The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.
--Albert Einstein
Thinking like a scientist involves actively observing, always questioning, and seeking the truth
One of the most effective ways to have kids using all of these skills is to bring back science fairs. We see them in movies and TV shows, but I have never encountered one. There was Science Olympiad at my middle school and high school but it required signing up and I never quite knew how to make the first move.
A science fair has the potential to have students get interested in science, engineering and mathematics- making science relative and inspiring. Ideas for projects come from students' personal environments, hobbies, and current events, limiting the projects' potential to the students' imaginations alone. Even the process of researching does wonders to inspire natural curiosity, allowing the driving force of work to be the student.
The science fair process develops and reinforces successful work and life skills such as teamwork, time management, responsibility, discipline, ethics, organizational skills, and working with mentors, all the while inspiring confidence as the student is successful with mature tasks and enjoys the work being done.
In accordance with the National Science Education Standard (NSES), a standard designed to enable the nation to achieve the goal of having all students scientifically literate.
NSES promotes a number of approaches and activities to learning science, all of which are inherent to participating in a science fair:
-Emphasize an inquiry-based model for learning science
-Design and conduct scientific investigations
-Use technology and mathematics to improve investigations and communications
-Formulate and revise scientific explanations and models using logic and evidence
-Recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models
-Communicate and defend a scientific argument
-Identify questions and concepts that guide scientific investigation
-Incorporate a multidisciplinary approach to teaching science
(narrative writing, comparing and contrasting main idea, recognizing cause and effect, oral presentation, history, synthesizing information and drawing conclusions)
Sunday, May 15, 2011
William Schmidt
William Schmidt, Michigan State University Distinguished Professor and the national research coordinator and executive director of the U.S. National Research Center, was the first to apply the expression “a mile wide and an inch deep” to U.S. math and science curricula. Students are taught topic after topic without organization of a larger picture which explains how concepts work together and how they can be applied to the world as a whole.
His current work and research concerns issues of academic content in K- 12 schooling, teacher preparation and the effects of curriculum on academic achievement.
In an interview with FRONTLINE, Schmidt described his opinion of curriculum standards: "I'd say there are two dimensions to it. One is, good standards are coherent. They reflect the inherent nature of the discipline, so that certain things follow other things or precede other things. And that sort of structure of the discipline is represented in the standards. That's part of it. The other part of it is standards that don't just keep repeating the same things year after year, but they move upwards and take children in middle grades to serious, challenging mathematics."
Apart from pushing for a more coherent, more challenging curriculum, Schmidt also pushes for a national test to standardize scores across the country. He explained:
I believe we should have a national vision, a national set of standards. And if we ever did that, then of course it would make the absolute most sense to have a test which would measure those national standards. When you look across the rest of the world, that's one of their secrets. It's well defined, it's well articulated. Children, no matter where they live, all have the same expectations. It's not a matter of which part of the country you live in, or which side of the tracks you live on. It's there for everybody.
In this country, that's not true. And therefore we have such unevenness across the country, and across the proverbial tracks, that this creates huge differences in opportunities for students to learn. Then when we test, we get different results, and then we say "Aha!" But of course it's not "Aha!" It's like, what would you expect if you don't have a comparable curriculum for all kids? Likely, you will get large differences between different groups of children.
Schmidt comments on various aspects of improving U.S. math and science curricula in theoretical and applicable ways
The full interview can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/interviews/schmidt.html
His current work and research concerns issues of academic content in K- 12 schooling, teacher preparation and the effects of curriculum on academic achievement.
In an interview with FRONTLINE, Schmidt described his opinion of curriculum standards: "I'd say there are two dimensions to it. One is, good standards are coherent. They reflect the inherent nature of the discipline, so that certain things follow other things or precede other things. And that sort of structure of the discipline is represented in the standards. That's part of it. The other part of it is standards that don't just keep repeating the same things year after year, but they move upwards and take children in middle grades to serious, challenging mathematics."
Apart from pushing for a more coherent, more challenging curriculum, Schmidt also pushes for a national test to standardize scores across the country. He explained:
I believe we should have a national vision, a national set of standards. And if we ever did that, then of course it would make the absolute most sense to have a test which would measure those national standards. When you look across the rest of the world, that's one of their secrets. It's well defined, it's well articulated. Children, no matter where they live, all have the same expectations. It's not a matter of which part of the country you live in, or which side of the tracks you live on. It's there for everybody.
In this country, that's not true. And therefore we have such unevenness across the country, and across the proverbial tracks, that this creates huge differences in opportunities for students to learn. Then when we test, we get different results, and then we say "Aha!" But of course it's not "Aha!" It's like, what would you expect if you don't have a comparable curriculum for all kids? Likely, you will get large differences between different groups of children.
Schmidt comments on various aspects of improving U.S. math and science curricula in theoretical and applicable ways
The full interview can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/interviews/schmidt.html
Where our problems lie
Curriculum
Studies show that students in other countries spend more time in school and with homework. Competing countries teach 5-7 major ideas or concepts each year while American schools’ curricula between 35 and 50 (up to 75). U.S. textbooks cover topics earlier and the topics are then repeated year after year with little depth added because time is continuously being spent on review. By the time students in other countries go into sixth and seventh grades, they are beginning to study algebra, geometry, chemistry, and physics while the majority of U.S. middle schoolers are still reviewing arithmetic and elementary science topics.
