Archive for the ‘Dr. Verner’s Blog’ category

« Older Entries

LabLearner Hands-On Science: Parental Involvement at the Kitchen Table

January 17th, 2012

YouTube Preview Image

How can teachers communicate to parents what their students have learned during a hands-on science experiment?

Many teachers can attest to the enormous value of hands-on science because they witness how students learn and solve problems during hands-on experiments. There can be moments in a group experiment when students turn to their peers to formulate an idea or prediction and end up altering their thoughts/understanding on the spot as they perform the experiment.

Teachers observe students challenging themselves and their peers. Teachers have even observed how scientific hands-on problem solving augments students’ critical thinking skills outside the science classroom.

Sometimes it’s difficult for parents to gain an understanding of hands-on science learning because they have not had the opportunity to learn science under these conditions or to watch their students in this setting. How can teachers communicate their observations to parents? Also, how can parents probe and question their students to find out what they have learned in laboratory experiments? And how can the family study science together at home – even during supper at the kitchen table?

In the LabLearner video blog above, Professor Keith Verner, founder or LabLearner, visits a class of 8th grade students investigating a hands-on LabLearner experiment on heat transfer and the conservation of energy. Dr. Verner extends the concept with an ice cube experiment that can be discussed at the kitchen table.

Teachers: How do you communicate to parents how their students are developing scientific skills, science content knowledge, and critical thinking skills while doing hands-on experiments?

Parents: Please share your experiences regarding how you engage your students to determine how well they are learning and understanding science, particularly when participating in a hands-on science curriculum.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

Assessments and Testing: Are We Doing It Correctly?

January 3rd, 2012

What Can We Learn From the Research and Clinical Sciences Models?

Several years ago, my colleague, Dr. Paul Eslinger, and I were asked to write a short piece about “high-stakes” testing in K-12 systems for The EducationPolicy and Leadership Center. At the time, Paul was a neuropsychologist that worked with patients suffering from various forms of cognitive impairments caused by a number of medical conditions ranging from accident-related head trauma to stroke and brain tumors, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia. At the same time, I was Chief of Developmental Pediatrics and Learning at the College of Medicine at Pennsylvania State University. It was at around this time, in 2000-2004, that I became interested in being able to translate basic and medical neurocognitive research to human learning with emphasis on how such information might be applied in classrooms.

The importance of “high stakes” testing came to the national forefront as a result of the push for annual improvement on such tests inherent in the then newly approved No Child Left Behind program. The following is an abbreviated portion of our discussion that will serve nicely as background for more specific discussions of assessment in science education in upcoming blogs.

Scientists Use Tests All the Time

Science performs many tests as it tries to understand the physical and biological principles that make up the world around us. Tests and analysis of test results, it might correctly be argued, are the indispensable tools of modern science. However, scientists know that each test is subject to artifacts involved in both the collection and interpretation of data. To help alleviate this unavoidable property of scientific investigation, researchers typically employ a variety of tests whenever possible. Multiple avenues of examination can function to expose anomalous results of a particular test or, even better, confirm results through several different strategies of analysis. How many tests are enough to be confident of a given physical or biological phenomena? Simply put, one can never be too confident. The more independent lines of evidence the better. Further, the greater the importance of a particular scientific investigation – the greater the significance of the findings – the more independent tests and analysis are appropriate. Nowhere is this point more important than in fields of investigation in which tests directly impact humans, such as the medical and clinical sciences. Few diagnoses rely on a single test of any kind. The physical examination is coupled with multiple laboratory test results, radiological imaging studies, second opinions by independent experts and so on, in order to achieve convergence of results and consensus of findings. In this very important, ‘high stakes’ endeavor of human health and welfare, no single test, or series of tests for that matter, is given simply to determine if the patient or doctor passes or fails! Instead, standardized tests provide one means of ascertaining the physical state of an individual at a given moment in time but must be combined with other assessments in order to be a sensitive and specific guide for diagnosing a disorder. Then, some of the same tests are used again to evaluate progress, treatment effectiveness and demonstrate the ultimate cure.

Clearly, this discussion of the prudent use of converging and discriminating tests and exams in scientific investigation and medical practice has some relevance when we discuss high stakes testing in the basic education environment. If science and medicine had chosen, instead, to search for and use a single test to assess all aspects of illness and individuals, with no attempt to independently confirm its validity and predictive value, we would likely have not progressed much over the years.

Declarative and Procedural Memory

The brain has several inter-related memory systems. Two of the most important for education are declarative and procedural memory. Declarative memory refers to the conscious recollection of facts, knowledge, experiences, and events. This system mediates the general, specific and personal aspects of declarative knowledge that are acquired through intentional learning.

In contrast, procedural memory refers to sensory-motor and skill-based learning (e.g., knowledge of how to ride a bike, play the piano, use a microscope, etc.), acquired through direct experience. Procedural memory does not require explicit recollection of initial learning experiences but rather provides the accumulated benefits of hands-on learning and knowledge. Clearly, this critical memory system is not assessed well, if at all, on standardized tests.

Learning and Consolidation Processes

Learning and consolidation processes are closely linked to children’s abilities to both register and retain new information and experiences. While key aspects of learning are better understood (e.g., being prepared, having an overview, paying attention, using and manipulating new information in interesting ways, etc.), consolidation is less clear to many educators. Consolidation is the process responsible for transferring new information from short-term to long-term memory for later retrieval (see figure, below).

