Teaching Students About Science From the Teaching Models We Use: Lessons Learned from a 4th Grade Science

Unit Tiffany Ross Abstract: This article addresses teaching models of instruction when used specifically for the teaching of science within the elementary grades. The article evaluates the use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (GRRM), as well as models associated with the Learning Theory framework, and the implications these teaching models have in students learning of science. Also addressed are specific teaching behaviors within science instruction and ways to promote student inquiry along with the students understanding of the nature of science within a 4th grade Human Body unit. It promotes National Science Education Standards A, B, and E and Iowa Core Standards related to Science as Inquiry. Introduction As a pre-service elementary teacher, I have spent time in my methods courses and inside several K-6 classrooms. I have seen theory to practice in use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (GRRM) and its many successes within reading and writing instruction. So, when I was first asked to try science instruction from a alternative perspective, I was a bit hesitant. Why would the GRRM not work for science instruction as it does for reading and writing? As I began to learn more about the Nature of Science, Learning Theory, and their place in science education, I realized that there are distinctions in learner purpose-why we teach these content areas to students- and that I myself approach science and literacy with a different process of thinking. Because of this, it is logical to conclude that the content areas of literacy and science would require different methods of instruction in order to be taught effectively. Why do we teach science? What is the purpose of science? Why do we teach it? In reading instruction, I have often been reminded to look at the big picture. When teaching a lesson, whether it be instruction that highlights a specific strategy of comprehension or a skill taught in order to help decode text, it is important that students are able to take a GRRM lesson and apply it to their own reading. This is known as text to transfer and is the ultimate goal of reading instruction- we as teachers want our students to be successful independent readers. With science instruction, it is not necessarily a strategy of thinking or skill that students need to transfer. The content or knowledge learned is not the goal of instruction, but rather the ability to understand the process in which knowledge is acquired and be able to apply this to their own thinking processes. The ideas about science that will promote student inquiry through observation, creativity, collaboration, as well as other aspects of the nature of science will help students in become independent, critical thinkers. The purpose of teaching science is not for students to memorize outcomes or facts, but for students to understand and demonstrate characteristics of how science works. Models and Misconceptions The GRRM of instruction follows the progression of 1) I Do- the teacher doing the work and thinking, 2) We Do- the teaching doing the work with the student(s) doing the thinking, 3) You Do Together-the students working and thinking collaboratively, then 4) You Do Alone- the student(s) working and thinking independently. When analyzing this model of instruction and my goal for students to understand how science works, there are many misconceptions that a teacher would be demonstrating to students about science: Science is unimaginative because there is only one way to interpret observations.

