Douglas Fisher (00:00):

It’s not that you have to become a reading specialist to integrate literacy into science. It’s how our brains work.

Eric Cross (00:10):

Welcome to Science Connections. I’m your host, Eric Cross. This season, we’re making the case for our favorite underdog, which of course is science. Each episode we’re showing how science can be better utilized in the classroom, and making the case for why it’s so important to do so. In our last episode, we examined the evidence showing that science and English instruction can support each other. And now on this episode, we want to give you some more strategies for really making that a reality in your own home or classroom or community. So to help me, I’m joined on this episode by Dr. Douglas Fisher, Professor and Chair of Educational Leadership at San Diego State University. Dr. Fisher is actually someone who has conducted literacy training at my own school, so I’m excited to be able to share some of his wisdom with all of you. Oh, and just a heads up, Dr. Fisher dropped some gems about the ways teachers can integrate literacy and science in their classrooms. So you may want to have a notepad. Ready. And now here’s my conversation with Dr. Douglas Fisher.

Eric Cross (01:12):

Well, Doug, thank you for your time and for being willing to come and talk about literacy and science. I know you’re busy, all over the place, and so I was super-excited that we were able to lock you in and talk about this. And, on this episode, we’re gonna talk about the ways that science and literacy can support each other. And one of the reasons why I’m really excited for you is because you said some really key things for me as a science teacher, when you talked about literacy and supporting students. That just resonated so deeply in me. And I was like, “I need more Doug!” Because we’re on that same frequency. And I know it’s a subject that you’ve spent a lot of time writing about. So can you tell us a little bit about how this became an area of interest or a passion for you? Just literacy, and all of the work that you’ve put into it?

Douglas Fisher (01:54):

Yeah. So I’ve wanted to be a teacher for a really long time. And I went to San Diego State as an undergraduate, and I was taking English class and we were assigned topics. You know, like, you’ll do an assignment, you’ll write a paper for this English class. And I got the topic “illiteracy,” and I was a freshman at San Diego State reading all of these things about adults who don’t read very well or not at all. And I ended up writing my very first college essay on illiteracy — at the time, you know, called illiteracy, at the time. And so I got super interested in this. And so as I moved through college and into my teaching career, literacy became a really important thing for me to think about, because it’s the gatekeeper. You know, you can be taken advantage of, if you’re not very literate. People can use vocabulary against you, if you’re not very literate. We know that people who have higher levels of literacy have better health outcomes. They have better lifespans, longer lifespans. I mean, there’s just — literacy impacts so much more than “Are you reading your fourth-grade textbook?” It really has lifelong implications.

Eric Cross (03:01):

That part that you said about being taken advantage of … I just got a flyer in the mail yesterday. It was one of these mailers that looked like it was an authentic debt-reduction type of thing, but it was really just like a marketing email. If you read the fine print at the very bottom, it had all of this jargon about “This is a paid, you know, for-profit company.” But when you look at it, it had official stamps all over it. And I could imagine if someone’s receiving that, that probably fools a lot of people. Is that kinda like what you’re talking about, like being taken advantage of?

Douglas Fisher (03:28):

Yes. I had a student turn 18, got a letter from a “credit card company” that was offering her daily compounding interest. And if you don’t know what that means — at 23 percent! — if you dunno what that means, you are gonna be a victim. Literacy really influences a lot of our life. It’s also how our brain works. We have a language-based system in our brain. We read, write, speak, listen, and view. And the things we learn, we learn through speaking, reading, writing, listening, and viewing. From what we know, we are the only species that has an external storage mechanism. Like, we have the ability to store complex information outside of our body, in the form of notes. We can type them. We can write them. And we can then go back and retrieve that information, that complex orthographic information later. And it means the same thing. We can say we have a storage system and we’ve been doing this for a really long time. Way back to, you know, hieroglyphics and messages on cave walls. And throughout the ages of humans learning, how to store information that they can re-access again later. That’s become a super-complicated system. It’s how computers operate. And we send messages to each other and we text each other and we write things down, and we’re really good at putting ideas, information out there. Now, if it’s just speaking and listening, then we can forget it. We can say, “No, you said this,” or “I said that.” But when it’s written, and it’s print literacy, you know, it’s the orthographics there, you can go back to the same message and over and over again. Now, you might change the interpretation of it, but the message is still there.

Eric Cross (05:16):

Right. And that is such a key element, at least of modern education, is this written element of it. It’s what many schools live and die by. They’re quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed by it. It’s public. They can see it. And so there’s this heavy emphasis. And why do you think science and literacy can be powerful allies together?

Douglas Fisher (05:38):

Awesome. Well, it’s hard to learn science if you’re not literate.

Eric Cross (05:42):

This is true.

Douglas Fisher (05:42):

But that’s a one-way direction. And yes, science teachers and scientists do a lot of reading, writing, speaking, and listening and viewing. They use the five literacy processes all the time. When we interview scientists, they spend a lot of their time reading the work of other scientists and writing their findings, writing grant proposals, presenting at conferences, you know. So a huge part of the work of a scientist is not just at a bench conducting experiments. But even if you’re conducting experiments, you’re using your literacy processes to think about what you’re seeing in your experiment. So that’s a one-way direction. And I do think literacy has an influence on science. But since science goes the other way, it influences literacy. As you learn more and you understand more about the world, your background knowledge grows, your vocabulary grows, you become more literate in those different areas. And how you think. So if I’m learning about life science; I’m learning how the world works in a more, biologic physical world. And that knowledge helps me think about when I’m reading a novel, and there’s an appeal to some science knowledge or a concept that gets played with, you know, perhaps time-space continuums … well, if I don’t have the science knowledge of how I think the world works, it’s hard for me to understand what this author is doing. So it does go both ways. They feed each other. And the more literate we become, the more complex science information we can understand. ‘Cause our background knowledge and our vocabulary influence how much we understand about what we read. And as we access more complex science information, it starts to change the way we think about other things in our world.

Eric Cross (07:23):

There was a couple of things that you said in that, but one of the first things that kind of perked my ears is when you said grant proposals. Because I have friends that are scientists — and this is one of the things that when I was in school, they don’t talk about — but how much of their research is reliant upon getting funding —

Douglas Fisher (07:37):

Mm-hmm. <affirmative>,

Eric Cross (07:38):

— which you don’t think about if you’re becoming a chemist or a physicist or a biologist or working in the field, is that that funding, coming from the NSF or anywhere else. And sometimes students ask in class like, “Why am I writing so much? Like, I want to go into science!” Or “I wanna do this!” And this is a real-life example of how the writing could actually apply, in addition to all of the things of collecting data and conclusions and results. But that grant proposal thing just really perked my ears, yeah.

Douglas Fisher (08:01):

And if you can’t write a grant proposal, your ideas and experiments are not gonna get funded. And if you can’t write a strong proposal, that compellingly convinces your readers to fund you, you’re not gonna get funded. But then once you get the grant, you have to write publications. You have to share your work with other people. Make PowerPoint presentations and write journal articles or books or whatever. So it’s a cycle that literacy influences the things we do, including the things we do in science.

Eric Cross (08:31):

Now to get in maybe some data, if you were trying to convince someone that like this happy marriage can exist, what would be like your number one piece of evidence to support this, this back and forth of supporting each other?

Douglas Fisher (08:44):

Awesome. So the quote I’ll often say — and this is from studies from more than two decades ago now — but in general, in high school science, students are introduced to 3000 unfamiliar words, 3000. Each year! Because there are words that are used in a scientific way that are used commonly in other places. And there are discipline-specific words. So 3000 words a year in high school science. The Spanish 1 textbook only has 1500 words in it. So science teachers have double the academic-language vocabulary demand that a typical introductory world-language class has. So just the vocabulary alone should say to us, literacy is gonna be important if you’re gonna learn science. And if you don’t understand these technical words, and you don’t understand the way science uses this particular word in this particular way… . When you say the word “process,” it means something very specific In science. “Division” — cellular division is not the way we think about it in mathematics; there’s a similar concept, but cellular division is different than dividing numbers. And those are words that get used in multiple areas. Then you have all these technical terms that you have to be able to use, to understand the concepts. To share the concepts. To talk to other people. Whether you’re in, you know, fifth grade and talking science, or you’re a university professor, there’s a shared language, appropriate for our grade level, that we have shared meanings of.

Eric Cross (10:22):

And we’re essentially … what I’m hearing you say is … most of the people that are listening to this are science teachers. We’re we’re also language teachers. In a sense.

Douglas Fisher (10:29):

So my frustration is when people say, “Every teacher’s a teacher of reading.” And I don’t like that. I’ve written against that phrase. I don’t think all teachers are teachers of reading, any more than all teachers are teachers of chemistry. Or all teachers are teachers of algebra. But what I will say is the human brain learns through language. And all of us — every teacher that I’ve ever met understands that language is important in my class. If my students don’t have strong listening skills and speaking skills; reading, writing, and viewing skills; I’m gonna have a hard time getting them to learn things. If I can help them grow their speaking, listening, reading, writing, and viewing in my content area, I’m gonna do a service for my learning of my subject and also their more broad literacy development.

Eric Cross (11:16):

1. So, at a high level, what does it look like to integrate science and literacy? We’ve done education for the last, what, hundred years?

Douglas Fisher (11:24):

Mm-hmm. <affirmative>

Eric Cross (11:25):

—kind of pretty similarly, right? Kind of siloed way. What does this look like at the 30,000-foot level? You’re a professor, department chair. Run schools. Speak everywhere. Like, when you think about this from that high level, what does it look like?

Douglas Fisher (11:39):

A high level? Every time I meet with students in a science class, you know, biology or fifth grade or whatever? They should be reading, they should be writing, they should be speaking and listening. Every class. So what print do you want them to access? And it can be a primary source document, it can be an article, it can be from a textbook. Are they reading something? Are they writing to you? Because writing is thinking. If they are writing, they are thinking. As soon as their brain goes somewhere else, they stop writing. The pen won’t move or the fingers don’t type. And then speaking and listening, of course, is the dynamic of our classes. So every day we should see some amount of reading, writing, speaking, and listening, viewing in our classes. That’s at a high level. There are some generic things that seem to work across the literacy. So, learning how to take notes. Focusing on vocabulary. Using graphic organizers. These are generic things that as educators we can use in our classes. Then there’s more specialized things. So, scientists and science teachers think differently than historians and literary critics and art critics. So scientists, if you look at the disciplinary literacy work, there’s a whole body of research where they interview and study high-end experts in their field: chemistry, physics, biology, et cetera. And there are some characteristics that were more disciplined, specific. Scientists like cause and effect relationships. They look for them when they’re reading. They like sourcing information. “Where this come from?” “What’s the history of this idea?” Scientists have a long view in terms of time. Historians have a shorter view of time. English teachers have even shorter view of time. Scientists tend to think in long periods of time. And so all of that influences how a scientist reads and how we should apprentice young people after they get past the generic “I know how to take notes. I know how to study my vocabulary. I know how to do summary writing for my teacher in my notebooks and things,” there’s some generic tools. Once we get past those, we need to be looking at specifically how do people in science use literacy.

Eric Cross (13:52):

I’ve never had my thought process of reading deconstructed just now, but we just described how scientists read. I was like, “Yeah, that’s pretty much how I read, right there.” I also like how you said how we should apprentice young people. And I feel like you as the literacy guy, you chose that word very specifically, as far as apprenticing young people. That is a view, I think, that’s really important to hold. ‘Cause that’s what we’re doing essentially … is, if we’re doing what we should be doing, we are apprenticing these young people.

