- I have so much to teach already, how can I add another thing?
- How do I know that this approach works?
- What about transfer? Can students transfer their understanding of the causal patterns from one concept to another?
- Isn’t this really just for the most capable students?
- Does it take longer to add modeling into lesson plans?
- How does this approach fit with hands-on learning and inquiry-based learning approaches?
1. I have so much to teach already, how can I add another thing?
It is hard to add things to the curriculum. However, in this case, these patterns are part of the structure of the concepts that we are already teaching. Unpacking them encourages deeper understanding and enables students to transfer their learning more readily.
2. How do I know that this approach works?
We compared the learning of students in three conditions: Condition 1) classes that used "best practices" in science learning where lessons involved inquiry, modeling, dynamic computer models, and Socratic discussion; Condition 2) classes that used the best practices plus RECAST activities; and Condition 3) classes that used the best practices plus RECAST activities and discussion of the causal patterns. The students in conditions two and three significantly outperformed those in condition 1 and the students in condition three did the very best. All three groups improved on their standardized test scores over previous years, presumably because they learned the content deeper. Through the modeling in the units, they also learned how to better reason about and communicate their ideas.
3. What about transfer? Can students transfer their understanding of the causal patterns from one concept to another?
We systematically tested for transfer. Many students transferred the ability to recognize and apply the same causal pattern between different concepts, for instance, relational causality between air pressure concepts and density concepts. We also tested instances where students received support for transferring the concepts in the form of reflection, connection-making, and talking about different causal forms. With this support, they were even more successful and could detect instances where the causality was similar and different.
4. Isn't this really just for the most capable students?
No! In fact, unpacking the causal patterns and talking about them has had the greatest impact on students who were performing at the lowest level in the classrooms where we tested the materials. Previously, the students who figured the patterns out implicitly on their own were the ones who excelled. Making these patterns accessible to all students invites them all to understand science more deeply.
5. Does it take longer to add modeling into lesson plans?
Yes, modeling is a way of actively processing concepts. We can tell information faster than students can engage deeply with it. But telling isn’t teaching and listening doesn’t necessarily equate with learning. Time can be spent "re-teaching" concepts that were never deeply understood to begin with or we can aim for deeper understanding the first time through.
6. How does this approach fit with hands-on learning and inquiry-based learning approaches?
Many of the activities here are inquiry-based and hands-on. The focus on causal patterns makes them very minds-on as well and encourages the teacher to actively monitor the sense-making that students are engaged in. Unlike some inquiry-based, constructivist approaches where students are expected to discover the scientifically accepted model and/or it is never explicitly shared with them, here it is shared and critiqued as are the other models that students bring forth.
