September 22, 2025 • 22 mins
What did you think of the episode? Send us a text!
What happens when we move beyond memorizing facts and formulas in science education? This conversation takes a deep dive into the transformative power of three-dimensional learning—a framework that balances knowing (disciplinary core ideas), thinking (cross-cutting concepts), and doing (science and engineering practices).
For generations, science education has overemphasized the "knowing" dimension, leaving students with memorized facts but little understanding. Our hosts share personal experiences with traditional science education—from mindlessly copying answers from the back of physics textbooks to struggling through plant photosynthesis memorization—and contrast these with the rich learning that happens when students engage with scientific concepts more deeply.
Through real-life classroom examples, we explore how even young learners can develop scientific thinking when given opportunities to observe, question, and discuss. This approach cultivates curiosity and problem-solving skills that traditional memorization-focused instruction often stifles.
The conversation takes on additional urgency in the age of artificial intelligence. As AI increasingly handles knowledge-based tasks, the cross-cutting concepts—patterns, cause and effect, systems thinking, and more—become even more valuable. These thinking skills represent the uniquely human contribution to science that AI cannot replicate.
Whether you're an educator looking to transform your science teaching or simply curious about how education is evolving to meet future demands, this discussion offers valuable insights into creating lifelong scientific thinkers who approach the world with genuine curiosity and the skills to explore independently.
Listen, subscribe, and join us in rethinking science education for a world that increasingly values not just what you know, but how you think.
Want to learn more about ChangED? Check out our website at: learn.mciu.org/changed
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome back to Change Ed Changed Changed Number
one educational podcasteverywhere.
That is a known entity andunknown entities in our universe
.
I am your host, Andrew Kuhn, aproject consultant from
Montgomery County IntermediateUnit.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
And here with me is Patrice Semecek, also a project
consultant out of the MontgomeryCounty Intermediate Unit.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
And Tony Mirabito from CLIU21, staff development
facilitator.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Tony, you said you have a question that I will not
be able to answer before westarted this podcast, so I am
ready for your question, sir,I'm hoping you can answer this.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
This is a are you smarter than a fifth grader?
Science-based question.
Please listen carefully.
I know this is.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Is this multiple choice?
It sure is.
Oh.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
What do plants use to make their own food during
photosynthesis?
A, oxygen, b water, b water, c,sunlight, d all the above.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
D all the above.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
D is correct.
Plants use sunlight, water andcarbon dioxide to make food.
During photosynthesis, oxygenis actually a byproduct, but
it's part of the process, so itis all the above.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Good thing I paid attention in class when we
talked about that.
I feel like we talked aboutphotosynthesis and plant A lot.
A lot.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yeah, that's because that's all we know.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Chlorophyll more like borophyll.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
And it was just memorizing and I remember
thinking this is the worst, likeit is not fun, it is not
science, it is not like.
I remember thinking in seventhgrade like it is not fun, it is
not science, it is not like.
I remember thinking in seventhgrade like I don't want to do
this anymore.
Why am I here?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
I was a struggling reader and that's why I hated
science, because it was justtextbook textbook, textbook.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
And then here's a quiz yeah, and I think I want to
expand on this.
I jumped right intocross-cutting concepts because
that was the first thing Ithought of, that.
That was absent there.
But I think we can talk aboutit from three-dimensional
learning and look at it from abroader lens, and that lens
would be when I was learningthis science that you were
talking, that you asked me aboutit was.
It was all about knowing.
So, with threethree-dimensional learning, we
(02:16):
talk about it from knowing,which is the disciplinary core,
ideas, thinking, which would becross-cutting concepts, and do
and doing which we call it thescience, engineering, practices.
And honestly, I was like science.
Why are we doing science If weknow all these things?
Why do I have to learn this?
Like everything's already beenfigured out, everything's
already been discovered, and Iwas a kid in elementary school
(02:36):
thinking this, not, oh my gosh,the possibilities.
There's a whole world of wonderout there.
There's lots for us to figureout.
So I found myself moving inthat realm instead of being
curious and wanting to figureout more to.
I must not know this Somebodyhas already figured this out why
X, y and Z is happening.
So there's so much naturalphenomenon that's happening in
(02:57):
the world around us, but wedon't take the time to slow down
our lives and actually look atit and ask the questions and be
curious, because we were, if Icould almost use the word,
conditioned to be like I have toknow the answer.
If I don't know the answer,then I'm not smart enough or I
shouldn't be in this realm.
Have you had a similarexperience, patrice?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Can you reframe me?
No, listen, I was trying.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I was full-fledged into a question.
I wanted to ask andrew, andthen he asked me one so here's
what I was trying to.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
I was trying to write down the podcast that we've
already done, so that way I knowwhere we're at in terms of
recording.
I'm sorry, can you ask thatquestion again?
I will.
My phone is away and my pen isdown.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Ask it again so my question is what was your
experience as a learner when itcame to three-dimensional
learning?
What was the most important andwhat do you remember
generalizing from your learningexperience?
Speaker 2 (03:52):
What was most important to me, or most
important, or what felt like themost important.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
What felt like it was the most important thing.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
It depended for me on the class.
So my physics class I thinkwe've talked about Bob before
where my physics teacherassigned problems that were all
the odd problems and all theanswers were in the back of the
book and we called him Bobbecause we legitimately weren't
required yeah, and we weren'trequired to show work.
