The development of “literacy,” or the ability of students to comprehend and apply the concepts and languages of science and mathematics in thinking, communication, and problem-solving, is a key component of the current changes in scientific and math education. Therefore, it is possible to envision the feelings of both excitement and fear that a teacher would feel when they are first shown the Standards or the Benchmarks and instructed to “teach for literacy.” It would probably be necessary to significantly extend the schooling experience if a teacher were to begin and educate through the books. These standards documents are, in many respects, significantly more extensive and intricate than any scope or sequence now used in educational institutions. However, these texts are not the final sources that explain to teachers how education reform needs to take place in their classrooms; rather, they are intended to be utilized as frameworks that offer direction in this area. The question then becomes: how can teachers design classroom environments that support students’ development of mathematical and science literacy in light of the information and objectives outlined in these standards papers and the significance of doing so? Join us as we explore the problems and analyze the approaches associated with teaching science literacy and mathematics, using this question as a guide.
After outlining the elements of math and science literacy as outlined in the main reform documents, we will use a few how-to articles to demonstrate how math and science teachers have used — or can use — strategies and activities to help students become more math and science literate. Our conversations frequently center on suggestions and examples of scientific or math reform for practical reasons solely. By doing this, we do not want to suggest that the components of literacy in these fields are distinct or distinctive in any way. In actuality, the distinct conversations demonstrate how the communities of math and scientific education, originating from disparate backgrounds and at disparate times, independently came to similar conclusions and made many of the same suggestions about what literacy is.
We also offer examples of tools, materials, and services that educators may find helpful in fostering scientific and math literacy in their classrooms to complement this discussion of literacy components. The paper’s how-to pieces are designed to be brief reads that may be immediately implemented or modified for use in classrooms. To make it simpler to determine which of these articles might be of particular interest, their whole titles are provided. The purpose of other publications and materials is to provide a broader backdrop. Some of the research foundations and justifications for some of the reform suggestions are presented in these documents. Lastly, although not specifically mentioned in the conversation, we have provided other references and database information that may be helpful as extra sources of classroom inspiration.
Key mathematical concepts and skills are arranged according to grade levels: Kindergarten–grade 4, grades 5–8, and grades 9–12. The idea that “knowing” mathematics is equivalent to “doing” it is emphasized throughout the Standards. Knowledge should come from issue situations, so that students have a strong conceptual basis for reconstructing their knowledge at a later time. Additionally, problem-solving scenarios foster mathematical literacy by: (a) creating a “need to know;” which motivates the development of concepts. (b) giving people the chance to read, write, talk about, and investigate mathematical concepts; and (c) giving them the chance to formulate hypotheses, test them, and develop arguments regarding their viability. In summary, the Standards outline a new math curriculum that teaches pupils more and more diverse math concepts, as well as drastically different teaching strategies.
This idea of what an American student who is proficient in mathematics might be is similar to that of a student who is proficient in science. Science educators and scientists started to struggle with our children’ poor performance in comparison to students throughout the world, just like the math education community did.
Thus, the idea of what discipline literacy will need for the 21st century is shared by the communities of math and science education. They have both expanded the definition of literacy beyond what is found in reading literature. While functional grade-level performance is often used to define literacy in reading, the core of literacy in science and mathematics is growing in sophistication over the duration of education. This signifies a fundamental change from the idea of literacy as a status to one that views literacy as related to the context of knowing, which includes the real world, disciplinary domains, and particular applications. This dynamic concept of literacy offers educators both opportunities and challenges. Additionally, the teacher or teacher-advocate is responsible for converting the image statements into instructional materials, learning activities, and pedagogical practices when they are provided with standards papers that are neither linear, sequential, or hierarchical in their suggestions.
One of the main tenets of the scientific and math standards is that a student’s knowledge, abilities, and thoughts are heavily influenced by how they learnt the material.
