Young Science Scholars

In the 2014-2015 school year, I was paired with elementary school teachers in Madison through Young Science Scholars, led by Dolly Ledin of WISCIENCE who has coordinated university involvement in community education through her program Adult Role Models in Science. The goal of Young Science Scholars is that, as partners in the classroom, I and my teacher partners could enhance science in the classroom by focusing on inquiry, experimentation, and explaining natural phenomenon. With respect to the teacher, the goal is that the enhanced science in the classroom is sustainable such that when the graduate student isn't there, inquiry-based science continues. With respect to the participating graduate students, the goal is to communicate the scientific process and gain an understanding of lesson planning, teaching, and discipline at the grade school level. Moreover, it is a chance to connect to the community around the university. Finally, the result of this partnership should be enhanced student learning of scientific concepts. Below, I've included a reflection I wrote during the final few weeks of the 2014-2015 school year. I had the privilege of working with two fantastic elementary school teachers at Lowell Elementary on Madison's east side: Iris and Becky.

We had one week of online play with an online circuit builder, followed by two weeks of squishy circuits. About a month after the end of the unit, I asked students to share with me what makes up a circuit. From each of our three classes, I got the same responses:

-“A circuit must go in a circle”

-“There has to be a battery or something like that”

-“Circuits use electricity to turn things on”

It was encouraging that classes were retaining the concepts a while after we’d moved on to another subject. We didn’t follow the FOSS curriculum closely at all (FOSS kits are standardized scientific activities that address grade-level standards but often lack inquiry components), but we chose activities that addressed the district standards. Recently, the students took a multi-subject standardized test, and the results on science were very positive. Becky called science the “great equalizer”, because even students that didn’t do well on math and reading did very well on the science section. To me, this is exciting because it suggests that even with our limited time, the kids were learning, not just according to our anecdotes, but according to a state test.

I believe the student scores are mostly due to student motivation. Two classroom observations this year detailed a lot of kid interest in science. The more recent observation detailed the explanations kids make about scientific observations. Of all the skills the kids have built this year, I am most proud of their explanations.

I sat with students while they reasoned out, “I don’t think it goes directly to the brain because how would it get there? It needs a way to travel to there.” And “I don’t think there is electricity at all – I think when the doctor hits your knee it’s connected to your muscle so it pulls your leg up a little.” And “It doesn’t go back to the knee like when circuits go back to the battery because muscles move the leg, so it must go to the muscle.”

What I think is wonderful about these explanations is that they are creative. At the beginning of the year, students wouldn’t want to venture from a safe answer, or would get frustrated and say “I don’t know”. Now, some students are even willing to say that they don’t agree with me and that there might be an alternative explanation for the phenomenon known as the knee-jerk reflex.

When the Goodman Center (a community center in east Madison) hosted Lowell’s Family Science Night event, in which our classroom presented a scientific activity for kids and families from Lowell, we had students lead a Squishy Circuit booth. We had used Squishy Circuits in class earlier that month, in which students hook lightbulbs and batteries up using conductive playdough as the wiring. I watched as three students sat and talked to visitors about how to make circuits, and what the purpose of the materials were. However, our students were trying to explain to visitors how the materials were working, which shows me that they understand circuits on a deeper level than just the playdough and lights. One student even went so far as to tell someone everything he knew about circuits and electricity.

The biggest issue with our set-up at Lowell is that it isn’t very sustainable. The teachers are very motivated to continue science independently, but due to their tight schedules, it will be difficult for them to set-up and clean-up science activities without a consistent group of volunteers (parents, students, other staff members). With each activity, we also had time for discussion because volunteers would clean up. However, without this logistical barrier, I think the Lowell teachers (Becky, Iris and Mike) are more confident in their ability to do science.

At the beginning of our “Microworlds” unit (a unit about life that's too small to see with the naked eye), Becky and I led class discussions about what makes something living. Not only did Becky take the lead in leading these discussions, but she steered the conversation so that kids had to justify their statements based on their own observations, or reasoning from knowledge they had. Becky’s approach to science when she speaks to students is much like how career scientists speak to each other. She’s upfront when there is something she doesn’t know, and she encourages students that the solution to not knowing something is to figure it out.

My main goal for this year was to get kids excited about science. I figured the learning of specific concepts in elementary school was less important than specific facts. What I didn’t anticipate was that the excitement in science has correlated with better test scores, and better critical thinking skills (constructing explanations), all in the same year.

Many science programs encourage fact learning and rote memorization above critical thinking and individual discovery. This year, we prioritized getting students interested in doing the work themselves, and promoted student explanation of observations, and saw benefits for both students and teachers anecdotally, as well as on a state test. Next year, more work could be done to preserve student work and document evidence of student learning more effectively.