All that, and we will be launching water bottle rockets, racing cars, and growing bacteria. It's going to be a lot of students doing and thinking and reflecting for the next few weeks, along with a lot of teacher prepping and questioning and reflecting and going to bed too late and sprouting grey hairs.
But I met my students on Wednesday of last week, so I have been getting acquainted with them for three days. I didn't start teaching them any science stuff or thinking skills. I wanted to get to know them and for them to get to know me, but I also wanted to teach them some of the classroom procedures we would do on a regular basis--like answering daily journal questions. So, on Thursday of last week in their very first journal question, I asked them this:
Using the scoring system that is outlined in Mrs. E's syllabus (which you can review by clicking here), evaluate the questions and answers below. In the answer to this journal, explain what level each QUESTION is at (0-5). Do this by analyzing what type of thinking the question is asking students to do.
Question #1: Which of the following is an example of passive transport? (This question will look somewhat familiar to you if you've read this post)
a) Osmosis
b) Sodium-potassium pump
c) Endocytosis
d) Exocytosis
Question #2: Knowing what you know about the types of transport across cell membranes, what would happen if there were a genetic defect in the enzyme ATP synthase?
I wanted to see what they would do with this question and was actually more concerned that they learn the process of answering the journals, so I purposefully didn't offer any other instructions but to read the question and answer it. As I walked around the room trying to help them answer their very first journal, (I do this online using Blogger since I teach in a 1:1 classroom), I kept getting this question from students:
"Can we go on the internet to find the answers to the questions?"
A perfectly valid question. But I never asked them to answer the questions at the end of the journal. I wanted them to analyze the questions for what type of thinking was required of them, not to find the answers.
What resulted was a great discussion about reading the entire question, asking for clarification if you don't understand what a question is asking, and not being afraid to ask for help. But the most valuable idea we discussed was the practice of analyzing what level of thinking questions were asking of their brains before rushing in to answer them. When I asked them if they had ever been asked to stop and think about what a question required of them, they mostly looked at me with confusion, with a few of them shaking their heads "no."
It seems that most of my students think school is about finding the right answers to questions, not reflecting and screwing up and fixing what's wrong and exploring without fear. I knew this about my students last year, but didn't find out until much later that this was the case.
When I teach Earth science, one of the main themes woven into that course is that "small changes add up to large changes over time." This theme is used to help explain how small changes in plate motion or erosion or deposition or weathering can add up to large-scale changes, such as mountains or Grand Canyons or oxbow lakes. But I think it applies to teaching and learning as well.
This "school is about right answers" mindset is just a small thing I noticed from a small question, but it has huge implications for what I do this school year. Which is exactly why my next few weeks will be filled with inquiry, analysis, problems, revision, and discussion--not questions about science stuff that can be Googled straight from the internet, no thinking required.
In other words, my plans will be filled with the small things, the small changes that will, hopefully, add up to large changes in my students and their thinking by the end of the year.