Brian, thanks for your interest. Before I/we respond to your question I'm curious to know what you mean by "student movement." Do you mean how did we plan to have students literally get up and move while investigationg?

Hi Jeff.  Not movement for the sake of just getting up while investigating, more in the sense of a purposeful, bodily involvement in exploring the phenomenon of interest.  As we watched what the students were doing to make sense of the phenomena they were investigating, we wondered how much the kinesthetic nature of the 1st grade interactions in the planetarium were influencing their learning.  There was not a similar opportunity for the 3rd graders, and they were challenged with knowing where the Moon was when it was not visible.  Though they did seem to get the pattern of phases.  It got us interested in comparing the fairly static 3rd grade experience with the very active 1st grade.  There was a lot of movement and kinesthetic learning involved with the 1st graders, both in-class, and during their trip to the planetarium.  

Thanks for your question, Brian. We think that a lot of learning has a kinesthetic component to it, and that young children come to understand themselves and the world largely by engaging with it in physical ways. (Piaget's description of children's sensorimotor knowledge certainly points us toward the connection between the physical and the cognitive, as does the literature on embodied cognition.) 

In piloting our materials, we certainly saw examples of kids connecting their actions with the results of those actions (for example, seeing how the shape of a shadow was affected by the angle at which they held the flashlight in relation to the object casting the shadow). In this case, the students were essentially acting like the sun—they were in charge of the light source and could see how the ways they positioned the light could make a shadow longer or shorter. But we have also seen situations in which students’ engagement in the kinesthetic added a layer of complexity that did not always seem to support their immediate learning.  For example, when students went outside to explore their own shadows their physical relationship to the light source was different than in their earlier classroom explorations—rather than “being” the light source, they were now the objects blocking the light. In this context, students were not always able to place their bodies into positions that would create shadows their teachers challenged them to make. For example, the two children in the video whose feet are nearly touching were challenged to make a shadow that looked like the letter “O” (~0:14 into the clip).  Their focus was on shaping their bodies into the letter rather than shaping their bodies so that their shadows were shaped like an “O.” 

These two different experiences with making and observing shadows were a good reminder to us that complex concepts take time for students to come to understand, and that different experiences provide somewhat different perspectives on the phenomenon the children are investigating. The opportunity for repeated engagement from somewhat different perspectives gives students the chance to continue to build a foundational understanding of how the phenomenon “works.”

This is a really important consideration and observation! Sometimes the activities we hope will bring more depth and clarity actually add complexity (as you note), start students thinking of a second concept (and detracting from their focus and understanding of the first) or lead to a "just try stuff" approach that moves students farther from the target concept. Later in this thread, the idea of using digital experiences to aid transfer is brought up. I think a digital experience after the in-class simulation (e.g., where they are the light source) could be used to prime students for the transfer task. For example, a digital preview of what they'll be doing when they go outside could show the sun and a kid and the shadow and explicitly ask students to think about what's similar and different between the class situation and the digital situation. Then when they go outside, they'll have gotten through that piece and can focus on the many extension activities shown in the video.

As an aside, even before reading these comments, I was really struck by how much these students were moving around and doing things outside and collaboratively. Kudos! We need more of that! No reason to be locked in classrooms all day.