Information Processing Model

As new information must be “processed” for this to happen, numerous teaching approaches are directed at increasing the amount of attention and processing that are applied. That is, appealing to students’ natural interests, previous knowledge, and “higher order” thinking when consolidating new information, will increase the amount of processing the new material receives. On the other hand, simple memorization requires far less processing and little critical thinking. The use of externalizations, such as “hands-on” and “inquiry-based” activities may be particularly beneficial for increasing information processing.

Consolidation is a complex process in which the brain converts new material from fleeting traces of information to long-term memories. These are then stored in more stable form with existing knowledge in brain areas called association cortices. New information begins this process by entering the brain as new input from various stimuli. Brain structures involved at this level include the major senses of touch (somatosensory cortex), sound (auditory cortex) and sight (visual cortex).

This multi-modal information is then ready for frontal lobe analysis where executive function helps to filter, compare and interweave it with existing information, already present in long-term storage (Click here to learn more about the Information Processing Model). Thus, sensory-perceptual traces must be “held” onto mentally until the consolidation processes are completed. The overall process of holding onto new information while comparing it to existing information is sometimes referred to as working memory.

Once consolidated, long-term storage of memories is organized into knowledge structures throughout the various association cortices for later retrieval. Thus, students store information in a variety of places in the brain. Further, students retrieve stored information in different ways, largely dependent upon the manner in which the information was initially stored and the way they are asked to retrieve it. Lists of facts, names, dates, geographical locations and so on, without developed meaning, may be difficult to retrieve in isolation – particularly as time passes. Similar information and facts that are more critically developed by the teacher and “deeply processed” by the student will be easier to recall from memory and, more importantly, will be available for more in-depth future thinking. A student’s ability to “transfer” learned martial to new situations and circumstances is a good indication of how well they actually know and understand the material. It is difficult for any single standardized test to assess a student’s ability to recall and use information located in all of the many brain structures where long-term memories are stored.

 

The Interrelationships Among Learning, Intelligence, and Executive Function

Critical thinking and problem solving, perhaps surprisingly, are not really measured through standardized tests of intelligence, specific content knowledge, and even operational skills and judgment when they are devoid of appropriate, real-life contexts. This has been demonstrated through numerous kinds of studies in child development and neuropsychology. For example, Eslinger and Damasio (1985) described a patient who retained exceptional intellectual, reasoning, operational skill, and even judgment capacities after a brain tumor, as long as he was assessed with paper and pencil types of measures (e.g., who was president during the civil war….why do we have child labor laws….what is the basis for the federal taxation system, etc.). All of these measures were ‘out of context’ and not related to any real-life tasks or situations. His scores were in the superior range. However, in any real-life settings, this person could not organize his work, formulate and follow a step-by-step plan to complete an assignment, look ahead and anticipate possibilities, and accurately monitor his own progress. In short, his executive function was impaired.

In child development and throughout adulthood, intelligence and executive function do not go hand in hand. There are virtually no correlations between measures of intelligence (encompassing specific content knowledge, some problem solving skills and general judgment) and measures of executive function (encompassing capacities for planning, organization, working memory, anticipation, and self-monitoring (Archibald and Kerns, 1999; Ardila, 1999; Crinella and Yu, 2000; Eslinger and Damasio, 1985; Welsh et al., 1991)). Furthermore, while intelligence and standardized paper and pencil tests may adequately assess “what” a child knows, executive function is thought to underlie the “how” of learning and knowledge, such as: how Gettysburg was related to the outcome of the Civil War and how energy is related to motion.

Fortunately, executive function is a teachable skill that students can acquire and is related to every content area they study (Eslinger, 1997). Executive function is demonstrated through the process of critical thinking, how children go about problem solving (e.g., identifying and utilizing resources, formulating a plan, seeking feedback, improving upon their first attempt, etc.), and the product of those collective cognitive and behavioral processes.

 

Conclusions

The utility of employing a single, annual, formalized test to ascertain student achievement will inescapably be linked to the ability of that test to assess all that we view as important in the education of a child. This is no small challenge. As discussed above, an important role of our frontal lobe is the phenomena know as “executive function”. Executive function is intimately involved in our ability to think critically, solve problems, plan for the future, and follow and modify our plans as new situations arise, while keeping our initial goals in mind. These skills, one could argue, are at the very heart of what we would hope all educated citizens could do (Verner, 2002). While we may well demand that the development and cultivation of executive function be a priority accomplishment of public education, we cannot easily assess, through existing high stakes testing, whether or not it has actually done so. Furthermore, as discussed above, evidence actually suggests that there is little, if any, correlation between executive function and IQ, another cognitive parameter assessed through a formalized, paper and pencil test.

Recommendations for Student Assessments Based on Cognitive Science Considerations

