Schmoker believes that the science curriculum needs to have lots of changes. Science curriculum has gone from being taught with an emphasis on on content to now where we chose to try and engage students with hands-on activities.
He lists 5 things he believes are the essential ingredients to an effective science curriculum:
1. close reading from portions of a science textbook
2. Regular reading and discussion of current science articles
3. Interactive lecture
4. Writing-short daily pieces to more formal pieces
5. A reasonable number of carefully designed science labs and experiments
Schmoker again refers to the method of Task, Text, Talk which is an effective combination of purposeful reading, writing, and talking.
I thought it was interesting how Schmoker compared the U.S. to high-achieving countries and found that they focus only on science lesson content, where the U.S. pushes that aside in favor of "engaging students in a wide variety of activities" He then goes on to say "worse yet, the majority of these activities have little or no connection to essential science content." I translate that to hmmmm what experiment or lab am I going to do today, when it might not even fit with what I did yesterday!
("Less is more; we must keep our focus on essential science concepts, learned deeply") pg165
It was really interesting when Schmoker began talking about standards and the amount of topics a teacher must cover in a short period of time. He called it "curriculum chaos" and it is when a teacher knows that can't cover all of the standards so the pick out their favorites. I can definitely see this happening in schools.
More Literacy and fewer labs!!!! Research shows that science is learned more from close reading in science textbooks than completing labs. Labs focus more on procedures than the learning goals. You provide the mastery of the standard through language (deep rich discussions). Students love to compare their thinking with others and communicate their thoughts. I think their is less pressure on students when they are in a one-on-one discussion setting so they are more likely to tell their thoughts.
As we continue to read this book Schmoker's thoughts and ideas seem to move from one subject to another. Focus on a few standards and master them, use textbooks for deeper understanding, write and discuss what you are learning and check for understanding along the way to help you with your instruction.
I hope this will help start some discussion!!
Sorry about the mistake on "their" instead should be "there"!!!!!!! hit post before editing.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are reading is the same for every carricalum (get it???). We need to be purposeful, following power standards, teaching deeper, using more authentic literacy, thinking more, and writing more. All these ideas are right now, however how are we going to implement this at JB? How are we going to get people on board to change their way of doing things?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the past few chapters have been full of very similar content for each of the different subject areas. In an earlier post/comment, I think Katie mentioned and I know that we talked about it Monday morning – having each of the different content area teachers read their section of this, Focus, book as a professional development opportunity. There is some pretty powerful, and yet, seemingly, simple practices that every teacher could introduce into their curriculums. Sure, not all teachers would be on-board at first, and not all teachers would buy-in 100 percent at first, but if they moved towards this theory just little by little wouldn’t that be beneficial to our students?
ReplyDeleteAlso, after reading the book, I think that it would be SO COOL if we could re-design how our school operated/how our teachers taught to center everything on reading and writing (realizing that this would be a HUGE undertaking)! Imagine if everything that we taught was a reading and/or a writing course. The struggling readers that need 180 minutes of reading instruction per day would get this easily. Math, science, social studies, and exploratory classes could all be taught through, primarily, reading and writing about things related to those subject areas. Reading could focus partially on the ‘how to’ of reading (when necessary), reading, and writing about what was read. Writing courses, or Language Arts, would be filled with heavy amounts of reading and then writing about it, as well, with more of an emphasis here on the mechanics/procedures of good writing. Real texts could, and would be read regularly. Opportunities to write would be plenty, and they would flow right along with everything else that was happening in any given classroom.
I’ll admit I was a little skeptical when Schmoker started warning against labs. I’ve always thought labs=real science. But I agree with what Aaron said about many labs being about procedures and not learning targets. It goes back to what Schmoker said in the beginning about not trying to entertain kids. This is very important. I think labs can be an essential learning tool – but they need to be curriculum based and part of the inquiry process. I will be the first to admit I have no idea what labs are done at JB (except for dissecting frogs). I think it would be interesting to see the science teachers’ opinions about what labs are helping students meet learning targets and which labs are there for “group work” purposes.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with all of you that Schmoker is giving us the same message about all content areas – read, write, discuss. I think the hardest part of discussion is coming up with good questions that foster debate and thinking. I think it would be helpful if content area teachers could get together and form some of these open-ended questions. Collaboration is such a helpful tool.
Eric – I do think it would be awesome if our teachers would begin to view themselves as teachers of literacy. I know the reading team has been trying to get this message across. This year I think we’ve made some strides in the right direction through data teams. Teachers are starting to see some of the pay off from having students write in the core subjects. My hope is that this year teachers will see even more growth and that will help guide them. I agree that content area teachers need to read and discuss these chapters. The great thing about Schmoker is that he cites a lot of research. His ideas might be controversial, but I think it will help teachers to reflect on their practice.
It seems like many of us have commented on the idea of using parts of this book with different content areas, and the thing I like about this chapter is that Schmoker gives some basic examples of what he would expect to see in a highly effective Science classroom. I completely agree that students need to discuss what they are learning. They can read about it and write about it, but the discussion helps students "compare their thinking with others' thinking, actively communicate with one another and express their ideas through words and graphics" (171). Of course, this is going to take some time because teachers have to model this for students and initially guide them through the process. If we want this to be meaningful to the students, it has to be interactive and guided by questions that require more than a yes or no answer.
ReplyDeleteSchmoker talks in the different chapters about the importance of writing, and I think the piece I like the most is that he is saying we do not all have to be language arts teachers. That was something we struggled with at first during data teams. Not all teachers felt comfortable grading paragraphs on the format. Schmoker says we should not be focused on the mechanics and format, but rather Science (and Social Studies) teachers should be grading for content, clarity, and logic. I am excited to take some of the lesson formatting in this chapter and apply it to my classroom!
