Teaching Science: Argument and Evidence

This tweet showed up in my Twitterfeed today...

A science classroom should be filled with the noise of students collecting evidence and arguing.

— Jennifer Weibert (@ngssfresno) July 9, 2018

I love this so much, and it sums up so much of the philosophy for teaching science that I tried to embody as a middle school science teacher, and now as I teach future science teachers as well.

I wonder how many of you reading this blog think of science class this way? Is this what you think of when you picture science class: students actively engaged in obtaining evidence to answer questions, and developing arguments to elaborate and defend a proposed answer to those questions?

I ask the future science teachers I serve to start the semester by writing a science autobiography. I assign them to write a brief reflection paper that "tells their story of their relationship with 'science'" up to beginning the semester with me. I've found this to be immensely helpful in understanding their mindset coming in to class.

Many of the students I teach are planning and preparing to become elementary classroom teachers. And the trend I've noticed is that many (I won't say most, but many) have not had a great relationship with "science" up to joining my class. While many express enthusiasm for taking the class (my reputation precedes me...), it's clear to me from the outset that many elementary ed majors come in with a little apprehension about teaching science.

This makes me wonder if there is something about they way science is taught that makes it feel this way for them--that science is perhaps "not for them?"

And, how about you? When you think about science classes you have taken, what jumps to mind for you? How was science taught? What do you remember from class?

So many of my students report that science was a class dominated by reading from a textbook and presentations (lectures? note-copying exercises?) directed by the teacher. Perhaps punctuated by some projects (collections are often mentioned by my students--rock collections, insect collections, leaf collections...) or hands-on activities that they generally remember fondly...or with some horror (ah, the classic owl pellet dissection...)

I'm not arguing against reading or teacher-directed lessons at all here. I think there is tremendous value in both of these for science learning in schools! But I do wonder if these approaches perhaps feel "safer" to elementary educators in some way? Perhaps because they can be a little more sure of the content if they are the ones in charge of it's presentation? Perhaps because they worry about things getting out of hand with too much activity in the classroom? These are valid concerns!

But that said, a major theme in my science methods course is that science is something you do. And that sense of collecting evidence, and developing an argument is key for the approach to teaching science I try to embody in my teaching practice--both when I taught middle schoolers, and now teaching future teachers. I try to give students interesting questions to investigate, and give them opportunities to determine what kind of evidence will help them answer these questions, how they will collect that evidence, and how they will share what they discover with peers.

Fundamentally, the work of science is about building arguments based on evidence. This is what professional scientists do. This is what a scientific theory is all about: what does the evidence suggest? And this is what science classes--at all grade levels, I submit--ought to look like as well.

From my science methods course this past spring...my students put on a
"science magic show" to practice eliciting questions and wonder.
(You guys, I love my job so much!)