McMullen- Harlow response

What initially stood out to me was the focus on revision of models. We've discussed in class the importance of model revision and how that helps students in learning to critique models while developing a deeper understanding of the content. Harlow et al stressed that effective teaching of modeling required teachers not to tell students the answer but to encourage them and facilitate opportunities for them to continue to revise their models. In our experiences as a class, I can see this as true especially with our final projects. In presenting our ideas to the class, we received feedback on our models that pushed us to consider revising some aspects of our model and continuing to dig deeper into other aspects. I can see how this is something that will allow our students to construct their own knowledge by digging deeply into the material and their model.

Another element of Harlow et al that stood out to me was the idea that knowledge can be accessed in both appropriate and inappropriate ways. We've talked quite a bit with respect to modeling and ADI about what resources we will provide our students with, and that's where I think accessing prior knowledge comes into play. If we are intentional about the materials we introduce and how we introduce them, we can access their prior knowledge in an appropriate way. However, if we don't know what student misconceptions might be or how they may be perpetuated than we run into situations where the resources we provide may actually be accessing knowledge inappropriately.

A third element of Harlow et al that stood out to me was the three problems preservice teachers face in getting off to a good start. Harlow et al says engaging students in science, organizing instruction, and understanding students' ideas are all things teachers need to understand to provide students with effective modeling instruction. We have discussed all three of these ideas at length in class. How do we create modeling activities for our students that are both meaningful and engaging? We want our students to be engaged and interested in science (that seems to be a unanimous theme), but how do we do that in meaningful ways? Organizing instruction also seems to be an idea we have talked about in pretty great detail. How do we plan our lessons and units so we tackle necessary standards but also have time for modeling opportunities? How do we prepare our kids to take high-stakes tests while still providing opportunities for authentic assessment? However, I don't know that we have talked quite as much about the link between organizing instruction and understanding student ideas. We hadn't talked about how we would outline a unit so it builds on student's prior knowledge, while allowing them to construct new and deeper knowledge, and allowing opportunities for misconceptions to be rectified. I'm assuming we'll discuss most of that next semester in our methods course though.