Douglas Fisher (14:18):

Yes.

Eric Cross (14:18):

And helping them develop. Now, let’s imagine there’s a listener out there and they’re interested in getting better at integrating science and literacy instruction. They want to start somewhere. Before we dive in, do you have any initial words of encouragement for the person who’s like, “Everything is like a priority right now,” in their classroom or in their world?

Douglas Fisher (14:37):

Yeah. So I’ll talk about elementary for just a moment. When we’re reading informational texts in our literacy block, we should be reading information that is aligned to what kids need to learn in science and history in, in that grade level. Why are we reading things that are gonna be in conflict with what they’re gonna learn in science later that day in fourth grade, for example? So when we look at our standards, our expectations, what is it that third graders need to know in history, science, mathematics, language arts? And when we’re reading text and we’re learning to apply our reading strategies during our literacy block, why aren’t we reading topics that build our background knowledge for our science time? So we’re seeing some synergy there. We should be looking at life cycles in grades that are appropriate for life cycles and knowing there’s more to life cycles than the frog and the plant or the seed. There are all kinds of life cycles. And we call ’em life cycles for a reason. That’s a general concept. Now in science, we’re looking at this particular lifecycle right now. And so that’s a high level. If we could get more connection to the content standards during our literacy blocks, it would be very good. When we talk about the time at which we call “science” in the day, in more of the K–8 continuum, the science needs to include some primary source documents. Some real things that students are reading. Read about a scientist; read about a scientist’s discovery; read about what they discovered. So that we’re building our background knowledge. So when we go to do things, activities, labs, simulations, we have background knowledge and we understand what we’re experiencing. It can’t be like—I watched this awesome lesson on lenses and the teacher had all these different lenses in the room and the students came in and they were brand new. They don’t know anything. They were picking ’em up. They’re exploring them. They’re trying to figure out, and they’re trying to come up with theories about what this is and how it works. And then the teacher gave them a reading, a short reading, on refraction of light. And they read this thing. And the clarity that they had about what these lenses must do, well! All of a sudden they’re putting them up to the lights! They’re asking if they can go get the lights out of the storage unit! ‘Cause there’s — and they’re shining different lights through the lenses to see what happens to the light. Because that little bit of reading turned some focus on for the students. And it allowed them to take what I’m thinking about, what I’m trying to figure out, how this thing works in another direction. That’s the power of using literacy in our classes.

Eric Cross (17:20):

And what I’m hearing essentially is transfer across disciplines, across content areas, ultimately. And in an elementary school classroom, would it be fair to say, probably the teacher has more autonomy to be able to do that, since they’re teaching all the subjects? But secondary, logistically, planning and those types of things … from what you’ve seen, is it fair to say this kind of needs to be like a top-down, full vertical alignment, to teach like this?

Douglas Fisher (17:45):

I think that would be awesome to do that. But if I’m a sixth grade English Language Arts teacher and I’m working with my sixth grade science teacher, the conversation should be, “What units are you teaching?” Because I’m choosing informational text. My job is to teach them how to find central ideas. My job is to teach them how to find the details in the text. My job is to have them make a claim and support that claim with evidence. The stuff I use is generic. Yes, we do read some literature and some narratives, but we also read about 50% of the text in English around informational text. So if I can help you and accomplish my standards as well, fantastic. So let’s have this conversation and say, “Oh, this is what you’re teaching in science in the next three weeks? I’m gonna choose some texts and we’re gonna analyze ’em for central idea. We’re gonna analyze ’em for details. We’re gonna, for mood or tone or whatever that we’re teaching. And by the way, I’m building background knowledge. So when they come to you, they know some stuff about what you’re going to be teaching next.” So I don’t think it’s impossible to say teams of teachers could come together and say, “What do we believe that our students need to know and learn and be able to do? And then how do we choose things that are gonna help them accomplish exactly that?”

Eric Cross (19:01):

And that’s empowering. Because that’s one thing that we can control maybe is this East-West, peer-to-peer, different content areas. A system may not be able to change as quickly, but I can definitely go talk to my English team or math team and check in and kind of see, “Hey, where do we have overlap in that?” And I know the times that I’ve accidentally had overlap with the teams, it’s super-exciting. And the students have been more bought in! Because it’s like, we’ve done something on the human microbiome and we’ve talked about genetics and all these different things, and then when they read The Giver, or they read some book about genetics, they have all this knowledge. And they’re excited. And they talk about colorblindness or they come to my class and they’re like, “Hey, we read about this!” It’s almost like they saw a magic trick, the fact that these things linked up. And the engagement has been so much higher when it’s the same content in different classes, but through different lenses. At least, that’s what I’ve seen in my years of teaching.

Douglas Fisher (19:54):

I saw a lesson on space junk that was so cool. Middle-school students learning space junk. And the history teacher had a part of it, science teacher had a part of it, English Language Arts teacher had a part of it. And these students, I mean, you watch them look up all the time, ’cause there’s space junk up there. Where’d it come from? Why is it there? What are the politics of this? How do we clean it up? I mean, it was just so interesting to watch them when the teachers came together. And the teachers met their standards in this couple-week-long space-junk exploration. Investigation was met. Politics was met. All these different things. Economy. You know, how much does it cost to clean up this problem? So there’s really cool opportunities when teachers come together and realize we can work together and improve the literacy and learning of our students.

Eric Cross (20:50):

Absolutely. So before this recording, we picked your brain a bit. And I know that there were three specific strategy areas that you wanted to touch on. And one of those — which is kind of coming back to the 3000-words language teachers — was vocabulary. So what are the opportunities that you see, as far as the way of educators to approach vocabulary? Because, you know, there’s a lot. We got a lot of it. The 3000 words.

Douglas Fisher (21:14):

Yeah. There’s a lot of it. So the worry is, we make a vocabulary list and have students look up the words in definitional kinds of things. That’s not really gonna help. Students need to be using the words. They need to be using the words in their conversations, in their writing, in how they think about your content in science. So vocabulary is a huge predictor of whether or not you understand things. Vocabulary is also a pretty good predictor if you can read on grade level. So when we think about vocabulary, there’s something called word solving. You show students a piece of text and you’re reading it, you’re sharing your thinking, and you say, “Oh, here’s a context clue!” Or “I know this prefix or suffix or root!” And in science, a lot of the words are prefixed, suffixed, or root words. We tend to add things together with a lot of prefixes and suffixes and have roots and bases in science. So we can help students think about, “Oh, what does geo- mean? We already know what geo- means here. It means the same thing in this word. Let’s apply that knowledge.” So word solving is part of it, showing students how we think about words that we might not know. The second is more direct instruction of vocabulary. As students encounter the words, we work on what it means, how we say it. We practice it a few times. The process is called orthographic mapping. It’s kind of a scientific idea here. But you have the sound and the recognition of by-the-word, by sight, and what it means. And your brain starts to automatically recognize that word in the future. So I don’t have to slow down, disrupt my fluency, and try to figure out what the word is saying. ‘Cause I’ve seen it enough. I’ve heard it pronounced enough, I’ve pronounced it enough, and I know what it means. So teachers should be saying, “What words in sixth grade science, what words in third grade science, do my students really need to know?” And I’m gonna have them encounter those words over and over. I’m gonna have them use the words. I’m gonna have them see the words. I’m gonna have them say the words. I’m gonna say the word and we’re gonna be over and over with these terms, so that students incorporate them into their normal view of, “These are the things I know about the world.” By the way, when they go to read that next thing, and they understand “geology,” you know, for sixth graders, for example, they know how to say it. They don’t stumble on it. And it activates a whole bunch of memories in their brains. “This is what geology is.” There are branches of geology, there’s physical geology, there’s all this thinking that activates as they read.

Eric Cross (23:35):

There was a practice that I participated in and am trying to incorporate — I don’t know what the name of it is. But essentially what happened was we were dissecting a flower. And the instructor had us name parts of the flower. But we got to come up with our own names for it.

Douglas Fisher (23:49):

Ah.

Eric Cross (23:50):

So, for instance, the stamen we call “the fuzzy Cheeto.” And we all used our own words and then everything was legitimized. And so we went through and learned the whole activity using our own vocab words. But then, in the end, after we presented and talked about it, then the words, the actual academic language was attached to our word. And we were able to say, “OK, the fuzzy Cheeto is the stamen,” and this, this, this, and this. But it was such an interesting practice, because it kind of legitimized all of our definitions. But we weren’t stumbling on these long Latin terms and things like that. Is there a name for that? Or. … ?

Douglas Fisher (24:29):

Yes. I don’t know the name for that. I think it’s really smart. So here’s what I would say about that, is: we don’t learn words, we learn concepts. Words are labels for our concepts. So what that teacher did for you was allow you to develop concept, a concept knowledge. “There’s a part of this plant, it goes like this, we’re gonna call it fuzzy Cheeto. Now I have this concept. And look, it occurred in all these plants. And those people called it that and that other group called it that. We called it a fuzzy Cheeto. Here’s the part of it.” And then the concept is in your brains. And the teacher said, “It’s really called stamen.” And it’s an instant transfer, because you already had the concept. What we often see is students are trying to learn a really hard academic word and the concept for the word at the same time. And so it slows down the whole process. And there’s higher levels of forgetting. Because human beings, we don’t learn words; we learn concepts. If you don’t have the concept, if I gave you a word out of the blue that you’ve never seen, never heard, and a week from now I asked you to remember it, you probably would not, because it didn’t register. It wasn’t part of your schema. You didn’t have a way to organize the information. You don’t have a concept. So that teacher? It’s a great idea. Got you to develop concept knowledge. And then said, “Here’s a real label for it: What some other people called it when they had the chance to come up with their own names.”

Eric Cross (25:50):

Shout out to my teacher, who was—

Douglas Fisher (25:51):

Right.

Eric Cross (25:52):

It was learned then. It was a great practice. And the fact that you’re right, like, I just mean from my own personal experience, I agree that learning concepts versus complicated words. And it’s interesting that you said higher levels of forgetfulness, you know. And you often hear that complaint about it: “Students forget! Students forget!” But this complex topic and this complex word that’s new to me, and I have to remember both of those things.

Douglas Fisher (26:12):

That’s right.

Eric Cross (26:13):

And the other neat thing that it did, is it actually honored the background and like the founts of knowledge of all the different groups in the classroom. You just said something about “this group called it this and this group called it this,” and so by letting different groups share all of those names, now we’re starting to build these kind of interesting connections. That’s at least what I remember experiencing. And so this, even this practice of this approach is very layered, beyond just kind of generating new knowledge of things. So I appreciate that aspect of it. Now another area that you mentioned was complex text.

Douglas Fisher (26:41):

Yeah.

Eric Cross (26:42):

And how we can get students into complex text. So what can we do there?