We weren't required to doanything other than answer the
(04:20):
questions.
Now I think looking at it froma teacher's lens, having the
answers in the back of the book,sounds like a great idea,
because you're self-checking asa 17 year old or 16 year old in
a physics class that no oneenjoyed being in because it was
like Bears Bueller's teacher,like that's what it felt like,
sounded like it became thisthing where I learned literally
(04:41):
no physics.
And looking at things now likephysics is actually one of the
more fun sciences, like you cando a lot of really cool stuff.
We went on a field trip touniversal to study the roller
coasters as part of my school in.
Florida as part of my physicsclass.
But I think people go to Dorneyor whatever oh yeah, they as
(05:01):
part of their physics class.
So, like that stood out, did wedo physics on the Hulk?
Sure did not.
Did we get on the Hulk fourtimes?
Sure did.
Like there was no learning thatactually took place.
But when I look it depended onthe class that I was in.
So in bio, because I think itwas a little more tangible, I
(05:35):
retained a lot more in thatclass because I had my hands in
it, I was doing the stuff, I wasthinking about it.
There was no Bob to assist mePhysics.
What I remember from physics isBob, not physics at all.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
For my experience experience it was a lot of dcis,
the main science content, andthen the cccs, the big ideas
that connect those, the scpswere almost connecting ideas.
I had a very isolated bits andpieces, that's nice, no scps, no
, like when you just said bio, Iremember dissecting frogs with
uh mr sabo, who mr say was anall-time great, but other than
that I don't remember too manythings that were hands-on.
(06:10):
Or if they were hands-on, itwas rushed because we only had
20 minutes and no fault to myteachers.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
We got to the lab at the end after the lecture.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
And all my teachers were amazing people.
I still talk to a ton of them,but that wasn't the expectation,
so I just think they were doingwhat they knew best.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, and in reality too, like forever and ever and
ever, not just because of statetesting.
Testing has always been aboutthe knowing.
What do you know?
Even before state testingbecause I think some of us are
more no child left behind peoplethan others kind of came out
when I was in, I think, middleschool, but even the testing
that we had was still all on theknowing.
So if I'm taught a certain way,I'm going to teach the same way
(06:46):
, and if I'm assessed a certainway, I'm going to teach the same
way.
And if I'm assessed like, it'sthis vicious cycle that I think
it's really hard to get out of.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
If I wasn't washing dishes at my parents' pizza shop
and I had time to memorize thescience vocab, then I did great
on the test.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, andrew.
I'm also interested in what yousaid, tony, because I don't
know that that is the usualexperience.
I would say for most educatorsthat we talk to, knowing is king
.
That, by and large, is stillthe case in education, that
knowing is most important.
Then I think the SEPs or thedoing is what would follow up
(07:18):
after that, and the very last ifthere's any time at all left in
the schedule would be trying toincorporate that thinking,
which are the cross concepts,and I think that's why we
struggle with them so much isbecause it's not been modeled
really in any capacity andmaking those connections are so
important.
But, as Patrice said, it's notnecessarily something that can
(07:40):
be tested.
So we struggle in educationwhen it's not something that we
can quantify.
We're talking about a qualitything, not a quantifiable thing,
which is this thinking part?
It's not easily quantifiable.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I think in a system that's churning out results, you
can quantify the thinking withmore open-ended, interconnected
questions.
It's not easily scored andgraded, and the other thing that
I think sometimes we fall intothe trap of is I know this
version of an answer to be trueand if my student's response
(08:14):
doesn't match this version orthey're too outside of the box
and they're thinking it doesn'talign with what I'm looking for,
it's not as easily graded.
So I think there areopportunities for it.
I think the hard part is givingtime to grade it.
We're not given enough time inany capacity to teach it and
grade it in a way that wouldmake a whole lot of sense.
I think that that's kind of ahuge disservice that we're also
(08:36):
giving to our teachers too isthat they don't have enough time
to do any of this.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Correct and that they're always being asked to do
more and more and more.
Time is always being taken away, yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
So let me ask you this, circling back to the
original question photosynthesis.
How would you it's my downfall,I can only look at things
through elementary lenses buthow would you stelesify such a
lesson for fifth grade, eighthgrade, tenth grade?
When it comes to photosynthesis, I'll let you think about that.
I'll give you an example that Isaw this year in kindergarten,
that a teacher planted seeds insoil and over time it grew.
(09:08):
Students took measurements,they drew models every single
day.
They would just really quicklywork that.
And then she also put rocks insoil and watered them, and so
students could clearly seeexample non-example.
Yes, love it and they worked onthat and that was the
conversation that was held inthat classroom was so fruitful
(09:30):
no pun intended that studentsactually walked away learning
that you know plants need water,it needs light, it needs time
to grow, it needs all of thesethings to make a plant, as
opposed to rocks not growing.
But to hear kindergartners talkabout something like that was
really cool.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
So to your point.
I think we can teach thephotosynthesis similarly.
It's really about getting kidsto make the connections, the
conversations that go along withit, cause what stands out to me
in your example, tony, is thatthe kids were talking about the
science.
The kids were talking about themeasurements and those kinds of
things.
I think that to me, is how yousteals a fight.
(10:09):
It's less of us givinginformation, more of students
absorbing things throughexperience or through it can be
through reading, like I don'twant us to ever get to the point
where we're saying youshouldn't be reading in science
because you should.
