Why must we meet so much as a physics team when I need time alone to prepare for my classes?

—M., Indiana

Regularly meeting as a collaborative team, department, or content area is extremely beneficial to teachers and, most importantly, essential to the outcome of student success. When science teachers collaborate, it allows for what I call the 3Ds: Design, Dig, and Discuss. Collaborating allows science teachers to design lessons together. It is much easier to create and assess assignments, projects and laboratory activities that engage and evaluate the learning of students as you ensure that your group meets the performance expectations of the curriculum. Common planning and common assignments create opportunities to dig through data together to determine which instructional strategies effectively enhance the student experience. This helps you and your team understand your students’ processing and thinking and discover patterns and trends in student learning. You can clarify misconceptions.  Coming together as a team enriches our practice as we discuss student work. Analyzing student work helps the team identify where students are in their learning. You may notice something that your colleagues do not and vice versa; the feedback can help to guide your instruction. When we take these conversations into the classroom with our students, our learners get the opportunity to see exemplars and understand what “meet performance expectations” actually does or does not look like. As our ultimate goal of teaching is student ownership of earning, we must start with the fundamentals of collaboration. The more teachers plan, the more they learn how to best serve their students.

Image by geralt from Pixabay

Written by Debbie Ericksen

Learning about the NGSS 3D Framework and what it means for the teaching and learning process within my elementary classroom has been an amazing journey that continues to this day. I confess I’ve become an NGSS geek. Some might find that surprising for a person who doesn’t have a degree in science. My transformation began seven years ago when I attended the ExxonMobil Teachers Academy. That experience taught me that Science can be fun not only for my students but for me, too! In the years that followed, I had many opportunities to learn science content and pedagogy. Many visits to the NGSS@NSTA website, lots of reading, attendance at conferences, workshops, and district PD were resources that were invaluable to my development as a science teacher. However, one resource that has provided a very unique learning opportunity for me and my colleagues is the development of the Teacher Cohort within our school. It is highly reflective and collaborative in nature and provides us with insight into our instructional practices and a better understanding of the “big” picture. My hope is that in sharing our experience, you will be inspired to participate in a cohort of your own. My school houses PreK-Grade 4 and has a student population that is culturally and economically diverse. When we first organized the cohort three years ago, we thought it was really important to have a representative from each grade level, if possible. This year, we have finally achieved full representation which includes the Special Education and ELL programs. The reason this is so important is that it establishes a network of teachers who can vertically articulate with each other and then communicate their learning and discoveries with the rest of their grade-level teams.

The next step for us was to have an organization meeting to establish norms and to think about personal goals (Ex: deepening understanding of practices and crosscutting concepts, how to develop lessons that support the framework, strategies to support student learning within the new framework, addressing challenges in instruction – to name a few).  Our norms include the process we will follow: questions about the lesson to provide clarification, what we noticed, what we wonder, time for the teacher that was observed to reflect, recommendations/suggestions for future lessons, and questions we want to follow up on in future lessons.

We also set up a tentative schedule for classroom visits. These visits are non-evaluative in nature. They are informal visits for members to observe the instructional process and student learning. We often interact with the students and always take notes on what we see. Those notes are used for discussion purposes in the post-visit reflection and discussion. After the lesson is over, we meet in a conference room to begin the reflection/discussion process. The teacher who led the lesson brings any student work that was generated so that we can all evaluate and discuss what their work tells us and how it can impact future instruction. We follow the norms and format established in the organization meeting. While we are out of the classroom, staff coverage or substitutes are provided for our students. Based on our discussion and the learning needs of the cohort participants, we establish the focus for the next class visit.

This year, we are revising the cohort process based on teacher learning needs. Some of us feel that we would benefit most from a class visit/reflection and others want to focus on student work from a prior lesson that will inform the instruction in future lessons. For the latter, the participating teacher will provide insight to the other members on what worked well and what didn’t and how it can be improved. One teacher has requested, based on last year’s lesson outcome, to focus on improving the same lesson for this year’s students. As you can see, we have refined the process to be responsive to the needs of individual teachers (just like we do for our students).

It should also be noted that teachers participate in the cohort by choice and, if they are interested, can remain for two years. Then, we change the members so that the learning can expand horizontally as well as vertically. My role in the cohort has been not only as a learner but also as a facilitator so that we are consistent with our practices from one cohort to another.