Douglas Fisher (26:46):

I think science is an ideal place to get students reading things that are hard for them. And I do believe that some parts of school should be a struggle. Not all day, every day. But there should be doses of struggle, which are good for our brains. And these complex pieces of texts that don’t give up their meanings easily allow students to go back and reread the text and maybe mark the text and talk to peers about the text and answer questions with their groups. And the whole point of complex text is to say, “We persevere through it. We may not understand it fully on our first read. But we go back and we might underline, we might highlight. We might write some margin notes. Our teacher might say, ‘What did this author mean here?’ And we go back and look at that part and we take it apart. What do we think about that? And we talk to each other. It’s showing that when we read things, we work to understand. We work through our thinking, often in the presence of other people. And our understanding grows as we go into the text over and over and over again.” So I said geology earlier. There’s about a two-page article on “what is geology” that sixth graders often read. And some kids find it super boring. It’s a once-read, “OK, geology, I don’t really understand it. There’s a bunch of words in here that I don’t understand.” But if you go back to it a few times and you start taking apart, “What are the branches of geology? Oh, I’m gonna go reread that.” How are these two branches related to each other?” “What are the subtypes of each branch of geology?” “How do geologists do their work?” You start asking questions where students are going back into the text. You spend a little bit of time. Now, the introduction to geology, the students know so much more. So whatever you do next— video experiments, whatever—they have a frame of reference, because of that deep, complex read. It’s probably better than simply telling them, “Here’s the information.”

Eric Cross (28:45):

Right. And I even feel like as an educator, when I reflect on my own learning in the classroom, and then looking at it through the perspective of an educator <laugh>, you find this difference between how you were taught and then what the data says good teaching is.

Douglas Fisher (28:59):

Mm-hmm. <affirmative> mm-hmm. <affirmative>.

Eric Cross (29:00):

It’s so easy to slide back into how you were taught!

Douglas Fisher (29:02):

Yeah.

Eric Cross (29:02):

Even though, you know, you mentally assent to, “This is the best way. This is the data shows.” And you find yourself kind of sliding back at times.

Douglas Fisher (29:10):

Yep. And there’s good evidence to support what you just said, that most people teach the way they experienced school. And it is very hard to change that. And people have studied this. And it’s very hard to change that. Because it worked for us. And we have an n of 1, and it worked for us. Now, remember, there were a whole bunch of other kids in the class that it may not have worked for. And we chose to be in school the rest of our lives, and some of your peers did not choose to be in school the rest of their lives. In fact, some of them hated school and found no redeeming qualities of their experience. So just because it worked for us in a case of one, n of 1, doesn’t mean it worked for all of the kids, or even the majority of them.

Eric Cross (29:57):

Very well said. It’s that, what is that, the survivor bias? Survivorship bias? Where you were the one that made it. But you don’t think about all the other folks. ‘Cause we’re thinking about ourselves.

Douglas Fisher (30:05):

That’s right.

Eric Cross (30:06):

Great case for empathy too, is thinking about the people left and right. Because my friends are like, “I hated science.” And I say, “Who hurt you? Like, what did they do? It’s so amazing, so much fun!”

Douglas Fisher (30:16):

“What happened to you? Science is the coolest. Right? It’s so amazing!”

Eric Cross (30:21):

But I also had a unique experience in seventh grade with my teacher who did some of these things, and made it accessible for so many of us, in opening opportunities that I wouldn’t have had otherwise. But you’re absolutely right. That was my story. That wasn’t the story of everybody that was around me. And I think that’s really important. Now, I know this is also a big one for you, but I wanna talk about writing. What are the opportunities that you see in terms of writing specifically?

Douglas Fisher (30:51):

So would love it if science teachers had short and longer writing tasks in the science time. Of course, you can integrate some of the science writing, the longer ones, in the English language arts time, especially if you’re the elementary teacher and you can have control of the whole day. But I said this earlier; I’ll say it again. Writing is thinking. While you are writing, there’s nothing else you can do but think about what you are writing. Your brain cannot do something else. So if a science teacher wants to know, do their students really understand the concepts? Have them write. Now some of the shorter ones, I like something called “given word” or “generative sentences”: “I’m gonna give you a word: CELL. C-e-l-l. We’re in science. I want you to write the word ‘cell,’ c-e-l-l, in the third position of a sentence. So it’s gonna go word, word, cell, and then more words.” You could also say, “I want the sentence longer than seven words,” or whatever. But the key is, I’m telling you where I want the word. You will know instantly if your students have a sense of what the word “cell” means in the context of science. If they write “my cell phone,” they don’t get it. If they write about spreadsheet cells or jail cells or whatever, they didn’t get it. But if they talk to you about plant cells and animal cells and the components of those cells, and then once they have that sentence down, you can say to them, “Now write three or four more sentences that connect to that sentence.” It’s super simple. So whatever concepts you’re teaching, put ’em in a specific position. Now you don’t have to only put it in the third position. You can say the first position, the fifth position, the fourth position. But it forces them to think about what they know about the word and then how to construct a sentence for you. That’s a very simple way to get some writing from your students that helps you think about what they understand. Other kinds of writing, you can have quick writes, you can have exit-slip writes. There’s something in the research space called the muddiest part, where halfway through the lesson you have them write so far what has been the least understood or the most confusing part of this lesson. And they do a quick write, right there, at the muddiest part. And as a teacher, you flip through these and you start to say, “Oh, these are the points that are confusing to my students.” So if 80% of them all have the same thing, I gotta reteach that. If these five got, “This is the muddiest part,” If these five thought, “This is the muddiest part,” these seven, “I thought this was the muddiest part,” what do I need to do? Because it’s gonna be hard to move forward if this is their area of confusion. There are also all kinds of writing prompts that have a little bit longer. My favorite one is RAFT. What’s your Role? Who’s your Audience? What’s the Format? And what’s the Topic we’re writing about? Super flexible writing prompt. When you teach something, we don’t want students to only think they write to their teacher. So your role is an atom. You are writing to the other atoms. What do you wanna write about? What’s the topic? What’s the format of it? Is it a love letter? Is it a text message? Is it … so we, we mix it up with students in saying, how do they show some knowledge through a prompt that we give them? And then of course, longer pieces as they get older. More opinion pieces through fifth grade. More claims and arguments starting in sixth grade. So that they’re starting to see, “I have to use the evidence from things I’ve learned, read, listened to, watched, and construct something: an opinion, an argument where I back it up with reasons or evidence.” And those longer pieces, you know, less frequently. The shorter pieces, pretty regularly. So the teacher sees the thinking of the students.

Eric Cross (34:29):

When you were speaking about these really creative writing prompts, there were specific students coming into mind, that were coming into mind … they’re, they’re great science students, but they also have this really strong artsy side drawing, creative writing, and things like that. And when you said something about atoms talking to each other, it elicited, in my brain, certain students that would really love this aspect of creativity in the sciences. And it’s not how we’re typically trained as science teachers, to kind of incorporate this, like you said. A book of props. But I’m imagining, like, as a science teacher, if I took this, this would be a great way to reach more students to be able to show what they know, in a way that might resonate with their own intrinsic “Oh, I get to write creatively!” So I was kind of writing furiously as you were sharing all that information there.

Douglas Fisher (35:12):

So here, I’ll give you another example for elementary people. Again, with RAFT. There’s a book called Water Dance. It’s a pretty popular book for elementary teachers. It’s really about the life cycle of water. For example, you are a single drop of water. You are writing to the land. The format is a letter. And you’re explaining your journey. Now, if they can do this, they’re essentially explaining to you the cycle of water. But you got it in a way that people are now, “Oh, I’m a drop of water. So it’s me. My perspective. Where do I go from? Where do I start?” Because you can start anywhere in the cycle, right? My drop could have started in the clouds. My drop could have started in the ground. My drop could have started in the lake. But it has to show you the journey. So there are many ways of showing you the right answers.

Eric Cross (36:02):

And that’s using the RAFT protocol.

Douglas Fisher (36:04):

That’s RAFT: Role, Audience, Format, Topic. It’s been around 20 or 30 years.

Eric Cross (36:09):

You just gave the name to something a teacher shared in our podcast community, Science Connections: The Community, on Facebook. Teacher shared a Google slide deck and on it were just three slides. And the role that the student had to have is they had to show, then tell, the story of a journey of a piece of salmon being eaten, a piece of starch from pasta being eaten, and then an air molecule in a child’s bedroom. And they had to give the path of travel and the experience from the mouth and then breaking down into protein and all those kinds of things. And this teacher shared it and I wish I knew the teacher’s name because I wanna give ’em credit, but they shared it. And so I used it with my students and then had ’em read aloud their stories and dramatize it. And they were so into it!

Douglas Fisher (36:49):

So cool.

Eric Cross (36:50):

But through it, I was able to see that they understood different parts of the body. They understood cell respiration. The whole thing. And it was fun! To watch them get so into this creative writing. And now I know the name of it. That’s been 30 years they were using RAFT. So you just talked a bit about complex texts and writing. And before we go, I wanted to circle back to something that you said, because I think it’s important, and if you could elaborate on it a little bit, about the value of struggle. Can you talk more about that?

Douglas Fisher (37:21):

Sure. I do believe in a lot of the U.S. we’re in an anti-struggle era of education. And it predates Covid. I think it made it worse during Covid. We front load too much. We pre-teach too much. We reduce struggle. We quote, “over-differentiate” for students. And there’s value in struggle. The phrase, “productive struggle” — if you haven’t heard it, Google productive struggle — it’s an interesting concept, that we actually learn more when we engage in this productive struggle. Now, productive struggle originally came from the math world, and it was this idea that it’s worth struggling through things to learn from it, that you’re likely to get it wrong, and then there was productive success. And there are times when we want students to experience success and we make sure we put things in place for productive success. But there are times where we want them to struggle through a concept. ‘Cause it feels pretty amazing when you get on the other side, when you know you struggled and you get to the other side. If you think about the things, listeners, think about the things in your life where you struggled through it and you are most proud of what you accomplished. I want students to have that. I don’t wanna eliminate scaffolding, eliminate differentiation. But I do want some regular doses of struggle. So if you look at the scaffolding, we have a couple choices. We have front-end scaffolds, distributed scaffolds, and back-end scaffolds. Right now we mostly use front-end scaffolds: We pre-teach, we tell students words in advance, that kind of stuff. But what if we refrained from only using front-end scaffolds, and we use more distributed scaffolds, when they encounter. So there’s a difference between “just in case” and “just in time” support for students. So we tend to plan on the “in advance, here are all the things we’re gonna do to remove the struggle before students encounter the struggle.” What if instead we said, “Let them encounter some struggle. Here’s the supports we’re gonna provide. We’re gonna watch; we’re gonna remove those scaffolds, and allow them to have an experience of success, where they realize, ‘I did it. I got it.’” Every science teacher I’ve ever worked with, when they do an experiment or a lab or simulation, they are looking for productive struggle. They don’t tell the answers in advance. They don’t tell if the answers are right. That’s your data. What does your data tell you? I mean, this is what you do. But then the other part of your day when you move into, like, reading, you don’t do that. You fall into the trap of removing struggle. And so allow them to grapple with ideas. Allow them to wonder what words mean. Allow them to say, “I’m not getting this, teacher! It’s really frustrating!” And you say, “Yeah, this is really hard. This is why we’re doing it at school. ‘Cause it’s really hard. If it was easy, I’d have you do it at home. But we’re doing it here, ’cause it’s really hard and it’s OK not to get it at first.” And create a place where errors are seen as opportunities to learn, and struggling through ideas and clarifying your own thinking and arguing with other people to reach an agreement or reach a place where we agree to disagree is part of the power of learning.

Eric Cross (40:38):

There’s a teacher, who I took this from. My master teacher when I was student teaching. And she said that there’s no such thing as failure in science, just data. And I took that same mantra. And I resonate with what you said about how science teachers, all of us, hold onto that productive struggle, because it’s part of being a scientist. It’s part of the experiments. That genuine “aha” moment. Or it didn’t work out? That’s great! That’s totally fine! Let’s write about it and let’s take photos and let’s publish it and let’s be scientists. That’s totally true. As we wrap up, Dr. Fisher, is there any final message that you have to listeners about bringing science and literacy together? I know you speak everywhere, but for everyone that’s listening, if you can put out your encouragement or message or suggestion … you’ve given so many great tips and practical applications. But, any final thoughts on the subject?

