication required for everything. There are stories and reports, where writing and reading them engage the cultural, individual, and aesthetic lenses, but they don’t stand on their own as another lens.

Like English, a technological literacy, whether employed or developed, isn’t truly isolated either. It’s in service to our social interests (psychology, sociology) or our problem solving (engineering/STEM).

So, we’re left with five main lenses that should be explicitly engaged in and connected through the PK-12 years: social, psychological/individual, artistic/aesthetic, STEM/engineering, and science. Five lenses feel much more approachable than 25 sets of standards. Though, certainly, there are other unique disciplinary literacy elements that are also valuable—perhaps deeper studies of economics and sociology, for example—but these are likely more appropriate for advanced coursework. Finer nuances and hard delineations within these literacies are less critical within a core set of lenses for students to make sense of the world.

Considering what these literacies mean for education, it would be ideal if they were not always treated as isolated perspectives within traditional course arrangements. Engaging students in making sense of the world requires them to use these different perspectives, not attempt to pull from 25 areas of learning. The enormous challenges and “information” inundation we face cannot be limited to the emotional response of the psychological or the technical response of the STEM. What if educators collaborated around the same phenomenon, then tackled it from these differing perspectives? What if students were given opportunities to explore, develop, and evaluate solutions to real problems? There are underlying elements of inquiry, problem solving, evidentiary thinking, questioning, etc., within each of these areas from which learning could be built as students use these multiple literacies.