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.

Using Surveys as Part of the Evaluation of School Science Programs

Surveys of students, teachers, and community members will provide critical information in the process of determining whether changes made to your science education program improve desired outcomes. Many important questions cannot be answered through typical science assessments. While it’s clearly essential that students understand and can do science, do they sincerely believe that someone like themselves could be a scientist? Further, are you changing not just knowledge of, but beliefs about, science? Do students see how science relates to their lives? Is it meaningful for them? Or, do they see a need to question “scientific evidence” within popular media?

A recent article in National Geographic noted that solid, research-based science often faces organized and angry opposition. We don’t want students leaving school doubting the consensus of the scientific community (unless they somehow have sufficient, valid evidence to doubt a claim). They can understand how vaccines work and still decide not to have their children vaccinated. It’s unfortunate that our society believes in science, but not its findings.

Furthermore, do students understand who scientists are and what they do? While it was created as a tool for K-5, the “Draw-a-Scientist” test (DAST) could be done at secondary levels as well. My 8^th graders certainly held onto stereotypes of scientists. We want students to see science as including a wide-range of tasks by a wide-range of people, particularly people who look like them and have interests similar to their own.

Here are a few sample surveys of student attitudes: 

• A wide range of examples are provided on this site from Pearson   
• Survey on student attitudes toward science and other STEM subjects (Faber, et al., 2013). This paper describes use and development of the survey, with the actual tool at the end. 
• Changes in Attitudes about the Relevance of Science (CARS) – with three versions of the instrument, it could be given at the beginning, middle of a school year, instead of being more spread out. 
• Test of Science Related Attitudes (TORSA) – see  final page for items and scoring information.

These surveys can provide teachers with data to evaluate their individual courses and the science program more generally.

While surveys of student outcomes are critical within a system of assessments, it’s also important to understand the views of parents/community members and teachers during the change process. Surveying parents and other community members can help ensure they’re aware of and meaningfully connecting to the school science vision and students’ science learning. Teacher surveys can ensure they’re comfortable teaching their content and the practices of science in accordance with the vision for science learning. Within results, you can look at trends by demographics, such as race and ethnicity, or differences between new and veteran teachers.

In a survey of parents and community members, you probably don’t want to get into the content being taught. Hearing about personal views of evolution and climate change isn’t necessary for these purposes. Questions could have a Likert-scale format, with selections from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Some examples include:

• Through the science courses, I believe my student is becoming a better scientific thinker (for the broader community that would be rephrased as “students are becoming”).  
• I am familiar with the district vision for science education. 
• I believe my student is receiving a quality foundation in his/her science classes to pursue science careers in the future. 
• I believe my student is being well-prepared for science classes at the college or university level.

There should also be an open-ended text box, asking survey takers to please share any comments or questions about the science education program at their school. Of course, even with community input, you’re not going to resort to poor instructional practice that isn’t research based, like lecture. Educators are the professionals in this setting. You may, however, decide to make more career linkages in your courses or bring in more guest scientists.

It’s also important to know where teachers are at in the change process. Are they getting the support they need in teaching science? Tools like the Survey of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) can also let educators and administrators know whether what they’re doing actually lines up with the intentions of the instructional program. It’s not a “gotcha” system, but an approach like Lesson Study that can lead to tremendous, collaborative professional learning.

A brief endnote… While it is true that for statistically-validated studies surveys need to undergo extensive testing, everyday school surveys can provide a useful piece of information for guiding instructional programs. Surveys linked above have largely undergone testing and include multiple item constructs, so using them or learning from them is a good step.

Some other tips for creating quality surveys include: 

• Use multiple questions to measure each idea or topic. Looking at several questions together provides a more valid picture of what people really think.  
• Have a student, parent, etc. verbally talk through their thoughts on the survey with you. They think aloud as they read and answer the questions. Are they understanding the questions in the way that was intended? Is there some confusing wording? Having people of different backgrounds do so helps ensure the questions are similarly interpreted by people. 
• A focus group, with a neutral facilitator (i.e., not your boss), can provide a different perspective and bring out ideas that a survey cannot. It can also inform survey development.  
• Pilot the survey before sending it out broadly. 
• Here are a few further tips for online surveys.