Research from a number of academic fields suggests that pupils may learn better when they create their own conceptual framework. This suggests that teachers are unable to impart knowledge to their students; rather, they are only able to involve them in activities that allow them to create their own meaning. To put it briefly, learning is a personal endeavor that is supported in the social setting of instruction. As an example, basic computation and algorithms were invented precisely so that people would not have to count on their fingers and toes to solve each problem. This does not mean, however, that students must constantly “invent the wheel.” In science, formulas have comparable useful functions. But these kinds of activities shouldn’t take over the science or math curricula. In order for students to view computational processes as tools for problem-solving rather than as issues that need to be solved, they need also be developed in context.
Students’ active inquiry fosters meaningful learning, according to the literature on science and math reform. In the redesigned science and math classrooms, inquiry is more than just completing tasks; it also includes engaging with peers, teachers, individuals outside of the school and classroom, and a variety of resources. Students collaborate on interesting and pertinent problems, ask questions, access and use knowledge from a range of sources, and challenge one another’s ideas in the inquiry-based classroom model outlined in the reform literature. In response, educators question their pupils’ observations, theories, justifications, methods, and supporting data. In order to highlight the significance of communicating both orally and in writing, as advised by the reform movements, we call this interactive type of “Inquiry” (i.e., inquiry with a capital I and in italics). There are no limitations on inquiry based on context, content, or student age. Mathematical and scientific inquiry skills can be used and developed by students as early as the first grade.
One of the main themes of Science for All Americans is inquiry. There should be a lot of research and discussion taking on in the scientific classroom. The need for proof, reliance on a combination of reasoning and creativity, expectation that scientists attempt to detect and steer clear of bias, rejection of authoritarianism, and understanding that research is a complex social activity are all characteristics of scientific inquiry. The reform literature translates these qualities of scientific inquiry into standards and goals for learning. Similar to this, the topic of inquiry is present in mathematics in the standards of communication, problem solving, reasoning, and connections as well as in the learning activities that are detailed in the Standards document. Whole-class conversations can give students the chance to synthesize, assess, and summarize ideas, tactics, and/or hypotheses. Students can discuss and share ideas with their peers in small groups, and they can gain confidence in their own mathematics skills through independent practice. The next sections will cover a variety of teaching strategies and exercises, including those that foster students’ capacity for inquiry.
Inquiry in science and mathematics can be “issues-based.” This method increases students’ interest and, thus, their level of participation. The significance of applying an issues-based approach to teaching and relating mathematics to real-world situations is stressed throughout the Standards. Real-world issues with ‘messy’ numbers or too much or not enough information or that have multiple solutions, each with different consequences, will better prepare students to solve problems they are likely to encounter in their daily lives. Using a learning prompt that is both relevant and engaging for the students is essential to the success of the issues-based approach. Instructors must also be careful to employ open-ended assignments that have more than one right answer. Instead of requiring students to memorize specific facts, techniques, or procedures, these open-ended projects will encourage experimentation and inquiry on their side.
An example of a series of issues-based courses is Mathematics in Baseball in which students work in small groups researching baseball statistics as well as other aspects of the game. The article offers discussion starters for small groups that allow students to generate and test hypotheses, share ideas, provide and receive constructive criticism, and make and fix mistakes in their small groups. It addresses students’ misunderstandings regarding the practical applications of science and mathematics outside of the classroom. Students interview members of the local community to learn about their professional usage of mathematics. After that, students are expected to create mathematical problems based on the information they obtained during their interviews, arrange for the speaker to address the class, and write a term paper on the subject.
The unity of perspective is less obvious in science. Some people understand science literacy to mean that citizenship and life skills, rather than rigorous study or knowledge of any particular science procedure or material, are the essential components. Those who support emphasizing conceptual learning in the context of solving real-world problems argue against this.
The Science and Technology Studies (STS) method is built on a societal, issues-oriented viewpoint. There is no such thing as a predetermined science curriculum, required material, or set of process skills because of it learn the science you need to know when you have a need to know it concept. In an STS classroom, students discover problems and challenges that affect them personally, at school, or in the community. They then collaborate to find a solution, learning and applying relevant science skills and content as they go. Supporters assert that because the challenges are real and the learning is applicable to the students, an STS approach fosters science literacy more successfully than a content-driven curriculum. For an STS supporter, the “medium is the message;” scientific ideas and concepts, even if they are well-understood outside of a social or personal problem, are not science at all, or at least not the kind of science that is worthwhile studying.
