LfU Choice Response Question
Response Question: In what ways would you teach the Planetary Forecaster curriculum- differently or the same? Draw on scholarship to support your pedagogical directions.
What I would do the same or differently is located in the last section: Teach Differently? Between here and there, I describe the study, the problem that resulted, my emerging thinking regarding teacher role and student readiness, curriculum standards and expectations, the misconceptions that developed, and the possible breakdown in the LfU steps.
Explanation of Study:
The Planetary Forecaster (PF) study using the Learning-for-Use (LfU) model with grade five students was much the same in format to the same researcher’s LfU WorldWatcher (WW) climate study example (Edelson, 2001). The PF curriculum study was more abstract in terms of what students were expected to understand: “how physical geography influences temperature at a climatic timescale” (Edelson, Salierno, Matese, Pitts & Sherin, 2002, pg. 5) which involves understanding the scientific concepts of curvature, tilt, land/water heat capacity, and topography.
The researchers identified several misconceptions held by students prior and post study, sometimes shifting to new misconceptions; they hypothesized that (1) the students were possibly too young for the abstract thought required, (2) prerequisite understanding was not addressed by the curriculum unit, and (3) the unit demands they know the relationships (what) but not why the relationships existed.
PF Study Problem:
The main problem of the PF study is the misconceptions that the students held after the post-test of the study. It was expected that they would improve in their understanding, but there were very limited improvements and even some regression. It essentially followed the same format as the WW example, except that each learning concept was a mini-LfU cycle within the process: investigating shape, tilt, surface cover, and elevation. Within these steps (3-6), the students completed hands-on labs and/or data investigation, and then applied the new understanding to identifying habitable regions of their Planet Xs.
Misconceptions Held (Edelson et al., 2002, pgs. 8-9):
1. curvature –
o suns rays hit at the equator and spread from there
o equator is only place on Earth that ever receives direct sunlight
o equator receives more sunlight than other places on earth
2. tilt—
o seasons result from Earth being closer to the sun in summer and farther away in winter
o seasons result from part of Earth titled towards or away from sun because of closeness (not angle of rays)
3. elevation—
o temp increases with elevation because hot air rises
o temp increases with elevation because higher elevations are closer to the sun
o mountains are cold because there are clouds on top
4. land/water—
o water is always colder than land
o water is always warmer than land
o there is no difference between land and water temperatures
Initial Inaccurate Conclusions Lead to Two Meaningful Points:
1. There was less teacher intervention to address misconceptions in the PF study. Upon closer examination, I realized that in the WW example the teacher only directly taught how to use the WW program, but there was not direct intervention to address content understanding or misconceptions. The small group discussions, PP entries, and having to support evidence was to naturally address content understanding. The level of teacher intervention was the same in the PF study, but when students came to inaccurate conclusions/rules to apply to their planet, which means they don’t understand their own planet, there was not any teacher intervention to correct those inaccuracies; thus, we are back to the same question as with the WISE framework…What should be done when students develop misconceptions as a result of their investigations (labs and computer simulations)?
2. The PF study content involved more variables to apply to the final task or creating a ‘world’ (in this case planet). The first study focused on “the relationship between temperatures and geography from a climatic perspective” (Edelson, 2001, pg. 362) which involved understanding the scientific concepts of radiative energy transfer, seasonal variation in incoming solar energy, reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, pressure and temperature in gases, and specific heat. The PF study did not involve more scientific concepts as the WW study, but the test subjects were significantly younger (WW study, grades 7-8; PF study, grade 5). According to Piaget’s stages of development, grade 5 students are typically in the Concrete Operational stage while grade 7-8 students have most often developed into the Formal Operational stage. Understanding the abstraction of the earth’s rotation on its axis and around the sun, and the effects that has on earth is abstract in nature. Those in the CO stage are very capable of hypothesizing about concrete events, but abstract thought is in the process of developing. According to Lowell (2012), the stages of development need to be considered when deciding what science concepts to teach.