  • Use multiple assessment approaches in order to categorize an individual student’s many strengths and weaknesses. Do not use a single test.
  • In addition to sit-down, “paper and pencil” exams, use testing approaches that can ascertain the student’s procedural knowledge (“how”) abilities.
  • Include significant analysis of executive function capabilities in student assessments.
  • Assure that recall of information from memory is connected as closely as possible to the mechanism by which it was committed to memory. Try to develop more valid links between instruction and assessment that capitalizes on the benefits of contextual cues and setting.
  • Ideally, try to use assessment results as an integral component of a student’s instruction, rather than exclusively as a measure of success or failure. Use assessment results to direct future instruction and/or remediation of individual students.
  • When using tests in the analysis of performance of teachers, schools or school districts, take into account the natural range of student abilities and accentuate longitudinal, multiple parameter analysis as opposed to single, high stakes exams. Just as it is difficult to assess an individual student’s overall success by a single test at a single point in time, it is also difficult assess the success of an entire educational system by the same measure.
  • Given the political and financial importance associated with high stakes testing to school districts, policy makers should be aware of potential negative impacts of such tests on education. The justifiable desire to assure and monitor quality education for all children in the basic education system may inadvertently result in undesirable instructional strategies such as:
  1. “Teaching to the test” (which may ultimately lead to less content and more test-taking instruction),
  2.  Minimizing the importance of procedural skills because they will not be tested on formalized tests (such as correctly operating scientific instruments, reciting poetry, participating in academic debates, drawing a schematic of a model, and so on.),
  3. Minimizing the development of executive function abilities as these are not readily assessed by standardized tests,
  4. Diminishing the joy and respect for learning and the student’s desire to continue school through graduation and beyond.

Finally, the desire to assure and monitor quality education for all children is commendable. However, it is also critical enough to employ frequent analysis using multiple forms of testing, with the intention of using results to improve the education of individual students and the instructional strategies of local educational systems. In upcoming Blogs we will begin to discuss, much more specifically, how assessments can be used as an integral component of science education and a driving force behind the development of critical thinking skills.

References

Archibald, S.J., Kerns, K.A. (1999). Identification and description of new tests of executive functioning in children. Child Neuropsychology 5: 115-129.

Ardila, A. (1999). A neuropsychological approach to intelligence. Neuropsychology Review 9: 117-136.

Crinella, F.M., Yu, J. (2000). Brain mechanisms and intelligence. Psychometric g and executive function. Intelligence 27: 299-327.

Eslinger, P.J. (1997). Brain development and learning. Basic Education, 41, 6-8.

Eslinger, P.J., Damasio, A.R. (1985). Severe disturbance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR. Neurology, 35, 1731-41.

Verner, K. (2001). Connections in the Classroom: Brain-Based Learning. In Basic Education. 45: 3-7.

Verner, K. (2002). Transcending the Status Quo:Scientists and school educators need to join forces to raise student proficiency in science. HHMI Bulletin.

Welsh, M.C., Pennington, B.F., Groisser, D.B. (1991). A normative developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology 7: 131-149.


  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

National Science Education Standards (…What Went Wrong With the Last Science Standards?)

December 13th, 2011

It’s better to project good ideas on a painted wall than present poor ideas in high definition.


As most educators are aware, there is a National Science Education Standards document that has been in use since its publication in 1996 (left). It was written with extensive input from many individuals from a wide range of scientific and educational disciplines. It was strongly supported through efforts of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequently, the National Science Education Standards document was used as a framework for many of the individual state science standards that followed.

The formulation of the various state science standards was a monumental task that reflected the unique characteristics of the individual states while incorporating the National Science Education Standards to varying degrees. Therefore, as we move forward with a discussion of the newly published A Framework for K-12 Science Education (lower left), lets remember that it has been just over a decade since the last major effort to reform science education was conducted on a national level and far more recently on the part of many states.

From LabLearner’s perspective, both the new Framework document and the National Science Education Standards are consistent with our philosophy and approach. As discussed in previous posts, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for both ELA and Math are easily aligned to our curriculum. The new NRC Framework is also wonderfully consistent with LabLearner’s Conceptual Themes.

NCR Framework Cross-Cutting Concepts:

  •     Patterns
  •     Cause and Effect: Mechanism and Explanation
  •     Scale, Proportion, and Quantity
  •     Systems and System Models
  •     Energy Flow and Matter: Flows, Cycles, and Conservation
  •     Structure and Function
  •     Stability and Change
Nonetheless, given the significant effort and expense currently devoted to the CCSS initiative, it is worth discussing the reasoning behind the effort.


LabLearner Matrix: Click the image to enlarge

 










Creating New Science Standards

When contemplating a massive change, like the formulation and implementation of a whole new set of science standards for the entire nation, we must ask ourselves two questions:

First, why did the last attempt fail? That is, specifically, why is it necessary to write new science standards and what, specifically, was wrong with the last rendition of science standards that makes them so inadequate in moving forward that the an entirely new investment is now required?  What, specifically, was wrong with the National Science Education Standards published in 1996?

Second, does the new attempt directly address each and every one of the issues identified in the first question? If not, we are likely fooling ourselves into believing that new terminology, reorganized lists of goals, new names and faces, and a new spin will succeed where the last attempt failed. Let’s examine both of these important questions in a bit more detail.

Why did the last attempt fail?

We only have public documents to tell us what serious and comprehensive analysis of the previous science standards was performed. What studies were conducted to address specific aspects of the 1996 standards and what proof exists of their shortcomings. Granted, there may have been discussions in the initial phases of the planning of new directions in science standards that the general public was not privy to. However, given the impending investment required to rewrite the K-12 science standards and the ultimate hope that they will be embraced by the hundreds of thousands of K-12 teachers that will need to alter their lessons to teach them, this information should be “up front” and easily available.

If the answer to the question, “why didn’t it work last time”, is anything related to the type or quality of the people in charge, look out! This is a sign that new ideas and solutions may be few and far between in the new approach and that a great amount of time and resources may be invested simply to recognize or emplace a new ruling class of bureaucrats. While clothing design, music, and technology change rapidly, good ideas have a way of outlasting trends.

