Inquiry Models - in class

1. What is scientific inquiry? What does inquiry-oriented teaching and learning look like? Scientific inquiry is an approach to learning that implicitly requires students to use critical and higher-order thinking skills in order to solve a problem or answer a question. In inquiry-based science, students are the scientists rather than the recipients of teacher-oriented lectures. Students work together and individually to engage in scientifically-oriented questions, to collect evidence pertinent to the question, to explain their evidence, to evaluate their explanations using other sources, and finally to communicate those findings and evaluations to others. Scientific inquiry looks like how I described above - the teacher serving as a facilitator among freethinking and explorative students. Evidence is collected by the individuals, not handed to them on a worksheet. Students (or scientists) are at the center of this learning.

INSES Chapters 1 & 2

I loved the way the first chapter introduced scientific inquiry by providing examples of real-life scientists doing what scientists do - making observations, asking questions, drawing on prior knowledge to help answer those questions, and analyzing their results. Of course, before reading this article I was aware that the scientific process went something like that, but I never really connected inquiry-based learning with the concept that it is how scientists learn as well as elementary students. And, honestly, I'd love to provide an abridged version of Chapter 1 to a class of elementary school science students so they can see that all of the things we do in science class have real, profound value in the large world outside the scope of the classroom. If someone had told me the story of the geologist and seismologist when I was in elementary school, I would have probably approached science with a much more opened mind and would probably not detest it as much as I do (or did, before beginning this course).

That being said, the article also provided a lot of valuable information about why inquiry-based learning is so important to student success. There was one passage that stood out to me - "Humans are innately curious, as anyone knows who has watched a newborn. From birth, children employ trial-and-error techniques to learn about the world around them...We reflect on the world around us by observing, gathering, assembling, and synthesizing information. We develop and use tools to measure and observe as well as to analyze information and create models. We check and re-check what we think will happen and compare results to what we already know. We change our ideas based on what we learn" (5).

I read this passage and thought, "Wow." Life is made up of what we refer to so strictly as the 'scientific process' - which is absolutely thrilling to think about from a teacher's perspective. When learning is forced upon us as humans - when we are handed information and asked to regurgitate it - we are not reaching our full potential and are rather just prescribing to a set of rules established by an outdated educational philosophy. Children need to understand that science imitates life, and that all of that genuine learning we all experience through our own personal trials and errors is just like the scientific process we all know and love (or hate, if it's been taught the more 'traditional' route).

BB&W

After reading the BB&W stories, it seemed fairly obvious that the best approach to learning was student- and inquiry-centered. I discussed this more in-depth in a previous blog post, but reading about the differences between Ms. Stone and Ms. Travis' approaches to teaching was certainly eye-opening, and performing the lab in class helped further my understanding of how these types of labs should be approached.

In all honesty, I probably would not change very much from the student-centered version of the lab that I was fortunate enough to complete in class (I didn't get a chance to work on the direct instruction-based lab). If I were teaching this concept to elementary students, I would provide the necessary materials for creating a simple circuit (batteries, wires, light bulbs) and ask students to "play" with the materials in small groups. In groups, they will pose a question and record it in their science notebooks. (The question can be as simple as "What will happen when I connect the battery and wire?") No explicit directions as to the amount, type, or combination of the materials will be given; rather, students will be encouraged to see what happens, to find out what they can "make" with the materials given. Groups will work at their own pace, and once a group has discovered that the wire and the light bulb and battery together can light the bulb, I will encourage them to try mixing a variety of materials. Two batteries? Sure! Two light bulbs? No problem.

Students will choose a combination to experiment with and record hypotheses and observations in their science notebooks, which they will subsequently attempt to explain in their own terms. (This will hopefully have become a regular part of our science time, so students will be familiar with the process.) Once all groups have completed at least the first part of the activity, I will ask them to compare their data and science notebooks with other groups. What did they find that was the same, and likewise, what was different? What did some groups discover that others did not? After students have been given ample time to communicate and evaluate their findings with their classmates, I will introduce the concepts of simple and parallel circuits. It is vitally important to the lesson that students explore first and are then given an explanation - they will not be given any handouts that mention the concepts, just the materials. Explicit instruction will be the death of inquiry-based student exploration in science, so it is crucial that they explore and manipulate the materials in a way that is meaningful to them.