Douglas Fisher (41:32):

I think many science teachers are intimidated because they think they have to be reading teachers. And there’s a knowledge base to reading. And some teachers are reading teachers and science teachers, and I don’t wanna dismiss that. But it’s not that you have to become a reading specialist to integrate literacy into science. It’s how our brains work. And so as you think about the way in which you are learning and the ways in which you want your students to learn, what role does language play? What role does speaking, listening, reading, writing, viewing, play in your class? And then provide opportunities for students to do those five things each time you meet with them.

Eric Cross (42:12):

Dr. Fisher, thank you so much for being here and for your encouragement, and sharing your wisdom and experience. And then personally serving my city, here in San Diego, and my students, when they make it to your high school and ultimately the alma mater of San Diego State University.

Douglas Fisher (42:30):

That’s right.

Eric Cross (42:31):

Yeah. We really, really appreciate you in serving all kids and lifting the bar and making things more equitable for all students. And encouraging teachers. So thank you.

Douglas Fisher (42:39):

Thank you very much.

Eric Cross (42:42):

Thanks so much for listening to my conversation with Dr. Douglas Fisher, Professor and Chair of Educational Leadership at San Diego State University. Check out the show notes for links to some of Doug’s work, including the book he co-authored titled Reading and Writing in Science: Tools to Develop Disciplinary Literacy. Please remember to subscribe to Science Connections so that you can catch every episode in this exciting third season. And while you’re there, we’d really appreciate it if you can leave us a review. It’ll help more listeners to find the show. Also, if you haven’t already, please be sure to join our Facebook group, Science Connections: The Community. Next time on the show, we’re going to continue exploring the happy marriage between science and literacy instruction.

Speaker  (43:26):

I had this moment of realization I felt a few months ago: I’m like, if I don’t teach them how to use the AI as a tool, as a collaborator, then they’re gonna graduate into a world where they lose out to people who do know how to do that.

Eric Cross (43:39):

That’s next time on Science Connections. Thanks so much for listening.

Kindergarten Knowledge Curriculum

Kindergarten Skills Curriculum

Grade 1 Knowledge Curriculum

Grade 1 Skills Curriculum

Grade 2 Knowledge Curriculum

Grade 2 Skills Curriculum

Grade 3 Curriculum Overview

Grade 4 Curriculum Overview

Grade 5 Curriculum Overview

Amplify Science California is a flexible, blended K–8 science curriculum that addresses 100 percent of the Next Generation Science Standards for California, and a significant number of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects, and Math, as well as the California English Language Development Standards. Together, the units deliver three-dimensional instruction across the following disciplines: Life Science, Earth and Space Science, Physical Science, and Engineering Design.

Since Amplify Science California is a blended curriculum, districts who adopt it are outfitted with a variety of print and digital resources as well as hands-on materials kits. To explore the specific components of the program, visit the What’s Included portion of our site.

As our customers will tell you, when you adopt Amplify Science California, you aren’t just buying a science curriculum, you’re joining a family. As such, along with materials, your adoption of Amplify Science California also includes care and support through a variety of staff and resources, including customer support specialists, pedagogical support specialists, implementation specialists, professional learning specialists, educational partnership managers, and more.

Amplify Science California does indeed features some powerful and engaging digital components, which are gradually introduced beginning at grade 2. However, as a fully blended and flexible program, Amplify Science California can be (and has been) implemented in a wide variety of scenarios.

All lessons were designed with device sharing in mind, and never assume that every student has a separate device. While 1:1 scenarios are great, they aren’t required. When devices are necessary for students to fully experience a concept, teachers can opt to share devices across pairs or small groups, or simply display the Sim or Modeling Tool to the whole class and allow students to “drive” using your device.

Rather than introducing a concept on Monday, testing for mastery on Friday, and knowing students will forget everything by the next Tuesday, we set out to help students build meaningful and lasting knowledge that they can retain and transfer over the course of the entire unit. We accomplish this by giving students multiple opportunities (a.k.a. “at-bats”) to encounter, explore, and experience a concept. Said another way, Amplify Science California is actually made up of a series of multi-modal “mini-lessons.” This intentional cyclical and iterative design mirrors the 5Es, allows teachers the flexibility to speed up or skip ahead once students have demonstrated mastery, and empowers students to learn concepts more deeply than any other program.

We support both. No one solution works for everyone; therefore, in partnership with the Lawrence Hall of Science, we developed suggested sequences for both the integrated model of instruction and the discipline-specific model. Because it’s our goal to provide districts the maximum amount of flexibility, we’re also happy to support districts interested in implementing a different sequence of instruction.

Yes. Rather than separating Performance Expectations into physical science units, earth and space science units, and life science units, Amplify Science California units are organized around anchoring phenomena designed to give students opportunities to dive deeply into certain disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) while also drawing from or applying to others. In organizing the Amplify Science California middle school units, we’ve carefully sequenced these ideas within each grade level to support the development of deep and coherent understanding.

Many real-world phenomena cross the domain boundaries of life, physical, or earth and space science (as well as engineering). Each Amplify Science California unit begins with an intriguing real-world phenomenon that poses a problem that needs to be understood and/or solved. By the end of the unit, students will have analyzed the anchor phenomenon across multiple scientific domains, possibly designed and tested an engineering solution, and always applied what they’ve learned in a different context.

For example:
In the unit Light Waves, students investigate the anchoring phenomenon of why Australia has a much higher skin cancer rate than countries at similar latitudes like Brazil. The focus of this unit is on disciplinary core ideas related to wave properties (PS4.A) and electromagnetic radiation (PS4.B). Students explore these physical science ideas deeply within the unit, and also draw on ideas from earth science (e.g., latitudinal variation of the sun’s energy) and life science (e.g., the effect of energy on the DNA in the nucleus of a cell) in order to explain the central phenomenon.

Absolutely. Hands-on learning is at the heart of Amplify Science California. Integrated into every unit are opportunities for students to take on the role of scientists and engineers as they gather evidence, think critically, solve problems, and develop and defend their claims.

In addition, our unique combination of focus and flex activities means teachers have more options, opportunities, and materials to make learning active. Each hands-on activity provides clear instructions for the teacher, with more complex activities supported by video demonstrations and illustrations.

What’s important to remember is that more hands-on doesn’t necessarily mean better, at least according to the California NGSS. That’s because only two of the eight Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) are directly related to hands-on learning.
Just as scientists gather evidence from many types of sources, so do students in the Amplify Science California program. Like scientists, students gather evidence from physical models, digital models, texts, videos, photographs, maps, and data sets. By doing do, we provide students more opportunities than any other program to practice using all of the practices called out in the California NGSS Framework.

NGSS 8 Science Practices

1. Asking questions
2. Developing and using models
3. Planning and carrying out investigations
4. Analyzing and interpreting data
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
6. Constructing explanations
7. Engaging in arguments from evidence
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

While all of our units engage students in gathering evidence from a rich collection of sources, the reliance on different types of evidence (and evidence sources) varies according to unit. For instance, some units lend themselves to meaningful hands-on experiences, while in other units the phenomena students are investigating are too slow, too dangerous, or too big to be observed directly. In those units, students rely more heavily on other evidence sources such a physical models or simulations.

Unit types in grades K-5

In each K–5 grade, there is one unit that emphasizes investigation, one that emphasizes modeling, and one that emphasizes design. In addition, in grades 3–5, there is also one unit that emphasizes argumentation.

Unit types in grades 6-8

Each 6–8 grade features three types of units: Launch, Core, and Engineering Internships. Each year has one Launch unit, six Core units, and two Engineering Internships.

For teachers who want to supplement the lessons with even more hands-on activities, optional “flextension” activities are included in many units.

Yes indeed. Amplify Science California integrates all four STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and math—in addition to English Language Arts—throughout the curriculum. In addition, each grade level features specific units that emphasize engineering design.

Every lesson in Amplify Science California explicitly calls out which CCSS ELA and CCSS Math standards are addressed. That said, this is not a math program, nor an ELA program; therefore, it does not address all of the Common Core standards. But the program does address a significant number of the standards as they pertain to science.

Yes, the program includes multiple opportunities for summative assessments.

End-of-unit assessments: At grades K–1 these look like targeted conversations, at grades 2–5 we incorporate written responses, and at grades 6–8 we assess through a combination of auto-scored multiple-choice questions and rubric-scored written responses. These summative assessments for each unit are designed to provide valid, reliable, and fair measures of students’ progress and attainment of three-dimensional learning.

Benchmark assessments: Delivered four times per year in grades 3–5 and three times per year in grades 6–8, benchmark assessments report on students’ facility with each of the grade-level appropriate DCIs, SEPs, CCCs, and performance expectations of the California NGSS.

Science Seminars and final written arguments (formative and summative components): In grades 6–8, culminating performance tasks for each core unit invite students to figure out a new real-world problem. They collect and analyze evidence, examine a number of claims, and then engage in a full-class discussion where they must state which claims are best supported by the evidence, all while making clear their reasoning that connects the evidence to the claims. After the seminar, students then individually write their final scientific argument, drawing on the DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs they have used over the course of the unit to develop a sophisticated and convincing argument that addresses the problem they’ve been investigating. Rubrics, scoring guides, and examples of student responses at each scoring level are provided to teachers to support the assessment of students’ understanding of concepts and specific practices.

No. While we do provide suggested sequences for integrated and domain courses, there are other logical ways to sequence the units and we expect that teachers will present the units in a variety of different orders and in any combination. There are a few notable exceptions. For example, students completing the Metabolism Engineering Internship should have completed the Metabolism core unit beforehand, or a unit that provides students with the same information. Amplify Science California specifies prerequisites for each unit in the event that teachers are interested in using an Amplify Science California unit in combination with other materials.

The typical elementary classroom delivers science instruction only two times per week. Yet, most curricula provide 180 days of lessons. Rather than asking teachers to wade through unnecessary content, we designed a program that addresses 100 percent of the NGSS in just 66 days at grades K–2 and 88 days at grades 3–5. With plenty of wiggle room built right into the program, teachers can relax knowing that there’s ample time to get it all done.

Amplify Science California provides more than enough instructional content to fill 180 days of instruction. However, unlike other programs that expect you to complete 180 discrete lessons, Amplify Science California includes built in wiggle room.

For example, the typical elementary classroom delivers science instruction only two times per week. Rather than asking teachers to wade through unnecessary content, we designed our program to address 100 percent of the California NGSS in just 66 days at grades K–2 and 88 days at grades 3–5. When it comes to middle school, we address 100 percent of the California NGSS in 146 lessons.

Some classes might last longer than one session due to a number of reasons (e.g., enthusiastic student conversations, challenging topics requiring deeper dives, more time needed to accommodate diverse learners, etc.). Also, teachers might want to supplement Amplify Science California with some of their own favorite lessons. Lastly, we’ve accounted for the inevitable assembly days, class trips, testing schedules, et cetera. For teachers that want to go deeper or expand upon a unit topic, we also offer a number of additional lessons that are not core to each unit.

