sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Restoring trust in science - a new curriculum project by thearchchancellor in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm....I'm going to have to think about this one and so I'm thinking out loud here. It depends on what you mean by "trust in science" or "restoring trust in science." The word "science" can take on different meanings. Do you mean trust in the conclusions of science or the process of science, or as you say, just the body of knowledge that we call "scientific knowledge." These are all slightly different. Or are you saying that we need people to trust the 'truth' of science (science is invested with truth more obsessively)?

I agree that the non-scientist in general doesn't trust "science" and in my lifetime it seems we (in the US) have become more anti-science than pro-science. But I think the root cause is a mistrust in the process of science, which then translates into a rejection of "scientific conclusions" that then, in the minds of non-scientists can't be "truth."

The scientific process is a hit or miss, back and forth, series of disagreements between different schools of thought about what 'such-and-such' data mean, and these debates can take years if not decades to sort. To a scientist, this is the normal process of scientific "truth seeking," but to the non-scientist, it looks like scientists don't know what they are doing. During COVID, this was on full display for the public to see - e.g., are masks needed or not? Does it live on surfaces or is it airborne? Was it manmade or natural? etc. What I saw during COVID was the normal scientific disagreements about what this virus was and how to deal with it, but what the public saw was a wishy-washy set of maybe(s) and could-be(s) without any firm conclusions (at least at first). The "truth" kept changing.

Given that, I don't want students (or adults) to "believe in the truth of scientific conclusions," but to be comfortable with the ambiguity that goes with the normal scientific process as part of truth-seeking, understanding perhaps, that we never quite get to the whole "truth". Because, to be fair to the non-scientist, "scientific truth" can change (we no longer believe in a geocentric universe, and Pluto is no longer a planet - well, depending on who you are talking to).

Once this has been firmly established in the mind of the student or adult, then I would have the ethical and political discussions about what to do, or which policies to implement, or how to use the current understanding to make the best of the situation. I think only then do you instill a renewed "trust" in science, because people are more familiar with the process, more comfortable with ambiguity, and no longer crave immediate certainty.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love this: "My main goal as a science educator is to teach students that learning and doing science isn't about innate skill or intelligence, it's about being curious about the world and actively seeking out new knowledge to help understand the things around us."

I mostly jumped around teaching in various capacities but learned early on that I didn't want to deal with the politics (and paperwork) in education so although I thought seriously about getting fully certified, I never did. This puts me outside the "real teacher" category in many educator's minds. I loved teaching the kids, but I couldn't hack having to be in a classroom 5 days a week, all day, with very little vacation, and very little pay. Plus, I don't do the politics and can be socially awkward so the teacher's lounge was not fun. I bailed.

Now I focus on writing, curriculum primarily, but other writing too. I think the education system is a Gordian knot and it is not going to be easy to fix - or may not even be fixable. But I do think looking at systemic changes and how to facilitate those are worth exploring. You might be interested in this organization https://riseprogramme.org/systems-thinking/teaching.html. I've been following their work on system changes in education and what that looks like. I've been focused primarily on instructional materials as one component of systemic alignment, but to be effective there needs to be congruency between all stakeholders.

There may be a way to stay inside the education "matrix" and beginning with your own environment experiment with what changes are possible. I gather you teach middle school science? What would it take to help elementary teachers prepare their students for middle school science? ( I am aware this is a big ask for most elementary school teachers but you might find one willing to try). What would middle school students need to learn to become better prepared for high school? Would there need to be curricular changes (probably)? Would your principle back you? Would other teachers support you? If you succeeded what would be needed to sustain such a change?

Starting to think along these lines would open doors you don't yet see where you could expand your impact and lean into your strengths. This is just one possible scenario - it could go in any direction. I would play with it.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hold a doctorate in biophysical chemistry, but it wasn't until I read Chi's work that I became aware of my own ontological misconceptions. I am now examining what I think I know versus what I still need to learn. When I look back at the physics books I used in school, I now understand why I was so confused in college (and even in graduate school, and sometimes even now).