There's a lot of things outthere that can help you
understand a concept better.
Because we can't getmicroscopic in a fifth, eighth
(10:32):
grade, sometimes even highschool.
We can't get to a microscopiclevel to see what's going on on
a cellular level with the plants, to be able to understand it.
So we have to make sense of itthrough what we already know,
through video or through writtenword or whatever.
So I think that for me, thesteals of finding it is the
conversations that go along withit and allowing kids to figure
(10:52):
it out, instead of a directresponse like we.
She could have taken fiveminutes and said plants need
this, this and and this Rocksaren't?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
living things.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
They're not going to grow.
Boom Answer, solved Problem,move on.
But what she did was shecreated a situation I'm assuming
it's a she, because I think yousaid she.
I'm sorry.
What she did was gave them anopportunity to experience it and
potentially fail in theirunderstanding, so that they can
make stronger connections towhat's happening.
So for me it's more of the inthe steals of finding it.
It's the students doing thethings, not us just telling them
(11:22):
what to do.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
The other thing I like about the analogy that you
gave and the example that yougave was that they combined more
than one thing.
So you're combining conceptsabout living and not living, but
you're learning about itthrough this idea of
photosynthesis.
The other part that I wasthinking about, that I think I
would love and maybe this wouldbe a combination of some
capacity is to bring in otherthings that we already see, know
or experience.
So we, as human beings, have away that we consume things and
(11:51):
that we use energy and that wegrow and that we need things,
but that's all of us.
So there's an analogy that wecan make, like comparing and
contrast.
Getting into those cross-countyconcepts again, how can we
compare and contrast ourselvesand plants and what they use or
consume?
Or transportation, automobile,right Like there's all these
things that are utilizing thesame concepts, but for a plant,
(12:15):
it specifically needs this.
For a human, we specificallyneed this.
We can consume lots ofdifferent things to get them.
Or an automobile, right Rightnow, you know, is it electric,
is it a gas power?
You know there's all this.
So I think you could, you couldexpand it in a way to really
understand.
Do they get the concept of ofthis energy consumption and
different ways to use it in thecombination that comes together
(12:38):
to make it all happen, andexpand into other areas of
science.
And again, if you're usinghuman beings, you're getting
into the chemistry of how ourbody breaks things down and how
it uses it.
Because you said it was acombination, right, like it's
the ox, I think you said oxygenactually isn't, is a byproduct
and it's not actually part of it, and like same thing, like when
we breathe, we're breathing inoxygen, we're breathing out
(13:00):
carbon dioxide, and then you getinto that whole how it's all
connected, and you know Simba'scircle of life, and.
But I think if you're going tospend all that time on
photosynthesis, instead ofmemorizing photosynthesis, let's
connect it to all of thesebigger things.
So you get that what you said,that big idea, which is that
cross-cutting concept.
(13:20):
Let's hit home on that.
That's what I want you to takeaway from it, because then,
which will happen in the nextgeneration or two?
We're going to these foreignplanets and we end up somewhere
and we're like I don't know howthis works.
Let me think about these bigideas that I know to be true.
Is that the case here?
No, this is different.
Okay, what can we connect it to?
How do we figure out how itworks?
(13:42):
Because we're going to enterinto a world of exploration in a
way that we don't know before.
So, as explorers, you need touse your background knowledge,
which is something we alwaystalk about, what you already
know, but you also have to lookat what you don't know.
And how does this space workdifferently?
We know what we know because weknow it.
This is actually feels like areally large analogy for steals
(14:03):
we know what we know, but wedon't know what we don't know.
So how do we explore what wedon't know in a manner that
doesn't for space exploration,that doesn't jeopardize us or
kill us or stay alive?
Speaker 3 (14:14):
but we also are trying to run these tests right
I also, like in that examplethat I gave, that the teacher
trusted the students.
She at no point said thatkindergartners can't do this,
having them draw what they seelike an observation.
Now we're doing modeling.
They're asking questions.
Are they writing it on stickynotes?
No, but she's writing them downon the big board and crossing
them off as they're answering.
So it was just reallyrefreshing to see her give it a
(14:35):
shot and the results that camefrom it.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Did you get to talk to her afterwards?
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Just a little bit afterwards.
Yeah, she said it's just anormal lesson.
Like the kids are engaged,they're excited about it.
It doesn't take more than fiveminutes to do a drawing of what
do we see.
Yeah, so she was on board.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
That's awesome and the learning happened over time.
I think that's a huge shift tobe like.
The learning doesn't have tohappen in this 15 15 minute
lesson.
We can expand this out becausewe as adults, even though we
want to say that we can over a15 minute podcast, if we change
our minds, it doesn't happenthat way.
We've had two seasons ofconversations about this big
(15:08):
idea of NGSS and of steals andshifting our mindset.
So it's lots of conversationsand we're allowing that to
happen, even with kindergartners, to give them time to say, okay
, here's the connection I'mmaking, or what are you seeing,
what are you not seeing?
That's almost as important aswhat you are seeing, and
allowing them to actually bescientists and ask those
questions.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's the big piece too, for me in the shift of the
standards is the cross-cuttingconcepts themselves being called
out.
And if that's the main focus ofthose cross-cutting concepts,
then that allows us to go andyou say this, you haven't said
it in a while, but you said itin a lot of earlier podcasts
instead of going an inch deepand a mile wide, we're going a
mile deep and an inch wide right.
