Katherine Ditolla
Grade 5
Hudson, NH
December, 2010

Teaching Science to a Scott Foresman Generation

As a teacher who has been teaching now for six years, I can't stress enough how much I love the fall season. September not only brings a crisp cool air, but also a brand new school year with a new batch of 5th grade students. This is the time of year where teachers have a fresh start to implementing teaching goals. I was excited, as always, to try new teaching strategies and possibly fix lessons in the past that needed tweaking. This was certainly the year to do just that seeing as though our grade was taking on the Scott Foresman reading series.

This was my team's first year with the program. The third grade teachers started Scott Foresman two years ago, and the fourth grade teachers started it one year ago. Now it was our turn. Even though we were new to the program, our students were not. I was getting 21 students who had three years experience with this program. When it came to the language arts block, I could tell they were confident with the set routine, curriculum, and materials. However, the science block was a whole other dynamic.

I was anxious to start my ecology unit off with an inquiry lesson. So I decided to have students dissect flowers. Each student received their own flower, hand lens, dissecting tools, and observation journal. My directions were to explore, observe, draw, and dissect what they see. I was anticipating a lot of, "Mrs. Ditolla, look at this!" or "Wow, what's this thing?" or "How come this has that?" But instead all I saw was confusion and wide eyed 5th graders.

I documented this lesson with the Flip video camera and captured a reaction with students that I never have seen before when doing an inquiry science lesson. These students did not know what to do with the materials that were in front of them. They were almost scared to break apart the flower and simply explore. When I asked them questions about what they saw, there was hesitation. I had to poke and pry for any previous knowledge whatsoever on what they knew about a flower. I had to constantly suggest what to do next and encourage them to dig deep within their drawings and observations. I felt like a dentist pulling teeth.

After watching the video and sharing my experience with my colleagues, I was left wondering how this group of students could be so different from students in the past. It is so natural for students to gravitate towards inquiry and enjoy the experience of wonderment. Why was this group of students so rigid in their exploratory? This lesson was far from being fun for them. I could tell they were uncomfortable with the degree of independence and self discovery that this lesson had to offer. Could it possibly be due to the fact that these students are products of the "cookie cutter" programs that offer no imagination and inquisition? My curiosity led me to take a closer look at the new reading program that I was currently teaching my students and how it could possibly affect other domains, especially science.

As I examine the Scott Foresman curriculum more in depth, there are some key components that stick out to me. First, this is a heavy assessment program. Students have three tests every week. Strategies are introduced, practiced, internalized, and then tested. Second, every unit is set up in the same manner. The routine in this program is clockwork. Students know what we are going to be working on before I even open my mouth. My two hour language arts block looks the same week to week. Third, students do not read whole books. Instead, they read short selections from chapter books. Therefore, some students are not paying attention to comprehending the text and end up ignoring the details. Last, this program is worksheet driven. I feel as though my students are machines that pump out answers. And they have been taught to look for the answer in their text; therefore it is not even in their own words.

No wonder these students were deer in head lights when I handed them a flower. Dissecting a flower has no set routine. There were no concrete directions to follow, nor was there a worksheet. I simply wanted them to be kids, not machines that pump out answers. I actually wanted them to think on their own, use their own voice and thinking process and explore what was in front of their eyes. These students were ignoring the important details. Their prediction and hypothesis skills were buried under their heavy Scott Foreman text books.

Stepping outside the box, outside their Scott Foresman world, was extremely hard for them. Students that I have had in the past have never experienced this world of Scott Foresman where everything is predictable and safe. They naturally were curious and asked questions. They did not hesitate to take anything apart and actually enjoyed getting messy! The routine to them was to take chances, test out theories, and dive deep into one's wonderment. They knew how to communicate versus regurgitate. I could tell their minds were always saying "What if…"

I'm not saying that years past have been perfect in regards to teaching science. There have always been hurtles in fostering the inquiry method, such as previous traditional teachings, time, materials, standardized testing, etc. But I never would have guessed the extent to which these scripted programs are hindering the real authentic learning that inquiry provides. And it is quite evident as a teacher who is seeing this Scott Foresman generation for the first time. Inquiry is slowing slipping out of the hands of our children and I feel as though I am back to square one with helping children actually open their eyes and mess about with the world around them.

Needless to say, teaching science this year is certainly challenging. Slowly but surely these children are remembering what it is to act like a kid instead of a robotic 11 year old. Since time is of the essence, I am learning how to bring inquiry into other domains, such as in language arts, to emphasize the process of learning by experimenting. My students this year are so used to directions and order, and I think they are starting to like the choices that they are getting within the inquiry method of obtaining knowledge. It was fascinating to see that not one single child in my school received a 4 on the science NECAPs, and only a handful received a 3. I hope that by recognizing what the problem is within this particular group of students, I will be able to salvage the ignored inquiry that was always inside of them. It will be a slow journey this year, but a journey that my 5th graders will greatly benefit from in the long run.