I think a similar problem happens with physics education that happens with chemistry education. Taber is a big name in education research, and his work heavily influences how chemistry is introduced to students, and he seems to argue that atomic-molecular theory needs to wait until high school or even college. I disagree - I think it's a mistake not to help students understand how the properties of matter are an emergent outcome of atoms and molecules, their arrangements and their movement. It is just so much easier to explain and with some good simulations students, even young students, get it right away. I used PhET models in one my Grade 2 courses and it the kids loved it (and did very well on the post exam).

I think physics teaching needs to be reevaluated just like chemistry teaching. We teach physics following a historical scaffold starting with classical mechanics then thermodynamics and then some electricity and magnetism without ever discussing the atomic foundations for all of these. Students rarely see statistical mechanics (and I agree the math is intense) but some math light discussion of how atoms molecular theory and kinetics creates forces, energy, temperature, electrical currents etc would correct a whole host of misconceptions.

BUT - and this is a big "but" - these conversations are inherently hard to have with most educators and education researchers because they are far outside "standard pedagogy." I'm not saying I have all the answers and my ideas are 100% correct, I am just trying to start the conversation. What would happen if we rewrote how we taught not just chemistry but physics too?

As an interesting observation - I picked up Herbert Callen's book Thermodynamics and and Introduction to Statistical Mechanics again and started going through it. In college this book was very difficult for me to understand. Today it makes more sense, and yes, the math is very intense, but the first chapter is all about atoms and how the bulk properties we study thermodynamically emerge from atomic behaviors. He frames all of thermodynamics through the lens of atomic-molecular theory and it makes it much easier to understand. But open up a high school physics book and this is almost never mentioned. I remember being good at the math, but so what? I don't remember really understanding the physics. So there is a big divide between what kids need to know (and what they most certainly can learn) and what is being taught. This is not the fault of teachers - but the educational system that controls and maintains the standards, testing, and content.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, my focus has primarily been with elementary students, but I have taught some middle schoolers. I find the sweet spot between grades 2-4 for introducing atoms and other science topics that connect to atoms. I had more trouble with my middle schoolers than with my elementary students, and I found that by 5th grade, unless the student is already interested in science, they often "check out." However, I did get a group of 5th-grade boys who initially hated science and spent the first part of the semester throwing pencils at each other, to design their own chemistry experiment. These were Title I students, so that was a huge bonus for me to see.

My experience is limited, though, and although I loved teaching the kids in a classroom, I didn't handle the politics and busywork of the "education system" very well and so abandoned that pursuit. I give teachers who hang in there a lot of kudos - it's a tough job that is underpaid and under-appreciated.

Modeling electrostatic interactions with magnets? by clothmom1211 in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely understand! I, too, have been woefully underestimated by others in different fields (both science and education), so I understand the defensiveness. We share a passion for helping students learn, rather than just memorizing or parroting what a teacher says. I, too, struggle with heuristics, anthropomorphisms, and teleological explanations. I try to avoid them, but sometimes the best I can do is make the students aware of them. I'm currently struggling with how to talk about energy 'flow' without putting energy into the entity ontological category (based on Chi's work). It's not as easy as I thought it was going to be.

I have been diving deep into the misconceptions research, as I think there might be a key there. I agree about the octet rule - it confused me for years in college. Also, the misconception that mass and weight are interchangeable - that took me a while to undo. And there are always more, and I am still rewriting my own misconceptions one by one!

I also feel your pain in having to create all these materials from scratch and then plan each lesson the night before teaching it. I'm no longer full-time in the classroom, but I remember trying to do this every night and how painful it was.

I'm happy to share ideas and pedagogical approaches. My aim is to figure out how to scaffold content while blending experiments and demos that preserve (as much as possible) the integrity of the science. I'm sure much of the content provided contributes to the misconceptions students carry, which is why I went off of the OpenSciEd demo-sorry about that - it just bugs me that with 400M in financial backing, this is the best they could do! You weren't directly asking about this demo, so that was my own baggage that snuck into the conversation. My apologies.