Studies show that students in other countries spend more time in school and with homework. Competing countries teach 5-7 major ideas or concepts each year while American schools’ curricula between 35 and 50 (up to 75). U.S. textbooks cover topics earlier and the topics are then repeated year after year with little depth added because time is continuously being spent on review. By the time students in other countries go into sixth and seventh grades, they are beginning to study algebra, geometry, chemistry, and physics while the majority of U.S. middle schoolers are still reviewing arithmetic and elementary science topics.
Why should we improve math and science education in the U.S.?
Trusting the future generations to use logical reasoning and have sufficient understanding of science (including the science of mathematics), we can have faith in the future of research, business, economics, and virtually all aspects of human culture. If children are taught to think like scientists: to seek the truth and always question, not only will they understand their interests, they will be able to improve whatever fields they enter as an adult. Treating all occupations as science allows for critical thinking in all areas of life.
In an article about U.S. Science and Math scores on TIMSS and PISA from The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, Alan S. Brown and Linda LaVine Brown write that, "today’s students will be looking for jobs in an increasingly technology-oriented service economy where manufacturing and other traditional jobs are vanishing. They will need math to estimate projects and to interpret graphical information. They will vote on policies—stem-cell research, nuclear power, global warming, and teaching evolution—that hinge on an understanding of science"
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/W07Brown.pdf
The article comments about the reality of U.S. scores on TIMSS and PISA surveys and how understanding the realities can help us improve the way that the U.S. teaches math and science
One of the most important things to acknowledge first is The Gap:
(on the number of eighth grade students who scored at the TIMSS intermediate level in math)
"The gross numbers show 93 percent of Singapore students and 64 percent of U.S. students reached these levels; U.S. males scored 65 percent, and females 64 percent. While 75 percent of white students rated intermediate status, only 35 percent of blacks and 45 percent of Hispanics did so. Wealthier school districts scored 86 percent, while poor districts rated 32 percent."
In an article about U.S. Science and Math scores on TIMSS and PISA from The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, Alan S. Brown and Linda LaVine Brown write that, "today’s students will be looking for jobs in an increasingly technology-oriented service economy where manufacturing and other traditional jobs are vanishing. They will need math to estimate projects and to interpret graphical information. They will vote on policies—stem-cell research, nuclear power, global warming, and teaching evolution—that hinge on an understanding of science"
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/W07Brown.pdf
The article comments about the reality of U.S. scores on TIMSS and PISA surveys and how understanding the realities can help us improve the way that the U.S. teaches math and science
One of the most important things to acknowledge first is The Gap:
(on the number of eighth grade students who scored at the TIMSS intermediate level in math)
"The gross numbers show 93 percent of Singapore students and 64 percent of U.S. students reached these levels; U.S. males scored 65 percent, and females 64 percent. While 75 percent of white students rated intermediate status, only 35 percent of blacks and 45 percent of Hispanics did so. Wealthier school districts scored 86 percent, while poor districts rated 32 percent."
U.S. Math & Science Rankings
TIMSS(The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) provides reliable and timely data on the mathematics and science achievements of U.S. 4th- and 8th-grade students compared to that of students in other countries:
2007 results summarized:
MATH
-At fourth grade, the average U.S. mathematics score was lower than the average in 8 countries
-At eighth grade, the average U.S. mathematics score was lower than the average in 5 countries
- 10 percent of U.S. fourth-graders and 6 percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored at or above the advanced international benchmark in mathematics.
-At grade four, seven countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced international mathematics benchmark than the United States: Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Kazakhstan, England, and the Russian Federation.
-At grade eight, a slightly different set of seven countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced mathematics benchmark than the United States: Chinese Taipei, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Hungary, and the Russian Federation.
SCIENCE
-At fourth grade, the average U.S. science score was lower than the average score in 4 countries
-At eighth grade, the average U.S. science score was lower than the average in 9 countries
-15 percent of U.S. fourth-graders and 10 percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored at or above the advanced international benchmark in science.
-At grade four, two countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced international science benchmark than the United States: Singapore and Chinese Taipei.
-At grade eight, six countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced science benchmark than the United States: Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, England, Korea, and Hungary.
Math Scores
Science Scores
Full 2007 report can be found : http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf
2007 results summarized:
MATH
-At fourth grade, the average U.S. mathematics score was lower than the average in 8 countries
-At eighth grade, the average U.S. mathematics score was lower than the average in 5 countries
- 10 percent of U.S. fourth-graders and 6 percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored at or above the advanced international benchmark in mathematics.
-At grade four, seven countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced international mathematics benchmark than the United States: Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Kazakhstan, England, and the Russian Federation.
-At grade eight, a slightly different set of seven countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced mathematics benchmark than the United States: Chinese Taipei, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Hungary, and the Russian Federation.
SCIENCE
-At fourth grade, the average U.S. science score was lower than the average score in 4 countries
-At eighth grade, the average U.S. science score was lower than the average in 9 countries
-15 percent of U.S. fourth-graders and 10 percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored at or above the advanced international benchmark in science.
-At grade four, two countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced international science benchmark than the United States: Singapore and Chinese Taipei.
-At grade eight, six countries had higher percentages of students performing at or above the advanced science benchmark than the United States: Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, England, Korea, and Hungary.
Math Scores
Science Scores
Full 2007 report can be found : http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)