(15:49):
So that is a huge shift inthinking, especially for, like
our middle school, high schoolteachers that feel like they
have to teach everything abouteverything, which for a long
time they have.
Now we're focusing on thosecross-cutting concepts and
bringing them back in, so thatway, when I'm talking at
kindergarten or first or secondor whatever, by the time I hit
seventh or eighth grade, I'vetalked about patterns, I've
talked about all of the things,so that I can pull from that
(16:11):
background knowledge that Idon't have to go so far for so
long.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Not only that, the kids have been through these
lessons then.
Yeah.
So the drawing, the modeling,the asking questions, the
talking yeah, that should allcome second nature, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, and the reason that that's important, that
really great analogy that youjust shared, that I've shared in
the past, oh God, is that?
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I hesitated.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
It was inevitable.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I hesitate to even say those words.
Did I say them right, though?
Usually?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I'm saying picking up something I like when he quotes
Spider-Man.
Better yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Oh God, is that?
What we're trying to do iscreate lifelong learners that
are also scientists, whetherit's a capital S or lowercase s,
if you're a professionalscientist or just in the way you
live your life.
But by doing it that way, bygoing really deep on this
concept, then when I'm not withyou, when you're not in my class
(16:59):
, and you come up to somethingyou don't know, you have a skill
set to figure it out without me.
Or the other way is, whenyou're a memorizer, you're like
I don't know and guess what weface right now in the classrooms
.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I don't know and I don't know how to find the
answer.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
And that's what I was going to say.
We face in the classrooms iswhen students come up to you and
say can you just give me theanswer, like what are we doing?
I don't want to just give youthe answer, I want you to think
about it, I want you to come upwith, tell me what you see, or
figure out how to find theanswer.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
It is a big shift, though, because kids are just
instant gratification now witheverything social media or
whatever.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
They don't have to.
They don't have to.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
So that's another thing that teachers are going to
struggle with is gettingstudents to not going away.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
In fact it's going to compound.
That I think is going to be thebiggest learning curve for
teachers is that we have toshift, Not that kids were super
great.
I got to be honest with you Inthe 90s I was still like just
give me the answer.
Like I don't care, give me theanswer, but I at least knew.
I at least knew how to find theanswer.
A little bit like go in thebook and find it, the instant
gratification, just ask AI.
(17:57):
And they're going to get arelatively decent, if not very
solid, answer, right.
So we have to shift again,going back to those
cross-cutting concepts.
I think that's where thisepisode is going Going back to
the cross-cutting concepts.
If we're focusing on that andless on the other stuff, I think
that's where the biggest bangfor their buck is going to be.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
How many minutes are we at 22.
All right, let's wrap it up.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Okay, put a bow on it .
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Okay, what I hear you saying is yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Oh, what resonates with me is my big takeaway Is
that some of us have really good, solid sayings that can be used
in more than one situation bymore than one individual.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Or there's a lack of creativity, because the same
ones keep coming out all thetime we'll go with the first
thought, but I think moreimportantly is that
three-dimensional learningoffers wait, are we doing
three-dimensional learning orcross-cutting concepts?
Speaker 3 (18:51):
I think we're yes, it's a hot mess, I think it's a
little combo okay it all goestogether.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
I'm actually going to get to both.
If you'd be so kind to let mefinish Shut up, okay, wow.
Wow.
Three-dimensional learningallows us a tool to look at
education very differently andnot just focus on one thing.
So, as someone wise in thisgroup has said before, that,
with the knowing thinking doing,we did not diversify our
portfolio and we focused in juston knowing and we put all the
(19:19):
eggs in the knowing basket.
And now there are demands inthe world.
The world has shifted andchanged to where it is not just
about knowing.
There are other things that weneed to do and actually, if
we're being honest, while wetalked about AI, ai is a partner
now with us in knowing andkeeps expanding what it knows
and how we interact with AI.
What we put into AI does matterand it's a whole different
(19:42):
podcast.
We've talked about that before,but there's somewhere that we
can go to continue to gaininformation and have a
conversation about thatinformation.
But also there are a lot ofcomponents for AI where AI is
doing things for us.
Now it's automated and there'sa machine that's figuring this
all out and making adjustmentsand tweaks and things that's
happening as well.
The area that we live in is thecross-cutting concepts thinking
(20:03):
about these big ideas and whatdoes this mean?
Right, we need to have thephilosophy of like well, what
does this mean?
If AI is in these twocomponents, where are we at and
where do we want to be?
And playing it out, where couldthe future go?
Where do we want the future togo?
And by knowing, thinking anddoing all together we can get to
that spot, to where we arestill determining the direction
(20:23):
that we want to go and where wewant to go in life.
But the cross-cutting conceptsis a muscle that we have to
start to work out now.
We can't just show up and thinkwe're going to work it out.
My son is very excited to playfootball this coming year and
he's already said dad, can westart to practice?
Because he knows he can't justshow up the first day of tryouts
and be like I'm ready to go.
(20:43):
So I think innately we know weneed to do that work and we're
actually, in a lot of ways, withall the conversations about AI,
where we're at right now.
It feels like a warning shot, tobe like hey, let's take a look
at this.
We know this is coming.
This is a really big thing.
What can we do differently?