If the answer to the question, “why didn’t it work last time”, is anything related to the type or quality of the technology now available, look out! It is fair to assert that bad ideas don’t automatically become brilliant ones simply because they employ the latest technology. Depending on how they are used, Smart Boards can be nothing more than expensive projector screens. Depending on how they are used, iPads can be nothing more than expensive spiral notebooks. The point is that it is better to project good ideas on a painted wall than present poor ideas in high definition.

Does the new attempt directly address each and every one of the issues identified above?

It may be clear from the above discussion that we do not necessarily have reason to believe that a thoughtful and comprehensive discussion is currently available regarding the specific inadequacies of the 1996 national science standards document. Why is this an issue?

If we wish to reform science education, we need to focus on results and avoid fixating on the reformation process itself. That is to say, simply rewriting standards and not addressing real problems in the educational delivery system is likely to be an expensive waste of a very considerable amount of time. We do not need to keep administrators in the state and federal departments of education busy. We do not need to again tap the scientific expertise of our university professors and corporate scientists if the solution to improved K-12 science education is not a science-content issue in the first place. We don’t think it is.

In our opinion, there are three issues that need to be addressed to reform science education in this country:.

  1. Curricula that is practical and reflects human neurocognitive processes
  2. Adequate authentic scientific facilities and materials
  3. Teacher training and commitment

Each of these points deserves much further discussion, but there are some general questions we may briefly ask ourselves. If teacher training is an issue that could impact the success of science education reform, what are we planning on doing to resolve the situation as quickly as possible? What about pre-service student teachers? Are we confident that the next generation of teachers will be better prepared to confidently handle the science content required to train their students to think scientifically? What about science supplies and equipment? Do our K-12 schools have facilities for serious hands-on science instruction? And, once again, are our teachers prepared to utilize these new resources and teach in this new and unfamiliar style?

One of the significant, exciting, and supportable aspects of the CCSS initiative, as reflected in the National Research Council Framework document, is the commitment to finally recognize and utilize the neurocognitive power of core themes (“cross-cutting concepts”) that spiral up through the developmental years and grade levels, reemphasizing the relevance of basic ideas as they reoccur year after year in ever changing contexts. This is the correct and smart way to approach education. But are our educational systems prepared to do what is necessary to really exploit cross-cutting concepts? Can they be organized and disciplined enough to follow a 13-year schedule? Each teacher will need to play a part on a new kind of team. Individual classroom autonomy is not entirely consistent with the organization and collaboration required to track the developing human brain from grade level to grade level.

A Word About Motives and the Future of CCSS

On the CCSS website, an interesting question and answer is presented on the Frequently Asked Questions page:

Q: Is having common standards the first step toward nationalizing education?

A: No. The Common Core State Standards are part of a state-led effort to give all students the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. The federal government was not involved in the development of the standards. Individual states choose whether or not to adopt these standards.

This is a worrisome answer to a good question. The fact is that the federal government program, Race to the Top, is an Obama administration initiative that incentivizes state participation in the CCSS initiative through financial awards. As we write, some states are already choosing to opt out of the CCSS movement after considering the cost and distraction of implementing the initiative relative to the financial incentive offered by Race to the Top.

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) has recently taken an instructive approach to the issue of the CCSS initiative. Quoting from the VDOE website:

“VDOE and the Board of Education are using the commonwealth’s established process for adopting and revising academic standards to incorporate content from the Common Core State Standards into the Standards of Learning (SOL). In doing so, the board and department are ensuring that expectations for teaching and learning in Virginia schools are comparable to, or in some instances exceed, those of the voluntary national standards.”

The “national standards” referred to at the end of this quote are the CCSS documents. Therefore, Virginia is not planning on abandoning its SOLs for ELA, Math, Science, etc. to comply with CCSS standards. Rather, they plan on using what good ideas the CCSS initiative may offer to amend or “upgrade” its existing state standards. This seems to be a very reasonable, practical, and economical approach that other states are likely to consider as well.


  • Share/Save/Bookmark

1 comment »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

Reading, Writing and Arithmetic,…and SCIENCE!

December 7th, 2011

Science, English Language Arts (ELA), and Common Core State Standards

In our last blog we discussed the relationship between the teaching of math and the teaching of science, and these relationships in regards to Common Core State Standards (CCSS). One of the major points addressed was that, like the development of math skills, the science curriculum needs to be built in logical progressive steps. Basic concepts need to be mastered before more complex concepts can be developed upon them.

Turning to the common core English Language Arts (ELA) standards, which were introduced into many schools throughout the country for the 2011/12 academic year along with new math standards, we can draw very similar and instructive analogies between the science curriculum and the ELA curriculum.

There is a relatively universal acceptance that in acquiring and growing language arts skills, there is a standard developmental process. Babies begin by making sounds (cooing) prior to correctly pronouncing recognizable words. First words are single-word utterances composed of object words (nouns) or action words (verbs). Two-word utterances (yellow toy, dog bark, yucky food, and so on) precede more complex sentence construction. In reading, once again, there is generally accepted pedagogy that relies on a progressive building of new skills based on a foundation of mastered skills.

The science curriculum stands to learn much from the step-wise logic of the ELA curriculum. Presenting students with a scattering of science concepts during their K-8 years, without logical and scientifically sound relationships between them, is somewhat like presenting students with an exceedingly long vocabulary list and giving them nine years to memorize it! At best, most students would remember a few terms, spellings, and definitions related to science as they head off to high school. It would be a similar rational that to then increase our “standards” and “raise the bar” further, we could double the length of the vocabulary list. This shotgun method of science education inevitably leads to the “mile wide, inch deep” results so often criticized in the American educational system.