Amplify Science California lessons are designed to be completed in the following timeframes:
Grades K-1 lessons are designed for 45 minutes of science instruction.
Grades 2-5 lessons are designed for 60 minutes of science instruction.
Grades 6-8 lessons are designed for 45 minutes of science instruction.

That said, it’s not a problem if you can’t allocate 45 mins of science instruction every day at K-1, or 60 minutes per day at 2-5. Since there are a total of 66 lessons to address 100 percent of California NGSS at grades K-2, and 88 lessons to address 100 percent of California NGSS at grades 3-5, you can easily teach the lessons in smaller blocks and cover all of the content over the course of the school year.

Amplify Science California is a flexible, blended K–8 science curriculum that addresses 100 percent of the Next Generation Science Standards for California and a significant number of the California English Language Development Standards and Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts, Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects, and Math. Together, the units deliver three-dimensional instruction across the following disciplines: Life Science, Earth and Space Science, Physical Science, and Engineering Design.

Amplify Science California does indeed feature some powerful and engaging digital components, which are gradually introduced beginning at grade 2. However, as a fully blended and flexible program, Amplify Science California can be (and has been) implemented in a wide variety of scenarios.

All lessons were designed with device sharing in mind, and never assume that every student has a separate device. While 1:1 scenarios are great, they aren’t required. When devices are necessary for students to fully experience a concept, teachers can opt to share devices across pairs or small groups, or simply display the Sim or Modeling Tool to the whole class and allow students to “drive” using your device.

Rather than introducing a concept on Monday, testing for mastery on Friday, and knowing students will forget everything by the next Tuesday, we set out to help students build meaningful and lasting knowledge that they can retain and transfer over the course of the entire unit. We accomplish this by giving students multiple opportunities (a.k.a. “at-bats”) to encounter, explore, and experience a concept. Said another way, Amplify Science California is actually made up of a series of multi-modal “mini-lessons.” This intentional, cyclical, and iterative design mirrors the 5Es, allows teachers the flexibility to speed up or skip ahead once students have demonstrated mastery, and empowers students to learn concepts more deeply than any other program.

Yes. Rather than separating performance expectations into physical science units, earth and space science units, and life science units, Amplify Science California units are organized around anchoring phenomena designed to give students opportunities to dive deeply into certain Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs) while also drawing from or applying to others. In organizing the Amplify Science California middle school units, we’ve carefully sequenced these ideas within each grade level to support the development of deep and coherent understanding.

Many real-world phenomena cross the domain boundaries of life, physical, or earth and space science (as well as engineering). Each Amplify Science California unit begins with an intriguing real-world phenomenon that poses a problem that needs to be understood and/or solved. By the end of the unit, students will have analyzed the anchor phenomenon across multiple scientific domains, possibly designed and tested an engineering solution, and applied what they’ve learned in a different context.

For example:
In the Light Waves unit, students investigate the anchoring phenomenon of why Australia has a much higher skin cancer rate than countries at similar latitudes like Brazil. The focus of this unit is on Disciplinary Core Ideas related to wave properties (PS4.A) and electromagnetic radiation (PS4.B). Students explore these physical science ideas deeply within the unit, and also draw on ideas from earth science (e.g., latitudinal variation of the sun’s energy) and life science (e.g., the effect of energy on the DNA in the nucleus of a cell) in order to explain the central phenomenon.

Absolutely. Hands-on learning is at the heart of Amplify Science California. Integrated into every unit are opportunities for students to take on the role of scientists and engineers as they gather evidence, think critically, solve problems, and develop and defend their claims.

In addition, our unique combination of focus and flex activities means teachers have more options, opportunities, and materials to make learning active. Each hands-on activity provides clear instructions for the teacher, with more complex activities supported by video demonstrations and illustrations.

What’s important to remember is that more hands-on doesn’t necessarily mean better, at least according to the California NGSS. That’s because only two of the eight Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) are directly related to hands-on learning.

Just as scientists gather evidence from many types of sources, students in the Amplify Science California program gather evidence not just by making physical models, but also by making and interpreting digital models; reading texts; watching videos; and analyzing photographs, maps, and data sets. By doing do, students are provided with more opportunities than any other program to use all of the practices called out in the California NGSS Framework:

• Asking questions
• Developing and using models
• Planning and carrying out investigations
• Analyzing and interpreting data
• Using mathematics and computational thinking
• Constructing explanations
• Engaging in arguments from evidence
• Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

While all of our units engage students in gathering evidence from a rich collection of sources, the reliance on different types of evidence (and evidence sources) varies according to unit. For instance, some units lend themselves to meaningful hands-on experiences, while in other units the phenomena students are investigating are too slow, too dangerous, or too big to be observed directly. In those units, students rely more heavily on other evidence sources such a physical models or simulations.

Unit types in grades K–5

In each K–5 grade, there is one unit that emphasizes investigation, one that emphasizes modeling, and one that emphasizes design. In addition, in grades 3–5, there is also one unit that emphasizes argumentation.

Unit types in grades 6–8

Each 6–8 grade features three types of units: Launch, Core, and Engineering Internships. Each year has one Launch unit, six Core units, and two Engineering Internships.

For teachers who want to supplement the lessons with even more hands-on activities, optional “flextension” activities are included in many units.

Yes indeed. Amplify Science California integrates all four STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and math, in addition to English Language Arts—throughout the curriculum. In addition, each grade level features specific units that emphasize engineering design.

Yes, the program includes multiple opportunities for summative assessments.

End-of-unit assessments: At grades K–1 these look like targeted conversations, at grades 2–5 we incorporate written responses, and at grades 6–8 we assess through a combination of auto-scored multiple-choice questions and rubric-scored written responses. These summative assessments for each unit are designed to provide valid, reliable, and fair measures of students’ progress and attainment of three-dimensional learning.

Benchmark assessments: Delivered four times per year in grades 3–5 and three times per year in grades 6–8, benchmark assessments report on students’ facilities with each of the grade appropriate DCIs, SEPs, CCCs, and performance expectations of the California NGSS.

Science Seminars and final written arguments (formative and summative components): In grades 6–8, culminating performance tasks for each core unit invite students to figure out a new real-world problem. They collect and analyze evidence, examine a number of claims, and then engage in a full-class discussion where they must state which claims are best supported by the evidence, all while making clear their reasoning that connects the evidence to the claims. After the seminar, students then individually write their final scientific argument, drawing on the DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs they have used over the course of the unit to develop a sophisticated and convincing argument that addresses the problem they’ve been investigating. Rubrics, scoring guides, and examples of student responses at each scoring level are provided to teachers to support the assessment of students’ understanding of concepts and specific practices.

Amplify Science California provides more than enough instructional content to fill 180 days of instruction. However, unlike other programs that expect you to complete 180 discrete lessons, Amplify Science California includes built-in wiggle room.

For example, the typical elementary classroom delivers science instruction only two times per week. Rather than asking teachers to wade through unnecessary content, we designed our program to address 100 percent of the California NGSS in just 66 days at grades K–2 and 88 days at grades 3–5. When it comes to middle school, we address 100 percent of the California NGSS in 146 lessons.

Some classes might last longer than one session due to a number of reasons (e.g., enthusiastic student conversations, challenging topics requiring deeper dives, more time needed to accommodate diverse learners, etc.). Also, teachers might want to supplement Amplify Science California with some of their own favorite lessons. Lastly, we’ve accounted for the inevitable assembly days, class trips, testing schedules, etc. For teachers that want to go deeper or expand upon a unit topic, we also offer a number of additional lessons that are not core to each unit.

Amplify Science California lessons are designed to be completed in the following time frames:
Lessons in grades K–1 are designed for 45 minutes of science instruction.
Lessons in grades 2–5 are designed for 60 minutes of science instruction.

That said, it’s not a problem if you can’t allocate 45 minutes of science instruction every day at K–1, or 60 minutes per day at 2–5. Since there are a total of 66 lessons to address 100 percent of California NGSS at grades K–2, and 88 lessons to address 100 percent of California NGSS at grades 3–5, you can easily teach the lessons in smaller blocks and cover all of the content over the course of the school year.

Each lesson of every Amplify Science California unit includes point-of-use differentiation strategies and embedded teacher and student supports for diverse learners, including English learners, students who need more support, and students who are ready for more challenge. These strategies and methods ensure that all students have access to the same content as their peers.

Two notable categories of suggested modifications are:

• English-learner-specific strategies such as English/Spanish glossaries, native language supports, and provision of cognates and other content-specific language scaffolds are provided in each unit.
• Relatively small alterations and additional scaffolds that provide students with greater access to the content.
  These types of scaffolds benefit all learners and include suggestions such as providing graphic organizers, practice with multiple-meaning words, etc.

With Amplify Science California, the use of technology is always purposeful.

For example:

• The curriculum has a strong emphasis on literacy, with students reading and analyzing informational texts, and writing scientific explanations and arguments.
• Digital elements are gradually introduced to students in grades 2–3, with the greatest use of digital elements taking place in grades 4–5, as the phenomena at these grades become more challenging to observe directly.
• The curriculum’s readers and interactive notebook pages are available in both print and digital across all K–5 units.

This curriculum addresses a significant number of the standards as they pertain to science. Throughout each unit, students read science texts, engage in science talk and argumentation, and write evidence-based science explanations. The curriculum supports vocabulary, language, and reading comprehension development. Students also use measurement tools with precision, record and analyze data, make sense of scientific phenomena, and develop solutions to problems experienced in the real world.

Teacher Support notes including sample teacher talk, student responses, pedagogical support, and possible student responses are provided within your student-facing slides. Simply click “Teach” and reference your private Teacher Guide tab. Students will only see the lesson slides that you are presenting.

You, the teacher, must “Start class” to launch the presentation tab. (Remember, without the presentation tab, students would be able to see your teacher notes.)

Clicking “Starting class” also brings students to the correct slide, which is particularly important for young students who are learning to navigate.

Teachers can either press the “End class” button in the bottom right corner of the slide navigation, or they can simply close the presentation tab.

Clicking “End class” also enables students to navigate through the lesson on their own. That means they’ll be able to return to slides and books to review content, to the Sims and Modeling Tools to replay them, or to notebook pages to update their work.

You can click on the “Student preview” option in the bottom right corner (within the menu that opens when you click the three dots) to open a new browser tab where you can preview the student view using your teacher account.

Any work you complete in this student preview (or elsewhere in the teacher experience) will be automatically saved to your account.

Courtney Plumley (00:00):

We asked teachers how much science, professional development, they’ve had in the last three years, and nearly half of elementary teachers said none.

Eric Cross (00:10):

Welcome to Science Connections. I’m your host, Eric Cross. I am super-excited to be kicking off the third season with the show. This entire season will be exploring the theme of science as the underdog. And we’re gonna make the case for science, by showing how and why it can be used more effectively. In the coming episodes, we’re gonna talk about how science can be better integrated into other content areas like literacy and math, and explore some of the benefits that you might not be thinking about good science instruction. But first, science as the underdog. I bet some of you out there feel like science is the underdog in your community at school. I know I have at times. To kick off this season, I’m gonna talk to two people who really studied this question by looking at the state of science instruction across the US. Eric Banilower is Vice President of Horizon Research and Courtney Plumley is Senior Researcher at Horizon Research. Eric was the principal investigator and Courtney an author of the latest in a series of studies called “The National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education.” We’re gonna dive into the findings of their most recent report to see what the data’s showing us. Please enjoy my discussion with Eric Banilower and Courtney Plumley. Courtney, hello. And thank you so much for joining us.