5-E Criteria	Part(s) of lesson that addresses this inquiry criterion	More teacher-directed or student-directed? Explain.
Engage	After the materials are chosen, students ask a question in their notebooks and experiment on it.	Student-directed. This falls in the first column in the continuum, as the "learner poses a question" that will be the basis for their exploration.
Evidence	The students will collect their findings in their notebook, although no explicit instruction as to what to record will be given.	Student-directed. Again, this falls into the first column in that the students determine what constitutes evidence and then collect it. This is very void of teacher instruction.
Explain	After completing the experiment and looking at their findings, students will form independent explanations about why something did or didn't happen.	Student-directed. Students formulate their own explanations after summarizing their evidence, with no guidance from the teacher.
Evaluate	Students compare their findings with other groups and hopefully will formulate new explanations and gain perspectives on different explanations.	Student-directed. The students will be independently examining other resources (other science notebooks/classmates) and forming the links to explanations without teacher instruction.
Communicate	Again, the students will be communicating their findings with their classmates when they share science notebooks.	Student-directed. As they are comparing their findings with one another, the learners will form reasonable and logical argument to communicate explanations - the teacher will not be a part of those communications of explanations.

Week 3 Day 1 - QWQOTD

1. The difference between a learning goal and a learning performance is exactly what the words imply: a learning goal is the standards a teacher sets by which the students need to perform by. In layman terms, a learning goal is what the teacher expects his or her students to understand at the end of an inquiry. A learning performance, on the other hand, is the actual participation of the students. A learning performance speaks to the learning goal in that it is the showing (not the telling) of what the students know and understand and are able to do. So for example, a learning goal could be for students to understand that the outside air temperature is determined by many weather conditions. A learning performance, then, would be the actions that these students take to prove they understand that concept (see the last blog post).

2. The 5 essential features of inquiry: -Learners are able to pose scientifically oriented questions -Learners collect evidence that answers those questions -Learners evaluate the evidence they have collected -Learners examine the other possible explanations for the evidence they have collected -Learners communicate effectively their data and findings

Formative Assessment Probe - Weather

Learning Goals
How does weather affect temperature?

Learning Performance
In order for students to understand that the temperature on any given day is not determined by any one single factor, students will need to utilize all five components of an inquiry-based experiment. Students will first need to record questions in their science notebooks after having been given the initial question (What was the weather like at the place where it was 90 degrees F?) and finding out the answer. These questions can be as simple or complex as the student conceives. This fits into row 1, column 1 in the inquiry continuum - the students engage in scientifically oriented questions and pose questions themselves.

With the questions in mind, the class will embark on a long-term investigation of weather that will take place at the same time every day. Some students may want to explore their own personal questions further, while others may simply record the temperature outside and record the weather conditions and variables (every student will do this). After a long period of time investigating, the class will meet together to confer and discuss the individual findings of each student (or group of students). What data differed from student to student? What data was the same? What do the students think are the most important pieces of information gathered in the investigation? In this way, the learner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it individually - the students are not given any data or told specifically what to collect (except the temperature). This fits in row 2, column 1 of the continuum.

The discussion will prompt a writing exercise in which the students privately record their own thoughts about the experiment - what ideas have changed and which ones have stayed the same? The activity will lead to another longer-term investigation in which the students do independently-conducted research (row 4, column 1) to determine the answers to some of their stagnant questions and to find any other perspectives that were not represented in class. Students may then choose how they want to present the information they find - a speech, a graphic, a chart, a small written piece - in any way that is meaningful to them. This correlates with row 5, column 1 (learners form reasonable and logical arguments to communicate explanations) and rounds out the student-centered focus of the learning performance.

Batteries, Bulbs, and Wires

This article was an interesting examination of the juxtaposition between "kit science" and exploration/inquiry-based science that deals with higher-level thinking within a school district. Mrs. Stone, of course, exemplified the science kit philosophy - clear definitions given before any exploration, minimal student inquiry, and teacher- and material-directed activities. The students have no say in what they experiment on and record data from. They also have a few disjointed definitions of abstract and meaningless words under their belts, words that will be reviewed later, after they've already done an experiment dealing with the concepts they define.