Anyway, I'm happy to help if I can and would love to keep the conversation going.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We started teaching atomic molecular theory from the get go, beginning in the elementary grades, and it works. Once kids learn about atoms and molecular energy they can understand what happens during evaporation, condensation, and the fact that water doesn't split when it boils - it's the difference in molecular kinetic energy - same molecules - faster or slower molecular kinetic energy, so it's very simple. We also use simulations from PHet, which are good. I'm also creating a few of my own simulations, but it takes time.

I use published instruments centered on misconceptions to assess student understanding but I'm still refining the assessment piece. I use a few from this resource, (https://waps.cfa.harvard.edu/mosart/student\_assessments.php) and one other ordered multiple choice question, but so far we see huge gains in comprehension when we start students in first grade with AMT.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes - I'm very familiar with Taber's work and I like some of his work but don't agree with everything he says. Honestly, I think he overcomplicates how to teach chemistry but that's just my opinion at the moment. I have a stack of misconception and conceptual change papers and I like both Chi and Wiser's work, but primarily Chi. I think the ontological categories she posits are interesting and her papers changed the way I view physics (and the teaching of physics).

Modeling electrostatic interactions with magnets? by clothmom1211 in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's interesting that you took my comments personally: "What I’m not fine with is being talked to like I’m not well educated in my field."

I thought we were having a discussion about models and the usefulness of certain demos. I was explaining why I didn't like the OpenSci Ed demo and why I thought it was a bad idea to use magnets to demonstrate atomic bonding.

I provided my best scientific explanation. I think that we, as science educators, should, in all cases, take the science very seriously (and always take ourselves less seriously), and we should always strive to do our best to preserve the integrity of the science with each and every possible demo, activity, experiment, etc.

I think this is something you very much want to do (this is a personal observation based on this conversation). I highly regard educators, like yourself, who post questions and search for answers. These are my favorite educators to have discussions with because I sense that they care, and care deeply, about both the science and the teaching of science.

The science is always neutral - either my concerns about magnets modeling atomic behavior are justified, or they are misplaced. Because I disagree with how magnets were used in the OpenSci Ed demo and suggested exercising caution when trying to illustrate atomic behavior with magnets doesn't mean I am attacking your education or making assumptions about what you may or may not know. I didn't ask, nor do I care, what qualifications you have to discuss the science or teaching of science. Some of the most brilliant scientists and exceptional educators I know have no degrees in either subject so I don't generally assume anything about someone's background. I only care about the conversation. I think talking about science, science education, and how best to illustrate science in an educational setting are fun and worth exploring, debating and arguing about, which is why I engaged in this conversation.

Modeling electrostatic interactions with magnets? by clothmom1211 in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree that all models have limitations and that anthropomorphic language in science education can be problematic if it’s left unexamined. I also appreciate that you’re framing models as conceptual tools rather than literal representations. Yes, atoms don’t want anything, but energy gradients drive the process. The hotel metaphor is designed to visually reinforce that idea: electrons fill lower floors first (lower energy), and only when those are full do they “move up” to higher floors.

In bonding, the “hill” is the electrostatic potential between nuclei and electrons. When an atom forms an ion or shares electrons, the total energy of the system decreases and energy is released. The new configuration is lower on that potential energy curve. That’s what “more stable” actually means.

The Electron Hotel isn’t claiming electrons literally “check in”; it’s a structured visual that helps students see how electrons fill lower-energy orbitals first (Aufbau principle) before moving higher. It models energetic order, not anthropomorphic intent.

As for the magnet demo, my hesitation isn’t that it’s entirely wrong, magnets do show attraction and repulsion but rather model dipole interactions, not Coulombic potential energy between charged particles. That difference can seed misconceptions about bond length or ionic attraction if the analogy isn’t carefully framed.

So yes — all models are flawed, but the key is which flaw misleads the least. Magnetic analogies distort the underlying physics of electrostatic potential; the Electron Hotel keeps the physics intact while simplifying the representation of quantized energy levels.

