My practicum placement was at Roland Story Elementary School in Story City. I was in a first-grade classroom. At this point in time, the school is not using a science curriculum. Last year, they piloted a science curriculum and, according to my cooperating teacher “It was a trainwreck”. Last year, my cooperating teacher told me that she used the Mystery Science curriculum and that she was still using it a little bit. Mystery Science is not the curriculum that was piloted, it is a curriculum that my cooperating teacher used in addition to the piloted curriculum. The rest of the first-grade team is not very fond of Mystery Science. I’m not exactly sure why the other members of the team do not like Mystery Science. Because of this, the
…show more content…
I love that it is focused on collaboration, critical thinking, and hands-on learning. These are three extremely important things in education and they are linked to engagement. A curriculum like this could lead to a better appreciation for and understanding of science in future generations. During my practicum experience, I’m pretty sure I heard four different students, out of 21, say that they wanted to be scientists when they grew up. I also appreciate that it is linked to the literacy curriculum in the classroom. Students are going to see the importance of and the reach of science if it is incorporated throughout the day. Another strength is that teachers can go where students are interested. It is easier to use student interest as a deciding factor in lesson planning if there is no set curriculum. The main weakness of the ‘curriculum’ is that it has no structure to it. Each teacher is allowed to do whatever they want that relates to the essential question and the NGSS standard. There are no limitations or guidelines. Some might say that this is a strength, but I think that it could be more hindering than helpful. The students in one class won’t necessarily be getting the same thing as the students in another class. I’m not saying that students have to do the exact same thing, I just think that there are too many ways that instruction could go, and since there is no curriculum, beyond standards, there is
I love that it is focused on collaboration, critical thinking, and hands-on learning. These are three extremely important things in education and they are linked to engagement. A curriculum like this could lead to a better appreciation for and understanding of science in future generations. During my practicum experience, I’m pretty sure I heard four different students, out of 21, say that they wanted to be scientists when they grew up. I also appreciate that it is linked to the literacy curriculum in the classroom. Students are going to see the importance of and the reach of science if it is incorporated throughout the day. Another strength is that teachers can go where students are interested. It is easier to use student interest as a deciding factor in lesson planning if there is no set curriculum. The main weakness of the ‘curriculum’ is that it has no structure to it. Each teacher is allowed to do whatever they want that relates to the essential question and the NGSS standard. There are no limitations or guidelines. Some might say that this is a strength, but I think that it could be more hindering than helpful. The students in one class won’t necessarily be getting the same thing as the students in another class. I’m not saying that students have to do the exact same thing, I just think that there are too many ways that instruction could go, and since there is no curriculum, beyond standards, there is