Constructing Knowledge and Discovering Meaning: How Children Learn Science - Chapter 2

In the beginning of Chapter 2 a publication is referenced from the National Academy of Science (2007) titled “Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching in Grades K-8”. While the text was correct, I didn’t read the summary of research from beginning to end because it is nearly 400 pages long, I was able to find an executive summary online. Much of it echoes what is mentioned in the text such as understanding how children learn science. However, the date of the article is back in 2007 and it lists some recommendations based on research for approaches to teaching science. While some of the recommendations, such as those for the Next Generation Standards, seem to have been addressed I would be interested in knowing if there has been a follow up to this meta study around approaches to teaching science.  For example one of their recommendations was “Recommendation 3: Developers of curricula and standards should present science as a process of building theories and models using evidence, checking them for internal consistency and coherence, and testing them empirically. Discussions of scientific methodology should be introduced in the context of pursuing specific questions and issues rather than as templates or invariant recipes” (National Academy of Science, 2007, pg. 5-6). This addresses the fact that the process of science goes beyond the scientific method and should include methods such as “observational methods, historical reconstruction, analysis, and other nonexperimental methods” (National Academy of Science, 2007, pg. 6).

The text mentions constructivism which seems to address many of the recommendations from the report because it takes into account what and how children learn. In an ideal world, gone would be the days of thinking that the teacher knows all and knows best but I've been in classrooms such as depicted in the cartoon below. I think constructivism and the modern model of approaching science encourages teachers to acknowledge and honor prior knowledge, even misconceptions, because they are rooted in real life experiences and offer teachable moments. 

Another principal of constructivism is assimilating and accommodating new learners. This requires teachers to be able to teach beyond a textbook and in other methods than through lecture. (I would argue though that my understanding of constructivism is better represented by image C than image B but this graphic representation was drawn up in reference to a specific report)

The third principal of constructivism is including contributions of neuroscience in the classroom. Through knowing how the brain works we can better provide an education for our students. Having this knowledge and technology to monitor the brain we can better design lessons, classrooms, and learning experiences for our students. This TEDx talk speaks to student experiences in the classroom including misdiagnosis, behavioral challenge, and other incidents. 

I also found this website for a company MeTEOR Education that focuses on engaging students through design and evolving classrooms that have structurally remained static since the industrial revolution. I would agree that the structure of classrooms is due for an upgrade and that learning environments need to evolve to support modern models such as constructivism.