STEM Teacher, Transportation Supervisor Email Science Teaching Philosophy
After spending the last twenty-seven years in the secondary science classroom, my belief system for what constitutes good science teaching has undergone many changes. Initially, I believed that all one had to do to become an effective science teacher was to master the content. I believed that if I knew my subject matter inside and out, the rest of the puzzle pieces would magically fall into place. The time I have spent in the classroom both here in the United States and abroad as a Peace Corps volunteer have taught me that I was only half right in my belief about content mastery. Over the years I have discovered that having a strong grasp of your content allows you to turn your focus outward, toward your students. And when I was able to do that, I learned very quickly that content, though important, was certainly not the end of the story.
I have learned that students seem to learn science on a much deeper level when a constructivist methodology is used. I realize that the word "constructivism" conjures up many images in the minds of educators and education researchers, and not all of those images are positive. I have very specific guidelines in my own personal definition of constructivist teaching. I believe that the skilled science teacher must be able to create a situation wherein the student is solely responsible for creating his or her own working mental model of the material being studied. The teacher can help ensure this happens by paying particular attention to the context in which they introduce new material. They can also help facilitate student learning by carefully playing the role of a mentor rather than a rote disseminator of scientific principles. What I mean is that a teacher should not be too quick to volunteer information to their students. Instead, the teacher should build upon what the student already knows and skillfully guide the student toward a more correct mental model, rather than just telling them the answer. Here is where a strong content mastery pays dividends for the teacher, because when the students are encouraged to think for themselves, the mental paths they construct can sometimes pose a major challenge for the teacher to ensure they are going in the right direction. The teacher needs a solid grasp of the content to reign in chains of thought that can (and usually do) go in a million different directions.
I am also a firm believer in the power of group learning. When students are allowed to work together as a group, and use each other as sounding boards to defend lines of thinking, or to justify a particular problem solving strategy, I have found that students internalize the process more than they would by simply completing a problem set alone, for example. I have used aspects of both the Modeling program and Physics by Inquiry with my physics students, and have seen evidence of lasting conceptual change by comparing pre and post-test Force Concept Inventory data. I also have the benefit of having students return to me throughout their undergraduate journeys through chemistry and physics, and I have heard dozens of times how helpful the hands-on group format I use to convey information has been for them at the next level. When they are part of an interactive group setting, I have found that the fruits from combined efforts are often more substantial than even my best students are able to attain on their own.
In science, I believe that teachers need to be especially aware of the fact that changing a pre-established mental model for a particular phenomenon is a major challenge. Students hang on to preconceived notions they have formed with amazing tenacity. The goal of any good science program should be to promote and search for evidence of lasting conceptual change, even if this comes at the expense of the amount of material covered in the course.
I also believe that anyone is capable of learning science. That is not to say that all students should be placed a class taught a particular way or at a particular pace, but if the curriculum is designed with the needs of the student in mind, students with widely varying ability levels can become scientific thinkers. It may take some of them considerably longer to get there, but if they are allowed to progress at their own pace (and not all shoved into a single section like sardines in a can, but rather differentiated so that the methods of content delivery can be likewise differentiated), it is my belief that almost anyone can learn to think scientifically. My time as a Peace Corps volunteer taught me how important context, individuality, and social interactions were to learning science in a culture very different from my own, and I have since found that these themes permeate our own Western culture as well.
I am also a firm believer in the presence of hands on "inquiry-based" instruction in science. I know that "inquiry" is another buzzword that bothers some people in the education community, but my definition is specific. When I use the term inquiry, I interpret it to mean a curriculum similar to Physics by Inquiry or Modeling. Just placing students in the laboratory is not enough. There must be a structured series of events with the student at the center of the process that is orchestrated by a competent teacher who is constantly evaluating his/her students for evidence of lasting conceptual change. The idea seems to be catching on. Some years ago in a district I previously worked in, I pleaded my case for an increase in laboratory resources for our science department. With the help of some concerned parents and interested businesses, we were able to raise over $60,000 within a few short months. This was clearly a major benefit for the children of the Richland School District. I believe it is in the laboratory where mental models really begin to take shape, and subsequent problem-solving activities should serve as enhancements to the laboratory experience, not the other way around.
Science education is more than just a conglomeration of facts and formulas. It is more than simply following a lock-step recipe to arrive at a pre-determined answer. I believe that too many programs place too much emphasis on paper and pencil assessments, both formative and summative. Science involves creativity, imagination, critical thinking, logic, and an ability to fill in the gaps. Science teachers need to focus on each of these aspects if we are truly going to create the next generation of scientists. As such, science teachers need specific, enhanced training that focuses on the learning processes that occur within the context of a science lesson. Content, though important, is not enough. Science teachers need training in specific methods to utilize that content effectively to create lasting conceptual change within the minds of their students, even if this comes at the expense of not covering as much material in a particular course. For example, the Modeling program for physics is structured in such a way that nearly all of the school year is focused on Mechanics. This is a major paradigm shift from the classical philosophy that says Mechanics should be about 25% of a typical physics course. However, research shows that students completing a Modeling curriculum are more likely to internalize overarching aspects of physics that can later be applied to the topics they are not exposed to while Modeling. This was a major topic of my doctoral dissertation. Quantity at the expense of quality does not result in lasting conceptual change. Fewer topics with more time for reflection and critical thinking seems to be of greater benefit to students at the high school level. The data to support these claims has been gathered since the mid 1980’s. Despite this, there is a great deal of work to be done in this area. Awareness of the problem is the first step. I am acutely aware of the problem, and am both willing and eager to become part of the solution. We have a long way to go, but I believe we can get there if we don’t give up. This is what twenty-seven years in the science classroom, coupled with spending the last sixteen years of my professional life gathering real-time data on this very subject has taught me.
Sincerely,
Dr. Randall Gordon Ketola
31 August 2022