Science Curriculum Standards (US) and Expectations (Ontario):
In considering the implications of age and teaching science, I decided to compare the US Science Curriculum Standards (USSCS) and the Ontario Science Curriculum Expectations (OSCE). The USSCSs are much less rigid than the OSCEs. Table 1 includes the general description of the standard or expectation for particular grades that relate to Earth and Space Science concepts; however, the USSCSs are very general subject areas and span several grades, which the OSCEs are grade specific and more specifically defined in terms of what a student should know or be able to do by the end of that grade. I included grade one since “daily and seasonal change” relate to the PF study content, but the expectations involve making observations about temperature, seasons and weather in their daily lives and its effect on people and not understanding specifically why or how it occurs. The USSCSs span developmental stages, so the topics must be dealt with differently in a grade five class, for instance, than in a grade eight class.
| USSCS | OSCE (Grades 1-8 and 9-10) |
| Earth and Space Science | Understanding Earth and Space Science |
| Grades 5-8: o structure of the earth system o earth’s history o earth in the solar system | Grade 1: o daily and seasonal change Grade 6: o space Grade 7: o heat in the environment |
| Grades 9-12: o origin and evolution of the earth system o origin and evolution of the universe | Grade 9: o study of the universe o space exploration Grade 10: o climate change o earth’s dynamic climate |
Table 1: US Science Curriculum Standards and Ontario Science Curriculum Expectations
LfU Steps Analysed
The motivate LfU step was successful. The students were interested and engaged in the concept of the learning. They wanted to know how to find the habitable regions. They were confronted with the limitations on their prior knowledge to complete the culminating task. Ultimately, I think that these grade five students were not ready for the content, but if they were ready for the content, the breakdown of the learning set would be in the constructing or refining steps. Most likely the hands-on experiences and the computer-based investigations illustrated specific science concepts ineffectively, or the readings, lectures, and discussions did not help to construct understanding. The refine process demonstrated that they did not have an accurate understanding of the concepts to apply to their maps, and they could not account for their inaccuracies or conflicting conclusions.
Teach Differently?
If I was to teach the Planetary Forecaster curriculum, I would essentially teach it the same but to an older group of students who are in the Formal Operational stage (capable of abstract thought). Assuming the students were ready for the content though, what would I do to address the misconceptions? Since learning is a process of conceptual change and people generally hold on to their misconceptions even when confronted with contrary evidence (Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog, 1982), I would not treat this as a failure. It’s a matter of presenting the students with additional examples to help them assimilate or accommodate the new knowledge to result in concept understanding.
If I had difficulties with misconceptions being held despite the hands-on or computer-based activities, I would use a large group lecture/discussion to revisit the lab or computer activity to discuss what it demonstrates. Furtak (2005) identifies problems with dealing with students’ questions when engaging in guided scientific inquiry because it is part of the process to let students discover scientific concepts. In the case of the students not even realizing they have misconceptions, there is still a problem in how to correct those misconceptions without simply transmission teaching the content or telling students they are wrong but you are not going to tell them what is right. It is part of the LfU process though for the teacher to demonstrate skills needed to perform the task and to provide learning materials to teach the concepts. If those learning materials and activities have resulted in widespread misconceptions, the hand-on labs could be repeated in large group. For example, the pen-light experiments demonstrate that the sun’s rays are straight but hit the earth at varying angles. Use questioning to elicit observations. Then have them revisit each statement they have devised to determine if it’s consistent with these observations. Next, they can revisit their Planet Xs to judge it by this new ‘rule.’ Another step could be to have students get into pairs and discuss/analyse their new planets applying what is a central part of the Scaffolded Knoweldge Integration (SKI) framework of having students learn from each other (Gobert, Snyder & Houghton, 2002). The discussion between the peers could be fruitful in gaining more accurate insight as they disagree and come to an agreement. Finally, if I had another well-made learning video, tutorial, or animation, I would have the students revisit each concept that is not yet understood. Another post-test and Planet X analysis could be completed to see if there were changes in their understanding.
References:
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.
Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002, April). Learning-for-Use in Earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.
Lowery, L.F. (2012). The everyday science sourcebook: ideas for teaching in elementary and middle school. 2nd Ed. Retrieved February 22, 2014, through UBC Library from http://www.eblib.com.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci. Ed., 66, pp. 211–227. doi: 10.1002/sce.373066020
Media Credit:
Salvatore Vuono. (). Space Sun Stock Image. Freedigitalphotos.net. Retrieved February 22, 2014 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Space_and_Science_Fi_g289-Space_Sun_p63118.html.