Obviously any scientist has to wade through tons of research in order to write a paper. So its not as though I didn’t think that literacy has nothing to do with science for my students. My only complaint is that students need to have different skills to digest science reading material, as compared to other classes.
- · They first must consider the source of the information, is it biased; which much on the web is, if the students aren’t researching properly.
- Then students have to be able to digest the hundreds of vocabulary terms in the reading. My students have no formal training in using Latin and Greek to help them do this. The internet would provide a faster way for students to break the vocabulary words apart.
- Finally the communication piece; which I’m not sure if Web 2.0 or any technology would help with. Students have to be able to communicate like a scientist. I would say that 90% of my students while writing a lab report, want to use flowery phrases and not be precise and to the point. They just don’t get the practice in reading or writing scientifically, and I’m not sure how blogging would help that!
I have to agree with you that scientific literacy differs from literacy in other disciplines. What I struggle with is that my students are very poor readers to begin with, so understanding new biological terms is difficult enough for them, let alone expecting them to use them.
ReplyDeleteI am also unsure of how Web 2.0 will help them communicate like scientists, but I am not familiar enough with all it has to offer yet. I too question whether or not blogging will help them write scientifically. Most of my students are regular Facebook users and text message pros and not only do they use "flowery phrases", but they also use text message abbreviations in their lab reports!
I wouldn't completely force your students to avoid flowery language -- our view of "lab reports" really is only one type of writing that scientists do. Quite often, they can write in more engaging ways. I think "literacy" has a much broader place in teaching science than just writing lab reports...
ReplyDeleteLater will will hit on the idea of argumentation. This is a big piece of the new science ed standards (next summer?) and the existing Common Core standards for English and Language Arts (includes literacy standards for science). Argumentation is at the center of everything that scientists do. As teachers, we can use it as students critically read, write and speak about science!
The other way to think about it is that the Web 2.0 tools don't necessarily help them to communicate "like scientists;" the tools help students communicate period. If they're *thinking* like scientists (and the metacognition section of the literacy article addresses this: "What did you find out?" "How did you figure that out?" etc.) then they just have to relay that information in writing (or in some other format).
ReplyDeleteThe tools can facilitate communication in general, and if students are looking at data or observations, and trying to come up with logical conclusion, then thinking through those guiding questions can be extremely helpful. It can help them communicate with each other in some new ways (think about students starting to build PLNs of their own!) and that's a great start.
Jaime, you're right about the vocab piece. That in itself poses a challenge for weaker students, who will need to learn the words first before they even start to talk about communicating what they know or what their conclusions are.
Scott