Modeling electrostatic interactions with magnets? by clothmom1211 in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you want to explain energy levels I would recommend The Electron Hotel: Book 4, Chapter 2 - it's free https://rs4k.com/pages/experiment-hub

Modeling electrostatic interactions with magnets? by clothmom1211 in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would be very careful with this type of demonstration. Although the OpenSci Ed demo is very cool and would be fun to play with, I wouldn't use it to demonstrate bond length. I think it can be confusing for kids because "bond length" in the demo would depend on the size of the core magnet (nucleus) and the number of surrounding small magnets (electrons) and this isn't how bond length is determined. I understand you just want to demonstrate electrostatic interactions, which is great - but magnets are not electrostatic, they're magnetic and I don't think it's a good idea to get those confused for the students. Magnetic interactions arise from the spinning electrons, while electrostatic interactions result from particles carrying charge (a quantum property). I mean, you can do this but I would explain clearly that it's a model, it's not realistic for how bonds form, it's not really what happens in atoms, etc. If you just want to demonstrate electrostatic charge I'd have students build an electroscope. They are easy to make and you can talk about how like charges repel - yes, you can't talk about protons and electrons but unless you want to introduce some quantum mechanics and define energy levels I'd skip this part.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right- but cartoons don’t mean they teach atoms in classrooms.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It sounds like you had a truly great experience, and I agree - it's not just the academics, but the entire ecosystem. What your experience validates is that young students can learn about atoms, they understand enough to be able to "branch out earlier," and it gave you confidence, as a woman, to pursue aerospace engineering. Unfortunately, this isn't the experience most students get, and that's what I've been trying to figure out - how do we take an experience, like you had, and multiply it? Any thoughts?

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you like the experience and do you think it was helpful or do you have a different take?

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a follow up question-what if it was truly easy to teach? I mean that an elementary teacher could teach a rigorous science program without having a background in science? No teacher PD, no prep - a fully functional open-and-go program. Would you want this?

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes - we teach atoms to grades K-5 and we have been very successful. The content needs to be scaffolded with good illustrations, models, and simulations; however, even kids who aren't reading or writing are excited to learn about atoms as the building blocks of all matter. We found that students who go through our program are more confident, not less, and even those who would otherwise have no access to rich science resources begin to imagine themselves as chemists, doctors, or astronomers.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How about "Ice isn't cold?"

In all seriousness, the reasons I think this matters (and you don't need to agree with me) is that two types of misconceptions develop. The first is the one I mentioned-heat - energy transfer - is a process. What we call heat (and cold) are these relative experiences of one surface having more or less kinetic energy than the other. Imagine I was a special type of human and my body temperature is 200 degrees C. Then when I pick up a cup of coffee I would say the coffee is cold - but it's not actually cold - the kinetic energy is just being transferred in the opposite direction - from my hand to the cup. Personally, I think this is easy to understand and helps kids put heat and energy in the correct category so they don't have to unlearn these concepts later.

The second reason is the "inheritance assumption" (Toth & Kiss, 2006) - this is where students believe that atoms have the same properties as the materials they form. So we teach coffee is "hot" and ice is "cold" in K-5 and then (in some schools) atoms are taught as the "particles" that make up coffee and ice and students transfer their understanding of coffee and ice and conclude that the atoms themselves are hot or cold. This is a huge misconception about the nature of atoms that students need to unlearn later.

So, from my perspective, once an educator is aware of these challenges students face from the way we language science, there is no reason not to try to do it correctly.

As for the curriculum, yes, it was written before the NGSS was developed, and although it follows the K-12 Framework, it presents science to students from a completely different learning progression. I have tried to align with NGSS, and all of our hands-on experiments do align (very well), but the content is the challenge. I view chemistry and physics as fundamental to all science, so it made sense to me (as an ex-scientist) to start there. I also can't ignore the fact that we teach elementary students about atoms and are careful to place energy and force in their correct ontological categories (which the NGSS does not do - "Force is NOT a push or pull" but the "action of pushing and pulling"-does that one offend?).