Courtney Plumley (01:25):

Hi Eric. It’s nice to be here.

Eric Cross (01:26):

And Eric, welcome.

Eric R. Banilower (01:27):

We’re thrilled to be here, so thank you for having us.

Eric Cross (01:30):

I was reading through the report. Four hundred…a very thorough report, 471 pages, I think, as I got it?

Eric R. Banilower (01:37):

And that’s only one of the many reports from that study.

Eric Cross (01:40):

Yeah. You all have done your work, so I’m really excited to to talk to you about this. And on this season of the show, we’re exploring the theme of science as the underdog. And I think a lot of our listeners, we feel like science is an underdog either in their school or in their district. But you’ve actually done some research on this, in a 2018 study, “The National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education.” So I wanna talk about this report. But first I was hoping you can kind of set the stage. How did you come to work on this report, and then, big picture, what were you hoping to find out?

Eric R. Banilower (02:10):

So the 2018 study that you just mentioned was actually the sixth iteration of a series of studies dating back to 1977. And we collect data every decade or so—you know, plus or minus a few years. And really, what we’re trying to do is get a snapshot of what the science and math education system looks like in in the nation. So my role grew. I started working at Horizon in about 1998, after teaching high school for five years in California. And then going to graduate school. And right about that time, the company was doing the 2000 iteration of the survey. And I worked on it with the team here at Horizon. And then we did it again in 2012. And I had a much more prominent role in that study, and became the kind of leader of the study. And in 2018, the most recent version, we just did it again. So the goal of this study is really to kind of examine key aspects of the K–12 STEM education system. And the main audience of the work has traditionally been policy makers, researchers, and practitioners who work at the federal, state, and district level.

Eric Cross (03:30):

So this study, you took kind of a sample size, but it’s reflective of trends that we tend to see across the nation as a whole. Would that be fair to say?

Eric R. Banilower (03:38):

Yes, definitely it is. It is a random sample of schools in the country. So we start with a list of all the public and private schools in the nation, and then do a random sample of those schools, and then work really, really hard to recruit schools to agree to be in the study. And that has gotten harder every time we’ve done the study, for many understandable reasons. And then once we have schools on board, we sample teachers within schools. So we don’t even survey every teacher in a school. It’s really a sub-sample. So that we can make inferences about the nation as a whole.

Eric Cross (04:14):

Makes sense. And so Courtney, what did you find out about the time spent on science instruction in US schools?

Courtney Plumley (04:22):

So, I’m gonna talk about elementary teachers to begin with.

Eric Cross (04:26):

Because that was your past life, right?

Courtney Plumley (04:28):

I am a former elementary teacher, yeah. So that’s kind of where my head is. And that’s relatable for me. Right? So we asked teachers, like, how many days of the week or weeks of the year that they teach elementary school. And fewer than 20% teach science every day of the school year. They kind of do one or two things, for the most part. They teach a couple days a week or they teach every day of the week, but only for, like, maybe six weeks, and then they swap with social studies and they kind of do that across the school year. Which is really different from, like, math, right? We also asked elementary teachers, how often do they teach math, and it’s every day of the year. Then we also asked them how many minutes they teach when they’re teaching, and we kind of did the math to figure out, all right, if they taught science every day of the school year, how many minutes would it be in a single day, so that we could make a more comparable comparison with math and ELA. If you were to work it out, how many minutes of science an elementary teacher teaches across the year, and break it down to per day, it’s like 18 minutes for the lower elementary grades, 27 for the upper elementary grades. Which is not a lot. But it’s pretty much an hour a day in math, and 80 plus minutes in ELA. So, a lot less. And then, you know, when I was teaching, the first thing to go was always science, right? If there was an assembly, if there was early release or whatever, that was the first thing to go. So those numbers might even be higher. Just because they aren’t factoring that kind of thing in, too.

Eric Cross (06:05):

So, now I’m curious. That is something that I’ve seen just anecdotally, science being the first thing to go. I feel like I’ve seen that almost…it’s almost become a meme, that I’ve heard that so often. Just in your experience, why do you think that is that huge disparity between the two?

Courtney Plumley (06:26):

Well, I mean, when I was teaching, I was teaching third grade. I had an end-of-grade test in math and ELA for my kids. I didn’t have one in science. So the administration said, “Hey, if you’re gonna drop something, drop something that’s not tested.”

Eric Cross (06:41):

Simple as that. And Eric, you, past life: physics teacher. High school. What did you see? ‘Cause our listeners run the gamut from elementary all the way up to high school. What did you see, as far as relative science instruction in the secondary level?

Eric R. Banilower (07:00):

Sure. You know, secondary is just a whole different situation than elementary. Rght? Because you have departmentalization. I taught science. I didn’t have to teach other subjects. And students had periods, and they still do, sorry, they still have periods, even though it’s been a long time since I taught. And you know, they rotate from one class to another. So all the classes were essentially the same length. So, you know, when I was teaching, it was about 50-minute periods. So in terms of minutes of a class or minutes on a subject, it’s not really different. But what is different is what students are required to take in order to graduate high school. One of the things we asked schools about in this study was how many years of a subject do students have to take in order to graduate? And what we saw was in mathematics, over half the schools in the nation require students to take four years of mathematics to graduate. OK? And the vast majority of the rest, about 44%, require three years in science. Most schools require three years. Very few require four years. And many, or a fair number, still only require two years to graduate. So the expectation of what students are taking is lower in science than it is in mathematics.

Eric Cross (08:20):

So you were seeing the same trend in secondary, essentially.

Eric R. Banilower (08:24):

Yes.

Eric Cross (08:24):

The amount of time devoted to the instruction of science…we’re kind of seeing it mirrored just across K–12 across the board.

Eric R. Banilower (08:33):

That’s correct.

Eric Cross (08:34):

And that’s across the country. ‘Cause the sample size represents teachers from Alaska, Hawaii, the South, SoCal, everywhere. So what’s been the reaction to that number? Like 18 to 20 minutes is…I mean, it’s, it’s half of my lunch at our school. What’s been the reaction to that number since this data has been published?

Eric R. Banilower (08:58):

I don’t know, Courtney, if you want to take that…

Courtney Plumley (09:00):

It’s a lot of what you just did. Like, what??? Like, how is it possible to teach all the things you need to teach in such a little amount of time?

Eric R. Banilower (09:08):

What’s really kind of surprising to me, though — though now that I’ve worked on three iterations of the study, it no longer surprises me, but it did at first — is that these numbers really aren’t changing since we’ve started doing this study. You know, people thought maybe with No Child Left Behind and the increase in accountability, time on science might actually go down, because there was more testing in math and English Language Arts. It didn’t happen. It was pretty much constant, that this has been kind of the state of science education for a long time.

Eric Cross (09:44):

So Eric, if I’m hearing you right: The past studies, we’re not seeing an increase or a decline. This has been this way for how many years, roughly, would you say? Since it’s been studied?

Eric R. Banilower (09:54):

You know, I’d have to go back to the 1977 report to get the numbers, but I’m gonna say since then, it has not changed much, if at all.

Eric Cross (10:03):

So this has kind of been entrenched. This has been the norm for almost for the career of a teacher, almost generationally. We’re looking at anyone who’s been in the highest levels of leadership to someone just entering the classroom, this has been the way it’s always been. This is kind of for many people what they’ve only known.

Eric R. Banilower (10:20):

Right.

Eric Cross (10:21):

Kind of become the norm.

Courtney Plumley (10:21):

We didn’t even have science when I was in elementary school. We had science on a cart that came by, you know, every other week.

Eric Cross (10:28):

Was that like a food truck, but like the science version of it? It shows up and does quick science and takes off?

Courtney Plumley (10:35):

And New York was, I mean — we always watched Voyage of the Mimi. I don’t know if you ever watched that. But that’s what we watched every single time the Science on the Cart came. So it’s like a marine biology show. Ben Affleck was on it when he was a kid.

Eric Cross (10:48):

<laugh> Really? For me it was, Mr. Wizard. For some of my students, even now, Bill Nye. You know, the Bill Nye show or something would come on. So what happens when you look at less wealthy districts? Is there a relationship between community resources and science instruction, or is it pretty much equal no matter what the district resources are, the school’s resources are? Did you see any data there?

Eric R. Banilower (11:12):

Yes. We actually did a lot of disaggregating the data by community type, student demographics in the schools, to look to see whether there were areas of inequities across the country. And, you know, one of the factors we looked at was kind of a measure of socioeconomic status. You know, wealth in the community. By looking at percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. And interestingly, in terms of time on science instruction, there is actually not a relationship between income level and how much time is spent at the elementary level on science, which actually surprised us.

Eric Cross (11:54):

Because you might have expected it to be the other way now. And granted, it’s 18 to 20 minutes, there isn’t much more to shave off off of that. But were there other differences, like when you compared those communities? Maybe it wasn’t the amount of science instruction, but was there anything else, like teacher preparedness, resources? Were there anything else that you did see discrepancies in? Or was it equal across the board?

Eric R. Banilower (12:13):

No, unfortunately there, there have been, and still are, a number of areas where community resources are related to pretty substantial differences in educational opportunities that students have. So, you know, we’re talking about the high school science requirements. One of the things that we saw was that high schools in less wealthy communities tend to offer less rigorous science courses than high schools in better-off-financially communities. So they may not be AP courses or second year advanced courses to the same extent that there are in the wealthier communities. That’s one big difference that we saw. Another one was what you were just saying about, sort of, the teachers who teach in these communities. You know, I think that for many years people have had a feeling that the best teachers go to the better off schools because it’s easier to teach there. Well, we see that the schools with the most poverty, they tend to have the newer teachers, who are just starting their career. They tend to have teachers who are less well prepared to teach their subject. And there’s a host of other differences we found. And you know, you mentioned the report being 400 pages. This other report that looks at these differences is also quite long, and, you know, identified a number of areas where there are these disparities in the system.

Eric Cross (13:43):

Well, we appreciate you synthesizing this for us, because this is super-important. And you’ve fleshed out a lot of things. And the fact that it’s driven by data, we as science teachers, we as scientists, being objective, really, really value that. Because this is actually validating a lot of the things that our listeners and myself, we experience anecdotally. But you don’t have a lot of things to network you. And sometimes, when you see this, you wonder if it’s just you, or is are other people experiencing this? And so as you start talking about this data, realizing, oh wow, this is not something in isolation. This is systemic. This is something that’s impacted. And then Eric, what you said about schools that were lower-income, that were under-resourced, and didn’t offer those advanced classes, what are some of the impacts of that, maybe downstream, of doing that? Not having those AP classes? I just kind of wanted to put that out there and ask you.

Eric R. Banilower (14:31):

You know, this is a really…this is a current debate right now, about what the goals of schooling K–12 should be. You know, are all kids meant to go to college? Should there be alternative paths? And you know, I know when I was teaching, I would have students say, “Why do I need to know this? I’m not gonna go into science. I’m not gonna study physics. Why do I need to take this?” And, you know, the answer I used to give them was, “You never know where your life is gonna end up and what opportunities you’ll have. And by having these educational experiences, you have more opportunities available to you. Whether or not you choose to go down those paths, you have opportunities. And when you don’t take this kind of coursework, you know, even if you don’t want to go to college, you limit your potential careers. Because so many careers nowadays require some technical knowledge, some knowledge of science, even if it’s not explicitly a science job. It is embedded in our society now. We are a technological and science-based society.”

