As I began planning my unit, I felt that I was operating with a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.  The realities of the school and classroom schedules were unavoidable.  Within the very specific instructional plan in the classroom—wherein material is covered sequentially and specific concepts have been tied to designated weeks—I was unable to select my own topic; I would cover visible light and the characteristics of technology.  Additionally, both weeks of my unit would fall during scheduled PSSA testing, when the length of each class would be shortened.  While these realities felt somewhat limiting, they also allowed me to focus directly on how I wanted the students to experience the information, and what I hoped they would take away from the experience.  The curriculum was mandated; my approach was not.

 

I believe that it is vital, with science in particular, to communicate to students that the material is relevant outside of a classroom or research setting.  As such, I planned with the intention of engaging the students as scientists (and engineers) in the material.  I sought to provide the students with multiple opportunities for hands-on exploration throughout my unit.  I attempted to differentiate instruction and assessment in terms of both learning modalities and student interests.  I also determined not to administer a formal test or quiz during state mandated testing.

 

I planned each week of my unit with respect to the larger classroom curriculum and precise curriculum standards, drawn from the Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Science [2] and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) [3].  The NGSS are contained within a “Framework for K–12 Science Education” that:

 

…describes a vision of what it means to be proficient in science; it rests on a view of science as both a body of knowledge and an evidence-based, model and theory building enterprise that continually extends, refines, and revises knowledge. It presents three dimensions that will be combined to form each standard: practices; core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. [4]

 

Beginning with a focus on the standards was integral to assuring that I would present the mandated concepts to the students, and to do so at the appropriate depth.

 

In addition to curricular mandates, I also took developmental appropriateness into consideration.  My current students are seventh and eighth graders between the ages of 12 and 14.  According to Sheryl Feinstein, this age "is a time of startling growth and streamlining in the brain" (175).  As Feinstein explains:

 

Adolescents are not merely proto-adults…[T]hey’re cognitive, physical, social, emotional and spiritual beings. Students come to school to learn and grow; they prefer to be active participants in the process rather than passive recipients of knowledge.  Their engagement is strengthened when they are involved in activities that stress thinking about what they are doing (as opposed to mimicking a technique or reciting information by rote).  The development of abstract thinking skills and the analytical and physical coordination skills made possible by the maturing frontal lobes, parietal lobes, and cerebellum means that teens are more capable than ever of understanding meaty, detailed instruction at greater depth. (149)

 

For learning to happen, it is important to capture students' attention by leveraging their natural curiosity and passions.  Teachers should ensure that content remains relevant to their students and maintains ties to their lives outside of the classroom.  Even when faced with a prescribed curriculum, it is vital to provide choices in content and instructional methods. (149-50) [5]

 

Blythe et Al. describe “generative topics” as those that allow for “multiple connections” and have an “inexhaustible quality” (p. 30). [6]  A generative topic, provides “the chance for students to make connections to their previous experiences, both in and out of school: they can always be explored more and more deeply (p. 30)”.

 

As my weeks cover the transition between strict science topics and technology, I have chosen to position my unit as a bridge between the two, under the umbrella of “curiosity, creativity, and innovation in science and technology.”  Within both topics—as well as their intersection—I feel that there is great potential to make the material relevant to students by allowing them to apply what they have previously learned and experienced to their real lives.  I also feel that my topics—and the activities that I have planned—provide a unique opportunity for the students to apply real life experiences to what they are learning in class.  As students, they will gain ammunition to clarify previously frustrating physics concepts from earlier this spring.  They will be scientists and engineers in the classroom.  They will be able to connect theories involving the electromagnetic spectrum to visible light when they examine it with their own eyes.  They will complete a design challenge requiring them to plan, construct, and test a design.  

 

It will not be possible for students to answer fully the questions posed within my unit.  But this is not my intention.  Rather, I hope to position the students--and enable them to position themselves--for a deeper, lasting experience of science and technology.