Ms. Travis, on the other hand, takes a different approach to the exact same lesson with the exact same science kit. Right away, the philosophical differences between Stone and Travis became apparent to me: Ms. Travis takes prior knowledge about her students and tailors the lesson in a way that will be meaningful for them by connecting it to their own schema and personal experiences. She allows students to figure out the best ways to do certain aspects of the lab or to figure out how something works. She still gives them pre-prescribed materials, but has taken time considering what parts might be difficult or tedious and plans accordingly. In addition to all of this, she continues the study past day one and incorporates students' own ponderings (What happens with two batteries in a series circuit? Is it a parallel circuit?) into her teaching of the science.

Much like Activitymania, this article dealt with the staggering differences between teaching via inquiry and exploration versus teaching from a very basal science kit, and through its examples was able to give me more insight to how to teach science effectively. We've talked about the concept of covering 20% of the material effectively rather than covering 100% of the material ineffectively in class - and this was just an affirmation of what I already believed to be true. Will Mrs. Stone's students remember their experiment on electricity in a few years? Probably not. But will Ms. Travis' students recall the experiments, the individualized problem-solving, the ongoing inquiry? They most likely will. That is my goal as an educator not only of science but in general - for my students to have high levels of understanding that last beyond the final assessment.

Cool It! Inquiry Continuum

In blue are the rows and columns that I felt matched the specific Cool It lab I used in class Thursday (blue).
Due to formatting, the chart is in list form. The first statement underneath each category involves the most learner self-direction; the last statement involves the least.

Inquiry Continuum
1. Learner engages in scientifically oriented questionsLearner poses a question
Learner selects among questions, poses new questions
Learner sharpens or clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other sourceLearner engages in question provided by teacher, materials, or other source

2. Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questionsLearner determines what constitutes evidence and collects it
Learner directed to collect certain dataLearner given data and asked to analyze
Learner given data and told how to analyze

3. Learner formulates explanations from evidenceLearner formulates explanations after summarizing evidence
Learner guided in process of formulating explanations from evidence
Learner given possible ways to use evidence to formulate explanationLearner provided with evidence

4. Learner evaluate explanations when compared to other explanationsLearner independently examines other resources and forms the links to explanations
Learner directed toward areas and sources of other explanations
Learner given other possible explanations
Learner given all other explanations

5. Learner communicates and justifies explanationsLearner forms reasonable and logical argument to communicate explanations
Learner coached in development of communication
Learner provided broad guidelines to use sharpen communication
Learner given steps and procedures for communication





After examining the inquiry continuum in relation to the lab, it is quite clear that the particular version of the lab I explored fell somewhere between self-directed and teacher-directed. There was some room for exploration and for slight (if any) creativity on the students' part, although the question posed put a constraint on what the student could do to demonstrate its answer.

The first row (1) was fairly teacher-directed in that the learner "sharpens or clarifies question provided by teacher, materials, or other source." The lab described the common theory that stirring coffee cools it down, then poses the question that asks if you (the learner) could find out if that is true. It does not explicitly state that a lab must be set up that demonstrates coffee undergoing different variables (stirred, non-stirred, etc) but the learner is set up to come to that conclusion. Not much thought it involved in choosing what to test.


#2 examined the learner's priority to evidence in responding to questions, and here I felt the lab was slightly more learner-oriented than the previous row. The learner is "directed to collect certain data" as explained in the handout, but is given no data from which to bounce off of. This is a relatively open-ended area of the lab, but is still not at the maximum level of learner-centeredness.

The third row was a little fuzzy because the lab set up the explanation of evidence in its description, but did not state explicitly how evidence should be organized. It did tell the students what kind of data to collect, what broad statement (stirring cools liquid) to connect it to - but not how to organize it or any specific way to formulate that evidence into an explanation. In this sense, it was fairly material-directed, but there was some room for interpretation on the students' part as to how to present their explanations.

When it came to evaluating explanations in the 4th row, this was again slightly unclear as the only other "explanations" given in the lab were from other students/groups in the class. This lab was set up so that other explanations were not so cut-and-dry and were not dictated by the teacher to the students, so in that sense there was a great deal of inquiry among the students (particularly because other groups provided their own explanations). At the same time, students were not encouraged to independently research other explanations, so this fell somewhere in between.

The last row dealt with the learners' ability to communicate and justify these explanations. As aforementioned, there was a bit of a class forum in which each group shared their data in whatever form it took. No directions were given as to how the students could present this data, and (at the teacher's discretion) students were encouraged to share the logic behind the conclusions drawn from the evidence. It was in this sense that the learner formed "reasonable and logical argument[s] to communicate explanations."