Eric Cross (15:37):

It reminds me of something that I’ve told my students, that if you become a scientist, that’s awesome. I love that. But if you don’t, and you want to be a dancer or an actor or a lawyer or anything that may not be directly related to STEM, I want you to choose it because it was a choice, and not a lack of options. So as long as you’re choosing not to go in STEM, and you don’t make that decision because you can’t, or because you weren’t given the opportunity. So that’s how I’ve always had this mindset as a teacher. And I’ve explained it to my students. So if you say, “Cross, you know what I want to do, I wanna be an awesome chef,” which, you know, low-key that’s science, right? <laugh> Molecular gastronomy, we know that. But like, you be the best chef. But as long as you’re being a chef because you choose that, and you’re like, “I love science, but I don’t wanna go that direction,” we’re good.

Eric R. Banilower (16:26):

Right. And if you think about, a lot of social justice issues with pollution and climate change, and you look at which communities are more affected by some of these larger environmental problems and challenges, it tends to be the lower socioeconomic communities, the more poverty-stricken communities have worse water, have worse air quality. And so if, if people from these communities are going to make informed decisions about who they’re gonna vote for, about what policies they’re gonna support, those are science topics that you have to have some understanding in order to make informed decisions in your life.

Eric Cross (17:09):

Courtney, you were one of the Swiss Army Knife teachers. This is how I perceive it for elementary. You had to teach everything. And shout out to all of my elementary school teachers that have to be mathematicians and grammar whizzes and scientists and PE instructors and social emotional, all of those different things. you also looked at teacher preparedness. How did teachers feel about teaching science compared to other subjects like language arts and math? Did you see anything there?

Courtney Plumley (17:39):

We did, we did. And I’m glad you said, “How did they feel about it?” Because one thing that, you know, in a survey you can’t really do is capture how someone actually…how good someone actually…the quality of someone’s instruction. But you can ask them how prepared they feel. And you can even ask them like stats, like, “What did you major in in college?” You know. But you really are going on based on what what they say. So we ask them how prepared they feel to teach all the core subjects. And two-thirds of elementary teachers felt very well prepared to teach reading. They felt very well prepared to teach math. But when it comes to science, it’s less than a third felt very well prepared. And you know, like you said, when you’re teaching elementary school, you’re teaching all the subjects. But also in science, there’s usually four main instructional units in a school year. And they’re all from different science disciplines. So not only are you going on, like, “Maybe in college took a lot of bio classes, but I didn’t take any physics classes, and now I have to teach physics to my kids and I have no experience there.” So, you know, we also ask them how well-prepared they felt in these different disciplines. And the numbers are even smaller, you know. Fewer than a quarter felt very well-prepared in life science. And like 13% felt very well-prepared in physical science. So there’s definitely a big difference between how much teachers feel prepared for ELA and math versus science.

Eric Cross (19:08):

And just from a human perspective, when we don’t feel prepared for something, we’re not really gonna probably lean into it as much as we are into our strengths. Like, that’s just kind of how we are across the board.

Courtney Plumley (19:18):

Yeah.

Eric Cross (19:18):

I’m even like that with my own chores in the house. Or when I have things I need to get done, and I might not be as good at doing those things—it’s gonna be a heavy cognitive load; I’m gonna have to do some background research—I tend to find other areas to excel in. Like, I’m gonna be productive in this other area. I’m gonna really crush it here. But this other thing gets put to the back burner.

Courtney Plumley (19:36):

Totally. And the same reason I might skip science today, <laugh> ’cause it’s scary.

Eric Cross (19:41):

Yeah, exactly. But I love this book. <Laugh> Or we could do this math, and let’s really, really dive deep into it. Now, did you also look at professional development and instructional resources that are being provided?

Courtney Plumley (19:53):

We did.

Eric Cross (19:54):

And on the whole, how was the amount—and I’m seeing a trend here, so I’m kind of feeling like I know where this might go—but I wanted to ask it, did the amount of professional development and resources for science, was there much of a difference between that and other subjects?

Eric R. Banilower (20:10):

Well, I’ll start on this, and Courtney, feel free to jump in. You know, one of the things that we asked was how much kind of discretionary funding do schools devote to science and how much to mathematics? So, for consumables or equipment and supplies or computer software for teachers to use in the classroom. And it’s hard to compare, I think, across subjects because the demands for this kind of supplies, et cetera, is very different, I think, in science than it is in mathematics. Right? We have a lot of, you know, equipment for doing investigations, consumable supplies in science. And those things need to be replenished on a regular basis. It turns out, when we look at the data for school discretionary spending on this kind of stuff, the median school spends less than $2 per student at the elementary level on science, compared to over $6 for mathematics. At the high school level, it’s kind of reversed. Schools spend more money on high school science than they do on high school math. but even still, at the high school, it’s less than $7 per student. Which is not a lot of money being devoted to thinking about all the materials, supplies, chemicals, et cetera, that you need to teach science well, at the high school level. More disturbing is the fact that, you know, we were talking about inequities before, schools that serve less well-off communities spend less than schools that serve wealthier communities, by quite a big amount.

Eric Cross (21:46):

So essentially the per-student thing just kind of popped out to me: So, like, an expensive Starbucks drink is what we’re spending on science per student.

Eric R. Banilower (21:57):

At the high school level. Yes.

Eric Cross (21:58):

At the high school level. And I get those catalogs in the mail, from all of those big science companies. You can’t get much for seven bucks. At least, nothing high-level. And I know I do a lot of 99-cent store science. I go down the street, go to the 99-cent store. Thankfully we could do a lot of awesome science with just, you know, cheap things. But a lot of the higher level experiences, they’re pricey. But the experiences are so rich! And $7 at the high school level is nothing. It’s not much at all.

Eric R. Banilower (22:28):

Yeah. It is definitely, you know, kind of shocking to think about what we’re investing in our children’s future.

Eric Cross (22:37):

Now, just to put you both on the spot, ’cause I feel like that we’ve identified some…we’re seeing a trend here, we’re seeing a pattern. We’re talking about, you know, being science teachers. There’s a pattern going on here. Do you think it’s fair to characterize science as the underdog?

Courtney Plumley (22:52):

I think in elementary school, it is a fair statement. Because, like we said before, I mean they’re gonna preference math and ELA almost all the time. I mean, the other thing you’d asked a little bit ago was about professional development, too. And we do have some data on that. And we ask teachers, you know, how much science professional development they’ve had in the last three years. And nearly half of elementary teachers said none. And I know I didn’t have any science professional development. If I was gonna pick from among the catalog, I was picking one that I needed more, like math. Math and ELA. I keep making that statement, but just over and over, it’s the truth.

Eric Cross (23:31):

And going back to what you said earlier, because that’s where the accountability was, right? And that kind of came top-down.

Courtney Plumley (23:38):

Yes.

Eric Cross (23:38):

And influenced everything else.

Eric R. Banilower (23:40):

Yeah. Now, really interesting thing that we did, a year or so ago, ’cause someone asked us, you know, “Hey, could you look at this?” is we compared elementary science instructional time among states where science counted towards accountability versus states where science doesn’t count towards accountability. And at the upper elementary grades, more time was spent on science in schools in states where they had science accountability. Now I’m not arguing for adding science to accountability systems. But that’s a pretty telling piece of data.

Eric Cross (24:19):

What gets measured gets done.

Eric R. Banilower (24:20):

Yeah.

Eric Cross (24:20):

Or what was getting evaluated was getting done. And that raises, that opens up a myriad of other questions about testing, and what that reveals, and all of those different things. But at the end of the day, what you’re finding is that the things that were getting tested were the things that were getting the priority.

Eric R. Banilower (24:36):

That’s right.

Eric Cross (24:37):

How did we get to this point? And Eric, you said it goes back at least to ’77, but we look at society and we’re…I wanna say we’re post-pandemic, but we’re we’re not. but we’re trying to, we’re trying to get past that. But we’re looking at…we had innovations in biology, we have innovations right now in green energy and electric cars and all of these things that are STEM-based. We know that these are things that have moved humanity forward. And we look at the pipeline of people who are in STEM and we, we see the disparities and things like that. Why was science given less of a priority? I’m just curious. Maybe, Courtney, we could start with you, if you have any ideas. Or Eric. Either one. But how did we get here?

Eric R. Banilower (25:22):

<laugh> I think Courtney wants me to take that one. I’m older so I’ve seen more <laugh>. So, you know, I have the gray hair. She doesn’t. I think it’s complicated. And I know this sounds cliche, but but schools are a reflection of society, right? And, and so science education, you know, if you think back when Sputnik was launched, there became this great demand in America to improve and produce more scientists and engineers in response to this Cold War threat. Right? And then in the ’80s there was rising, oh, the gathering storm was an economic argument that we needed to increase science and math, you know, education and people going into those fields in order to compete economically against the global competitors. And I think that America has always produced a fair number, a large number, of high-quality scientists and engineers, you know. And we still lead the world in many ways. But where we’ve identified as a problem is who has those opportunities to go into those fields. You know, it used to be a very select, a very male-dominated, white male-dominated field. Right? And other people didn’t have the opportunity, or they were shown the way out pretty early. And we, I think, have come to realize as a country that, you know, the, the greater the diversity of thought that we can get into these discussions, the more innovative we can be and the more productive as a society we can be. And so I think we’ve had this shift in the country to, instead of thinking about just the quality for the select few, but to be thinking about the quality for everyone. And so that makes it seem like some of these challenges are greater than they used to be. And I think they’re different challenges, right? We’ve evolved as a society and I think schools have evolved.

Eric Cross (27:40):

There is a conversation I was in on a plane with a person who was a materials manager for a company that made the adhesive for sandpaper. And we were flying…I was flying to Denmark and he was flying to some other Scandinavian country. And we were just talking about it. And he came from another industry, and somehow the conversation led to science. I don’t know how that happened. But somehow I just started talking about science and I asked him about, Eric, kind of what you said about the US kind of leading the way in science innovation versus the rest of the world. And I asked him why. And he said one of the reasons why is because the heterogeneous thought. The different groups of people that are coming to a problem actually create more innovative and novel solutions. Versus when it’s more homogeneous. And everyone’s either culturally or just for whatever reason, kind of thinks a certain way. While they might have a more efficient way, the variety of solutions are not as varied and not as novel. I was reminded of that story based on what you just said. So it’s really interesting. So it seems to be that it benefits if we have more heterogeneous groups, more folks who are contributing to STEM, because that’s gonna be solving the next problem more efficiently. Or I guess maybe in my head it seems like the next we need…we do really well when we have a dragon to slay. I mean, it seems like we come together when that’s the case, right? Like, I dunno.

Eric R. Banilower (29:06):

No, I think that’s…I think that’s accurate.

Eric Cross (29:09):

Later on the season of the podcast, we’re gonna explore ways to better integrate science with other subjects like literacy and math. Were you able to study at all any more integrated approaches to science instruction? Does any of your research support that approach?