Again I am guilty of not putting enough emphasis on the use of textbook reading and discussion and instead thought student enthusiasm during hands-on labs meant students were learning! Labs have their place in a science classroom and even provide an avenue for writing, but we will need to help our science teachers understand the use of textbook reading and discussion. I observe teacher hesitation for discussion because of management issues. It will be critical that techers see this process of close reading, discussion and writing modeled. They need to understand the importance of modeling discussions for their students, too. Schmoker talks about the value of debate in both science and social studies. Middle school students love to argue! If we capture this skill and model the process Scmoker suggests on p. 162, I think even our most struggling learners would be engaged...especially with the pair share and checks for understanding. When it comes to writing in science, I remember observing written labs, summaries and science fair papers, but Scmoker suggests taking short, daily pieces to longer, more formal pieces...not sure what that would look like. We need to talk with our science department and agree on a minimum number of these more formal pieces and determine their understanding of how this would be incorporated. I do think there is room in the science curriculum because they have about one semester of material to cover...having said that they will probably still need to narrow to a few power standards. I hope the district will take a look at our current end of term assessments and what they are asking students to do. Schmoker has some great ideas on page 181-184...I mentioned this to Ethel recently, too. After reading Scmokers chapters on content areas I feel it is important that we get these chapters in the hands of those teachers as soon as possible when we start the year. Thoughts on how and when to do this? I think the paragraph on page 193 where Scmoker states Science teachers are not English teachers will put some of our teachers at ease...having said that though he does emphasize producing a sound, readable paper that will be evaluated for clarity and content and student's ability to cite written sources to support a scientific arguement or conclusion with evidence...much like the debate..let them argue, but teach them how to support their argument!
ReplyDelete--Marianne
Hi!
ReplyDeleteThe list! Love it!! Although these 5 things seem very “business as usual” there are not for many of our teachers. I think, in addition to the review of data teams and the PD that will take place in them based on the strategy chosen for each team, these should be our focus for Wednesdays. They should be an expectation!
Modeling and discussion (meaning the kids and teacher) came up again! It needs to happen more…
As some of you have already mentioned, Schmoker gives great examples of how this can work in a specific content area. I do think it is a good idea to share they chapters with the staff - but I think they need to read, think and write about the first section first. They need to understand the basics of where he is coming from.
Additional reading materials - this is where I see a struggle. I am not sure that teachers will take the time to find these supporting materials. I think Schmoker is highly recommending current material (like articles in professional and student magazines or online). That will require they look and find them…
I love his ideas for assessment - show the kids the questions at the beginning of the unit, allow open book tests, they can use notes, and even though much of the test should be essay, it is not about how well they write but whether they know the content!
Last thing, showing kids how to read, and reread, and reread again. I do it, I hope you do it, we all do it! SHOW THEM HOW! I had trouble with this and wish someone would have taught me how sooner.
“There is no point teaching students to think critically about global warming if they don’t know the basics of planetary balance” (Trefil as quoted by Schmoker, p. 165).
Rachel
I have a lot of the same thoughts as everyone. I think it's a great idea to have the content area teachers read the section of the book that goes with their subject area. I'm a little behind in my reading and just finished a master's class with Iris. Many times when she was speaking I kept thinking to myself that she would love this chapter. I think if she's on board then she would be able to help Dave and Dane.
ReplyDeleteI know we have data teams but I think there needs to be time for content areas to meet where they could spend time talking about 5 essential things for a science lesson.
I agree that students would love debating in their classes. As for the additional reading material-they may need help finding these.
Question-How to we teach students to annotate text if they can't write in their textbooks?
I agree with Eric that if the teachers started moving toward Schmoker’s ideas just a bit, we would see improvement. I think that this way of teaching is also more enjoyable for teachers (no hum-drum Treasures-type stuff) and would get the students to make deeper connections, and do well mastering the standards. I also think that having all teachers focus on literacy will greatly improve our students who struggle, but it will also help those students who are on target. There are no detrimental side effects of having too much literacy!
ReplyDeleteLike Marianne mentioned, there will always be some hesitation with some teachers when it comes to giving students time to discuss because of management issues. However, I feel that if all the the teachers (or at least a majority) are following the read, discuss, write cycle, then the students will know what is expected. (I think this goes for almost everything, the more teachers who follow the same procedures—and consequences, the less challenges they’ll face when it comes to behavior.)
In having students take their short, daily pieces and turning them into more formal pieces…this is where the journals come in!! In the past I’ve had students write daily and at the end of a week or two weeks, they would chose a piece of writing from their journal and revise it, creating a longer formal paper. This was pretty easy on my part since I had already read and commented on the students’ pieces at least once. This gave them an advantage since they had my questions and comments to steer them along.
I think that we should get these chapters into the hands of our teachers as soon as possible and give them the time to read it. We also need to follow the read, discuss, write bit with the teachers. Starting off with “Science teachers are not English teachers.” The paragraph on page 193 will help our data teams and really get them to focus on their content. This could definitely help those teachers who are still thinking that having students write is just one more thing they have to fit in.
This book has gotten me more excited to be in the classroom (I already was…don’t worry), however, it also makes me think that there are so many things I could do to help the teachers and students as a writing coach. We ordered a lot of additional reading materials for science and social studies at the end of the year. I think that some of the teachers will need some guidance to use these effectively.
Jen, as to writing in the text books, somewhere I have a great article on how to do this. Basically, sticky notes and double journaling are our best bets since we don’t want to go to consumables or photocopy like crazy.