4 Ways to Incorporate Reflection in Science Lessons

In the science fields, there’s an emphasis on “being objective.” Professionals are trained to make claims based exclusively on data. This approach translates over to the science classroom as well. Discouraging the use of the first person (“I” or “we”) when students write a conclusion to a lab investigation is a common expectation at the middle and high school levels. 

While it’s essential for published science research to be devoid of any bias, personal reflection and introspection can be an important part of helping researchers monitor their thinking. Oliver Sacks and Charles Darwin have famously produced “journal-like” work. We can read the scientists’ thinking as they mulled over possible explanations for events they observed. The first page of On the Origin of Species, for example, includes the words “I” or “we” five times—a habit that science teachers frown upon when students write. 

I propose that by supporting personal reflection, journaling, and metacognition in the classroom, we can help students make deeper and more individualized connections to concepts they are learning. Promoting dedicated introspection also helps learners assess their level of understanding, monitor how their thinking has changed, and pinpoint topics where questions still persist. 

I’ll share four reflective practices I’ve used in my classroom to get students thinking about how they are thinking. This could be a sequence of activities within one particular unit or could be presented as individual introspective opportunities.

Science journals make for great lesson openers and have long been a way for me to integrate new and interesting science events in my teaching. The goal of the science journal is just to get students thinking and writing about open-ended science problems or phenomena. For example, I’ve given my students the following prompt: “Scientists think they’ve discovered lots of water deep underground on Mars. How do you think they observed this if they can’t see the water directly?” 

I don’t evaluate students on accuracy, but they must reach a minimum sentence length that has been agreed upon beforehand. This creates a low-risk environment where students are free to expand upon scientific ideas without worrying about being right or wrong. This similarly gets the students into the habit of expressing their thoughts in writing. 

Journal entries make valuable pre-assessments that can inform follow-up lessons. In a recent freewriting exercise, I observed that many students mistakenly believed that an object’s density would increase as the volume or size of the object increased. When we moved on to a station activity where the class would practice calculating the densities of various objects, I challenged them to consider this overarching question: “Do bigger objects always have bigger densities?” They were asked to collect evidence at each station by taking a photo of their work with their Chromebook and making a reflective comment on whether or not they thought the work addressed the main question.

Students weren’t simply blindly completing tasks that I mandated. Instead, they were using the experience to reflect on a broader concept. Students activate higher-order skills when considering, “Is my work at this station good evidence… or is it irrelevant?” While this prompt is scientific, it has an informal tone as learners practice justifying their opinions.

Think-pair-share is a classic teaching approach where students write or reflect on an idea individually and share that thinking with peers. When done well, this technique is an engaging and respectful way to refine ideas. I rely on student groups of four seated around a lab table for this kind of communal reflection. 

If a science problem or phenomenon has one specific answer, I strive to help student groups adjust their thinking toward the desired outcome. This usually involves dialogue at the whole class level, where a representative from each group of four speaks for the team. In one activity involving water displacement, we measured 20 mL of dry sand and 50 mL of water in separate beakers. Students added sand to the water, but the total volume was less than 70mL. 

In this case, I would drop discrete clues for the groups to discuss and consider: “Is sand one solid or many solids?” “What is between each grain of sand?” We renewed our conversation as a class once learner groups adjusted their opinions on the phenomenon. The opportunities for students to pause and reflect with each new piece of information seemed to help them arrive at a more scientifically accurate understanding. 

I offer dedicated time—about 10 to 15 minutes—within a class period to access notes and teacher expertise when reflecting on errors made on an assessment (students also have a study hall period to reflect on test results). Students can consider prompts like “Are there patterns in the errors? Is there one topic that seems to be a stumbling block? If you had to complete the question again, what would be a better answer and why?” The final product wouldn’t simply be a test retake, but rather a comprehensive written overview of a student’s performance. While it’s at the teacher’s discretion, I offer students the chance to earn back partial credit for taking these introspective steps with their returned work.