Thanks Mari, what an interesting idea to use the digital experience to prime kids for a transfer to a second shadows experience. I'm sure we'll have to try that! One thing that has been super salient in our project is how kids simultaneously build understanding across closely- related concepts-- one of the reasons I assume why it's been so hard to establish a more detailed learning progression in science. In the shadows stuff for example, first graders were simultaneously figuring out how shadows are made;  how they change as the object/light change their relative positions; how light interacts with different objects; and how light behaves generally....We've spent some time thinking about how to keep explorations focused enough to deepen learning of specific concepts (as you mention), but not SO focused as to miss the connections kids are constantly making between and among them. One way we have started to address this more consistently is by providing open-ended experiences with shadows/reflections/etc. before moving into more focused investigations. This helps get a lot of student questions/observations/ideas out on the table before centering the 1-2 target concepts in a focused investigation; it gives students the lay of the land before pointing them in one direction-- so to speak-- and also ensures that they are continuously having opportunities to revisit previous concepts. Besides that, it  helps "level the field" for kids with a range of previous experiences with the concepts AND the tools they use to investigate them. It also supports engagement with practices since kids collect data in a bunch of different ways and then get to decide (with support from the teacher of course) what really qualifies as evidence and why. So, for example when sent to explore what objects that let all light pass thru, some pass thru, or that block light-- kids initially came up with a lot of ways to decide what the light was doing with individual objects. This experience gave them the background info they needed to decide, for example, that if you can see any light at all on the opposite side of the object (when you hold the flashlight just so....), it must be letting some light through........this prepared them to be more systematic in the focused investigation. Thanks again for taking the time to make such thoughtful comments!

Kevin, you ask a good question about how first graders make sense of digital models. I'm curious about the kind of indicators were you going to look for, and if you had a chance to get any data that might shed light on this? If so, how has it influenced your thinking about this question?

Hi Abigail. We have not yet gathered any data about students' connections between physical and digital models. However, when we do, our initial plan is to focus, qualitatively, on gathering information about similarities/differences in the ways that kids explore the two kinds of models, the kinds of ideas that get raised and explored in each, and whether students make connections between the things they are observing and ideas they are generating by working in each "modality." 

So much is up in the air, and it depends on what things look like come fall. Assuming teachers and students actually gather in the classroom at least some days/times, we're looking into technology to record classroom activities, or if technology in the school allows, live stream them. (Obviously, this will require even more rigorous permissions among all students in the class.) We can supplement this with asking teachers to video interactions (GoPro cameras? Cell phone stabilizing gimbals?).

Should classes be primarily (or exclusively?) from home, we don't have a great solution at this stage, as I mentioned above. We've considered pulling out small activities that are doable from home, but worry that it could be too much of a burden on parents to manage the activity (and difficult for the teacher to guide the students' experimentation), and of course, it brings up issues of equity (not all students have parents with time and availability to guide their students' activities. To add to the complication here would be that even if our project could afford to supply each student with a kit for in-home activities, it's clearly not a scalable solution, and perhaps not the best way to address the issues.

Kevin,

It sounds like you and your team have given significant thought to how you can make the project work even with the current challenges. Good luck with your implementation next year. I think we are all going to gain important knowledge in how to mitigate these challenges.

Your observations about the challenges of negotiating collective conversations in an online environment are definitely a challenge!  And since Insights is not primarily designed for a digital environment, if schooling next year continues to be disrupted, we will face the additional challenge of figuring out how we might support students' ability to explore physical phenomena prior to exploring digital representations. Right now we're hoping that school will be more or less back to normal, since it would be very difficult to address such a challenge in a sustained (and equitable) way. 

Thanks for your observations, Leigh! We are excited to work on Insights for a new generation of students and are eager to explore the affordances and challenges of leveraging science practices related to data, modeling, and computational thinking for elementary students' science learning, particularly at the early grades.

It's a great question, and central to one of the things we're hoping to study.

The way we've designed the first two digital models, each has two distinct "scenes": one that directly recreates and represents an activity that students perform in class, and a second that extends to a similar phenomenon that students do not experience in class. For instance, one activity in the light module (shown in the video) has students experiment with moving flashlights around a fixed object to see how the angle of the light affects the shadow. They also have an outside activity where they address challenges about shadows in the sun. The digital model that goes with this module will replicate that indoor activity with the flashlight, then show a similar mechanism for moving the sun outside, and make comparisons and hypotheses about size and direction of shadows based on the light source.

By presenting a representation of an activity they perform in class, our hypothesis is that they can focus on how the controls of the digital model match the actual moves they did "live." They can then apply those controls to a similar situation. So the study could focus on that transfer of knowledge—connecting the hands-on activities with situations that are more difficult to observe or experiment with in real life—a key benefit of using digital models!

