Designing a Unit in Science

Part 1: What do we want in a science unit?

I have been asked a few times how I design my units and lessons for science. The first time I was asked, I was really not sure and found it challenging to explain. Right now I am starting to design a new chemistry unit for grade 10 science, so I thought this might be a good opportunity to examine my work process and figure out what I'm doing! A bonus is that this is a unit that is outside of my comfort zone: I am a physicist who last studied chemistry in high school! Yikes!

I find the beginning of the design process to be the most challenging: to understand the learning goals and the general strategies we will use to meet them. As many of us do, I start with the curriculum documents.

Examine the curriculum. Read over the curriculum documents for the grade 10 chemistry unit. Then read the document for the grade 9 chemistry unit and the related grade 11 chemistry units. This gives a sense of the raw content to cover as well as the relationships between past and future learning.

This is only modestly helpful! I personally feel a sense of unease because the curriculum documents fail to present a clear narrative thread that makes sense from a scientific perspective, as opposed the taxonomical perspective that many educators and bureaucrats take. A traditional approach that is often codified in textbooks is to break up scientific knowledge into well defined units, break up those units into topics, and present those topics in a sequence that makes logical sense to those who already have the big picture. This approach tends to be exhaustive, in the sense of presenting all the discrete pieces of knowledge that fall under each topic, rather than inquisitive. It is an approach that makes sense to teachers but hides the science: the approach does not reflect how scientists work and think. So, I will try a different approach:

Think like a scientist. Why is anybody interested in these topics? How were the ideas first developed? What were the landmark historical experiments that allowed people to figure out this stuff? What evidence did they see that led to the development of these ideas? And how do contemporary practicing scientists use these ideas?

This is how I try to find the narrative thread that draws the ideas of the unit together and makes sense from the perspective of somebody using the process of science to explore the world. A quick reminder about science is helpful: it is usually instigated by someone making a surprising or puzzling observation and realizing they don’t know what is going on!

Find the scientific narrative. Develop a sequence of explorations, preferably based on observations that can be made in the classroom, that leads students through the development of the unit’s scientific ideas. One long arc is preferable but is often not possible. There may be a few different starting points that are needed in order to cover the unit’s main ideas.

There should be a sequence of reasoning that leads from observation, to idea, to new observations, and so on, forming a scientifically informed narrative arc for the unit of study. This approach helps bring a strong conceptual unity to the ideas that are covered, since they build on one another as our understanding deepens and as we use newfound tools to tackle more disparate and complex phenomena. This doesn't have to follow or mimic a particular historical sequence of discovery; often the actual history is very messy and complex. However, our students are discovering these ideas for the first time, so the sequence of exploration needs to make sense to them as they build, explore, and test the ideas. This can be quite challenging given the jumble of ideas that are often presented in curriculum documents; these documents are seldom designed by experts in both science and learning!

Focus on what is important. Identify the most important ideas in the unit and the supporting ideas that lead to it and from it. Pretty much everything else should be eliminated from the unit.

Content from the curriculum documents often needs to be removed. It takes time to develop a scientific understanding through inquiry; we must cover less content to allow students to build a deeper understanding.  We need to do a cost benefit analysis for the effort that is put into learning a new idea. If that idea is rarely used within the unit of study, then it is probably not worth learning. My favorite example that makes my head spin every time I see it comes from the grade 9 curriculum document for the chemistry unit where it mentions the idea of viscosity (page 52, C2.1). Really? This is totally bizarre and an all too common example of the taxonomical approach: the idea of viscosity falls into the category of “physical properties” but is of extraordinarily little use in the unit and is presented with little or no physical motivation or exploration (Why are liquids viscous? That's not for grade 9's to explore!) So, sometimes a lot of work is needed to find the truly important ideas and skim off the dross. This is what a curriculum document should do for us, but here we are.

Authentic skills and meaningful tasks. The skills students develop in the unit should model skills or thought processes used by practitioners. This will help to determine the major tasks that we incorporate in the unit. The more authentic the tasks are, the more intrinsically motivating they will be for our students. Practitioners also work in teams, so group work and collaboration are essential elements of the unit design. The majority of student time should be devoted to meaningful tasks as opposed to the sharing of information (direct instruction).

How do people outside of high schools use science ideas? There are a lot of curious practices that take place in high school classrooms that bear no resemblance to the way people use scientific knowledge in the wider world. Some of these might be pedagogically useful but others are likely just crutches that teachers lean upon to manage a disjoint and unscientific curriculum - or they mimic the ways in which the teacher was taught. Outside of high school, people use scientific knowledge to: explain things (understand what has happened), make predictions (describe the future), test ideas (check their understanding), or build or do useful things (change the future).  Our students should spend most of their learning time doing these things.

Learning is about connections. Learning will be deeper and more useful when many connections are made between new content and content elsewhere in the course, in past study, or from students’ experiences. Routinely draw connections whenever possible, especially amongst the most recently learned ideas and the key ideas of the course. If an idea is actually useful for high school study, it should be connected to many other ideas in the unit and beyond.

We want to avoid introducing an idea or skill, briefly using it, and then dropping it for the rest of a unit. Students’ understanding, especially of complex concepts, will become much deeper when they regularly use new skills or ideas in a variety of situations throughout the unit and hopefully across the entire course. This suggests approaching each task more thoughtfully and drawing more connections with each experiment or demonstration. If the students have the ability to draw a lot of ideas out of a situation, they should regularly practice this. There is a risk of this becoming tedious, but if it is done well, even a simple experiment or demonstration becomes very rich and encourages engagement and a deeper understanding.

Context is everything. When an idea is introduced, make sure it is used immediately. Don't introduce ideas well in advance, thinking they will be useful a week or two later. Don't review skills that aren't immediately applied. Learning is contextual and time sensitive: unless ideas are immediately useful and then regularly reinforced, they will be soon forgotten. It is not necessary to cover all of a topic at once: cover the parts that will be used and return to the topic later when other parts are needed.

The instinct to be exhaustive is a powerful one amongst teachers. Resist the urge! What is most useful for students is what is relevant to the task at hand. A major problem is that often there is no task: the learning is being done in a scientific vacuum; no greater question is being answered, no problem is being solved.  Make sure what you teach them is targeted to an immediate task, even “boring stuff” like the rules for naming compounds.

This outlines the general thinking that I use when I design a science unit or lesson. As I work through this process and develop the grade 10 chemistry unit, I will provide further updates. I hope you have found this discussion interesting or helpful! Stay tuned for more!