Courtney Plumley (29:25):

Not on the national survey, we didn’t study that. And it’s something that we’ve talked about before, because it’s difficult to get teachers to…we were talking about instructional time. It’s hard for teachers to put a number on it when they’re integrating, because, you know, it’s not like I have my science block from 3 to 3:30 anymore. Now it’s kind of scattered about. But it’s something that has been in the ether. We’ve been looking at it in a couple of projects. So there’s some evidence that it can be effective, especially for getting more, you know…the idea is you can get more time for science if you are integrating with other subjects. But one thing to kind of caution is like, students need to have opportunities to learn each discipline when they’re doing integrated instruction. So you don’t wanna just have, like, math in your science. Kids already know to just, like, support it. Then it’s hard to take time from math to put it into science when they’re not actually learning anything new. That’s the easy thing to do, though, is say, “Oh, my kids already know how to measure. We did that in a previous unit. So now we’ll we’ll do it as part of our science instruction.” So it’s a lot of work to make it so they’re learning something new, mathematics and science, at the same time. And it’s not really something that we think that teachers should be having to do on their own, with all the other things that teachers have to do. The last thing they need to do is be creating their own, you know, curriculum. Something that’s already…you know, it’s not straightforward. So we’ve been talking about it, we think it’s really something that instructional materials maybe need to be focusing on instead of teachers having to do that on their own,

Eric Cross (31:01):

Teachers would implement it, but asking them to create it is a whole different thing, and it’s a huge ask.

Courtney Plumley (31:08):

Yes.

Eric Cross (31:08):

Yeah. And, did I hear you right? So the ideal situation would’ve been the students learning a newer math concept, but embedded in a science kind of context? Or was that the better way? Versus, “I’m gonna take a math concept they already know and then just put it into the science setting?”

Courtney Plumley (31:26):

Well, if the idea is that you can get more science time if you’re, you know, integrating things, so you can maybe take time away from a specific math block by putting it with science, or whatever, then if the math is something that the kids already know, now you’re just taking away. I think that that has to be new in both cases, in order to justify having more time.

Eric Cross (31:49):

Right. Eric, in the secondary level, any thoughts on that? On integrating these disciplines together?

Eric R. Banilower (31:56):

I think, you know, just like at the elementary level, it can be challenging to do it well. When I taught, I taught my last couple years in a kind of school-within-a-school kind of situation, where our goal was to try to integrate science, mathematics, and language arts. And it’s hard to do that in a meaningful way. And we did not have curriculum materials given to us to help us do this. We were trying to figure out how to do this on our own, while we were teaching 200 kids a day in our subjects. Right? And five preparations. And you know, it’s a big ask of any teacher. And there are teachers who thrive on this and are great at this. And, you know, that’s one thing I wanna, make clear: our data is about the system, and we are former teachers. Almost everyone who works at Horizon is a former teacher. We have the greatest respect for teachers and what they do. And what our data is showing is are kind of like areas where the system isn’t providing teachers and their students the opportunities to do great things. I think at the high school level, there has been this idea of project-based learning where students are bringing together different skills, different ideas from across disciplines. And I think there’s, again, a lot of potential in doing that. But trying to develop those experiences so that they are doing service to the different subjects, so students are learning what they’re supposed to learn in English Language Arts, that they’re learning, important mathematics, and that this is in a science context, where they are getting to do and understand what science is and how science, as a discipline, operates…that’s just a really hard thing to develop.

Eric Cross (33:53):

So what I’m hearing—and I really appreciate the nuance in this, because it’s not a simple “Yes. Integrated is better,”—I’m hearing “Yes. Quality control.” “Yes. It needs to be written not by teachers; they’re the practitioners.” It’s “Yes. And,” not just simply binary. Which…it’s so easy to wanna chunk things and say yes or no on things. But this one seems a much more nuanced approach. And in a future episode, you mentioned project-based learning, we’re gonna try and talk to people who have thoughts on this. And I really appreciate that you talked about project-based learning, because also, how do you evaluate that? How do you evaluate whether or not it is high quality? Is this is something I see? You know, high-quality standards, highest quality science teaching, highly qualified teachers. It’s something that I see often. Now, based on all your research, this is kind of the 30,000-foot view. What advice might you have for people who are thinking about changing the way science is taught in this country? Which hasn’t changed since 1977, at least since we’ve been measuring it. Any advice for people who do want to act? Another way to ask, it might be, if you were given a magic wand, <laugh>, you have all power, what might you do if you can control the entire vertical system?

Eric R. Banilower (35:07):

Yeah, so a clarification, I do think science instruction has changed. It has evolved. I think there’s a lot of really good things going on in different pockets of the country. One of the challenges is bringing those good ideas and good practices to scale. Right? There are approximately 1.2 million teachers of science K–12 in this country. That’s a lot of people. And about 80% of those are elementary teachers who are responsible for teaching other subjects as well. So my thinking is often about, “How do we take what we know and that we’ve learned through decades of research is effective, and impact a large number of teachers, and therefore a large number of students?” And you know, Courtney I think has hinted at this already. And you’ve mentioned it too, Eric, is that teaching is a profession, right? And it’s a craft. But in no other profession do practitioners have the expectation that they’re developing their own tools and methods for their work. I know when I was in my teacher preparation program, and it’s still extremely common, one of the assignments perspective teachers are given is to develop a unit and develop a lesson, right? You don’t have doctors being asked to develop new treatments and new tests to use. Their job is to get to know their patient, assess what’s going on, and then using research-based methods to develop a plan of action, right? And I think that analogy works really well in education and is a way that we could have a scalable approach for kind of raising the floor across the country for the quality of science education. Giving teachers research-based materials, high-quality instructional materials, that they can then use and adapt to meet the needs of their students, would allow them to focus on getting to know their students, seeing what their strengths are, seeing where they have room for growth, and using the materials they’re given to help those students progress. And I think that is definitely a way where we could have a big impact at a large scale.

Eric Cross (37:39):

Courtney, same question: Magic wand, all power. You can change systems from the elementary perspective. What would you do? I’m assuming part of it’s gonna be changing that 18 to 20 minute time. But even for that to happen, what would you do? What would you change?

Courtney Plumley (37:57):

Well, I don’t know. Like, for it to change, I don’t know the answer to that. But yes, increasing the time would be great. And like Eric was saying, giving teachers— ’cause again, I’m coming in, not enough probably background in science—and then, you know, when I was, when I was teaching, we had one set of textbooks for the entire grade. Six classes, right? Like, share them. But third graders aren’t gonna read textbooks anyway, right? So instead I’m going to the teacher store. I’m pulling things off the shelf. And like, “OK, yeah, sure, I’ll use this.” And nowadays, teachers are going to Teachers Pay Teachers or whatever. Because I didn’t have anything good to use. So like Eric is saying, if I had instructional materials that were good instructional materials that were gonna teach my kids, that they were gonna be engaged, that they weren’t sitting and listening to science, but they were doing science, you know, and I had professional development to actually help me do it? That’s what I think we need to have. And I mean, I know there are some people out there that are working on that, but it’s not a lot. I mean, if you look at Ed Reports, they rate how well-aligned science curriculum are to standards. And there are two right now that have Ed Reports green lights. There’s Amplify and there’s OpenSciEd. You know, so there’s not much out there for teachers to use. And, so it’s hard. It’s hard. Where am I gonna go and get this stuff if it doesn’t exist? And so I’m making it up by myself. Which we already said is not the best use of teachers’ time, when they’ve got so many other demands on their time.

Eric Cross (39:27):

Eric and Courtney, listening to both of your responses, it created a visual in my mind. And Eric, I loved your analogy of…I started thinking of a chef, a welder, and a farmer. And I thought about the chef saying like, “You’re a great chef! Now, can you go farm, and make your own food, so that you can cook it?” Or the welder who has to make his own welding tools and go smelting. You know, making the different rods. I’m not a welder. But you know, all those different parts. Or the farmer who has to build his own tractor and innovate all that stuff. You’re absolutely right, the way you articulated that. And then Courtney, you essentially said, “Give them the tools and then teach them how to use it so they can go and actually be effective with it, because you’re in front of kids doing so many different things.” There’s only so much time in the day, and teachers want to do these things; they want to, but you end up having to triage when you’re asked to. Going back to Eric’s analogy, if you’re in the ER, but you’re also creating the vaccines and you’re also doing the research on which types of vaccines are gonna be the most effective, that’s, that’s a lot to ask. And so, I appreciate both your responses on that. Now, last question, what are you both working on now? This report came out in 2018. What’s, what’s next on the horizon? Actually literally, that’s no pun intended. <laugh> What’s next? <laugh> What’s next for, for you both? What are you working on?

Eric R. Banilower (40:42):

Well, you know, we would love to do another national survey, in a few years. We have to get funding to do it. And you know, that’s always something that takes effort and isn’t a guarantee. We’ve written grants to do these studies in the past, and there’s also the dealing with the reality of the situation. I think a lot of schools, still coming off the tail end of dealing with Covid, are overwhelmed. And we’ve had a hard time, I mentioned before, recruiting schools, and it gets harder every time, just ’cause they have so much on their plate. And I couldn’t see going to a school now and saying, “Hey, one more thing. Do you mind?” So I think we have to kind of wait a little bit for things to settle down before we can do another one of these studies. It just doesn’t seem feasible right now. But we’d love to in the not-too-distant future. Other than that, Courtney and I actually work on some projects together and some projects not together. One of the things that we’re working on together is a study of a fifth grade science curriculum that was developed by Okhee Lee at NYU and her colleagues, that is both aligned with the NGSS and purposely designed to support multilingual learners in developing both their science knowledge and skills as well as their language skills. And we’ve been working with the crew at NYU to study this curriculum and try to figure out, how well it’s working and under what circumstances. So that’s been a really interesting project that’s going on right now.

Courtney Plumley (42:26):

I recently worked on a report with the Carnegie Corporation in New York that actually I think, compliments what we’ve been talking about a lot. It’s about the status of K–12 education in the US—or science education in the US! <Laugh>—and so as part of that report we interviewed like 50 science education experts across the country. We surveyed teachers, people in the university settings, researchers, and everything to kind of get a little bit more update of the state of science education right now. And so a lot of the things we’ve been talking about, we still are talking about with the people in this report four years later. So, work in progress. <Laugh>

Eric Cross (43:09):

And again, going back to 1977, based on what Eric was saying earlier, we’re looking at these large systems, these systemic changes don’t happen overnight.

Eric R. Banilower (43:20):

That’s right.

Eric Cross (43:21):

It’s very slow-moving.

Eric R. Banilower (43:22):

That’s right. I would say there is progress. I think we’ve learned a lot. We are getting better. Are we there yet? No, we’re not happy with where we are. But I think, you know, I think it’s important to be hopeful about the direction things are going in.

Eric Cross (43:37):

Well-said. I agree. Courtney. Eric, thank you so much for unpacking that report that speaks to, that validates what so many teachers across the country are experiencing. And thank you for your advocacy for high-quality science education and your passion for supporting teachers and being that voice from a data-driven perspective of what teachers experience and then advocating for solutions for them. It’s super-encouraging for me, and I know it’s gonna be really encouraging for a lot of our listeners. So thank you.

Eric R. Banilower (44:10):

Thank you for having us.

Courtney Plumley (44:12):

Yeah. Thank you, Eric.

Eric Cross (44:15):

Thanks so much for listening to my conversation with Eric Banilower, Vice President of Horizon Research, and Courtney Plumley, Senior Researcher at Horizon Research. For much more, check out the show notes for a link to the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. And please remember to subscribe to Science Connections wherever you get podcasts, so that you’re not missing any of the upcoming episodes in Season three. Next time on the show, we’re gonna start laying out the road map for using science more effectively. And we’ll start by looking at the how and the why of integrating literacy instruction.

Susan Gomez Zwiep (44:49):

When we look at Science First and build language development around it, the experience tends to be more authentic and organic.

Eric Cross (44:58):

That’s next time on Science Connections: The Podcast. Thanks so much for listening.