Science is solitary because I worked and thought alone to come up with ideas. Science doesnt change because you will do exactly what I have done. Science is based on evidence that someone else has found. Scientists will know if they are right or wrong. If the GRRM does not promote student inquiry, how do I as a teacher get students to think? Fortunately, students tend to already have methods to which they think and form ideas naturally. However, many ideas that are formed about science are incorrect. What my role needs to be when teaching science is that of a facilitator who is able to provide concrete opportunities for students to see, analyze, and understand ideas of science. With this focus of learning in mind, I knew that the aspects of Learning Theory could help guide my instruction. Learning Theory within the Education Field looks at the processes involved in learning including 1) developmental learning and how students learn from experiences and the world around them, 2) constructivist learning and how students construct ideas from experiences as well as how students need to be actively and mentally engaged in order to learn, and 3) social learning and the role that language, modeling, and other people have in the learning process. This framework identifies itself with teaching models such as the Learning Cycle and the P.O.E. (Predict, Observe, Explain). What advantages do Learning Theory models have? They allow me to align my teaching with students thinking. Again, In order for me to facilitate learning that promotes critical thinking, I would first need understand how students think and form ideas naturally and then provide concrete opportunities in which they could explore these ideas in order to form accurate conclusions. Trial, Error, Reflection, and Understanding As a practicum student, I was placed in a 4th grade classroom that was studying the Human Body. The materials and instruction for this unit were primarily supplied by a 3rd-4th grade Full Option Science System (FOSS )kit which, from my classroom observation, involved hands-on activities in which students record observations as they explore concrete materials with partners or groups of four. I decided to work within the unit, but to explore a topic outside of what the FOSS kit focused on but students had shown interest in- How Blood Flows. The Original Assessment and Why it Didnt Work Prior to my lesson, I created a formative assessment to evaluate what students knew about the topic and any misconceptions they might have in order to focus my instruction appropriately. A large part of this assessment was based on a student drawing of how they thought blood worked. A template of a human body outline was provided as a starting point. I chose to use drawing as an assessment tool because it allows students the ability to show what they knew rather than having to try and explain in words, which can be limiting for some students. It is important as an elementary teacher to acknowledge that just because students cant find the words to explain a concept doesnt mean they dont understand it. The opposite is also true- just because students can explain a concept in words doesnt necessarily mean they get it. As students worked on their drawings, I positioned myself on the outer portion of the room so that I could walk around and see all students at work. At first glance, I was very impressed with the knowledge students already had how blood works. Students were drawing veins throughout the body, providing directionality, and identifying the heart as important factor in blood flow. After giving students a few minutes to start on their drawing, I began to talk to a student one-on-one from each table so that they could tell me about their drawings. This is when I first found a disconnection between what students were visually creating and how much students actually understood. Figure 1 provides two examples of the parallel of two students work samples and that same students explanation of their work when we spoke one-on-one.

From the misconceptions I found in these, as well as other, student samples, I was uncertain if the topic was developmentally appropriate. Yes, students can observe their veins concretely, but the idea of blood flowing throughout the body and the different parts that make up blood is fairly abstract. To confirm this thinking, I re-evaluated the ideas found in the NSDL Science Literacy Map about concepts to teach by grade level in regards to conceptual knowledge and Learning Theory. Looking more closely I found that it was in fact to abstract for the students I was teaching and was more appropriate for students in grades 6-8, possible even grades 9-12. FIGURE 1

Teacher: Explain to me what you are drawing. Student: Blood moving throughout our body. Teacher: Can you elaborate on that? Student: The blood moves all over. It starts in the feet and goes up to the head. Thats why I have arrows.

Teacher: Tell me about your drawing? Student: I have a key. I drew the brain, the heart, muscles, and veins. And there are arrows to show which way the blood is going. Teacher: (nodded in acknowledgment) Student: Your brain controls your whole body. It affects blood because the heart is like a messenger and goes up to the brain so blood goes Heart-Brain-Heart-Muscles and keeps going like that.

So, What Did I Teach and How Did I Teach It? I used the same NSDL Science Literacy Map to find a more developmental appropriate concept that was within the Human Body unit and would allow me to still provide the students with an observation of how our body reacts to activity/exercise. The goal was for student to understand that the body consists of many parts and these parts influence one another. My lesson would focus on a specific observation that would provide evidence of this concept- when we exercise, we breathe more heavily and rapidly and our heart beats faster and is felt more prominently. This observation could be later built upon with others that would provide evidence to students so that they may form this conclusion.

