Well, I wrote last week about the general and special relativity theories in pretty good detail. I don’t feel that the DeWitt reading amplified too much, considering I was also doing m own research on the ideas after I watched the video. Thus, I took it upon myself, I suppose, to write about the topic for last week. Had I known that this week was supposed to be about relativity, I would’ve saved last week’s essay for this week.
So instead, here is the essay I would turn in last week in hindsight. I want to highlight one of the biggest hitters that I have taken away from my graduate courses in general. Combining the few that I have taken already, with this course that taught me more on perspective and philosophy, I am discussing the new NGSS standards on a new approach to teaching the scientific method.
At first, when I understood the scientific method, as I probably am aware of it, doesn’t exist, I was confused.
It’s such an intelligent procedure. It bodes well, young people can utilize it, we make lots of cool infographics about it and use the many tools available to teach it. For what reason would NGSS dispose of the logical strategy? However, what I have come to acknowledge is that the new science and engineering practices are driving students to do science and building in more real ways. Truly, researchers and architects don’t pursue one direct path to discovery. There are conventions, and there is structure to their work, yet they don’t make only one inquiry, they hold returning to their inquiry and make more inquiries. They may modify a theory-in-the-making, on numerous occasions. They will arrive at a resolution, however understand that they have to examine more, or research more, or make another model, or start from the very beginning.
Students frequently comprehend that math and science are firmly associated. What has not generally been as clear is that reading, composing, and communication of ideas are imperative to researchers and designers also. When students are asked to ‘take part in argument from evidence,” they are either well equipped from previous literacy, or previous practice in science classes, or they are not. It is extremely evident, upon further analysis, the relationship between literacy and science.’ NGSS standard focus on crosscutting concepts, across disciplines in science, and outside of it. Emphasis placed on this can be seen with the standards such as when it is required that students be able to develop and use models, use mathematics and computational thinking, obtain and communicate information, and engage in argument from evidence. It additionally opens the entryway for more cross-curricular discussions between instructors, particularly at center and secondary school levels where subjects will in general be more compartmentalized.
So what does this have to do with scientific inquiry and getting rid of the usual “scientific method” that has been famously taught in schools over the years? In NGSS, by eliminating the box that nicely wraps the scientific method, we are taking a larger, big-picture type of an approach. The scientific method, especially as discussed in DeWitt and French in many different ways, is a compilation of several aspects of your upbringing. Scientific methodology’s foundation lies within the worldview in which we are raised, which teaches us everything from where to place importance and priority in scientific discovery to be made, to what compiles into what we consider a “good argument.” Because the scientific method cannot a fixed concept, with laid out steps, it cannot be taught in a way that limits its potential. The scientific method will look different for every student, from every background, with different worldviews for each of them. Our job as educators is to enhance the qualities that their worldview, and therefore, their scientific perspective, brings to the table of scientific discovery. This is achieved by highlighting information such as mathematics, literacy, engineering, design, and the many more cross cutting concepts emphasized in NGSS ideals.
I am still in the process of how to make sense of what it will truly look as I apply the Science and Engineering Practices. There is ‘leeway’ in the practices, yet I trust students require guidance and framework on the best way to utilize the practices to develop their logical comprehension. When I am starting another unit or idea in science, I plant to start with discrepant occasions that are bound to initiate a students’ engagement and catalyze their reasoning procedures. This will motivate them to need to know the “why” behind the concept. Once this has been established, I plan for scientific inquiry to be introduced. I will begin by investigating to find out what the student wants to know; after that I plan to give the help expected to enable the student to figure out what methods they have to start discovery. Together, with the student, I can direct the student in deciding the materials required, the measure of time required, ensuring reasonable testing is done, and affirming that it is safe to do. Even when students’ thoughts appear to be inadequate or could have a better route to success, I plan to urge them to attempt it, much like any scientist would without hindsight knowledge. At that point attract thoughtfulness regarding the way that there are numerous approaches to achieve an answer to an inquiry and that researchers need to make decisions about which is the most ideal way. These ideas are very similar to the traditional scientific method, but I think there is a lot more creativity allowed in this process.
Students need to discover that science has adaptability and is anything but an inflexible, one-way oversimplified methodology. Rather, they have to encounter science all the more precisely, similarly as researchers do. That is the purpose of inquiry and the traditional strategy won’t enable you to touch base there. Not just this, but students need to be taught that their perspectives, worldview and various skills make them unique contributors to the body of science and that they should emphasize these unique characteristics found within each of them.
Cite this Scientific Methodology’s Foundation
Scientific Methodology’s Foundation. (2021, May 27). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/scientific-methodologys-foundation/