Over the years, I鈥檝e noticed students know less about nature and more about video games. It concerned me that they rarely wondered about their environment. Why try to figure out the reason for something they observe when they can just Google it? To help my students see themselves as scientists who should ask questions every day, I worked with my class to develop a class motto. I now start classes by having my students recite this each day:
鈥 鈥淚 am a scientist.鈥
鈥 鈥淚 can think critically.鈥
鈥 鈥淚 can solve problems.鈥
鈥 鈥淚 am responsible for my education, and I will try as hard as I can to learn today.鈥
鈥 鈥淚 will not interfere with instruction by talking.鈥
鈥 鈥淚 will be respectful to my peers.鈥
We do this daily to remind ourselves that we are scientists who can think deeply about problems and come up with solutions. But to do that, we need to effectively communicate with one another.
I taught students in special education settings for 19 years before switching to general education 6th grade science. I had always loved teaching science classes and was thrilled to be able to work with a wider cross-section of students. I dreamed of spirited debates and lab reports that clearly explained the results of our experiments. So when I asked, 鈥淲hat did you observe?鈥 I did not anticipate students responding, 鈥淚t changed some.鈥 I was discouraged because it was not the robust communication that is expected for science writing. How would I get my students to think more deeply?
My first step in tackling the problem of short, shallow, unclear answers was to ban such words as 鈥渋t,鈥 鈥渟tuff,鈥 鈥渢hing,鈥 鈥渒inda,鈥 鈥渟ome.鈥 I made a poster with these words and a red slash through them, with the words 鈥淏e Specific!鈥 underneath. That helped a bit.
Next, we rewrote explanations. After sharing their answers, with only a few students providing evidence, we would spend 10 minutes rewriting clear explanations with evidence. The problem was, my students still weren鈥檛 thinking deeply enough on their own, and they were not making connections between concepts. They weren鈥檛 using the data they鈥檇 obtained in the experiment to communicate conclusions.
Scientific Writing
The real transformation came after my training in using the . I received an email invitation from the University of Iowa that said participating in this training would help me improve my students鈥 writing in science. The experience, offered at both the university and through , sounded like what I needed鈥攁 form and strategies to get students on the right path. Sign me up! The SWH is much more than a possible template and possible strategies for writing; it is an approach to teaching that nurtures critical thinking.
Brian Hand, one of the originators of the in the late 90s, along with Bill Crandall, a retired science teacher who initially implemented this approach, challenged all of our ideas of what teaching is and how students learn. Teachers tend to think if we teach 鈥淎鈥 and then 鈥淏,鈥 students will automatically go to 鈥淐.鈥 The brain, however, is a web of knowledge with many connections to each piece of information. Based on someone鈥檚 unique experiences, each individual brain decides how 鈥淎鈥 and 鈥淏鈥 fit into an existing web. This is called 鈥渘egotiation.鈥 Each piece of information requires a person to ask, 鈥淗ow does this fit in with what I already know?鈥 The challenge of teaching is that the connection to 鈥淐鈥 doesn鈥檛 always happen.
Before writing, we need background knowledge, and SWH is a guided-inquiry process with a built-in reflection tool. It鈥檚 easy to see that if you mention a walk outside, the mental pictures and experiences would be vastly different for someone who lived in Alaska as opposed to someone who lived in Florida. Each observation would be correct for that time and place, yet the students would argue about the answer. SWH takes this guided process of observation and critical thinking, and then combines it with the and the designed to help students make
Fostering Discussion
In my classroom now, discussions happen after students have written claims and provided evidence, creating reflection opportunities and cementing the long-term understandings of content and the big ideas. Engaging questions to ask include: What is your claim? What is your evidence? Why do you think that? What did you observe? What data did you collect? Praise statements could include: Great idea! I agree with you. You have a good point. That is an interesting idea. Thanks for helping me think this through. We practice this in teams at the beginning of the year and review as needed.
I knew we were making real progress when we had a student make a claim that an apple was not alive. The room quickly divided into whether the claim was true or not, and students were yelling and interrupting, asking 鈥淚s the apple attached to the tree or lying on the ground?鈥 During these sessions, my job is to guide the discussion, so I told students to physically choose which side they were on by moving to either side of the room. Then I reminded them of respectful discussion expectations and that one student should speak at a time.
For the next 20 minutes, I didn鈥檛 say a word. Let me repeat: I didn鈥檛 say a word! I observed my 6th graders negotiating with each other like members of the United Nations. 69传媒 moved back and forth as they listened to arguments. 鈥淒id you consider the fact...鈥 鈥淵es, but it said in our book that...鈥 Finally, the last stubborn scientists joined the side of the room, supporting the idea that the apple still attached to the tree is indeed alive.
I could have just told them that it was alive, but that would not have allowed them to think critically about the characteristics that make something alive. There were some semi-logical arguments that it was not alive based on some misconceptions. These were analyzed and then corrected. This negotiation not only increased the likelihood the students will remember this fact, but will also help to generalize these characteristics to other living things and to generalize the process to other critical thinking needs. The social context of teenage discussion is very rewarding to them and therefore leads to deeper thinking and stronger writing. The (Part II) provides an outline for this critical thinking. I have tweaked this for my 6th graders, and this is one of a variety I use. From this framework, quality learning ensues, including stronger, integrated writing.
It usually takes 18-24 months for behavioral changes to occur. We have had some great discussions with guidance from me using questions like, 鈥淲ho wants to agree or disagree with that claim?鈥 鈥淲hat evidence do you have to disagree?鈥 鈥淲hy do you agree?鈥
When students ask me 鈥淚s this right?鈥 I don鈥檛 answer. Instead, I turn the learning back on them with : 鈥淲hat do you think the answer is?鈥 or 鈥淲here can you find more information on that?鈥 When they get frustrated, I remind them, 鈥淲hat鈥檚 our motto?鈥 And they will answer, 鈥淚 am a scientist, I can think critically...鈥
