Both are important, and the recent NMSSA resource highlights that students with high achievement in the science capabilities will usually have a good science knowledge as well. If we're doing 'science', then it would be natural to assume we're learning about science concepts, for example, floating and sinking, or exploring sound.
The curriculum is quite careful in the way it describes what students should be doing and this can be an interesting activity for your staff or team or syndicate to do... highlight all the verbs in the context strands and then discuss these: how do we plan, teach and assess these? For example, Physical World has the verbs explore, describe and represent... In my thinking, explore isn't the same as 'define', it simply means that I will provide activities for students to encounter and experience an idea. If I'm playing with chemical reactions and thinking about how some produce heat (an exothermic reaction), I'm not going to start with a Learning Intention "We are learning how some chemical reactions produce heat". I'll start with introducing the idea through an experiment... what have we found out?, what are we thinking... Hopefully this might lead to questions the students can investigate further, or I might do a couple more activities with similar results. The result of this is students describing the reactions when certain chemicals are mixed.
That might be far enough -after all the curriculum simply says describe at Level 3 and 4 and then identify and describe patterns at Level 5. I'm not sure that 'describe' would be the same as 'define'. And that's a good point (if I may say so myself!) -have a look at the levels either side of the levels you're aiming for, to get some idea of science knowledge.
The Gather and Interpret Data capability and the Use Evidence capability both have the idea of children observing patterns... what have we noticed that's similar in these activities? What might be happening? Yeah, I might have older children doing a bit of google spotting to grow their ideas but I do want to stay away from transmitting answers and information! I want them, through activities, promoting and developing the science capabilities, to get there on their own with me as the teacher scaffolding, prompting and supporting.
It really is a fine line! With how much there is in the curriculum (again, just look at the Physical World context strand!), I'm not sure our goal should ever be children learning stuff, otherwise, which bits do we take? At Year 3/4, I count almost 30 topics for just those two years! However I do think we need to have units that enable children to get deeper into a concept, eg sound, light, reactions, the solar system... I'm okay, if children haven't quite worked out the difference between exothermic and endothermic, or that water boils at a certain degree. If my unit is all about reactions, then I might provide some more learning opportunities for children to think about the topic more. I'll make sure the scientific vocabulary is around the place for them to see, and I'll use it too. I'll make sure I ask lots of questions too (although not so much so we call this... ex... exo... come on, we talked about this yesterday...).
But, importantly, I'm not stressed about them 'getting' the concept. I have had arguments as to whether all children should understand magnetism because it's really important... I've just headed back to the curriculum to show it's simply one concept amongst many. I don't think the curriculum writers ever had in their heads, it's critical to learn this concept or this concept, but that here's a pile of different ideas you can use to support students as they learn about science, investigate in science, communicate in science and participate and contribute (the nature of science strands).
The curriculum doesn't have the verb "recall" in the context strands. It has explore, describe, appreciate (imagine trying to assess that one!), group, relate, identify, represent, etc... All these verbs are within the 'learn' verb. Children investigating to learn. And it's this way that we bring in that science knowledge. I really like the way the NZC puts it on p. 28:
It's not worksheets! It's children testing their ideas... so can I get the reaction hotter by adding more damp rid? How do I measure if it is? Do all liquids expand like water does when it's frozen? What's happening in water to make it expand? It's also not teachers wrapping up lessons with so what happened is this and this, because of that and that... and now you all know! I've been in classes with this happening and leant over to ask a student whether they know what the teacher meant (I was actually a bit confused!) with the response that they didn't know either. In fact, ask the children the next day about the transmission and there will be those who can recall it word for word and understand, those who can recall but not really understand and those who were busy looking at a bird out the window so got confused (and yes, it was me, and it was a chaffinch).
 |
| A male chaffinch. Like the human species, the male is the more attractive and louder one. www.ebird.org |
Yeah, I'm an internet man... if I start wondering, I generally look online -and yes, I start with primary school science then move my way up as I grow in understanding. But then, I'll also go off and check for myself. I was talking to someone about the candle in the jar experiment (how the candle flame extinguishes when a jar is put over it) this week, the misconceptions and also the ideas behind what's going on. When I read about it online after someone pointed out I was wrong and it had nothing to do with oxygen levels, I also tried out a few experiments: so if it isn't that, and it's that idea instead, this should happen when I do this... This is that investigating and testing ideas of the curriculum.
And for me, that's the happy marriage between the capabilities and knowledge. I've been careful not to get into how much knowledge should juniors have as opposed to the middle and senior classes, that's for another time (although it is interesting that the common verbs at Level 1 and 2 are investigate and explore, not so much define and represent...). I want the children asking questions and I would like to see experiments that challenge students to think deeper and gain a better understanding of the world around them. I don't have a list of compulsory topics eg magnets, electricity and the Moon, as all can help me in growing student ability in the nature of science (which is our compulsory strand, our overarching strand and our unifying strand). I'm okay with children being experts in magnets as long as it's not just knowledge but knowledge gained through "generating and testing ideas, gathering evidence – including by making observations, carrying out investigations and modelling, and communicating and debating with others".
Phew!
Have a great week, everyone!
No comments:
Post a Comment