Earlier this year, I was asked to participate (as a subject) in a research study examining teacher’s expertise as it relates to pedagogy, subject expertise, and inquiry (research) skills.  During an interview, I was asked to recall a meaningful experience that influenced my teaching.  I have orally told this story many times, but the researcher was recording and transcribing.  I was fortunate to receive a copy of the transcript and am sharing it below:

Question:  Can you recall what experiences informed your understanding of science teaching?

My response:

Yes! I can very much pinpoint the event that really helped focus and change my perception of myself as a science teacher. And it took place in March 1998. I was working with a teacher and he said, Frank you would really like this event, is called the Junior Science and Humanities symposium.  It takes place at UConn and I really encourage you to go. I think you are going to get a lot out of it.  Take a couple of students if you would like, and by the way, can you take my son too.  He’s at the right age and I think it would be good for him to go. So I went to this symposium at the University of Connecticut.  What I found were students presenting results from their research. It took place in 15-minute platforms: they did 15 minute talks followed by questions and answers from the audience.  I was sitting in the audience utterly mesmerized by these students – how well they were presenting.  I sat back and said what a fool I had been. As a neophyte teacher, I was teaching the way I was taught.  Here I had my mind opened to remind me what really made a very positive influence in my development as a scientist and that was working in a research laboratory.  Watching those students I realized what was meaningful to me – what made me a good student of science.  It was not the didactic book knowledge but rather the meaningful exploration of science as a way to develop knowledge. So I walked away from that event saying this (authentic, applied research) is what I should be doing.  From that point, I really started to shape my philosophy of education.  At that point I did not know what inquiry meant or perhaps I had not defined it as well as I do today, but I understood the value of doing authentic research.  The Junior Science and Humanities Symposium really shaped my whole philosophy of teaching – that we needed to move students towards the individualization and the authentic opportunities for them to do meaningful science. So I can confidently say that was the most important experience in my professional career to date.

There is so much more to the story too.  At that symposium there were also students presenting posters.  I went up to one of the students who has developed this device and it was basically a homemade spectrophotometer:  it’s a device used to measure interference of light.  He was using it for photosynthesis or some whatever reason. He was very proud of himself and I was chatting with him and his teacher happened to be there. The students was from Greenwich High School, which was the next town from where I was teaching.  I met this teacher, we really got on very well, and he became a mentor for me to inculcate me to doing science research process with students.  He really was a wonderful teacher and it was an amazing experience in the sense that I recognized what I valued in my education and also I met someone who shared the same values as I did.  We both had extremely positive experiences doing research with students.  He became a mentor for me.

Two students and I received a request to appear on Phil Mikan’s Corner Radio Show.  Phil’s show broadcasts from Middletown, CT and is heard on WLIS and WMRD. 

Phil asked us to join him to talk about our successes at the Connecticut Science Fair.  Both of my students were finalists and won some significant awards.

One of the most interesting comments about the experience came after we left when one student said, “Boy, I never knew all fo the things I would get to see because I did a science fair project.” 

How true.  Authentic experiences breed other authentic experiences.  I wrote about those unique experiences last year as well.  There is something magical about doing real work (in this case, science research that has an authentic audience), because “real” people want to hear about it.

Listen to the show here:

shaneevans.com

The tyranny of the bell:  the industrial model we use in secondary education to promote student learning and achievement.  The bell schedule consists of 45-minute periods where students engage in learning a discipline, then compartmentalize and move on to the next discipline.  It is an honored tradition in the educational institution, yet some are looking to move to alternative methods for promoting student learning.

The most noticable format is the block schedule.  Instead of a traditional 7 or 8-period day, the teaching and learning occurs in approximately 4 1.5-hour blocks.  The block model is often credited for promoting greater depth (although not necessarily bredth) of understanding.  In a well-planned block, students can often deeply engage in their learning and become more authentic producers of information.  I have often heard a description that I would consider a failed use of the purpose of the block:  “I gave a test for the first half and then lectured the second half.”  This is really no different than 2 45-minute blocks.  If X=45 minutes of learning and Y=45 minutes of learning, then using X+Y as a block, surely wasn’t what was intended.  Nonetheless, I am getting off track of what I wanted to write about .  .  .

I teach an applied science research class, where students develop and carry out their own projects over the course of a year.  What I am finding, is that both a 45-minute or a 1.5-hour timeframe are not enough.  I want, (I need) 3+hour blocks.  Yesterday, during February vacation, I had my lab open for students to work.  Some arrived at 9:30, some thereafter, some stayed for 4 hours, some for 8, some for 10.  One worked at Yale in the morning on an SEM, and then came to the school midafternoon and stayed until 7:30.  It was all about FLEXIBILITY.

Flexibility to learn as appropriate for the individual student.  Some were conducting experiments, some were using the computer lab to work on a poster, some were mounting posters, some were conferencing with me, some were organizing binders of research reports, some were conducting statistical analyses like ANOVAs, some were on their cell phones making arrangements for data collection at a different lab.  Each was doing what they needed to do to be successful.  Each was motivated – much of it was internal, but the external pressures of completing an assignment and presenting it for an audience of practicing scientists and engineers that weekend.

I was the principal investigator running my lab.  My students, the project managers, were engaged in behaviors of the scientific and engineering researchers.  We were THE community of practice.  We weren’t trying to be like scientists (“like real life”).  We were DOING it. 

Interestingly, we couldn’t do what we were doing – such deep learning, such authentic learning, if we were under the tyranny of the bell.  Vacation from school afforded us the opportunity to learn (in the case of this class) better than we could under normal “educational” circumstances.  I don’t know how we can operationalize this kind of learning strategy in a systemic way, and honestly don’t know if I want to all of the time . . .

www.kyb.mpg.de

What I do walk away knowing, is that education MUST take place in a variety of places and formats.  What I do know is that when the teacher assumes the role of the facilitator rather than the disseminator of knowledge, students certainly construct their knowledge better.  Better learning . . . isn’t that what we’re all seek?

This past week, my students and I attended the Science Horizons Science Fair, the Connecticut Junior Science and Humanities Symposium, and the Connecticut Science Fair.  Although we experienced enormous success for the wonderful projects they created, executed, and presented, what stands out to me most, is how these young men and women learned about themselves. 

I was speaking with one of my student’s fathers upon return from the JSHS, and I commented on how we had an opportunity to meet one of the professors that had provided feedback for the project.  Initially, the student didn’t want to approach the professor (shy, embarrassed, whatever), but I insisted he make an approach.  After speaking with him, the student, returning with a big smile, said that it was a good choice to speak with the professor.  He had a chance to thank the professor for his help.  More important, the professor conveyed how enjoyable and important he thought the student’s project was.  That kind of authentic value from a member of the community of practice easily helps justify the reason we encourage students to do applied research.  The student KNEW his work meant something, and moreover, he had effectively communicated with an adult.  The father and I spoke about how many additional skills students acquire that might on the outside not be so evident.

Fast forward several days.

Students are at the Connecticut Science Fair; boys dressed in suits and/or sport coats and pants.  They are having an awful time attaching their pinned name tags to the front of their jacket pockets.  After the judging we gather, several parents nearby.  We discuss this and that.  One says “I have such a cheap jacket, all of the pockets are fake.”  Other boys grumble with similar complaints.  Taking a deep breath, I explain to them (probably with a little laced sarcasm), that the pockets on sport coats come stitched up.  I explained that they needed to gently cut the stitches, and the pocket would open up.  The boys are in awe – the parents are belly laughing.  The father from the previous day comments, “You’re right, they learn all sorts of things in this class!”