A further extension of all this might be for students to create a virtual representation to teach a peer (in their class or a novice). That could be a drawing, an animation, or a short video in which they are the actors. It help focus their attention (and learning) on the specific concept being targeted.

Thanks for viewing our video and for your question, Alison.A central underpinning of our project is that science learning is deepened by the use of language, and that language learning is enhanced by science investigation.So yes, we are indeed making intentional connections between science and literacy/language development. We emphasize the need for students to engage in science talk as both a way to develop language and to articulate students' observations and thinking. We encourage different types of conversations at different stages of the investigation, e.g., more about probing for prior knowledge and possible misconceptions in initial stages; and more focused on analysis and evidence-based claims as students investigate and gather data. We also provide opportunities for students to record in appropriate ways. 

Thanks for your comment, Alison. The charts are a very important part of helping students' sense-making in this project. We have found that teachers are sometimes reluctant to make note of students' perceived 'incorrect' inferences. Through our teacher materials, we are trying to encourage teachers to make note of all students' observations and inferences whether or not they are deemed correct. We welcome peoples' thoughts about the best ways to ensure that these types of observations are recorded.

I wonder if teachers could be encouraged to use symbols or color coding (or spacial placement on the chart) to note "ideas" and "observations" (initially) and then annotate those (or move to a "known"/"supported" column) as supporting or refuting evidence is collected or as class agrees/disagrees. In science, forensics, etc. all sorts of information is noted that MIGHT be relevant and it gets categorized as relevant or correct as the investigation goes on. Not knowing up front what is right is part of science that is important to communicate to students.

Thanks for the great comment Mari! We actually moved toward that idea after piloting the light unit-- having one chart that threaded through all the activities to reflect "Our Learning about Light" where information informed by evidence got recorded at the end of activities-- still contained some incomplete ideas so teachers would put a question mark by ideas that generated disagreement among students. Having this chart also helped teachers feel more comfortable that they could literally see the learning coming out of each activity and how it related to the big picture. Hopefully we'll continue to hone this process in the field test.

Thanks for your comment! Yes, it is great fun and very satisfying to see students engaged, not just from an interest and excitement level, but from an actual learning level. How satisfying to see the curriculum's learning goals on display!

Thanks, Deb! We owe a great debt to the teachers who work with us as well. Their openness, honesty, enthusiasm, and care are vital to us collaboratively making the best end product possible!

Thanks Xime! Yes the charts are really needed to bridge the kids' thinking from one activity to the next, enabling them to revisit and revise previous claims. I'm familiar with the shadows curriculum work and there are definitely places for alignment across grade levels...there is a shift in Grade One toward shadows as phenomena that begin to build an understanding of light but we've found Grade One students just as excited and surprised about their observations of the shadows themselves as preschoolers can be!

Thanks for your comment. We definitely agree with the notion that children have lots of ideas to guide exploration and reflection and that it's never too soon to leverage their natural curiosity and enthusiasm to develop dispositions related to "doing science." I'm not entirely sure what kind of age-related data you refer to in your question. We have not planned on gathering formal data about self-efficacy; at present, we're focusing primarily on gathering data that will help us hone the curriculum materials themselves.

Hi Heather! Yes, definitely, helping teachers ask productive questions without being overbearing has been a big part of our work and our team conversations. It's easy to provide explicit guidance about the first teacher question in a given conversation, but the follow-ups are harder since they are dependent on how kids respond to the first one(s). We don't want teachers asking canned questions that don't "fit" in the conversation  :)

What we've found is that teachers really like having multiple suggestions for questions they can choose from based on the kinds of responses kids are giving. That way they can choose the most relevant ones while still feeling comfortable that they are staying on track.  We also, as much as possible, try to give teachers a heads -up about the range of responses they might expect from kids to the central questions in an activity  (including ones that indicate misconceptions) so they can be better prepared to respond in a productive way. We also put a one sentence "The purpose of this conversation is..." tip next to key conversations and provide teachers with reassurances such as "remember to record all of the children's ideas without evaluating them in the moment. You will revisit these ideas during Activity X..."....One other things we do is to be explicit about different types of questions that work at different points in an investigation so teachers can make sense of the pattern. Part of what we hope to do is to not just provide activity by activity guidance but help teachers become invested in an approach that centers kids' thinking and the types of questions that support that. 

