Hi all. Call me clueless, but I did not know the NYTimes had lesson plans! I had thought of them as an educational resource in other ways, but who would have thought they came up with neat ideas for teaching about current events? Not me, folks. Not me. It seems like a handy resource for sure. Incorporating current events into classes (yes, even science and math!) is a great idea. However, I'm not sure how well it works in practice, more than the occasional lesson. For example, it is really interesting and useful to read and learn about reactors, but in a high school physics class, that's probably not part of the curriculum - it involves some tricky quantum mechanics to say the least. Although teaching students about the social responsibilities of scientists is important, this subject is not necessarily one I would use to get across that message. But perhaps I'm being too skeptical, and such an opportunity would help tap into students' curiosities about fission and fusion. What do y'all scientists think?
I've heard of backwards design before. I'm not sure if it was this summer or in previous coursework...or possibly both. It seems like a good rule of thumb that helps teachers plan lessons that truly address the learning objectives of a class.
I've found a couple of science/education blogs to peruse - I'll write brief reviews once I take a closer look. They are:
Built on Facts
Educational Technology Guy (this one perhaps looks a bit too focused on ed tech and not enough on physics, but I'll give it a try)
The Science Classroom (I'm really excited about this one!)
Happy Sunday, educators of the world!
I am a HUGE FAN of that blog. Ask Rachel (one of our guests tomorrow) about seeing them present at ISTE, the national ed tech conference.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to hear more about your thinking about backward design. Many teachers are intimidated by it. While we won't be going whole-hog with it tomorrow, you'll get a taste.
Which blog, Kristin? I'm guessing the Ed Tech guy?
ReplyDeleteI read an article on backward design called 'Thinking like an assessor' or something similar. In fact, when you were discussing the apple activities yesterday I thought about that article, because that was exactly the example they used. I think it was also by Wiggins and McTighe but I'm not sure.
In any case, I have seen far too many teachers use what might be called non-design - just throwing out activities that may or may not be fun or educational and testing who knows what at the end of the unit. Thinking about the end goals first makes much more sense to me--how else could a teacher really accomplish what they want without first identifying what they want from students?
Built on facts is great. I am following it as well.
ReplyDeleteI am a huge proponent of backwards design. Growing up I was one of those kids that would take apart electronics to see how they function. Backwards design is really how the research world operates. In my research group, I had a specific end goal in mind and I would shape my experimental design around my specific hypothesis I was testing at the time.