Reflections

Kristy:

As we tackled the issue of educating teachers about scientific literacy, I reflected on what I want to be doing in the classroom myself, what I want to be teaching, and who I want to be as a teacher. I consider being a reformed minded teacher, I want to ensure that I am providing my students with authentic, inquiry-based science learning. This calls for the need to teach the scientific practices and embrace the nature of science. Doing so, inherently teaches students both scientific literacy as well as critical literacy skills. As the New London Group (1996) describes, “Critical literacy entails a process of naming and renaming the world, seeing its patterns, designs, and complexities, and developing the capacity to redesign and reshape it” (Luke, 2012, p.9). Thus in both thinking and engaging in scientific practices, such as the Next Generation Science Standard (NGSS) practices of Analyzing and Interpreting Data, and Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information, students are experiencing science with a critical lens. Through such skill development, students gain access to that “reshaping of the world” by sharing their perspectives, evaluating and revising current knowledge, and collaborative co-constructing new knowledge. Such skill sets will not only help students thrive in the classroom as they engage with authentic, science problems, but beyond the classroom, helping students to make informed decisions as informed citizens.

To remain reformed minded and focused on building science literacy and critical literacy skills among my students, I must also remember my role in shaping students’ experience. “How educators shape and deploy the tools, attitudes, and philosophies of critical literacy is utterly contingent: It depends upon students’ and teachers’ everyday relations of power, their lived problems and struggles, and...on educators’ professional ingenuity in navigating the enabling and disenabling local contexts of policy” (Luke, 2012, p.9). Literacy requires an understanding of the learning context, the intersection of technology, the power dynamics and surrounding policies, and most importantly the people. When learning is taught as a cultural process, when humans embody the content being taught (Gee, 2004, p.39), there is such opportunity to learn literacy as well. As Gee (2004) describes, learning as a cultural process is when the [science] learners:

collaborate with them [the physics masters] on projects that the learners could not carry out on their own. Learners work in a “smart” environment filled with tools and technologies, and artifacts that store knowledge and skills they can draw on when they do not personally have such knowledge and skills. Information is given “just in time” when it can be put to use (and thus better understood) and “on demand” when learners feel they need it and can follow it…Learners see learning physics as not just “getting a grade” or “doing school,” but as part and parcel of taking on the emerging identity of being a physicist. (p.13)

By learning in such a way, science learners are immersing themselves in a way of thinking, doing, practicing, and being part of a discipline of study. As they engage in the activities of reading, composing, listening, viewing, writing, and communicating information (Coiro, et al., 2008, p.5) they are each engaging in literacy practices, and simultaneously, each building an individual identity - the “right sort of identify for a given situation” (Gee, 2004, p.49) that will enable each learner to participate as a competent and empowered individual.

Thus, so as I plan for my future teaching, I will remember the identity piece that develops with budding literacy skills – both my own as a learning facilitator, and the identities of my students who are adopting the culture and mindset of science. I will center my teaching around a critical approach to literacy and science, with the ultimate goal of developing my students’ identities and building self-agency. Lastly, I will remember that literacy itself is constantly evolving, and is “multiple, multimodal, and multifaceted” (Coiro, et. al, 2008, p.7;14). I, therefore, must also change, adapting my teaching practices as new literacies and science practices develop and more importantly, as the needs of my students also change.

Works Cited

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies

and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D.J. Leu (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into practice, 51(1), 4-11.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.

Heather:

Kristy, Patrick, and I decided to focus our project on scientific literacy as a social justice issue. As science educators, we identified “scientific illiteracy” a problem in our educational system and our global community. It is far too easy to forget that being scientifically literate is a privilege afforded to only the fortunate in our society. With this understanding, I situate teaching scientific literacy as a social justice issue in my classroom. I believe that it is my duty to help my students develop scientific literacy. As I move forward in my role as a science educator and consider implementing critical literacy projects in future teaching contexts, I will remember this Scientific Literacy Conference project and the work done for this class.

My studies in this course helped me realize that science has its own set of disciplinary literacies. The subject-specific vocabulary and unique communication styles associated with science challenges some students; many people grow up thinking that they are “not good at science” or “cannot understand ‘science talk.’” In these cases, students are struggling with the “specialist” language of science. As Gee writes, “For example, a physicist or computer scientist can write in the language of physics or computer science and he or she can talk a version of it too (e.g. in a lecture)” (Gee, 2004, p.15). Helping students develop fluency in the “specialist language” of science is one way to ready a new generation of scientifically literate citizens.

However, in order to develop scientific literacy, students need support from their teachers. As a future science teacher, I understand that I play an important role in educating the next generation of decision-making citizens. As such, it is crucial that I do not fall into the common trap that Moje describes in the following excerpt: “Many science, social studies, and mathematics teachers in my teacher education courses initially reject the idea that they are the best people to teach the conventions of literacy in their disciplines, arguing that language education is a discipline unto itself” (Moje, 2008, p.98).

According to Moje, many science teachers feel that it is the “English teacher’s job” to teach language. However, I understand in order to foster scientifically literate students, I must teach language literacy in my classroom as well. For example, I often ask my students to express their understanding of scientific processes through written language. As Pytash writes, “Often, students writing in science and social studies focus on writing opinions and informative/explanatory texts. Within each type of writing, there are authentic genres valued by the discipline that embody these text types” (Pytash, 2014, p.94). In order to support my students in the tasks of scientific writing, I must also teach language literacy skills in the context of science.