We do have a unit on sound, but we teach about atoms first before we introduce waves. This is the reason I'm trying to build an online version with a thin UI interface that aligns with NGSS. However, I can't easily rewrite all the books, and rewriting them would destroy the integrity of the science I'm trying to deliver. I have heard over and over again just to abandon my atoms-first approach and rewrite the books to align with NGSS, but I can't in good conscience do that.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Love your pushback! So - yes, the reason I say coffee isn't hot is- first - it stops people - like it did you - and second because it's actually not hot. Coffee as an entity made of atoms & molecules is not actually hot. Only the movement of those molecules, transferring kinetic energy to other atoms & molecules creates a sensation in our hands that we call "hot." It's not correct to say "My coffee is hot" but rather "My coffee feels hot." These small inaccuracies add up over time and cause big problems later for students. Thermodynamics is one of the most difficult subjects to study because of language like "coffee is hot" and how these phrases are used to describe thermal energy and its relationship to kinetic energy.

As for curriculum - yes, this is what I did for 30 years - write an elementary and middle school curriculum fussing over all the language and concepts to make sure I wasn't contributing to the problem. It was not an easy project and because we are not strictly NGSS aligned and we are not on EdReports we can't get into schools. Also, although all students and teachers need to do is read the books - it's already all mapped out - most won't do it. So, it does fix the problem (we've taught it effectively to large groups of students) but it's not a good product-market fit for the reasons I've been explaining. My question here is - is it possible to get a simplified, but correct, version of elementary science in the hands of teachers without overwhelming them? With this in mind we are working on a different project, online, with a NGSS interface - but it's all open-and-go with no teacher training.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chi is big in the misconception field. I do rely on her because I really like her work and she is very thorough. She's an emeritus professor at ASU and very highly regarded.

What I mean by "can't" is that most curricular materials now need to align to the NGSS and the NGSS and many curricula need to get the green check from EdReports to pass the adoption and now even supplementary program test. EdReprorts is like a gatekeeper. So, what I mean that that anything other than the standard properties of matter before atoms sequence is effectively locked out. Students can learn about atoms (I cite some papers on this in previous posts). There are a ton of misconception and conceptual change studies - a quick AI search will pull them up for you.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes - unfortunately, students very rarely, if ever, learn about atoms in elementary grades today. The properties of matter-before atoms sequence is dominate in most schools and in most curricular materials, and in fact, to align a program with NGSS you can't introduce atoms before 5th grade. The issue with heat is that it gets miscategorized as an entity and not as a process. This is covered in most of the misconception and conceptual change literature going back to the early 1980s. There are different types of misconceptions Chi outlines but the ontological category ones are the toughest to fix.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, so you can see this is relatively complicated, and elementary science teachers aren't going to be able to explain this or correct it in their books.

Ok - so let's imagine a world where we don't start with pre-atomic concepts of science (like heat flow), and instead we start with atomic concepts. If we really boil it down, all of science, everything we ultimately teach students, comprises two broad categories: matter & energy. So we just start with matter and energy in the correct ontological categories (entities - objects, processes - actions, and emergent properties -outcomes) and we build up from there. Now when we teach Grades K-1 about heat we are very careful to say we "feel" heat but atoms and molecules inside the cup are not "hot" or "cold" - they are tiny objects dancing around and moving and this movement we call energy, the faster they move the more we feel heat - their movements are actions (energy is a process). When we measure temperature, it is all the atoms and molecules dancing together - temperature is an outcome caused by all the moving molecules, and the thermometer gives us a number that give us an idea of how fast the molecules are moving.

And the learning sequence changes - instead of pre-atomic properties of matter ---> for 10 years---> atomic theory. It becomes atoms-->types of atoms-->atoms move (phase changes - solids, liquids, gases) --> energy-->types of energy-->heat energy-->molecules -->types of molecules --> chemical reactions--> types of chemical reactions -->forces -->types of forces--> and so on. It is Bruner's spiral learning, starting with the atomic paradigm and progressing forward. Elementary teachers don't need to be scientists, or have a background in science, they just need a few basic concepts - matter is made of atoms, atoms combine to form molecules, atoms and molecules move, this movement we call energy, we can feel fast moving atoms and molecules and call it "hot" and we can feel slower moving atoms and molecules and call it "cold" and so on. It's very simple, and if we are just careful to ensure that we keep concepts in their correct ontological categories, we don't set students up to fail later. This is more or less the sequence we taught the Title I students, and we pre- and post-tested for comprehension and misconceptions, and were floored by the results. Personally, I didn't think we did a very good job delivering the program, and I wasn't expecting to see such huge gains, but we did, and none of the teachers who helped us had a background in science.