And, yes, it takes extra time and effort to know whether you’re actually making a long-term difference for your students and whether the large-scale changes improve classroom practice, but it’s worth it. 

Science Program Objectives

After a focus on disciplinary literacy in the last couple of posts, I’m now returning to the theme of science program review/revision…

I’ve spoken to several districts in the last few months that have established a vision for science education. That excites me a lot! Talking to them further, I often ask how they’re going to measure whether or not they’re achieving that vision. They share their 3-5 year plan with me for revising their science program, and I ask, “How will you know in 3 to 5 years whether you’ve made progress in accomplishing your vision?” Many leaders have no answer to that. Supporting administrators and educators in establishing that evaluation plan is, therefore, the purpose of this post and others to come.

In order to create that evaluation plan, the school/district science leadership team will first need to translate their vision statement into specific and measurable objectives. These are the big picture goals of science for the students. They’re more concrete than the vision but less specific than the more content-related learning objectives that would be part of a standards-based report card (I’ll describe those objectives in a later post). Ideally, these goals will be written out as SMART goals, meaning they are:

• Specific: Clearly states what will be done. 
• Measurable: Links to a particular outcome using a specific test, noting a particular target. 
• Achievable: Want it to be a stretch, but realistic. 
• Results-focused: Should measure student outcomes, not program implementation. 
• Time-bound: Have a due date. 

To craft a couple examples of SMART goals, let’s take a few phrases from the initial vision I shared in this blog from the NRC Framework for K-12 Science:

“[By] the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues …” 

Starting with the first phrase, I’ll turn it into a SMART goal. Let’s say I’m working with a group of middle school teachers.

By the end of their 8th grade year, all of our students will express an appreciation of the importance of science in their lives and a sense of wonder in relation to science, as measured by answering “somewhat agree” or higher on the relevant questions of the Science Attitudes Survey.

The goal is specific. There is a particular outcome wanted for all students. The goal is measurable. The school will be using specific questions on the Science Attitudes Survey, with a ranking of at least “somewhat agree” on those questions (note: I’m not referencing a specific survey here, though there are several available). The goal might be achievable. Science programs and goals should be for ALL students, but will all students really agree with statements about the sense of wonder inherent in science? That’s less certain. After the first year of data collection, having an established baseline will allow for more realistic goals. The key will be continuing to have high expectations for all and pushing on what might be considered “realistic.” The goal is results-focused. It’s not just that teachers will have more engaging activities. It’s focused on an outcome, student engagement in science, where they’re seeing its meaning related to themselves. The goal is time-bound. It’s by the end of 8th grade. As a middle school team, goals could be annual, semi-annual, or by unit, but if it’s collaborative work as a department, having a goal for the end of their three years with you would also make sense.

Here’s another example of a SMART goal, linked to the second phrase in the vision statement:

By the end of the year, all of our students will increase performance task scores by at least one point in each category of the claims, evidence, and reasoning rubric. Three times each year we will use this rubric with performance tasks to measure their ability to communicate claims supported by evidence, with clear scientific reasoning.

A lot of important goals will not be measurable on a standardized test! Staff could create a series of performance tasks requiring students to make a substantiated claim for a particular action their community should take in relation to a particular phenomenon that they studied (pollution, erosion, habitat destruction, etc.).

The goal is specific. There is a clear outcome noted for all students. The goal is measurable. The school will be using common performance tasks, and students’ growth on those tasks, based on a rubric is spelled out. Again, it’s unclear whether the goal is achievable, but we want all students to learn through the year, and moving up one rubric category might not be rigorous enough (notably, such a goal might not be relevant to some students already scoring at the top). The goal is results-focused. It’s focused on an outcome, student performance on specific tasks requiring communicating and defending scientific ideas. The goal is time-bound. Each teacher would expect to see progress by the end of the year.

