On the same website I mentioned in yesterdays’ post, Tools for Ambitious Science Teaching there is a 42 minute video from a symposium that Jessica Thompson (professor at the University of Washington) gave in 2010. WOW. In addition to the video there are also numerous papers and such available through the “Papers and Presentations” page (bottom of the side bar on the left, bright green tab).

Major ideas — sound simple, but she has the research and experience to back up her assertions. Here is one idea that struck me out of the blue: It is not enough “equity” to merely provide low-status access to the same learning opportunities as others, a solid teacher provides “scaffolding for full participation.” That’s about 6:50 into the video.

At about 8 minutes in, the idea that hit me between the eyes was when she began talking about the 4 key ideas of ambitious science teaching. Here, at item three she lists “Pressing students for evidence-based explanations of science phenomena.” Then, and this is what is so simple-sounding but I know will be harder for me to implement until I really internalize it…
When pressing for explanations of student thinking, know the difference between asking what, how and why.

I can ask a student:

  • What happened (when you did or saw or …)?
  • How did that happen (sequence of events)?
  • Why did that happen (the scientific explanation)?

Here is another quote “connecting the observable to the unobservable.”

Thanks to this video, I am also thinking now about the difference between “practices” and “tools” I use as a teacher and how those are connected to my understanding of myself and my role as a teacher. Where does this come from? Which tools do I use, which practices, and why?

It’s not just about science, after all. It’s about the students, and our relationship within the classroom, and how I can best support them as they figure things out.

With few exceptions (for example, knowing how to unload, clean and reload a shotgun) students CAN be trusted to try things out, make mis-steps and connections, and figure out a path on their own. More or less. The teaching part is in marking off the area the path should run through (for now) and making sure that known hazards are identified or mitigated.

At least, that is what I think right now…


One Interaction on “Saturday Symposium… Sorta

  1. Interesting stuff!! I liked the analogy at the end that says we need to make a wide path for the students to bounce back and forth on while figuring things out for themselves. In doing so we allow students to become true cognitive learners.

Leave Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.