Numerous issues-based learning activities covering a variety of topics have been reported by teachers.
Proponents of conceptual change learning (CCL) contend that inquiry that fosters meaningful learning of critical subject and process knowledge in science is essential, and they see the understandings and mental habits included in the definition of science literacy as crucial. In order to engage kids and give them context for learning science topics and procedures, CCL teachers stress how important it is for both the teacher and the students to be aware of what the pupils already know and apply in real-world scenarios and applications.
The primary distinction between the issues-based inquiry and the inquiry for conceptual change is that the former focuses on teaching certain concepts. In a similar vein, the Standards describe key mathematics topics. For instance, two grade-level divisions include measurement, estimation, algebra, and functions standards; the other three divisions include a geometry standard and one or more probability and/or statistics standards. Similar to science, inquiry is a major component of classroom teaching; throughout the Standards, verbs such as explore, justify, represent, solve, construct, discuss, investigate, describe, develop, and predict are used to convey this active physical and mental involvement of children in learning the content of the curriculum.
Similar to conceptual change learning in science, training might focus on certain concepts, abilities, and/or mathematical notions.
For instance, Pixy Stix has been used to explore the midpoints of line segments, computers to find number patterns and refine estimation skills, popcorn to develop data analysis skills, and the motion of a Tonka Toy truck to develop the concepts of average and instantaneous velocity. In order to promote geometric principles, educators have combined math and art.
Using simulations to estimate probabilities for boy/girl birth ratios and the average number of children in a family. Additionally, the lesson aims to help students improve their spatial imagery. But overseeing inquiry-based learning environments without compromising intellectual rigor is a big problem.
Putting students in educational settings is only one aspect of facilitating learning; teachers also need to inspire them, capture their hearts and minds, and get them actively involved in the process. Effective teachers understand that encouraging students is not always the same as making learning enjoyable because learning can be challenging. They must be able to support students even when they experience short-term setbacks and the inevitable doubts that come with pushing themselves to new emotional, intellectual, and physical levels.
The foundation of student-centered learning is the facilitation of inquiry-based learning, which is promoted by manipulatives and prompted by investigation in a way that is relevant to the students’ everyday lives. Teachers can determine which pedagogical strategies are most effective in advancing students’ learning by considering how they have developed in the various disciplines.
The teacher is given the crucial leadership responsibility of choosing the best content to engage each specific student group in the discipline’s work because the standards documents themselves reflect the possibilities for instructional focus rather than the requirements for instructional focus. The choosing procedure must consider the following: the students’ developmental features and interest levels; learning objectives that guarantee the reinforcement of the disciplines’ “habits of mind”; and local content goals. In summary, there is no algorithmic approach to improving learning in science and mathematics.
The responsibilities of the teaching profession can provide difficult problems that defy easy fixes. Teachers frequently have to create compromises that will please a variety of stakeholders due to conflicting goals. Teachers also have to make decisions that require them to give up one objective for another. Teachers dedicated to teaching mathematics for conceptual understanding, for example, want their students to be able to see how numbers relate to one another in the real world, represent those relationships with the right symbols, and manipulate those numbers using their computational abilities and understanding of mathematical formulas. Giving students time to formulate their own problems, come up with their own answers, and weigh those solutions against those put forth by their peers is necessary for this type of instruction. Pupils who have learned from experience that math class consists of completing worksheets and problem sets might not like the uncertainty that comes with problems that have several or no answers; they might also find it troubling that their teacher now wants them to explain why a specific solution makes sense. As the standards are put into practice, the teacher’s function as a facilitator of learning starts to take on true significance. Additionally, educators who are looking for a recipe book for teaching science and math effectively will be disappointed.
In a straightforward and unambiguous manner, the teacher’s function as an implementer of the scientific or math standards becomes more crucial than ever in determining the students’ learning path. Teachers’ professional judgment becomes increasingly significant in shaping the educational experience for children because the standards documents are intended to serve as frameworks for reforming science and math education. Because of this, educators who decide to teach science and math must possess a thorough understanding of the subjects they are teaching. To make judgments regarding what, when, and how to teach science and math, educators need to have a rich understanding of the content and appreciate how knowledge in a content area is created, organized, linked to other disciplines, and applied to real-world settings.