The science curriculum should follow the math and ELA example of a coordinated, logical sequence of conceptual steps. Each plateau of understanding should be the firm base for further construction. Underlying principles and rules should always be as important as vocabulary and concept definitions. Increasingly deep understanding of science should be accompanied with appropriately advanced quantitation and mathematics skills and application. Development of scientific expertise should also be accompanied by advanced communication skills.

Unique Relationships

It should be clear that K-8 science education stands much to gain by mirroring the multi-year, progressive formulations of the ELA curricula. In addition to this broad realization, there are several specific points to be made concerning science and ELA before turning to a direct correlation between the CCSS ELA standards and the LabLearner curriculum.

ELA Words vs. Science Words

An important point to consider is that scientific vocabulary is inordinately full of concept-rich words. In common language, for example, consider the words equipment and communism. Let’s consult Merriam-Webster:

  • equipment: “the set of articles or physical resources serving to equip a person or thing”
  • communism: “a theory advocating elimination of private property”

Both words are easily memorized. In fact, fewer words are used in the definition of communism than equipment. Yet few would argue that the concept of communism is considerably more complex than the concept of equipment. So complex is the concept of communism, that the value of such a simple definition alone is limited.

In science, much of the key vocabulary is of similar concept-rich meaning. Let’s take the term osmosis. Even the Merriam-Webster definition is something to be pondered:

osmosis: “movement of a solvent (as water) through a semipermeable membrane (as of a living cell) into a solution of higher solute concentration that tends to equalize the concentrations of solute on the two sides of the membrane”

There may even be some issue with understanding the definition of the terms used in this definition. Let’s underline the words that are likely to require further discussion in order to understand the definition of osmosis:

osmosis: “movement of a solvent (as water) through a semipermeable membrane (as of a living cell) into a solution of higher solute concentration that tends to equalize the concentrations of solute on the two sides of the membrane”

Other examples of similarly complex terms are easy to come by in science and include terms such as weathering, equilibrium, saturation, precipitate, absorption, magnification, volume, density, kinetic, conservation, energy, gravity, planetary motion, friction, rate, velocity, structure-function, miscibility, suspension, and pH. Each of these examples was selected because they are included in current state and federal elementary/middle school standards and ALL are covered in LabLearner by sixth grade. Also, most have common usage in the English language. However, this is almost always an issue when introducing young students to these words in a scientific context. For example, “I am tired, I don’t have much energy,” really can cause a problem when we wish to teach students that energy is a measurable entity that has units in joules!

The fundamental point is this… it is nearly useless to simply memorize science words! The definitions impart very little, if any, scientific understanding. Consequently, a curriculum based on memorization of scientific terms, concepts, and facts (all words), is similarly useless as well. A science curriculum requires a logical and spiraling sequence, integrated mathematics, and experimentation. Period.

Action Words, Verbs, and Experimentation

I know the definition of the verb swim. I can conjugate it: I swim, I swam, I have swum. However, if I fall overboard, I had better have an entirely different understanding of the word swim! In fact, if I only know the verb, swim, as a word, I drown!

We ended the last blog by stating, rather emphatically, that the science curriculum requires experimentation. That is because many of the verbs in the vocabulary of science are, in fact, skills. For example, measure, combine, equilibrate, determine, weigh, balance, and prepare are not just scientific verbs, they are skills. Defining a spring scale is not the same as knowing how to use a spring scale any more than knowing what a bicycle is opposed to knowing how to ride one. The science lab environment allows students to practice procedural skills that bring substance to science words for equipment and processes. Further, because nearly every piece of scientific equipment and apparatus is calibrated, the science laboratory gives students numbers! What’s more – the numbers are real, not bogus, end of the textbook chapter, story problem numbers. In science, the skill of obtaining accurate numbers in the lab is the first step to a calculation(s) being performed. The level of skill is directly related to the correctness of the final answer! When students are taught to understand this, the world of language, science, and math fold effortlessly, nearly instinctively into each other.

It Hasn’t Happened Until You Report It

Every budding science graduate student, medical student, and postdoctoral fellow understands this statement. No scientist is paid to do experiments. They are paid to write about their experiments.

While I was a tenured Professor of Pediatrics in the College of Medicine at The Pennsylvania State University, I began science and health education outreach work in local schools. We surveyed the medical faculty to get an idea of what our colleagues, all practicing medical scientists of one sort or another, felt was important in an excellent K-12 science education to become a successful practicing scientist. We asked, “What knowledge or skill do you believe is most important for a career in science?” The response was nearly unanimous: Writing, reading, and communicating were the most essential attributes of a successful scientist. Of course, math skills and specific science courses were on the list, but language arts was the clear winner.

Why be surprised? We constantly wrote grants to obtain the massive funds required to do our research and then wrote annual reports to keep them. In addition, everyone was working on one or more manuscripts for publication in a variety of international scientific journals. Publish or Perish. Pretty motivational!

Returning to somewhat less stressful halls of the elementary school, the science curriculum and the science lab in particular gives students the opportunity to use new vocabulary. A group of students working together on an experiment must communicate in the vocabulary of the experiment at hand. Mass, balance, and equilibrium, are not just words, they are real things. When they mix two chemicals and quickly record what happens into their lab books, terms describing colors, smells, textures, and sounds fly onto the page as situations change. Questions like, “How many grams of calcium carbonate did you add?” or “How long until the next data point?” are common utterances from fourth grade students during an experiment. No one needs to memorize the definition of a triple-beam balance, rather, they need to know exactly how to use it! The definition is obvious. A vocabulary test would be easy.