Oh, Heather, the million dollar question is embedded in there, isn't it? We’re always trying to strike the right balance—too much, and it's scripted and/or overwhelming, too little and it's esoteric and hard to find a way in. I think I'll be asking that question for as long as I do this work!

It is hard to find the right balance, and to capture and present everything Cindy mentions in a way that's friendly to use. One approach we’ll be looking into, one that the current shutdown may afford us more time (and definitely more need, given the potential difficulties of doing in-person workshops) is to create an online, interactive teacher guide and accompanying online course, including video snippets of examples of “what it looks like in the classroom” to go along with the customary printed materials. We had always intended on developing that online teacher guide, but thinking more about it being a professional learning opportunity as well seems like a promising approach. And as Cindy mentioned, we plan to develop that online course toward helping teachers understand the approach and developing their own techniques for conversation more broadly, using examples from the activities themselves. 

As far as finding this balance for conversations specifically around CT, we're still working on that! It is a newer concept for a lot of teachers, so will likely need extra support. But a fair bit of work has already gone in developing ways to activate some embedded foundational concepts, specifically around data and models, that we can leverage.

Thanks Danae! The kids' excitement helps reinforce for me how important it is to teach to, not only conceptual knowledge and skills, but also science attitudes and self-identities-- research shows how quickly kids lose interest in science when they don't feel capable, connected, or confident about their ability to do it and learn it.  

Hi Leanne,

At this early stage of the project, we are largely relying on observations of lessons, students' written work in their science notebooks and other artifacts from the classroom (such as the charts that capture students' ideas during class discussion), and  teachers' feedback to us to draw inferences about the ideas that are available to the whole class over the course of the modules. We are not yet assessing individual students' learning.

Hi Julia,

The modules we are developing absolutely carry forward the pedagogical commitments to inquiry and students’ sense-making that characterized the original Insights materials; we have also drawn draw from activities that were part of the original curriculum. But because the grade-level topics addressed in the original materials no longer align very well with those articulated in the NGSS, we have essentially had to constructed our “Insights 2.0” modules anew to make them developmentally appropriate and to integrate "new" science practices such as computational thinking into module activities. 

Over the past few years we have found that many teachers’ science instruction, especially in early elementary years, is often a bit of a catch-all. Across several projects, the teachers we have worked with often address a particular science topic by piecing together activities from a variety of resources. The result can be a set of engaging, but not necessarily conceptually coherent, experiences for students. So I agree with you that it makes sense to try moving the needle by making modules available that are aligned with NGSS goals, have a strong conceptual arc, and promote students’ dispositions to be scientific sense-makers through engagement with science practices. I should also note that while we are currently focused on curriculum development, we recognize the importance of supporting teachers’ (ongoing) professional learning!

Hi Michael and thanks for your observations/questions. While we think it would be fascinating to systematically look for patterns in the ways children use gesture (and other forms of movement) to support their thinking, we do not have plans to do so. We do think that it's intriguing to think about how gesture supports learning for young children (like those we are working with) and older students (like you're working with), and also the kinds of contexts for which gesture seems particularly amenable.

And to add on to what Lynn has said, kids' movement outdoors, in the case of investigating shadows, does complicate the learning but also makes it clear that science learning IS complex. Observing that their shadows don't replicate their movements in the way they expected doesn't necessarily contribute to their immediate learning about how light works, but does provide necessary background for their longer term learning of science concepts related to light. 

Thanks Rebecca! Yes, one of the joys of working with younger students is that they still maintain that natural (scientific) curiosity and play that is so foundational to science and so important to sustaining their interest, motivation, and confidence in doing and learning science and STEM into middle school. I am so grateful to know that there are HS educators out there who recognize science attitudes as a critical component of what we teach!