The NGSS teacher cohort has had a notable and significant impact on each of our classrooms. Participants come eager to learn and are excited to see what other grade levels are doing. That excitement is contagious and our students catch it! We have developed a deeper understanding of the learning our students engage in before they get to our grade level and, for some of us, we get to see how our instruction connects with the next grade level. This understanding helps us to identify and apply common language within our classrooms. Another benefit of participating in the cohort is that we are inspired by our colleagues. We walk away with a treasure trove of ideas and rely on each other as a professional support system as we design our science instruction. Finally, we are able to share strategies that have helped our students engage in authentic science learning and helps them to figure out the world around them. When teachers have an opportunity to reflect and learn from each other, our students are the ultimate beneficiaries.

Unlike science teachers, non-science educators have little to no training in hazard analysis, risk assessment, or safety-related issues. As a result, non-science employees, such as teachers of other subjects or special education and paraprofessionals, need to learn about the duty or standard of care before entering the science classroom or lab. Otherwise science teachers could be liable should the non-science professionals or students become injured in the science lab.

A safer working environment

There are a number of legal safety standards and better professional safety practices that apply to both students and any school employee working in a science laboratory. To begin, many OSHA safety standards are applicable to employees working in science labs or any other area where there are potentially hazardous chemicals. For example, according to OSHA, the purpose of the Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 (HCS) is “to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced or imported are evaluated and details regarding their hazards are transmitted to employers and employees.”

Few administrators or supervisors in school follow the basic principles of the HazCom Standard. They fail to transmit the chemical hazard details via formal staff training. In other words, non-science teachers assigned to science labs lack the awareness and understanding of chemical hazards and resulting risks present in the science lab. Hazards can arise in the classroom even if the non-science teacher does not directly work with the chemicals. For example, a non-science professional might not be prepared if a bottle of alcohol or acid inadvertently smashed and splashed a laboratory occupant. Another example is a gas leak. A science educator would know where to locate the master gas shutoff, but a math teacher might need assistance due to a lack of training.

Many OSHA standards also provide rules that protect workers in laboratories from chemical, biological, physical, and safety hazards. For example, there can be potential exposures to electrical hazards resulting from faulty electrical equipment/instrumentation or wiring, damaged receptacles and connectors, or unsafe work practices. Students off-task playing with electrical sources could potentially receive electrical shock or even worse – electrocution!

Finally, Non-science professionals should also learn about the OSHA general duty clause. Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to provide their employees with a workplace that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. With the known potential hazards in the science lab and no other standard applies to the particular hazard, the general duty clause can apply when the employer’s own employees are exposed to the alleged hazard. All the following elements are necessary for OSHA to prove a general duty clause violation:
• The employer fails to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which its employees were exposed.
• The hazard was recognized.
• The hazard was likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
• There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.

In the end

A non-science who works in a science lab is a recognized hazard that could potentially cause serious physical harm to occupants. Without appropriate safety training, there is shared liability for the science teacher responsible for the science lab, the non-science teacher instructing a non-science class in the lab and the administrators if that non-science employee or their students get hurt in science lab. Teachers need to share this information in writing with their administrators/supervisors should the situation arise.

Submit questions regarding safety to Ken Roy at safersci@gmail.com or leave him a comment below. Follow Ken Roy on Twitter: @drroysafersci.

NSTA resources and safety issue papers
Join NSTA
Follow NSTA

My third-grade class created models of plant and animal cells with various items that they found around the house. Many of the kids did a great job, and their projects were very colorful. I brought samples to my Professional Learning Community (PLC). As we discussed the students’ work, I could not understand why my colleagues thought the work was not rigorous enough.

—D., Kentucky

The essence of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is increasing the rigor of student work, in part through performance expectations that deepen student thinking. Models are no longer considered 2-D or 3-D representations for identification, but as representations with a purpose. The performance expectation at the upper-elementary level is for students to not only identify a model’s parts or demonstrate its functions, but also to apply their content knowledge by predicting limitations or the results of manipulations. If your students created plant and animal cells missing an organelle of their choice, would they be able to predict how the missing organelle affects the entire cell? The students would demonstrate their ability to identify parts of the cell and their understanding of the organelle’s functions and importance to the cell as a whole.

Models can bring a concept to life by using analogies with them. What if your students created an analogy for each organelle to help describe its function? For example, “The cell membrane is like a sandwich bag, and cytoplasm is like gelatin.” Students could collaboratively discuss their analogies to determine how to construct a model with items that best represent the organelles’ functions.

NSTA provides many resources to help us understand the progression of thinking that students are expected to demonstrate as we facilitate their comprehension and help them understand how they are learning in a progressive manner. Developing and Using Models from the NGSS@NSTA Hub could be particularly useful here.