Soy un Científico

Perhaps not surprisingly, students that are learning English as a second language tend to enjoy and do rather well in the science laboratory. In the lab, much of the language is externalized. It’s right there. The test tube (that the student is holding) becomes warm (in her hand). The light bulb gets brighter or dimmer depending on the number of batteries connected. “Wow, that’s cold!” The words describe things that the student directly and immediately experiences with their own senses. Finally, the word blue is easy to learn when a dried splash of a blue-color chemical reaction performed in lab on a Tuesday morning persists on the cover of your lab book all semester!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

Common Core Math Standards (And What Science Education Can Learn From Them!)

November 28th, 2011

Skipping steps in science education and what we can learn from math standards

In math education, no one would dream of asking students to calculate the area under a curve before they have learned to count! Second grade classes do not solve for x before learning simple numeric relationships like greater than, less than, and equal to, or how to add, subtract, divide, and multiply numbers. This is because there is a nearly universal understanding in education that mathematics is built one concept upon another.

There is an accepted basic sequence in the presentation and practice of math concepts. This sequence is based on the premise that to truly understand a concept, you must first understand the basis by which that concept has arisen. For example, the number 2 does not mean much without understanding the number 1, or that 1+1=2. We can relate any concept to the top of a stairwell, and each step leading up to it as the necessary steps to get to the top, or the final concept. If you skip a step, you might get to the top faster, but you won’t fully understand the concept.

Likewise, when transferring from one school district or even state to another, students are likely to encounter similar math concepts from school to school at various levels.

One of the interesting and regrettable aspects of past practice for science education is how our long-time experience with the conceptual sequence nature of mathematics is typically not applied in the science curriculum. Consider, for example, the following list of activities that may be considered as part of the science curriculum in many schools in the country:

  • A first grade class visits a local pond.
  • A second grade class anticipates the hatching of a cocoon into a butterfly in a nylon cage.
  • One third grade class grows seeds in plastic cups, while another, in the same school, traces the outline of students on wide rolls of “butcher” paper for subsequent labeling of body parts.
  • A fourth grade class has an aquarium or hamster in the back of the room.
  • A fifth grade class makes models of the solar system out of marbles and ping-pong balls.
  • A local park ranger speaks to a group of sixth grade students about water pollution and its effect on animals.

Are these activities scientific? Of course they are. The problem is that, without a clear progression of science concepts,the science education experience that results from a hodgepodge of activities like these is likely to be a patchwork of interesting memories without deep meaning. The beauty of science is in understanding the interrelations between such diverse topics. Recognition of such relationships requires a scientific conceptual base, one that involves a sequence that logically builds upon itself.

Now, let’s return to the list above and make two other important observations. First, with the exception of the model of the solar system activity, all of the topics are drawn from the life sciences. There is a conspicuous absence of physical sciences – chemistry and physics. Second, there is little use of math in conducting the activities. This is not always the case, but it is the typical case. What a shame. Science is the perfect vehicle to add application and purpose to math! Let’s just consider two aspects of basic mathematics here: Numbers and Counting and Numeric Relationships.

Numbers and Counting

In math, we learn to count. We learn that 5 comes after 2 and before 7. We also learn that each numeral may be used to represent the number of things. 10 fingers, 2 hands,  and 1 nose.

In science, most all numbers require units. For example, nothing weighs 57. No place exists 500 from where I am standing. Without units, numbers in science are nearly meaningless. Someone may weigh 57 kg (kilograms). Chicago may be 500 km (kilometers) from where I am standing. As we will discuss in our next blog on Common Core Standards: English Language Arts, we use units associated with numbers all the time in common language as well. Consider the list in the previous paragraph again: 10 fingers, 2 hands, and 1 nose.

Numeric Relationships

In math, we learn that 5 is greater than 2 and less than 7 (5 > 2 and 5 < 7). We can then conclude, with no additional data, that since 5 is greater than 2 and less than 7, then 2 must be less than 7 as well. Numeric operations contribute immensely to the relationship between numbers. Even though both 5 and 2 are each less than 7, if we add them together (5+2) they are equal to 7 (5 + 2 = 7).

In science, the relationship between different numbers gives us interesting properties such as motion, density, and concentration. If a person moves 7 m (meters) in 14 s (seconds), they have a speed of 7 m/14 s or 0.5 m/s.

A block with a mass of 0.8 kg and a volume of 1 m3 (cubic meter) has a density of 0.8 kg/1 m3 and will likely float on water. On the other hand, a much smaller block with a mass of only 0.4 kg and a volume of only 0.1 m3 has a density of 4.0 kg/1 m3 and will sink like a stone (note: density = mass/volume).

Missing the Boat

Speaking of floating and sinking, the simple fact is that we miss the boat and lose a tremendous tool for teaching math concepts and skills when we do not directly relate them to the science curriculum.

This is particularly true if we have the opportunity to present a 100% hands-on, experiential science curriculum like LabLearner. Students in a lab collect data all the time. Some of the data is descriptive (colors, smells, sounds, etc.). We will discuss the impact of the science curriculum on descriptive language in our next blog.

On the other hand, much of the data collected in a science lab concerns size, weight, speed, temperature, time, and other quantifiable parameters. All of these forms of data necessitate numbers, units, and calculations. Performing the mathematic calculations required to solve problems from the science lab not only provides repeated practice of math skills, but also allows students to get a sense of the importance and practical applications of math as a whole. Science lab captivates and intrigues students with interesting occurrences and challenges them to explain what happens, and to predict what will happen next. However, without math, they are helpless! They require math to make sense of their data.