Of course, the science department will need to come together regularly to look at data in relation to these big-picture goals. Conversations should likely be happening at least weekly in relation to student work and how particular formative or interim assessment data could inform instruction. Those weekly conversations would focus on more particular goals, likely those in standards-based grading. But, at least a few times per year (beginning/middle/end), teachers should be coming together to talk about progress in relation to these big-picture goals. Thompson, et. al., describe a process for this type of collaborative work. Selecting one of these goals per year can provide a focus for teacher collaboration and professional development. A science program does not have to be reviewed in relation to every one of the goals every year.

The next blog post will provide more specific guidance on the evaluation of science program in relation to these goals through a “system” of science assessment.

Process for Creating a Vision and Mission

Perhaps you’ve decided that your school or district needs a vision for science education, what are your next steps? While you’ll have to determine the best approach for your context, I outline what I see as some critical steps here.

Your vision statement can provide a clear focus for your work, noting the crux of what students can do with their scientific understanding, but it does not lay out how to get there. So, I’ll extend my process for crafting a vision into a discussion on developing a mission statement – a concise roadmap for how you will attain that vision.

Who?

Clearly, you’ll need the right people at the table. This science leadership committee will be the champions of your cause down the road. They will be leaders and resources for science instruction in their schools and on their teaching teams, as well as advocates for science at school board and other community meetings. For example, if science-related controversies come up, they can readily share their perspective from a position of credibility as part of a district science leadership team. To inspire them to attend and feel good about the meeting, it’s essential that their voice is heard, that they have a clear role, and that everything is clearly communicated. Some suggestions for group members include:

1)      Community members – business people in science-related fields know what skills students need; employers have a critical voice and inherent credibility.

2)      Parents – they’re invested in having this done well, and they really need to feel that this is their school community.

3)      Teachers – the key here is the need for PK-12, vertical representation; students will be asking questions in preschool that they might not fully understand until high school.

4)      Students – they know what and who engages and challenges them.

5)      Administrators – particularly if they’re evaluating teachers, administrators need to understand what research-based science instruction looks like.

6)      Board member – could possibly be a person in another category above; board members have a voice in funding for science education when the votes happen.

Meeting One

Before the first meeting, ask group members to develop a list of important outcomes of science education. What do we want for all of our students in relation to their science education by the time they graduate? What will they have learned? What skills, what knowledge, and what dispositions?

An effective facilitator will make this a smoother process for everyone involved. Don’t just have the science department head or the administrator run it by default; be mindful of who can do the best job.

During introductions have each person share thoughts on why they are there (assuming it’s not just because they have to be). Then, begin an affinity diagram process. Have everyone write the outcomes they previously brainstormed on sticky notes, one per each sticky. Without talking (challenging for some!), post the stickies on a large blank wall and begin to group them. Anyone can move them to different locations based on themes they see (will want to warn people up front that others will be touching their stuff). The facilitator will decide when to ask the group if they’re done and end the process. He or she will then lead a brief discussion of each grouping of stickies, coming up with a phrase or sentence to describe each. If key ideas such as equity don’t come up, the facilitator might need to suggest additional ideas in this discussion (referring to other vision statements, like that in my last post, could be useful). Note: when ideas focus more on how (mission) rather than what (outcomes/vision), the facilitator will need to deftly move those into a to-be discussed mission area. While the facilitator will ask the group if the summary statement captures the main idea, he or she should make a point of not wordsmithing it with the group. In my experience, that’s likely to waste a lot of time and lead to frustration! (“I think we should say ‘the,’ not ‘a,’ as it’s a stronger declarative…”). On a Google or other shared doc, the facilitator will post these group statements in real time, and then show the group how they can go back later to suggest edits. After a set time (1 week?), you want the main understandings, skills and dispositions nailed down in order to get the process going, but acknowledge that the wording is not set in stone. When your science department advisory committee meets again in a couple years, they can fine-tune a phrase if teachers or others have found it doesn’t quite their work adequately. 