And for us in the science world, having the next generation
science standards, theirphilosophy and the thought
process, and three-dimensionallearning is a great tool for us
(21:06):
to look at, to at least startthe conversation and say here's
something we can do differently.
And a lot of people that we'vetalked to have said that these
STEELs and NGSS standards arethe best they've seen, not
because of the standardsthemselves, but because of the
philosophies that go behind themand the supports, the
three-dimensional learning thephenomenon.
It's so solid.
It allows students theopportunity to learn, to explore
(21:28):
and to be curious.
So continue to be curiousyourselves, listeners.
Thank you, as always, fortuning in and making this the
number one rated podcastintergalactically.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Make sure to like, follow and subscribe and share
with every single person you see.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
And apparently all the aliens.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Thanks for coming back for season three.
Welcome back to Change Ed Changed Changed Number
one educational podcasteverywhere.
That is a known entity andunknown entities in our universe
.
I am your host, Andrew Kuhn, aproject consultant from
Montgomery County IntermediateUnit.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
And here with me is Patrice Semecek, also a project
consultant out of the MontgomeryCounty Intermediate Unit.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
And Tony Mirabito from CLIU21, staff development
facilitator.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Tony, you said you have a question that I will not
be able to answer before westarted this podcast, so I am
ready for your question, sir,I'm hoping you can answer this.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
This is a are you smarter than a fifth grader?
Science-based question.
Please listen carefully.
I know this is.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Is this multiple choice?
It sure is.
Oh.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
What do plants use to make their own food during
photosynthesis?
A, oxygen, b water, b water, c,sunlight, d all the above.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
D all the above.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
D is correct.
Plants use sunlight, water andcarbon dioxide to make food.
During photosynthesis, oxygenis actually a byproduct, but
it's part of the process, so itis all the above.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Good thing I paid attention in class when we
talked about that.
I feel like we talked aboutphotosynthesis and plant A lot.
A lot.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yeah, that's because that's all we know.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Chlorophyll more like borophyll.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
And it was just memorizing and I remember
thinking this is the worst, likeit is not fun, it is not
science, it is not like.
I remember thinking in seventhgrade like it is not fun, it is
not science, it is not like.
I remember thinking in seventhgrade like I don't want to do
this anymore.
Why am I here?
Speaker 3 (01:51):
I was a struggling reader and that's why I hated
science, because it was justtextbook textbook, textbook.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
And then here's a quiz yeah, and I think I want to
expand on this.
I jumped right intocross-cutting concepts because
that was the first thing Ithought of, that.
That was absent there.
But I think we can talk aboutit from three-dimensional
learning and look at it from abroader lens, and that lens
would be when I was learningthis science that you were
talking, that you asked me aboutit was.
It was all about knowing.
So, with threethree-dimensional learning, we
(02:16):
talk about it from knowing,which is the disciplinary core,
ideas, thinking, which would becross-cutting concepts, and do
and doing which we call it thescience, engineering, practices.
And honestly, I was like science.
Why are we doing science If weknow all these things?
Why do I have to learn this?
Like everything's already beenfigured out, everything's
already been discovered, and Iwas a kid in elementary school
(02:36):
thinking this, not, oh my gosh,the possibilities.
There's a whole world of wonderout there.
There's lots for us to figureout.
So I found myself moving inthat realm instead of being
curious and wanting to figureout more to.
I must not know this Somebodyhas already figured this out why
X, y and Z is happening.
So there's so much naturalphenomenon that's happening in
(02:57):
the world around us, but wedon't take the time to slow down
our lives and actually look atit and ask the questions and be
curious, because we were, if Icould almost use the word,
conditioned to be like I have toknow the answer.
If I don't know the answer,then I'm not smart enough or I
shouldn't be in this realm.
Have you had a similarexperience, patrice?
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Can you reframe me?
No, listen, I was trying.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I was full-fledged into a question.
I wanted to ask andrew, andthen he asked me one so here's
what I was trying to.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
I was trying to write down the podcast that we've
already done, so that way I knowwhere we're at in terms of
recording.
I'm sorry, can you ask thatquestion again?
I will.
My phone is away and my pen isdown.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Ask it again so my question is what was your
experience as a learner when itcame to three-dimensional
learning?
What was the most important andwhat do you remember
generalizing from your learningexperience?
Speaker 2 (03:52):
What was most important to me, or most
important, or what felt like themost important.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
What felt like it was the most important thing.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
It depended for me on the class.
So my physics class I thinkwe've talked about Bob before
where my physics teacherassigned problems that were all
the odd problems and all theanswers were in the back of the
book and we called him Bobbecause we legitimately weren't
required yeah, and we weren'trequired to show work.
We weren't required to doanything other than answer the
(04:20):
questions.
Now I think looking at it froma teacher's lens, having the
answers in the back of the book,sounds like a great idea,
because you're self-checking asa 17 year old or 16 year old in
a physics class that no oneenjoyed being in because it was
like Bears Bueller's teacher,like that's what it felt like,
sounded like it became thisthing where I learned literally
(04:41):
no physics.
And looking at things now likephysics is actually one of the
more fun sciences, like you cando a lot of really cool stuff.
We went on a field trip touniversal to study the roller
coasters as part of my school in.
Florida as part of my physicsclass.
But I think people go to Dorneyor whatever oh yeah, they as
(05:01):
part of their physics class.
So, like that stood out, did wedo physics on the Hulk?
Sure did not.