Teaching Science in Progressing Steps: It Makes Sense!

I don’t know how many times in hundreds of classroom observations we have seen students literally demand to know how to do the math required to explain their experimental results if they do not currently have the specific skills to do so. For example, I recall a fifth grade student who was growing frustrated trying to measure the distance around a wheel with only a meter stick. As he turned the wheel, he tried to “bend” the meter stick around it, but kept loosing the exact spot. He walked up to his teacher and said, “We can easily measure the distance across the wheel with the meter stick. Surely there must be some way to use this number to get the distance around the wheel! This is ridiculous!” His lab partners agreed. The teacher seized the moment, explaining that C = (pi)d (circumference = 3.14 x diameter). Her students jumped months ahead in math, thanked her, and went back to their experiment.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

What’s The Point Of Creating New Standards?

November 21st, 2011

Why do we need new academic standards? According to The Opportunity Equation group, there were several reasons for states to join the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative back in 2009:

“For states, there are many good arguments for adopting the Common Core State Standards: Common standards* provide clarity about what students are expected to learn in mathematics and English language arts; they help teachers zero in on the most important knowledge and skills; they establish shared goals among students, parents, and teachers; they help states and districts assess the effectiveness of schools and classrooms and give all students an equal opportunity for high achievement.”

*Author’s Note: That is, as opposed to standards developed and adopted by each individual state as in the 1990s. The “Common” of the CCSS therefore reflects that they are intended to serve as a much more universal, national core of academic guidelines. A common core of standards that is much more consistent from state to state.

If we consider the quote above, one might ask, outside of the “common” element of the CCSS, couldn’t this mission have been realized using existing national and state academic standards? Zeroing in on the “most important knowledge and skills” for example, may have been achieved by streamlining and consolidating bulky 1990s standards. Establishing “shared goals among students, parents, and teachers” is a question of communication and commitment and, at least on the surface, would seem potentially independent of whether we were considering 1990s’ or 2000s’ standards. And as to helping states and districts to “access the effectiveness of schools and classrooms”, the 1990s rendition of standards had more than enough high-stakes, standardized tests to do this, perhaps too many!

So let’s repeat the original question – why do we need new academic standards? Surely there must be one overarching reason. One answer that would make real sense. Namely, that the 1990s academic standards did not work well enough (by what criteria?) in terms of student achievement and success. No outcome in education can or should trump student achievement. So the question must become, what is wrong with our current standards, many of which are barely a decade old and were developed by countless hours of work from Nobel laureate scientists, teachers, politicians, and state and federal departments of education – much the same group that is working on the new standards?

Are we really sure that the reason that the last version of academic standards didn’t work because they were written poorly or missed the point? Could be. However, if we do not consider alternative explanations of why the 1990s standards were so inferior as to deserve retooling, we run the risk of failing again with a new set of standards. It would seem that the most obvious place to look is at the educational system itself. How well-trained in scientific thinking are our practicing complement of K-12 teachers, for example. It is difficult to teach something that we don’t know well ourselves. This question may be acutely critical for our K-5 elementary school teachers. Of the hundreds of elementary teachers we have worked with over the years, nearly none went into elementary education because they wanted to teach science!

If teacher training is an issue that could impact the success of the CCSS initiative, what are we planning on doing to reverse the situation as quickly as possible? And what about preservice student teachers? Are we confident that the next generation will be better prepared to confidently handle the science content required to train their students to think scientifically? What about science supplies and equipment? Do our schools have facilities for serious hands-on science instruction, and again, are our teachers prepared to teach in this unfamiliar style?

The final point is simply that, if previous standards failed, even in part, due to our system of education, then we must address the relevant issues with the same intensity and intelligence that we are devoting to new standards. If not, CCSS will likely fare no better than the standards we seek to replace. CCSS will fail as well.

But, there is good news!

Perhaps the main reason that the last generation of national and state standards did not succeed as we would have liked is because they were never given the chance. Perhaps we went wrong from the very beginning. Perhaps we did not spend enough time educating our professional teaching staff and administrators to understand the point of the 1990s standards.

Instead, teachers did what they have always done – they did the best they could with the information they were given. What should have been eureka!! moments turned out instead to be pages of bullet-point standards. Instead of debating the best pedagogical strategies to accomplish an inspiring and noble mission, to make their students the best they can be, they were handed a pile of standardized tests and a warning.

The good news is that almost everyone in education has recently witnessed how not to improve the system. How not to inspire. How not to teach. Moving forward, the key will be to build a team consisting of teachers, principals, parents, and students. The key will be to articulate a clear plan to that team so that they not only know what they are supposed to do, but why they are doing it and why it matters!

Note to readers: In the coming weeks Dr. Verner will delve into specific standards (math, language arts and science). You can expect a detailed discussion on math standards next week!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

How Does YOUR Mind Process Information?

November 16th, 2011

Dr. Verner recently spoke with teachers and principals at the Diocesan Education Institute in Arlington, VA about the Information Processing Model and how our minds work. Click the link below to follow his presentation and take fun tests to see firsthand how you process information (you can test your students as well)! Click here to learn about the Information Processing Model.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

Influencing What Your Students Remember

November 8th, 2011

If you’re a teacher you know that a student’s mind can wander during the course of a lesson or class. You also know that you want to get as much information into their brain while you have their attention. You might think that different students are focused and/or will lose their attention at different times. While there are certainly individual differences, studies suggest that there are common patterns shown by all students.