Meeting Two

Before meeting two, the facilitator or other designee will revise the vision elements based on the online feedback and craft them into a cohesive statement. The group will come together to vote on the vision statement (quick!) and begin work on a mission statement that details how science instruction will look in order to accomplish this vision. It could also detail the roles of various stakeholders in that instruction. I suggest going through the same affinity process again with follow up through online suggestions. Unfortunately, it will likely be more challenging, as members of the group will likely have different ideas on the best way to teach science. For example, how do you balance learning content, science practices, and scientific thinking? The NRC K-12 Science Education Framework, pages 25-33, might help in that discussion. For the mission statement, I would suggest either an online vote (wouldn’t bring people together just for that), or combining that vote with the beginning of a science program audit.

Next Steps and Final Thoughts

A science program audit is the next logical step in a broader strategic plan to improve science education in a district or school (notably, this strategic process that I’ll be outlining in these blog posts should be detailed up front). The science leadership committee and/or other stakeholders would investigate current science structures and practices in relation to the mission and vision statements—an “audit.” My next blog post will outline audit strategies, though at this point you’ll also want to ask how well science leaders understand the instruction laid out in the vision.

If they don’t understand what that looks like, they won’t be able to assess how well they’re meeting that mission or not, and some professional development will be necessary at this point.

An ending disclaimer here: I tend to be wordy. Some argue for a very concise mission and vision statement.  As seen in my last post, I don’t think I can capture my vision for science education in a short statement. It’s a substantial paragraph. There’s a lot I want for my students, and I want to have those key ideas at the forefront of what I do. My ideal mission statement wouldn’t exactly be concise either. Here’s an example:

“In order to accomplish our vision, teachers and school-based educators will facilitate science learning through having students engage in authentic science practices and reasoning. These investigations will include applications to real-world problems, meaningful to students’ lives and community. Students will fully engage in these investigations, asking questions and connecting scientific thinking to their lives in an out of school. Our community will provide its expertise in showing how science connects to careers and broader community and societal problems.”

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this process and the vision/mission from your school!

Establishing a Vision for Science Education

Does your district or school have a vision for science education? What do you want students to know and be able to do by the time they graduate? How do you want them to think about the world around them?

If you haven’t considered those questions at your school/district, I would encourage you to bring them up in your next department meeting or conversation with your administrator. I applaud the incredible, current efforts of districts around the state to improve their science programs, but what metric is being used to weigh your decisions against? If you’re looking at a new textbook, considering sending a teacher to a conference, or crafting common assessments at each grade level, it’s essential to ask whether or not those actions will best move you toward your vision.

The summary to the National Research Council’s A Framework for K-12 Science Education supplies a goal statement for science education that resonates with me: “by the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology.” 

Building on this statement, I find it critical that these are goals for all students; I didn’t add those italics in the quote! I recently heard a teacher note that she didn’t have time her regular biology class for in-depth student investigations, though she did in an advanced class. How well does memorizing facts and getting through content line up with your vision? High school is the last arena for science learning for many students. It’s also the last place where they might come to see themselves as science people. Putting a student in a lower level high school class that focuses on content coverage over deep engagement tells him/her that they’re not really a science person, further confirming what they likely already feel. How do you address student mindset in your science program?

Appreciating the “beauty and wonder of science” also really appeals to me. That’s why I’m involved in science now. I’m curious about this amazing world around us. I can clearly remember the first time I looked through a powerful telescope. It happened to be pointed at Messiah 13, the Great Cluster in Hercules. It literally took my breath away. To date it’s one of the most awe-inspiring sites I’ve seen.

Image from www.nightskyinfo.com 

Relevant across content areas, students must be “careful consumers” of information in this internet-infused world. So, they should also possess sufficient knowledge to “engage in public discussions” on science-related issues. I recently had a Facebook-based argument about a current science issue. People I knew from high school were citing blogs as their sources, while I cited reports from the National Academy of Sciences (yes, it’s ironic that you’re reading this in a blog post). Students need to be able to determine what information is valid and how to interpret and question data they’re provided.

Finally, I really wanted my students to have the skill and desire to “continue to learn about science outside school.” When their children one day ask them questions about science, I hope they can effectively investigate resources and phenomena together to find an answer. “Learning” shouldn’t end at the school doors.

Please, leave a comment about your vision for science education!  In my next blog post I’ll discuss ideas for processes to develop a vision and methods to create actual classroom-level change.