In addition to possessing specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), teachers who successfully use the standards documents to inform their daily instructional decisions must also be able to identify misconceptions and prior knowledge that could make increasing sophistication problematic. Naturally, they also need to be able to adjust and rearrange to accommodate the demands of every student.
Argument and evidence are emphasized in the critical reaction skills. In our opinion, some or all of these “symptoms” ought to serve as the “ground rules” for inquiry both within and outside of the classroom. For instance, incorporating tasks like verifying that statements (both written and spoken) do not mix fact and opinion or that celebrities are not used as experts in debates into “what routinely happens in science class” will foster the “habits of mind” that reform advocates so highly value and encourage the application of these same habits of mind outside of the classroom and school years.
Establishing an inquiry-based learning environment is typically not difficult for educators who employ an issues-based approach. Issues that are personal and societal (such as pollution, COVID-19, hazardous waste, and landfills) are easily contentious and encourage research and debate. Finding students on opposing sides of a topic or classrooms of students to locate public organizations with conflicting viewpoints is usually not difficult. For instance, studies of ecological problems; Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Resource and Guidelines; Artificial intelligence (AI) and Computerized Simulation are just a few examples of the successful use of issues-based topics by educators. The difficulty for the instructor using an issues-based approach is to minimize the elements of the argument that are purely emotional, political, and/or personal while maintaining students’ attention on those that can be settled with scientific and/or mathematical evidence and/or that make use of scientific and/or mathematical reasoning. It is important to remember that just because an activity is focused on topics does not mean that children will apply or grow their inquiry abilities. In addition to evaluating their hypotheses using the exacting standards of mathematical and scientific inquiry, students must develop and assess arguments based on the scientific and/or mathematical evidence they collect.
Students are not aware of controversies in classrooms where the focus is on knowing specific subject and process outputs, and any conflicts that do occur are typically not as dramatic as they are in issues-based classroom activities. Nevertheless, there is room for disagreement and discussion. It is necessary to shift the focus to the dispute inherent in scientific and mathematical concepts in order to facilitate inquiry when there isn’t a “hot” social issue. Students’ alternate perceptions and/or misconceptions about a particular topic or location are great places to find contentious ideas that can be researched. For instance, the geocentric model of our solar system or the phlogiston theory of heat are examples of scientific conflicts that can be used to inspire inquiry for conceptual change. Both common student mathematical errors and common misconceptions of mathematical concepts can be addressed and investigated.
Simply putting aside judgment or not providing the right response is a powerful way to start a conversation. One strategy to encourage debate, discussion, and investigation and transform ordinary classes into inquiry sessions is to challenge students with opposing viewpoints to provide evidence for their claims. Inquiry can also be effectively facilitated by making small changes to cookbook activities (e.g., by adding an open-ended question or asking an extra-credit question) or by assigning collaborative project work. Additionally, variations of the “student-teaching-students” concept can be used to actively stimulate inquiry. A centuries-old tactic that continues to work now is “cross-age teaching.” However, for genuine inquiry to occur, coaching needs to be conducted in a rich, hands-on setting.
The capacity to communicate effectively in any language necessitates more than just knowing vocabulary and grammar rules; one must also be proficient at speaking and writing the language. All students should strive to learn how to convey mathematical ideas, according to the science and math standards. As students communicate their ideas, they learn to clarify, refine, and consolidate their thinking. Stated differently, pupils’ comprehension of mathematics is improved by communication.
It’s not easy to learn the language of science or mathematics. Representing is a crucial method of conveying mathematical concepts to young learners. Mathematical concepts can be represented and developed through the use of physical models. Additionally, in young children, the associations between spoken words and thoughts are typically greater than those between written symbols and thoughts. Children should therefore be encouraged to express their ideas and mental processes verbally and to connect mathematical symbols and terminology to daily language.