The Serial Positions test, one of the most reproducible cognitive tests known, demonstrates that there are absolute times when your class is likely to be at their most attentive, and also when the class is most likely to lose focus. Clearly, we want to get as much important information to them during their peaks of attention!

In the Serial Positions test, subjects are shown a series of words for 2 seconds each. They are told to try to remember as many of the words as possible after the list is presented. When the test is scored, the results are consistent with the graph below:

Serial Positions Effect (Click to enlarge)

Psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists interpret these results to indicate that in a “learning session” students remember most of what is presented at the beginning and end of the session, with very little recall of what is presented in the middle of the learning session.

The initial level of high recall is usually attributed to the “Primacy” effect. That is, students tend to focus and process information early in a learning session. This could be for various reasons. For example, it may be because the brain is preparing for new information and is therefore paying extreme attention to the initial moments of a session. This attention and information processing then wanes as the session progresses.  The student gets tired of thinking.

The upward level of retention following the trough of low retention is usually ascribed to as the “Recency” effect. This elevated level of recall is generally thought to be due to the notion of short-term memory. That is, whatever was presented last in the learning session would be remembered simply because it remains in short-term memory and is not replaced with new information.

These results suggest that we may want to begin the learning session with a straightforward statement of what we wish to teach during the upcoming learning session and end the session with a review of the most important information.

We should be careful not to overload the information given between the Primacy and Recency effect.  Increasing the “amount’ of information included in a learning session simply increases the amount of information that is forgotten and does little to increase the amount of information that is remembered! In the graph below, you can see the same Primacy and Recency effect, regardless of how long the list is:

Serial Positions Effect: Length of List (Click to enlarge)

How does this relate to Block Scheduling where a typical class period is 60 or 90 minutes? It’s likely that cognitive gain can be realized by breaking up any learning session into smaller “bites”. That is, while a longer learning session may produce a trough of retention, breaking a 60 or 90 minute period into three learning “sections” of 20 or 30 minutes each may reduce low recall times and increase time spent in Primacy and Recency states.

Share your thoughts! How can we break extended learning sessions into smaller bites that students perceive as separate events? I would love to hear about approaches you take in your own classrooms that might be related to the research we have discussed here. Please share by commenting below!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog

Tags:

Welcome to a New Year of LabLearner!

September 23rd, 2010

It’s that time again! Students are packing lunches, ironing school shirts, and setting book bags by the front door while parents are kicking up their feet and breathing a huge sigh of relief!

As the 2010-2011 school year begins, LabLearner enthusiastically welcomes thirteen new schools!  Among these schools are:

Archdiocese of Philadelphia:
St. Andrew, Drexel Hill
St. Cecilia, Philadelphia
St. Mary Magdalen, Media

Diocese of Arlington, VA:
Our Lady of Hope, Potomac Falls
Nativity, Burke
St. Ann, Arlington
St. Charles, Arlington
St. Luke, McLean

Diocese of Savannah, GA:
St. James, Savannah

Diocese of Wilmington:
Holy Cross, Dover
Christ the Teacher, Newark
IHM, Wilmington

Tacoma, WA:
Life Christian Academy

Another wonderful addition includes our brand new high school program, Exploration21. Archbishop Wood High School in Warminster, PA is the very first in the nation to launch this new and innovative science curriculum. Exploration21 will replace 9th grade Physical Science as it incorporates state standards into three sectors: Oil Spill, Concussion, and NASCAR. Students will spend the year exploring scientific disciplines through interactive technology, state of the art laboratory equipment, and computer generated curriculum and assignments. According to principal, Mrs. Mary Harkins, “About half the freshman population are LabLearner graduates.”  We are confident this program will continue to stimulate all learners and speak to students in a language they are most familiar with – technology!

Both LabLearner and Exploration21 are on the cutting edge of science education and leading students well into the 21st century of science and technology!

Lastly, LabLearner has expanded its website with the addition of “LabLearnerTeacher”. This site is designed for teachers to obtain the latest curriculum updates, video tips and tutorials, and GAP Outlines used to plan GAP units. Schools will no longer receive printed insert pages for curriculum changes. Instead curriculum updates will be released for teachers to download and print from this new site. Be sure to check this site before beginning a new CELL to ensure the content is current. We hope teachers take advantage of this novel convenience and find it just as exciting as we do!

As always, LabLearner wishes all principals, teachers, students, and parents a happy, healthy, and scientific school year!

Happy learning!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog, L2 Newsletter Articles, Uncategorized

LabLearner Hands-on Science: Reading for Knowledge

May 19th, 2009
http://lablearner.com/blog_videos/Blog3-desktop.flv

Can reading for knowledge happen in a first grade class? According to Regina Pearse, it’s happening! Mrs. Pearse feels her first grade students are getting a firm understanding of weekly science vocabulary words taught in a hands-on environment. Students not only write and read descriptive words but also use the words often and repeatedly. They are using the words with their teacher and with each other in the lab and are getting a feel for words in the context of sentences.  Students are even showing an interest in nonfiction books! Library book selections are becoming more about real world and scientific concepts. “They are excited and interested and want to read more about these concepts….a real bonus!”

We would love to hear from other teachers using language arts skills in a hands-on science program, particularly the use of descriptive vocabulary words with primary students. Are there any parents who can share how your child has used descriptive vocabulary words at home that have resulted from school hands-on science activities? 

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Dr. Verner's Blog