Strong language literacy skills support and enhance student learning of scientific knowledge and practices. As a future science teacher, I will try my hardest to remember this connection and the lessons learned in this course. If I hope to one day participate in a scientifically literate society, I must play my part as I educate the next generation of citizens.

References

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.

Pytash, K. E., & Morgan, D. N. (2014). Using mentor texts to teach writing in science and social studies. The Reading Teacher, 68(2), 93-102.

Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling, pp. 21-54. New York: Routledge. Chapters 3 &4.

Patrick:

As we attempted to shift the definition of what qualifies as a scientifically literate person towards our more expansive, inclusive, and student-as-agent definition I was able to reflect on a number of the influences that critical literacy has had on my own thoughts and values related to science education. Coiro (2008) reminds us that what we are preparing students for now, in our technologically advanced society, is not longer dependent on fluency within a single static media format. What students need to develop is the, “ Larger mindset and the ability to continuously adapt to the new literacies required by the new technologies that rapidly and continuously spread…” (Coiro, 2008). In a disciplinary specific literacy, science for instance, this means we are no longer providing students with information, but rather providing them with the skill set and opportunity to acquire and synthesize new information (experiment, collect data). Students construct understandings using these skills (argue claims, apply conceptual models of phenomena to new phenomena). How then do we create these opportunities for students that our new definition of scientific literacy calls for?

Gee (2015) and Moje (2008) had a great influence on my own thoughts regarding how to extend effective critical literacy education to students. I was surprised at Gee’s assertion that the best forms of education, that are immersive, sandboxed, exciting, and constructivist are found in games (2015). After some consideration, I totally agree. When we look at the types of learning experiences that we want our students to engage in; to become a part of the scientific workbench community; to con-construction language and knowledge being used; to act as scientists using scientific practices -what we are doing is creating a “game like” simulation for the students to take part in. Moje (2008) emphasizes then that we can effectively create these simulated environments for students through the use of multiple forms of representation of content and ideas to create a more “real to life” experience for the student. When we consider the types of work and career paths that current students will be experiencing in the future what our concern becomes or should be is the appropriate preparation of our students for those paths. Reminded by Coiro (2008) of how quickly technology is changing our world, it becomes irrelevant to have students be able to memorize fact and be able to take tests. What we need to prepare them for is a world that changes drastically and rapidly day to day. Moje (2008) and Gee (2015) demonstrate some ways we can mimic these experiences.

So what might one of these experiences look like? What I came to realize throughout the course was how much of what is called for by researchers like Moje, Gee, and Coiro is provided for and created within classrooms and experiences truly influenced and motivated by social constructivism. What I am immediately reminded of is my experience with Project-Based Learning. PBL can be most simply defined as a model of education that orients student learning around a project or complex problem (Thomas, 2000). Foundational features for a PBL are: projects are complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems; students are involved in the design, problem-solving, decision making, and investigative activities; students are given the opportunity to work autonomously over extended periods; project culminate in realistic products and presentations (Thomas, 2000). Upon this base a number of other experiences and learning opportunities can also be incorporated. In effective PBL students gain knowledge and skills through a wide variety of activities and within varying domains of knowledge (Tamim, 2013). In such a learner focused environment, students display a great deal of agency in the direction of their education. By taking part in the planning of, design of, and implementation of solutions to the various project they work on student engagement is an inherent part of the PBL process. Consider the Buck Institute's “Essential Design Elements for Gold Standard PBL”(What is PBL, 2016). Three of these elements speak directly to increasing levels of student engagement, namely: Sustained Inquiry, Authenticity, and Student Voice and Choice (What is PBL, 2016).

PBL creates the immersion, authenticity, and sandboxed atmosphere called for by Gee (2015). Integrates the multimodality emphasized by Moje (2008), and relies on authenticity and the interaction between adaptation and larger mindset that Coiro (2014) describes. When students are working on “real” problems, especially with a local context or product (Comber & Nixon, 2014), or with “real” tools and processes this authenticity creates a motivating environment in which students have a role within the actual world outside of the classroom. When students wonder why they are learning something or investigating a certain technique it has a direct relationship to the world around them. Moving forward in my own practice I will continue to integrate PBL further into my own pedagogical practice as mode through which to engage students in critical literacy and disciplinary specific literacy.

References

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D.J. Leu (Eds.)

Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Routledg.

Comber, B. & Nixon, H. (2014). Critical literacy across the curriculum: Learning to read, question, and rewrite designs. Chapter 7 in J. Z. Pandya & J. Avila (Eds.), Moving critical literacies forward: A new look at praxis across contexts. (pp. 83-97). New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling, pp. 21-54. New York: Routledge. Chapters 3 &4.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.

Tamim, S. R., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Definitions and Uses: Case Study of Teachers

Implementing Project-based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based

Learning, 7(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1323.

Thomas, J. W. (n.d.). A Review of Research on Project Based Learning (Rep.).

What is Project Based Learning (PBL)? (n.d.). Retrieved August 03, 2016, from

http://bie.org/about/what_pbl.