Did we get on the Hulk fourtimes?
Sure did.
Like there was no learning thatactually took place.
But when I look it depended onthe class that I was in.
So in bio, because I think itwas a little more tangible, I
(05:35):
retained a lot more in thatclass because I had my hands in
it, I was doing the stuff, I wasthinking about it.
There was no Bob to assist mePhysics.
What I remember from physics isBob, not physics at all.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
For my experience experience it was a lot of dcis,
the main science content, andthen the cccs, the big ideas
that connect those, the scpswere almost connecting ideas.
I had a very isolated bits andpieces, that's nice, no scps, no
, like when you just said bio, Iremember dissecting frogs with
uh mr sabo, who mr say was anall-time great, but other than
that I don't remember too manythings that were hands-on.
(06:10):
Or if they were hands-on, itwas rushed because we only had
20 minutes and no fault to myteachers.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
We got to the lab at the end after the lecture.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
And all my teachers were amazing people.
I still talk to a ton of them,but that wasn't the expectation,
so I just think they were doingwhat they knew best.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, and in reality too, like forever and ever and
ever, not just because of statetesting.
Testing has always been aboutthe knowing.
What do you know?
Even before state testingbecause I think some of us are
more no child left behind peoplethan others kind of came out
when I was in, I think, middleschool, but even the testing
that we had was still all on theknowing.
So if I'm taught a certain way,I'm going to teach the same way
(06:46):
, and if I'm assessed a certainway, I'm going to teach the same
way.
And if I'm assessed like, it'sthis vicious cycle that I think
it's really hard to get out of.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
If I wasn't washing dishes at my parents' pizza shop
and I had time to memorize thescience vocab, then I did great
on the test.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, andrew.
I'm also interested in what yousaid, tony, because I don't
know that that is the usualexperience.
I would say for most educatorsthat we talk to, knowing is king
.
That, by and large, is stillthe case in education, that
knowing is most important.
Then I think the SEPs or thedoing is what would follow up
(07:18):
after that, and the very last ifthere's any time at all left in
the schedule would be trying toincorporate that thinking,
which are the cross concepts,and I think that's why we
struggle with them so much isbecause it's not been modeled
really in any capacity andmaking those connections are so
important.
But, as Patrice said, it's notnecessarily something that can
(07:40):
be tested.
So we struggle in educationwhen it's not something that we
can quantify.
We're talking about a qualitything, not a quantifiable thing,
which is this thinking part?
It's not easily quantifiable.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
I think in a system that's churning out results, you
can quantify the thinking withmore open-ended, interconnected
questions.
It's not easily scored andgraded, and the other thing that
I think sometimes we fall intothe trap of is I know this
version of an answer to be trueand if my student's response
(08:14):
doesn't match this version orthey're too outside of the box
and they're thinking it doesn'talign with what I'm looking for,
it's not as easily graded.
So I think there areopportunities for it.
I think the hard part is givingtime to grade it.
We're not given enough time inany capacity to teach it and
grade it in a way that wouldmake a whole lot of sense.
I think that that's kind of ahuge disservice that we're also
(08:36):
giving to our teachers too isthat they don't have enough time
to do any of this.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Correct and that they're always being asked to do
more and more and more.
Time is always being taken away, yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
So let me ask you this, circling back to the
original question photosynthesis.
How would you it's my downfall,I can only look at things
through elementary lenses buthow would you stelesify such a
lesson for fifth grade, eighthgrade, tenth grade?
When it comes to photosynthesis, I'll let you think about that.
I'll give you an example that Isaw this year in kindergarten,
that a teacher planted seeds insoil and over time it grew.
(09:08):
Students took measurements,they drew models every single
day.
They would just really quicklywork that.
And then she also put rocks insoil and watered them, and so
students could clearly seeexample non-example.
Yes, love it and they worked onthat and that was the
conversation that was held inthat classroom was so fruitful
(09:30):
no pun intended that studentsactually walked away learning
that you know plants need water,it needs light, it needs time
to grow, it needs all of thesethings to make a plant, as
opposed to rocks not growing.
But to hear kindergartners talkabout something like that was
really cool.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
So to your point.
I think we can teach thephotosynthesis similarly.
It's really about getting kidsto make the connections, the
conversations that go along withit, cause what stands out to me
in your example, tony, is thatthe kids were talking about the
science.
The kids were talking about themeasurements and those kinds of
things.
I think that to me, is how yousteals a fight.
(10:09):
It's less of us givinginformation, more of students
absorbing things throughexperience or through it can be
through reading, like I don'twant us to ever get to the point
where we're saying youshouldn't be reading in science
because you should.
There's a lot of things outthere that can help you
understand a concept better.
Because we can't getmicroscopic in a fifth, eighth
(10:32):
grade, sometimes even highschool.
We can't get to a microscopiclevel to see what's going on on
a cellular level with the plants, to be able to understand it.
So we have to make sense of itthrough what we already know,
through video or through writtenword or whatever.
So I think that for me, thesteals of finding it is the
conversations that go along withit and allowing kids to figure
(10:52):
it out, instead of a directresponse like we.
She could have taken fiveminutes and said plants need
this, this and and this Rocksaren't?
Speaker 1 (10:59):
living things.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
They're not going to grow.
Boom Answer, solved Problem,move on.
But what she did was shecreated a situation I'm assuming
it's a she, because I think yousaid she.
