posted by:
|
Joni Falk
on June 1, 1999
at 3:32PM
|
subject:
|
Continuing the conversation:
|
This discussion has been quiet of late, but it should be noted that every post has been thoughtful and informative of some of the challenges facing middle school. We will continue this conversation for only two more weeks and we would like to hear from the many "listeners" who have been to shy, to date, to post. (Of course, that welcome extends to current contributors as well :)
To move the conversation along I have highlighted some recent posts and have posed some questions. I have put the questions in ALL CAPS. Please excuse this format, should you find it annoying. It was meant to highlight questions that have arisen from the dialogue this far. Broad participation from different projects will help us gain a better understanding of what is happening in middle school science reform (Thanks. joni)
Bob Box writes that at the middle school level it seems easier to push for "subject specific reform" than it is to push for "cross curricular efforts." I wonder if this is true because the latter is dependent on a school wide, (and perhaps district wide) commitment to integration. As Bob points out, science teachers are not held accountable for math content and are therefore less likely to pursue it. I wonder if behind this statement is the understanding that high stakes external assessments get in the way of efforts to integrate curriculum?
SO TO ALL THE READERS OF THIS LIST: DO YOU FIND THAT YOUR LSC IS MORE SUCCESSFUL AT PROMOTING SUBJECT SPECIFIC REFORM THAN CROSS CURRICULAR EFFORTS? PLEASE REPLY.
Bob also points to the fact that teachers profit from meeting with same curriculum teachers sharing and discussing subject matter. It is my understanding that the middle school movement has moved in the direction of teams that cut across departments, and this has in fact made it more difficult for science teachers to get together.
WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT?
Scott Hays has provided a perspective and a warning from the California experience. He speaks of the dichotomy of those who feel science is "only the facts" and those who value pedagogy that promotes inquiry and investigations. He warns against a simplistic hands on approach that does not connect to big ideas and does not embody content, and relates that such an approach fuels the arguments of "traditionalists." I am particularly interested in his hypothesis that there is "an inverse relationship between the grade level one teaches and the importance or value that one places upon pedagogy; the higher the grade level you teach, the less importance is given to how you present the material." Scott writes "so far, when trying to convince middle school teachers that we can modify the content standards in order to present the ideas within the context of investigation and experimentation, their response has been to shrug and ask "why?"
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IF THIS RINGS TRUE IN YOUR DISTRICT? IF SO, HOW IS THE ISSUE OF PEDAGOGY TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES? ARE SOME LSCS CHOOSING TO ABANDON THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTING AN INQUIRY BASED APPROACH BECAUSE OF THIS?
A FEW PARTICIPANTS HAVE ASKED ABOUT CURRICULUM THAT IS BEING USED IN MIDDLE SCHOOL. CAN PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT PROJECTS REPLY TO THIS?
The conversation has been rich and it makes me reflect on how the core values are playing out in the LSCs in terms of middle school
IS THE REFORM IN YOUR DISTRICTS CAST AS A CURRICULUM REFORM FOCUSING ON 1. SCOPE AND SEQUENCE 2. PEDAGOGY THAT INVITES INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION 3. INEGRATED CURRICULUM BETWEEN MATH AND SCIENCE AND/OR OTHER SUBJECT AREAS?
We have two weeks left to this discussion. Please, please add your insights, thoughts and comments.
|
|