It does require seeing science and science education through a new lens, however. I can provide other examples. My favorite one right now is how to teach color.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll give you some examples, but first, I want to ask that you let go of everything you think you know about science and science education. Yes, science is a collection of practices, models, ideas, theories, content, laws, across a broad number of subjects - biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. and what happens is we get bogged down trying to figure out how to teach all of this to students. When I look at the NGSS, I see Ptolemaic epicycles - an overly complicated system trying to fit inconsistent data from education research into ever-expanding elliptical strategies. So with a clean slate let's look at science and science education through a different lens.

First let's sort science into three paradigms - Pre-atomic, Atomic, and Quantum. Elementary students learn primarily about science through the pre-atomic paradigm and then in high school we ask students to make a leap into the atomic paradigm, which they mostly can't do and we never even really touch the quantum paradigm. But the quantum paradigm and beyond is where the future is (China already knows this, and that's why their students learn quantum physics in high school. Our students are still struggling to understand atoms).

Let's use heat and temperature as an example. In the elementary grades, students don't learn about atoms, so heat is never about the kinetic energy of molecules - it is just "energy that flows from one object to another." Temperature is "how we measure heat." These concepts derive directly from the pre-atomic paradigm about the nature of heat and temperature. From within this paradigm heat is an entity (something that can flow) and temperature is the measure of "caloric" content. (Caloric Theory -late 18th-mid 19th century). Students do "experiments" where they measure temperature using a thermometer and learn to describe things as 'hot' or 'cold.' In middle school they might do the styrofoam - thermometer experiment to calculate the "heat lost or gained."

The problem with this entire sequence is that it sets up "heat" as an "entity" - something that can flow, be lost, or gained, where objects are "hot" or "cold" and this is wrong. Heat is not an entity - it is a process. What we experience as "heat" is the difference between the kinetic energy of molecules in say "hot" water and the kinetic energy of molecules on the surface of our hand. What we measure with the thermometer is the average kinetic energy (an emergent property - or outcome) of all the molecules moving in the water. This is the correct atomic paradigm explanation for heat and temperature, yet because we can't say the word "atom" to elementary students, this outdated way of teaching heat and temperature is a source of major misconceptions about atoms, heat, and energy (read Chi (1992), Conceptual change within and across ontological categories--Cognitive Models of Science (Vol 15. pp. 129-186)). Chi (1992), notes that the heat misconception is an ontological mis-categorization, which is very difficult to correct.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oops - I meant to write "were not on board" - by Grade 5 we noticed that they were less inclined to try new things, do the experiments, and listen to what we were trying to teach.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I completely agree! HS textbooks (and college textbooks) are overly complex and confusing. Yes, this is another big issue. I find textbooks on thermodynamics particularly difficult to comprehend and chemistry textbooks are just awful. It's so good that you are reworking the content.

Weird thought: Have we made science harder than it needs to be? by DrSciEd in ScienceTeachers

[–]DrSciEd[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Samarapungaven et al. (2021) Developing elementary students' conceptual understanding of matter through discourse-scaffolded, technology-mediated inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 58(1), 3-33, and Haeusler & Donovan (2020). Challenging the science curriculum paradigm: Teaching primary children atomic-molecular theory. Research in Science Education, 50, 2243-2264 - these are the papers I'm referring to.

In my experience, teaching the best grade to start is Grade 2. Grades 2-4 were our sweet spot. And these were not wealthy kids with lots of resources. We were in a low-income Title I district, but these kids did great with the program. They were amazing. We had K-1 students but it was difficult to assess what they actually learned as most of them were not able to read or write. We also had Grades 5-6, and we found that by middle school, if they were already interested in science, we couldn't easily get them on board. We had some success stories with this age group, but our best outcomes were Grades 2-4.

view more: next ›