I'm sorry.
What she did was gave them anopportunity to experience it and
potentially fail in theirunderstanding, so that they can
make stronger connections towhat's happening.
So for me it's more of the inthe steals of finding it.
It's the students doing thethings, not us just telling them
(11:22):
what to do.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
The other thing I like about the analogy that you
gave and the example that yougave was that they combined more
than one thing.
So you're combining conceptsabout living and not living, but
you're learning about itthrough this idea of
photosynthesis.
The other part that I wasthinking about, that I think I
would love and maybe this wouldbe a combination of some
capacity is to bring in otherthings that we already see, know
or experience.
So we, as human beings, have away that we consume things and
(11:51):
that we use energy and that wegrow and that we need things,
but that's all of us.
So there's an analogy that wecan make, like comparing and
contrast.
Getting into those cross-countyconcepts again, how can we
compare and contrast ourselvesand plants and what they use or
consume?
Or transportation, automobile,right Like there's all these
things that are utilizing thesame concepts, but for a plant,
(12:15):
it specifically needs this.
For a human, we specificallyneed this.
We can consume lots ofdifferent things to get them.
Or an automobile, right Rightnow, you know, is it electric,
is it a gas power?
You know there's all this.
So I think you could, you couldexpand it in a way to really
understand.
Do they get the concept of ofthis energy consumption and
different ways to use it in thecombination that comes together
(12:38):
to make it all happen, andexpand into other areas of
science.
And again, if you're usinghuman beings, you're getting
into the chemistry of how ourbody breaks things down and how
it uses it.
Because you said it was acombination, right, like it's
the ox, I think you said oxygenactually isn't, is a byproduct
and it's not actually part of it, and like same thing, like when
we breathe, we're breathing inoxygen, we're breathing out
(13:00):
carbon dioxide, and then you getinto that whole how it's all
connected, and you know Simba'scircle of life, and.
But I think if you're going tospend all that time on
photosynthesis, instead ofmemorizing photosynthesis, let's
connect it to all of thesebigger things.
So you get that what you said,that big idea, which is that
cross-cutting concept.
(13:20):
Let's hit home on that.
That's what I want you to takeaway from it, because then,
which will happen in the nextgeneration or two?
We're going to these foreignplanets and we end up somewhere
and we're like I don't know howthis works.
Let me think about these bigideas that I know to be true.
Is that the case here?
No, this is different.
Okay, what can we connect it to?
How do we figure out how itworks?
(13:42):
Because we're going to enterinto a world of exploration in a
way that we don't know before.
So, as explorers, you need touse your background knowledge,
which is something we alwaystalk about, what you already
know, but you also have to lookat what you don't know.
And how does this space workdifferently?
We know what we know because weknow it.
This is actually feels like areally large analogy for steals
(14:03):
we know what we know, but wedon't know what we don't know.
So how do we explore what wedon't know in a manner that
doesn't for space exploration,that doesn't jeopardize us or
kill us or stay alive?
Speaker 3 (14:14):
but we also are trying to run these tests right
I also, like in that examplethat I gave, that the teacher
trusted the students.
She at no point said thatkindergartners can't do this,
having them draw what they seelike an observation.
Now we're doing modeling.
They're asking questions.
Are they writing it on stickynotes?
No, but she's writing them downon the big board and crossing
them off as they're answering.
So it was just reallyrefreshing to see her give it a
(14:35):
shot and the results that camefrom it.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Did you get to talk to her afterwards?
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Just a little bit afterwards.
Yeah, she said it's just anormal lesson.
Like the kids are engaged,they're excited about it.
It doesn't take more than fiveminutes to do a drawing of what
do we see.
Yeah, so she was on board.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
That's awesome and the learning happened over time.
I think that's a huge shift tobe like.
The learning doesn't have tohappen in this 15 15 minute
lesson.
We can expand this out becausewe as adults, even though we
want to say that we can over a15 minute podcast, if we change
our minds, it doesn't happenthat way.
We've had two seasons ofconversations about this big
(15:08):
idea of NGSS and of steals andshifting our mindset.
So it's lots of conversationsand we're allowing that to
happen, even with kindergartners, to give them time to say, okay
, here's the connection I'mmaking, or what are you seeing,
what are you not seeing?
That's almost as important aswhat you are seeing, and
allowing them to actually bescientists and ask those
questions.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's the big piece too, for me in the shift of the
standards is the cross-cuttingconcepts themselves being called
out.
And if that's the main focus ofthose cross-cutting concepts,
then that allows us to go andyou say this, you haven't said
it in a while, but you said itin a lot of earlier podcasts
instead of going an inch deepand a mile wide, we're going a
mile deep and an inch wide right.
(15:49):
So that is a huge shift inthinking, especially for, like
our middle school, high schoolteachers that feel like they
have to teach everything abouteverything, which for a long
time they have.
Now we're focusing on thosecross-cutting concepts and
bringing them back in, so thatway, when I'm talking at
kindergarten or first or secondor whatever, by the time I hit
seventh or eighth grade, I'vetalked about patterns, I've
talked about all of the things,so that I can pull from that
(16:11):
background knowledge that Idon't have to go so far for so
long.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Not only that, the kids have been through these
lessons then.
Yeah.
So the drawing, the modeling,the asking questions, the
talking yeah, that should allcome second nature, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, and the reason that that's important, that
really great analogy that youjust shared, that I've shared in
the past, oh God, is that?
