Teaching Science - Various Methods
I am a math teacher. This is what I say to most people when they ask me what I do. I feel very comfortable with math, I have a knack for explaining the concepts really well, and kids seem to respond to my style of teaching math quite well.
On the other hand, at the moment I am teaching science (so really I should say that I'm a science teacher). I really don't feel as comfortable teaching science. Although most students favour science as opposed to math, I find that teaching science is way more work than teaching math: a lot more preparation (thinking of labs, preparing the labs, cleaning up after the labs, preparing notes, etc.), a lot more marking (labs etc.) and also I cannot come to class not fully prepared, as Science is not in my blood (as math is). Teaching is teaching, right? Well I don't think it's that simple. Teaching math is quite a lot different from teaching science.
In the school I'm at, I share my teaching stories with one other science teacher in particular, and vice versa. We have very different teaching setups. I wanted to share with you the two different methods, as I found this quite interesting myself.
My method: For a particular unit I look at the specific outcomes/topics that should be covered (from the curriculum) and then I write an outline for the whole unit (this might include all the notes for the unit). While I write these notes, I think of how I would make a particular topic more interesting if I put a lab into it; I think of how the kids would benefit from doing a lab to understand a concept better; I think of how the lab would enhance the "notes". For me, the labs are secondary. I think: concepts first, labs second. If I run out of time during the school year, I would forego the labs, and only concentrate on developing understanding of the concepts with notes (paper and pencil, lecture style, exercises, etc.).
My Teacher Friend's method: My friend however does something quite opposite. He has constructed his whole curriculum around labs. He takes a lab that he would like the students to do. He thinks of what the students need to know for that particular lab, and then he teaches them exactly this. The students learn exactly for the purpose of the lab. After the lab is over, my teacher friend discusses the lab. And then the whole thing repeats itself. Labs are priority in his method. For him, there would be nothing to teach if there were no labs. He thinks: labs first, concepts second.
I would really love to know which method is superior. Probably both have merrits and downfalls, but I wonder with which method the students learn better; with which method they'll remember more science; with which method students enjoy the science courses more?
Hope you liked the post. Please do me a favour ...
| Leave a Comment | Subscribe to Feed |  |
|
|
| |
Comments
Labs vs Concepts?
on Mon, 10/08/2007 - 14:43
The notion of building a Science/Biology course around concepts vs laboratory experiences is an interesting one. In the final analysis, if students become "scientifically or biologically literate," at the conclusion of the course, either method could be deemed "successful."
Given that students are a "heterogeneous bunch" in their learning methods, it would seem prudent to have a variety of learning methods at your disposal. That is, the collective use of lectures, videos, laboratories, open ended discussions, etc, would ideally generate and sustain enthusiasm in a class.
I am not saying anything novel - but I am rather trying to underscore the need to have students: See It, Write It, Hear It and Speak It.
Experiments!
on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 20:22
As an experimental researcher, I feel that I should weigh in here. Personally, through my experience, nothing beats hands-on lab work.
Basically, I think that when a new research student comes into the lab and starts a new research project, they first go and read papers on the problem that they are trying to solve. This is good since it gives them a background for what they will do in the lab, but really, they don't have a true appreciation or understanding of the material that they just read about or even of the problem that they are trying to solve. Only after having spent time in the lab, running experiments, analyzing their data and then thinking about the implications of their data do they really have a grasp of what's going on. And now when they go back to read the same papers that they read when they first started, things all of a sudden start to make sense and fall into place. I found this myself, and I see it now that I'm older and wiser in the younger students around me.
The recent consulting project that I worked on is a good example of how valuable hands-on lab work is. In this project, I was asked to measure the laminar burning velocity of a special fuel-air mixtures. My research specifically focuses on detonations, which is a world apart from laminar flames (detonations typically travel at 2000m/s whereas laminar burning velocities are about 0.5m/s). Although I had studied laminar flames and laminar burning velocities in a combustion class, I've never had any direct experience with it. This project opened up a whole new world to me. And going through the calculations and measurements gave me an understanding of laminar burning velocities that I just never got from a class lecture or from a textbook.
I think doing hands-on lab work can do more to captivate a student's imagination than a lecture can, which is probably the single most important thing that a teacher can impart on a student. Being told that baking soda and vinegar reacts quickly together is one thing; seeing a violent volcanic eruption-like reaction when baking soda is poured into vinegar is quite another thing!
This being said, I also think that it depends on how people generally synthesize information. I would tend to think that most people learn better through trial and error, though, but I no data to support this statement.
Labs are Concepts AND Tools
on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 22:45
I would think that labs should be considered concepts and tools:
As concepts they are the practice of a skill that is very useful. Labs, in an informal sense, are what I use nearly every day. I often face problems that I don't know how to solve so I conduct mini experiments and on the basis of those "labs" I can then formulate strategies for solving my larger problems.
As tools they allow discovery. It must be well known that discovery is a great learning tool and I think that labs should be designed to allow students to discover a concept. One thing I hated in science class was when I was told what should happen and then lab time was to try to recreate the outcome I already knew. This wasn't discovery, it was just a waste of time (unless there was fire involved, in which case it was still fun.) I liked the labs in which I had to try to figure something out and the experiments helped me.
I agree with this. I find
on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 03:09
I agree with this. I find that when I tell students what should happen the students don't enjoy the lab as much as when they find it out on their own. However, in some cases, if the students don't know what to do, what the point of the lab is, they are lost, and do not get anything from the lab.
I've tutored some students in chemistry before, and when we were to work on a lab report, I asked them what happened during the lab. The answer was: "We mixed some things together." They didn't really understand what was going on, they didn't understand why they were mixing things, or even that getting a bright yellow substance at the end was something special.
I agree with you, that discovery is a great motivator - but only for students that really want to discover, really want to learn, understand the concepts. Other students will be lost and the process of the lab will be lost on them. I think a push, the direction, the instruction from the teacher is essencial for a successful lab.
By the way, predicting what will happen (the hypothesis) before the lab, and then trying to recreate it is "Scientific Method" - the basis for doing labs.
I'm a high school science
on Sat, 10/13/2007 - 16:38
I'm a high school science teacher, and I'll give you a cynical (and only slightly exaggerated) answer. They won't learn much with either method. I don't mean that they won't be able to do well on the various assessments you give during the year. I mean that if you have a long conversation with one of them the following August, you will probably find that he or she has retained almost nothing of what was supposedly "learned."
So what can you realistically hope for in terms of "specific outcomes?" Well, students do remember labs, but since they won't remember much, you have to be very careful that what they remember is something important, not "we mixed some things together."
Alternately, you may want to emphasize certain themes, constantly coming back to them, hoping that though students will forget the specifics of what you taught, they will remember the main ideas, "how it all fits together."
Which works better? I don't think anyone knows. There is almost no good research testing long-term learning. Most educational research tests short- or medium-term memorization.
Focusing on labs may well work best for your colleague. Focusing on ideas may well work best for you. And what works best for you may well make you more interesting, and make your class better.
The bad news is that you'll probably never know what works best for your students. The good news is that, as long as it makes you and your class more interesting, it probably doesn't matter which approach you use.