For students to come to this conclusion, I wanted them to first have a concrete experience in which this idea could be demonstrated. According to the developmental and constructivist aspects of Learning Theory, students are better able to explore ideas when they can relate ideas to something concrete. I began the lesson by assessing prior knowledge with a 1 minute Quick Write. Students were prompted aloud with the following question: How does our body change when we are more active? Next, I wanted to explore student thinking about observational learning by asking the following thought-provoking question (one that requires students to rely on their own creativity problemsolving skills as opposed to recollection of ideas previously taught): How are we able to see, hear, or feel the parts of the body we cannot see? As students shared their ideas, I acknowledge student responses by nodding or responding with okay and waited for another student to add their thought or idea. Instead of responding to or repeating student ideas, I used wait time (silence for up to 3 seconds) between responses so that students had time to think about ideas before responding and in turn supported the constructivist aspect of Learning Theory by keeping students mentally engaged in the discussion as well as the social aspect of Learning Theory by modeling active listening skills. Following this brainstorming activity, students participated in two observation activities in order to answer the question: How does our body change when we exercise? Students were asked to work in pairs. Facing their partner, students were instructed to take 5 deep breaths and then discuss with their partner any reactions they observed. Next, students were instructed to run in place for 30 seconds and, again, discussed with their partner any changes they observed and how they knew a change had occurred. Students were then given time to summarize what they thought was one important idea learned from their discussions in writing. (I would like to note that in analyzing this aspect of the lesson, Ive concluded that if the observation activities were instead student-created, as opposed to pre-determined, that the observation process would be more accurately aligned with Learning Theory and with how science works.) After working in pairs, I facilitated a group discussion of the observations they had made and had discussed with their partners. Again, I acknowledge student responses by nodding or responding with okay and waited for another student to add their thought or idea. By choosing not to tell students they were right or wrong and using wait time, the discussion was much more student-driven. However, I did ask students to clarify or elaborate on their own responses and asked follow up questions that required extended-answers (more than a yes/no or a short answer response) so that the discussion led towards my intended lesson purpose. I then asked students to reflect and respond in writing to the following question: What does the idea of changes in both our heart and our breathing show us about our body? Students turned in their responses to this question and the others as an Exit Slip. I chose to skim each students writing as they turned it in to me so that they could provide clarification on the spot if I was unclear about their understanding (due to the difficulty some students have putting their ideas down in written form). Figure 2 provides examples of student responses to the lesson.

FIGURE 2

1. Our body changes when we are active because when we are lifting weights our arm muscles contract. 2. And when we are running, after we are finished our hearts beat fast. 3. When we breathe long breaths our heart beats slowly and when we breathe short breaths our heart beats fast.

1. Our bodys muschles contract and get tighter. 2. I saw my partners heart beating real fast. I notcied [name ommited] had her mouth open in the beginning but later her mouth was closed. She needed air. 3. Our senses feel that we are starting to move. We start [need] to need air and gasp and our heart starts beating fast and loud.

What Else Did I Teach? As mentioned previously, my goal for this lesson was for students to have formulated evidence through observation to move towards the understanding that the body consists of many parts and these parts influence one another. Along with this, the way that I chose to teach students allowed them to experience ideas about how science works. By using Learning Theory as a model of instruction, I was able to demonstrate to students the following ideas about science: Science is creative because they had to interpret the observations they made. Science is collaborative because they worked together to come up with ideas. Science is always changing because discussion led to more ideas. Science is based on evidence because they had to explain why they thought what they thought. Scientists arent told when they are right or wrong. Next Steps From this lesson, I would want to continue instruction in two ways. First, I would want to connect the ideas from this lesson with future observations that promote the same understanding. It is important to acknowledge that one concrete example of how body parts

influence one another is not sufficient in my unit goal, it is merely one piece of evidence that students can use. Second, I would want to discuss with students the ideas about the nature of science discussed above. Because this is the big picture of science instruction, it is not enough for students to merely experience science in this way. Students may or may not reflect and make these connections on their own. However, if these nature of science ideas are explicitly discussed after students have been involved in concrete experiences that are parallel or similar to how science works, these connections will be more easily made-and transferred- to experiences beyond this specific lesson. Resources Fisher, D. & Frey N. (2008) Better learning through structured teaching: a framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Association for Supervision of Curriculum Development (ASCD). McComas, W.F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved from [[Link] National Science Teachers Association (2010). Nature of science position statement. Retrieved from [ [Link] The National Science Digital Library (NSDL). Science literacy maps. Retrieved from [[Link]