Speaker 2 (16:30):
I hesitated.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
It was inevitable.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I hesitate to even say those words.
Did I say them right, though?
Usually?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I'm saying picking up something I like when he quotes
Spider-Man.
Better yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Oh God, is that?
What we're trying to do iscreate lifelong learners that
are also scientists, whetherit's a capital S or lowercase s,
if you're a professionalscientist or just in the way you
live your life.
But by doing it that way, bygoing really deep on this
concept, then when I'm not withyou, when you're not in my class
(16:59):
, and you come up to somethingyou don't know, you have a skill
set to figure it out without me.
Or the other way is, whenyou're a memorizer, you're like
I don't know and guess what weface right now in the classrooms
.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I don't know and I don't know how to find the
answer.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
And that's what I was going to say.
We face in the classrooms iswhen students come up to you and
say can you just give me theanswer, like what are we doing?
I don't want to just give youthe answer, I want you to think
about it, I want you to come upwith, tell me what you see, or
figure out how to find theanswer.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
It is a big shift, though, because kids are just
instant gratification now witheverything social media or
whatever.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
They don't have to.
They don't have to.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
So that's another thing that teachers are going to
struggle with is gettingstudents to not going away.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
In fact it's going to compound.
That I think is going to be thebiggest learning curve for
teachers is that we have toshift, Not that kids were super
great.
I got to be honest with you Inthe 90s I was still like just
give me the answer.
Like I don't care, give me theanswer, but I at least knew.
I at least knew how to find theanswer.
A little bit like go in thebook and find it, the instant
gratification, just ask AI.
(17:57):
And they're going to get arelatively decent, if not very
solid, answer, right.
So we have to shift again,going back to those
cross-cutting concepts.
I think that's where thisepisode is going Going back to
the cross-cutting concepts.
If we're focusing on that andless on the other stuff, I think
that's where the biggest bangfor their buck is going to be.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
How many minutes are we at 22.
All right, let's wrap it up.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Okay, put a bow on it .
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Okay, what I hear you saying is yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Oh, what resonates with me is my big takeaway Is
that some of us have really good, solid sayings that can be used
in more than one situation bymore than one individual.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Or there's a lack of creativity, because the same
ones keep coming out all thetime we'll go with the first
thought, but I think moreimportantly is that
three-dimensional learningoffers wait, are we doing
three-dimensional learning orcross-cutting concepts?
Speaker 3 (18:51):
I think we're yes, it's a hot mess, I think it's a
little combo okay it all goestogether.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
I'm actually going to get to both.
If you'd be so kind to let mefinish Shut up, okay, wow.
Wow.
Three-dimensional learningallows us a tool to look at
education very differently andnot just focus on one thing.
So, as someone wise in thisgroup has said before, that,
with the knowing thinking doing,we did not diversify our
portfolio and we focused in juston knowing and we put all the
(19:19):
eggs in the knowing basket.
And now there are demands inthe world.
The world has shifted andchanged to where it is not just
about knowing.
There are other things that weneed to do and actually, if
we're being honest, while wetalked about AI, ai is a partner
now with us in knowing andkeeps expanding what it knows
and how we interact with AI.
What we put into AI does matterand it's a whole different
(19:42):
podcast.
We've talked about that before,but there's somewhere that we
can go to continue to gaininformation and have a
conversation about thatinformation.
But also there are a lot ofcomponents for AI where AI is
doing things for us.
Now it's automated and there'sa machine that's figuring this
all out and making adjustmentsand tweaks and things that's
happening as well.
The area that we live in is thecross-cutting concepts thinking
(20:03):
about these big ideas and whatdoes this mean?
Right, we need to have thephilosophy of like well, what
does this mean?
If AI is in these twocomponents, where are we at and
where do we want to be?
And playing it out, where couldthe future go?
Where do we want the future togo?
And by knowing, thinking anddoing all together we can get to
that spot, to where we arestill determining the direction
(20:23):
that we want to go and where wewant to go in life.
But the cross-cutting conceptsis a muscle that we have to
start to work out now.
We can't just show up and thinkwe're going to work it out.
My son is very excited to playfootball this coming year and
he's already said dad, can westart to practice?
Because he knows he can't justshow up the first day of tryouts
and be like I'm ready to go.
(20:43):
So I think innately we know weneed to do that work and we're
actually, in a lot of ways, withall the conversations about AI,
where we're at right now.
It feels like a warning shot, tobe like hey, let's take a look
at this.
We know this is coming.
This is a really big thing.
What can we do differently?
And for us in the science world, having the next generation
science standards, theirphilosophy and the thought
process, and three-dimensionallearning is a great tool for us
(21:06):
to look at, to at least startthe conversation and say here's
something we can do differently.
And a lot of people that we'vetalked to have said that these
STEELs and NGSS standards arethe best they've seen, not
because of the standardsthemselves, but because of the
philosophies that go behind themand the supports, the
three-dimensional learning thephenomenon.
It's so solid.
It allows students theopportunity to learn, to explore
(21:28):
and to be curious.
So continue to be curiousyourselves, listeners.
Thank you, as always, fortuning in and making this the
number one rated podcastintergalactically.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Make sure to like, follow and subscribe and share
with every single person you see.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
And apparently all the aliens.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Thanks for coming back for season three.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com