|
All material is my personal opinion, and not that of any other organization. Copyright 2001. Permission is granted for individual teacher use. All rights reserved. |
My goals with the two models of inquiry were similar. In each case, I wanted students to succeed at four phases of an inquiry cycle. I wished them to explore, then define investigatable questions, conduct experiments, and write a conclusion reporting what they had learned. To compare the two approaches, I analyzed student work samples to see how many students successfully completed these steps with each model of inquiry. The results are presented in Figure 4.2, Models of Inquiry Compared. Both forms of inquiry gave students ample time for exploration, and students were successful at this phase in both models. To summarize the key differences, with the guided inquiry model 52% of the students succeeded in defining investigatable questions, while only 28% succeeded when using an open-ended inquiry approach. For a students' question to be investigatable, it needed to be answerable through experimentation. Almost all (92%) of the students performed at least two complete experiments through guided inquiry, while 52% of the students using open-ended inquiry did no experimentation at all. In guided inquiry, 40% of the students wrote a good conclusion summarizing their experiments, while only 16% of the students did this associated with the open-ended inquiry model. In analyzing the results of the open-ended inquiry work, it would be fair to say that most students never actually moved past the exploration phase with their materials. Each pair of students had a unique set of materials, so each group had to come up with their own questions. Though I prodded and tried to model investigatable questions, most students simply could not apply this approach to the materials in their kit. Since they lacked investigatable questions, they were unable to conduct experiments, and therefore had little material for their conclusions. In contrast, the guided inquiry model focused the attention of the entire class on a single topic. First with helium, then with dry ice, students explored together and generated observations and questions as a class. They were challenged to transform their "I Wonder" questions into investigation plans individually, but this process was made collaborative through whole-class discussion and small group review of plans. This allowed for much-needed guidance, and also allowed students who were unsure how to design an investigation to get help from their peers. Since I took their investigation plans and turned them into lab activities, complete with space for recording results, all the students were able to conduct experiments, even those who had not come up with investigatable questions. This acted as a filter, making sure all the students had workable experiments to perform. Since the investigations were authored by the students themselves, however, they retained ownership of the process. The guided investigation model thus provided a scaffold from which understanding of the scientific process was built. In addition, since one topic was addressed by the whole class simultaneously, I was able to provide key vocabulary concepts, as well as some demonstrations to highlight key concepts. This gave the students a stronger understanding of the topic, allowing for a greater proportion to achieve understanding and complete conclusions. In reviewing the portfolio of work I had students pull together to complete this investigation, I think they would have benefited if I had set before them the task of writing a comprehensive report on dry ice and phase change. I attempted to find out what they had learned from their experiences, but this process could have been used as a chance to really deepen their understanding of what they had learned. Their portfolios, though superior to the results of the investigation kits work, still do not show a complete consolidation of their experiences and insights. Following the dry ice investigation, I surveyed the students to discover which approach they felt was most effective. I asked them first what they felt they had learned the most about, then what they felt the best way to teach science was. Here are the results: Table 4.1 Survey Results Number of responses: 39 1. What is one thing you are glad you learned about this year? a. Dry ice: 23 b. Gases: 9 c. Investigation kits: 7 2. What do you think is the best way to learn science? a. Do experiments from a book. 4 b. Write research reports. 3 c. Do experiments we designed ourselves. 27 d. Watch educational videos 3 e. Teacher lecture 2 The overwhelming majority felt the best way to learn science was through designing their own experiments. However, they identified the guided inquiry sequence around the subject of dry ice as the most productive, rather than the investigation kits. I used interviews with students done several weeks after these experiences to try to reveal their perceptions of the different models. All of the students interviewed said they felt they now knew how to do investigations, which they attributed to their experiences in this class. When asked to compare the different models of inquiry, the students recalled difficult times with the kits. "Some things you couldn't find the answer for, or you couldn't think of a certain kind of question." One boy said, "We needed more ideas. Like we should have had the whole class give you ideas. It was kind of hard making the question." Working independently on his investigation kit, this student felt at sea without adequate direction. He felt much happier when able to draw on the resources of the class for the definition of questions. This same student commented on the guided inquiry, "(I liked)...that we got to make our own questions, and if you make your own questions, you will remember it, what you had did. We wasn't in the book, we was like touching it. We were doing experiments. That was good." When asked to compare guided inquiry to teacher-directed instruction, the students were favorable to both. "It's equal, because we used to make up our own science experiments and they make up some for us too. It used to be [in elementary school] that some teachers used to make up experiments that you really didn't want to do, and they (the teachers now) have experiments that you do want to do." To them, the critical variable was the quality of the experiment, not the source. The other students interviewed actually saw teacher-led instruction as more efficient. One said, "I like how we do it now, with the plants, how she tells us what to do. I like that better, because I kind of learn more, I learn more about the plants, faster." Her friend agreed, saying, "I like the plants here because it's sort of easier, and just that you don't have to really worry. They give you questions and all you gotta do is find the answers. You don't have to think of the questions and find the answers." This satisfaction with being told what to do echoes Nugent and Yerrick's findings, (1995) where a teacher using a non-traditional approach found students resistant to the process. Most of my students were willing to stretch themselves to tackle the investigation process, but they clearly take comfort in a more straightforward approach, with the teacher providing more direction. As a teacher, if the object of my instruction is to cover course content efficiently, I am ill-advised to spend time having students design their own investigations. The students are correct in their estimation that it is faster if a teacher directs them through a crafted sequence of activities. However, if my aim is to actually teach them to investigate, this will not suffice. While my student is happier not having to "worry about thinking of both the questions and the answers," I see that responsibility as a powerful learning tool. All of the students felt that, as a result of their experiences in this class, they had learned to conduct an investigation. As I reviewed with them the elements of a good experiment, I was surprised by what one student suggested would be an example of a poor question. She said, "A bad question is when you really don't... like, say you had to think of an experiment to do for a science project, or something, and you already know what it is." I responded, "Oh, so you know the answer already. That would be a bad question." She replied, "Yeah. It's not really an experiment." For her, a critical element in the experiment is the mystery, the uncovering of the unknown. In textbook labs, the results may be unknown to the students, but there is very clearly an expected result. Ultimately, the most powerful tool a teacher has is to motivate students to "worry" about solving problems and answering questions for themselves. When this responsibility is placed on the students, they can learn to think for themselves. Next section: Chapter
5, Findings and Implications; Multifaceted Inquiry |
Oakland Unified
School District