posted by:
|
Scott Hays
on August 23, 1999
at 7:26AM
|
subject:
|
Questions?
|
My reading of the comments in this discussion, so far (and it seems I didn't receive any digests for the 15th, 18th or 19th of August so I may not have read everything), suggest a few common threads. If I may be so bold as to try to summarize them, it might be beneficial for those interested to comment on possible next steps.
There has been an almost universal recognition of a number of issues related to inquiry-based vs. textbook-based instruction. Many experienced MS teachers with varying degrees of content background seem comfortable with textbook/canned lab approaches (and/or uncomfortable with the more inquiry-based kit approach) and are reluctant to abandon "what kids need to know" in favor of "what kids can find out". Such resistance seems to pose a serious obstacle to change and, when coupled with inconsistant administrative/district support and a (related?) shortfall in time for training or cash to purchase materials, makes efforts to gain inroads difficult. Similarly, kit-based approaches seem to be largely unsupported by interesting, engaging text resources. If this is coupled with increasing emphasis on literacy and mathematics success (as measured by performance on high stakes multiple choice tests), then time to teach and/or provide necessary pd is significantly impacted.
What to do? Well, we can hope that some publisher out there hears the call for modular, conceptually organized units supported by engaging text that finally brings balance to the age-old conundrum of process vs content. But what do we do until then? One step might be to take the bull by the horns and develop our own materials: get some money and time (hee hee) from some source to look at the better textbook(s) and design inquiries around the content it or they present -- I am not sure if it is a copyright infringement to suggest activities to coincide with a Prentice Hall or Glencoe chapter, but if not, those developing such investigations/inquiries could post them to an agreed upon web site for others to use. But then, no one on this list has convinced me that there are any decent textbooks out there, either . . . . the two I named have been variously described as weak in content or "not very deep".
Professional development time has been an issue addressed in this forum (actually, declining amounts of time available for quality pd, especially in science). Time itself is becoming an issue, but so is the need to engage more reluctant MS teachers in inquiry to help them see the advantages of that approach. I guess the question then becomes how do we become more creative in finding ways and time (and methods) to pull teachers from the classroom?
Inequalities and inequities in support across districts seems to be a significant difficulty, as well. For a number of reasons, it appears difficult to guarantee that a change agreed to is actually implemented across all sites in a district (or even at a single site). Some have mentioned, for example, a lack of buy-in by different players from site to site. This results in resistance to change (mentioned above) by individual teachers or blocs of teachers. Others have described a lack of commited funding to support acquisition of the materials it was agreed were needed to support the adopted program. Still others have mentioned different degrees of administrative support that make the agreed upon adoption look very different from site to site ("we choose our battles" was one quoted comment). LSC's who have put all of their eggs into one particular adoption basket find the possibilities for pd promising but implementation sporadic; those who have opted for local control perhaps find more buy-in but muddier solutions to pd efforts. The question of "equal but different" may have deeper repercussions than just those for science education, but until we resolve the problem, implementation of quality science programs will not be uniform.
A few other issues were addressed in the previous comments, too. The nature of MS scehduling seems to be a major obstacle to change -- 45 minute time-blocs do not lend themselves to deep inquiry; there is not enough time to clean and set-up for revolving classrooms; etc. Short of a total restructuring of the MS, this difficulty is going to take some amazing effort and creativity to resolve. Other respondents have mentioned the very important need of materials designed for MS kids need to be engaging and multidisciplinary (with reported successes in this area--especially with inquiry-based materials). And finally, further obstacles to change seem to be the general lack of time and funding available for science instruction (despite the continued mouthing of the "importance" of science, it still seems to be a back-burner content area at most levels).
This is not quite the coherent, itemized summary I had hoped to try to provide, but perhaps it is a starting point. I am not sure if this is the place to begin looking to solutions, but many out there must be doing something to overcome these perceived and experienced problems. I am anxious to hear success stories. Or to generate ideas that might create successful efforts.
Thanks
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man. Mark Twain
Scott Hays
|
|