Students’ mathematical communications should become more complex as they advance in school, meaning they should become more formal and symbolic. Nonetheless, the introduction and application of technical symbolism ought to develop as a logical progression and improvement of the pupils’ native tongue. Furthermore, it is crucial to make sure that students understand the relationships between mathematical ideas and symbols; otherwise, they may perceive symbols as unrelated, meaningless things that need to be learned and/or worked with. Every student should have the chance to discuss, read, write, listen, and think critically about their mathematical concepts. Students need to do more than just write an answer to an exercise or “show all their work” on a subject. It is equally crucial for pupils to be able to explain how they came up with their answers and what challenges they faced when addressing problems. Students must therefore be continuously urged to elaborate, clarify, or rephrase their mathematical concepts. Through these methods, students can improve their comprehension of mathematics, and teachers can keep an eye on their pupils’ development.
Literacy in reformed science and math classrooms refers to the capacity to critically evaluate arguments, defend one’s opinions, and express oneself both vocally and in writing. As with any arts or humanities classroom, recording, and portfolio maintenance are integral components of the redesigned science and math curriculum. Strategies for evaluating portfolios are particularly good at encouraging inquiry. Students’ writing and inquiry skills are improved when they are required to debate, explain, and reflect on their work instead of just choosing answers, responding to questions, and finishing standard form tasks. Students are made aware of the worth and significance of inquiry skills using portfolio scoring rubrics that are grounded on logic and evidence.
Teachers can also use student journals as a great diagnostic tool. It is possible to identify and address student issues and misunderstandings. By using student writing, teachers may determine which teaching strategies worked and which ones didn’t, and then adjust their approach accordingly. Additionally, by having students write, teachers can help them build their metacognitive skills (also known as “knowing how to learn”) by comparing what they have learned with
what they believe they have learned. It should be highlighted, nevertheless, that the effectiveness of the writing prompts and the teachers themselves determine how well the knowledge gleaned from student writing is used. Teachers are required to regularly gather, read, and provide feedback to their students. Additionally, educators need to be prepared to accept and use constructive criticism.
There is potential for benefits across the curriculum from the shift to stress argument and cognitive processes in the language of science inquiry and mathematics. For instance, there is compelling evidence that examining the language and structure of well-written expository materials improves younger children’ general reading, comprehension, and critical thinking abilities. Students who keep journals are encouraged to write creative writing reports (e.g., case histories and resumes) instead of standard laboratory reports or other traditional tasks. High school science and math teachers report significant improvements in students’ attitudes toward the subjects, critical thinking, creative writing skills, and conceptual understanding. It should be mentioned, nevertheless, that it can be challenging for teachers to convert the results of journal entries, alternative assessments, and other creative writing into letter grades, and that racial differences may have an impact on students’ performance on open-ended versus multiple-choice items on standardized tests. As students present, question, and rethink ideas, the teacher’s position shifts from that of a knowledge distributor to that of a mentor-scholar.
Teachers are urged to take chances and integrate innovative teaching techniques into well-established pedagogical methods due to this change in the perception of what a learning environment ought to look like. In place of a scope and sequence or hierarchical curriculum, the standards themselves force teachers to make expert decisions on the best content and context vehicles for each student group in order to optimize learning. Roles of instructional leadership must be assumed by teachers. They need to possess both content and content-pedagogical expertise in order to accomplish this. To enable an effective inquiry-oriented, student-centered classroom that complies with the standards documents, a background in science and mathematics is necessary. The proper and rational evaluation of whether or not pupils are developing more complex comprehension of significant science and mathematics also depends on this knowledge. The standards are not the source of this perception of what constitutes high-quality work in science or mathematics. The only person who can and should provide this understanding is the skilled professional classroom teacher. In order to have the right frame of reference for determining appropriate learning goals, choosing instructional resources to support students’ meaning construction, sequencing and pacing the activities in the learning environment to support learning, and tracking the progress of students’ journey towards science and mathematics literacy, teachers must improve their understanding of science and mathematics. This is the ultimate challenge of the reform goals for classroom practice.
Jeff Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookscheaper.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.