|
|
|
|
|
|
February 2004 Newsletter |
|
Dates to Remember Feb 9 – T-Shirt Deadline Mar 3 - MarchMeetingMar 16 – Science Summit Mar 19 – Registration deadline for Apr 24 CEOE Apr 7 – April Meeting Apr 9 – Last day to drop! Apr 24 – CEOE Tests May 3-7 – Finals Week!! May 21 – Registration deadline for June 26 CEOE Jun 26 – CEOE Tests
|
Shannon White - Publicity/Newsletter I promise I won’t send this newsletter to everyone 10 times like I did the last one. The problem is fixed and I know what I am doing now. First I want to let everyone know that our T-shirts are designed and ready to print, now all I need are the orders. I will be taking orders until next Monday (Feb 7th). Small through X-large shirts are $10, 2XL is $11.50 and $13 for 3XL. I will have a replica of what the shirts will look like at our February 4th meeting (Ed107 or BA C121 @2:30). If you are unable to attend but still want to order you can contact me or Dr. Adams. The NOMSTA (Northeastern Oklahoma Math & Science Teachers) meeting on January 31st went great! I saw a lot of familiar faces from last years meeting and a few of our NSU-NSTA members. I was very glad to see you guys at the meeting. You can gain a lot from the NOMSTA meetings if you fully utilize them. Amanda Bennett and I attended the meeting together and received all kind of free stuff and information. My favorite thing about the meeting was getting all of the neat classroom activity ideas. Anyway it was great, thank you everyone who attended, it shows you care.☼ |
|
Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction By Valerie Strauss - Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 3, 2004; Page A12 First came the wars over how to teach reading and math to young
students. Now the fighting has spilled into science. The battleground: California, vanguard of educational trends, a state
with so much clout that its selection of textbooks influences editions sold
across the country. The issue: broadly, the best way to teach science. Specifically,
whether a state panel is trying to unduly limit "hands-on"
instruction (lab experiments and practical projects) in kindergarten through
eighth grade as part of a back-to-basics movement. The major players: the California Curriculum Commission, which
advises the state Board of Education and has recommended new criteria for K-8
textbooks that allow for a maximum of 20 to 25 percent of hands-on material.
In opposition are many classroom teachers and scientists -- including leaders
of the National Academy of Sciences and the California Science Teachers
Association -- who say the recommendation makes no sense in a field that is
all about discovery. "What is being proposed is beyond idiotic," said Jackie
Goldberg, a former teacher who chairs the state Assembly's education
committee and recently was appointed to the curriculum commission.
"There isn't a scientist who thinks you can do science without hands-on,
and then you say, 'We are going to artificially limit the amount of
instruction that can be hands-on.' It is unbelievable." Thomas Adams, executive director of the curriculum commission, said
critics are misrepresenting the panel's views. He said commission members are
trying to balance the need for a comprehensive science curriculum with the
limited science background of many K-8 teachers. Twenty to 25 percent of
hands-on instruction seemed like "the most reasonable amount of time for
someone faced with the challenges of limited facilities and limited
time," he said. "What we want are materials that all teachers can use,"
Adams said. " . . . There are some people who are convinced that the only
way that students learn is in a discovery method." Rae Belisle, executive director of the California Board of Education,
which will vote on the commission's textbook recommendation next month, also
said there was no intent to mandate a maximum amount of hands-on learning. But many science teachers say that there is no research to justify a
20 to 25 percent limit, and that even if the commission isn't trying to
restrict hands-on science, the new textbook criteria would have that effect.
"If publishers are not allowed to put more than 25 percent hands-on
materials into their books, then teachers will have books that, in effect,
don't give them the alternative," said Christine Bertrand, executive
director of the California Science Teachers Association. At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement about how students
learn best -- a debate also swirling around the federal No Child Left Behind
Act, which emphasizes basic math and reading skills and the use of
standardized test scores to measure progress. Supporters of a philosophy known as "direct instruction"
believe that students are served best in teacher-led classrooms that rely on
structure, drilling and textbooks. They say that without the basics, students
can't learn more complex scientific theories, and that hands-on-dominated
curriculum doesn't offer enough content. Critics of this approach say research shows that students learn best when
they are allowed to discover material themselves and that back-to-basics
programs leave no room for higher-level thinking. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said
the California curriculum commission's recommendation, if approved, would be
harmful to students. "They are pushing very hard the dogmatic position
of the 'direct instruction' crowd and emphasize what students know,
not what they are able to do or understand," he said. "I strongly
believe that they will turn even more students off of science and that they
will work directly against the vital interests of California business and
industry, who need a workforce of high school graduates who are able to solve
problems using logic and evidence." For years, the National Science Foundation has funded new hands-on
science programs for schools, many of which are opposed by a majority of
members of California's curriculum commission. The commission, for example, has refused to approve a K-8 hands-on
science program called Full Option Science System, developed at the Lawrence
Hall of Science at the University of California at Berkeley. The creator,
Lawrence Lowery, said it was designed for novice teachers, and some
California school districts like it so much that their leaders have found a
way to purchase the program. Kim Bess, director of science and educational technology for the San
Diego schools, is one of them. "They [commission members] still think that if you do 'hands-on'
science, students are playing and it's not real," she said. "They
haven't paid any attention to what we've learned about how the brain works.
They haven't paid any attention to the literature on how people learn." Several curriculum commission members declined to comment, including
Stan Metzenberg, assistant professor of biology at California State
University at Northridge, who was heavily involved in creating the state's
science curriculum standards. When asked about the debate unfolding in California, teachers and
students in the Washington area said they could not understand any attempt to
restrict hands-on learning. "I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life,"
said Peter Petrossian, a science teacher at Pyle Middle School in Bethesda.
Petrossian, who uses numerous innovative hands-on activities to engage his
students, said: "It flies against all the current thought in educational
psychology and, well, common sense. I think one of the things science has
going for it is the fact that we can use so many modalities to reach our
students -- even the old adage of 'tell a man how to fish versus show a man
how to fish.' Yikes!" Justin Bar, 12, a seventh-grader in Petrossian's class, said he has learned to love science -- and remember more of it -- because of all the hands-on work he is assigned. "We learn more that way because it's more fun," he said. |
|
Websites of
interest: |
|
2003-2004 Year
Officers |